Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Gnosticism vs. Orthodoxy/ Sethians

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    ... Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III. Chronology and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian compositions that were written by
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 10, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      >
      > It seems to me from this short bit I have read, that Dr Turner
      > postulates a later origin for Sethianism, but not so late as some
      > believe.
      >
      > In looking at this part of Turner's outline....
      >
      > "So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited above
      > originated in the period 100-250 C.E.


      Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III. Chronology
      and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian compositions that
      were written by the end of the first century. I would copy and paste
      here, but I can't seem to access the web page right now.

      He basically shows an origin for Sethianism before 100 C.E in this
      whole section. Are there sources that postulate a much earlier
      origin?

      Cari
    • Mike Leavitt
      Hello lady_caritas ... I have heard about 100 BCE. PMCV? Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
      Message 2 of 20 , Dec 10, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello lady_caritas

        On 12/10/04, you wrote:

        >
        >
        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        >>
        >> It seems to me from this short bit I have read, that Dr Turner
        >> postulates a later origin for Sethianism, but not so late as some
        >> believe.
        >>
        >> In looking at this part of Turner's outline....
        >>
        >> "So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited above
        >> originated in the period 100-250 C.E.
        >
        >
        > Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III. Chronology
        > and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian compositions
        > that were written by the end of the first century. I would copy and
        > paste here, but I can't seem to access the web page right now.
        >
        > He basically shows an origin for Sethianism before 100 C.E in this
        > whole section. Are there sources that postulate a much earlier
        > origin?
        >
        > Cari

        I have heard about 100 BCE. PMCV?

        Regards
        --
        Mike Leavitt ac998@...
      • Mike Leavitt
        Hello lady_caritas ... We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were very theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis. Regards -- Mike
        Message 3 of 20 , Dec 10, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello lady_caritas

          On 12/10/04, you wrote:

          > IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common emphasis
          > on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to
          > these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
          > expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in attaining
          > Gnosis.

          We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were very
          theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.

          Regards
          --
          Mike Leavitt ac998@...
        • lady_caritas
          ... attaining ... very ... Yes, Mike, and I don t know if Jung felt the same dislike for Proclus as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still the
          Message 4 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
            > Hello lady_caritas
            >
            > On 12/10/04, you wrote:
            >
            > > IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common emphasis
            > > on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to
            > > these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
            > > expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in
            attaining
            > > Gnosis.
            >
            > We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were
            very
            > theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.
            >
            > Regards
            > --
            > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


            Yes, Mike, and I don't know if Jung felt the same dislike for Proclus
            as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still the
            philosopher, but certainly incorporated theurgy in his contemplation
            of Forms.
            http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-theurgy.html


            Cari
          • lady_caritas
            ... some ... Chronology ... and ... this ... Oh, yes, Mike. I checked back to a previous post of mine (#10379) in which I quoted from the preface of Turner s
            Message 5 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
              > Hello lady_caritas
              >
              > On 12/10/04, you wrote:
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
              wrote:
              > >>
              > >> It seems to me from this short bit I have read, that Dr Turner
              > >> postulates a later origin for Sethianism, but not so late as
              some
              > >> believe.
              > >>
              > >> In looking at this part of Turner's outline....
              > >>
              > >> "So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited above
              > >> originated in the period 100-250 C.E.
              > >
              > >
              > > Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III.
              Chronology
              > > and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian compositions
              > > that were written by the end of the first century. I would copy
              and
              > > paste here, but I can't seem to access the web page right now.
              > >
              > > He basically shows an origin for Sethianism before 100 C.E in
              this
              > > whole section. Are there sources that postulate a much earlier
              > > origin?
              > >
              > > Cari
              >
              > I have heard about 100 BCE. PMCV?
              >
              > Regards
              > --
              > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


              Oh, yes, Mike. I checked back to a previous post of mine (#10379) in
              which I quoted from the preface of Turner's article, mentioning
              "Sethianism as a non-Christian
              baptismal sect of the first centuries B.C.E. and C.E. which
              considered itself primordially enlightened by the divine wisdom
              revealed to Adam and Seth,..."

              I don't know how much further back we could go, but even activity
              around 100 B.C.E. would exemplify non-Christian roots.

              Cari
            • Mike Leavitt
              Hello lady_caritas ... I seem to remember Iamblicus On the Mysteries, which was very theurgic too. I don t have ready access to my library (long story) or I
              Message 6 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello lady_caritas

                On 12/11/04, you wrote:

                >
                >
                > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                >> Hello lady_caritas
                >>
                >> On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                >>
                >> IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common emphasis
                >> on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to
                >> these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
                >> expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in
                > attaining
                >>> Gnosis.
                >>
                >> We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were
                > very
                >> theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.
                >>
                >> Regards
                >> --
                >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                >
                >
                > Yes, Mike, and I don't know if Jung felt the same dislike for
                > Proclus as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still the
                > philosopher, but certainly incorporated theurgy in his contemplation
                > of Forms.
                > http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-theurgy.html

                I seem to remember Iamblicus On the Mysteries, which was very theurgic
                too. I don't have ready access to my library (long story) or I would
                check.

