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

Re: Idea of Gnosis

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
      --- 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 2 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
        --- 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 3 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
          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 4 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
            --- 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 5 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
              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 6 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                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 7 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                  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.