                Regards
                --
                Mike Leavitt ac998@...
              • lady_caritas
                ... emphasis ... the ... contemplation ... theurgic ... would ... You must have some amazing library, Mike. Anyway, I was able to find this online:
                Message 7 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                  > Hello lady_caritas
                  >
                  > On 12/11/04, you wrote:
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
                  wrote:
                  > >> Hello lady_caritas
                  > >>
                  > >> On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                  > >>
                  > >> IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common
                  emphasis
                  > >> on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to
                  > >> these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
                  > >> expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in
                  > > attaining
                  > >>> Gnosis.
                  > >>
                  > >> We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were
                  > > very
                  > >> theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.
                  > >>
                  > >> Regards
                  > >> --
                  > >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Yes, Mike, and I don't know if Jung felt the same dislike for
                  > > Proclus as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still
                  the
                  > > philosopher, but certainly incorporated theurgy in his
                  contemplation
                  > > of Forms.
                  > > http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-theurgy.html
                  >
                  > I seem to remember Iamblicus On the Mysteries, which was very
                  theurgic
                  > too. I don't have ready access to my library (long story) or I
                  would
                  > check.
                  >
                  > Regards
                  > --
                  > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


                  You must have some amazing library, Mike. Anyway, I was able to find
                  this online:
                  http://www.esotericarchives.com/oracle/iambl_th.htm


                  Cari
                • Mike Leavitt
                  Hello lady_caritas ... This appears to be the work in question. The style makes it a bit hard to read, I m afraid. Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
                  Message 8 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello lady_caritas

                    On 12/11/04, you wrote:

                    >
                    >
                    > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                    >> Hello lady_caritas
                    >>
                    >> On 12/11/04, you wrote:
                    >>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
                    > wrote:
                    >>>> Hello lady_caritas
                    >>>>
                    >>>> On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                    >>>>
                    >>>> IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common
                    > emphasis
                    >> >> on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common
                    >> >> to these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
                    >> >> expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in
                    >>> attaining
                    >>>>> Gnosis.
                    >> >>
                    >> >> We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were
                    >>> very
                    >>>> theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.
                    >>>>
                    >>>> Regards
                    >>>> --
                    >>>> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>> Yes, Mike, and I don't know if Jung felt the same dislike for
                    >>> Proclus as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still
                    > the
                    >>> philosopher, but certainly incorporated theurgy in his
                    > contemplation
                    >>> of Forms.
                    >>> http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-theurgy.html
                    >>
                    >> I seem to remember Iamblicus On the Mysteries, which was very
                    > theurgic
                    >> too. I don't have ready access to my library (long story) or I
                    > would
                    >> check.
                    >>
                    >> Regards
                    >> --
                    >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                    >
                    >
                    > You must have some amazing library, Mike. Anyway, I was able to find
                    > this online:
                    > http://www.esotericarchives.com/oracle/iambl_th.htm

                    This appears to be the work in question. The style makes it a bit
                    hard to read, I'm afraid.

                    Regards
                    --
                    Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                  • pmcvflag
                    In my memory I seem to recall that Pearson pushes back even farther, a little into the second century B.C.. To be honest though, I can t recall what evidence
                    Message 9 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In my memory I seem to recall that Pearson pushes back even farther,
                      a little into the second century B.C.. To be honest though, I can't
                      recall what evidence he presents for that.... and I can't think of
                      any myself. I also was just noticing that Turner and Pearson seem to
                      have many parallel studies, such as the specific connection between
                      Gnosticism and Platonism. From what I am reading they seem very much
                      in agrement. Perhaps Turner is a good replacement (and maybe a bit
                      updated) for the fact that Pearson seems pretty hard to find. It
                      would be helpful to have more books on this perticular subject to be
                      able to recomend to people. Expect my review within a year ;) *lol*

                      PMCV

                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
                      wrote:
                      > > Hello lady_caritas
                      > >
                      > > On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                      > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
                      > wrote:
                      > > >>
                      > > >> It seems to me from this short bit I have read, that Dr
                      Turner
                      > > >> postulates a later origin for Sethianism, but not so late as
                      > some
                      > > >> believe.
                      > > >>
                      > > >> In looking at this part of Turner's outline....
                      > > >>
                      > > >> "So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited
                      above
                      > > >> originated in the period 100-250 C.E.
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III.
                      > Chronology
                      > > > and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian
                      compositions
                      > > > that were written by the end of the first century. I would
                      copy
                      > and
                      > > > paste here, but I can't seem to access the web page right now.
                      > > >
                      > > > He basically shows an origin for Sethianism before 100 C.E in
                      > this
                      > > > whole section. Are there sources that postulate a much
                      earlier
                      > > > origin?
                      > > >
                      > > > Cari
                      > >
                      > > I have heard about 100 BCE. PMCV?
                      > >
                      > > Regards
                      > > --
                      > > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                      >
                      >
                      > Oh, yes, Mike. I checked back to a previous post of mine (#10379)
                      in
                      > which I quoted from the preface of Turner's article, mentioning
                      > "Sethianism as a non-Christian
                      > baptismal sect of the first centuries B.C.E. and C.E. which
                      > considered itself primordially enlightened by the divine wisdom
                      > revealed to Adam and Seth,..."
                      >
                      > I don't know how much further back we could go, but even activity
                      > around 100 B.C.E. would exemplify non-Christian roots.
                      >
                      > Cari
                    • pmcvflag
                      Hey Mike... ... Sethians were not.
                      Message 10 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hey Mike...

                        >>>"Just one, the early Valentinians were in the church, the
                        Sethians were not."<<<

                        Perhaps, but what about the synagogue? Also, I am not so sure that
                        the Christinized "Sethian" tracts were not originally used in the
                        church. On the other hand, they are hard to reconcile with what we
                        know of the earliest Christian texts. I think this question is very
                        difficult to be positive about, either way.

                        PMCV
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.