Re: Idea of Gnosis
- Hello lady_caritas
On 12/11/04, you wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
>> Hello lady_caritas
>> On 12/11/04, you wrote:
>>> --- In email@example.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
>>>> Hello lady_caritas
>>>> On 12/10/04, you wrote:
>>>> IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common
>> >> 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
>> >> We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were
>>>> theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.
>>>> 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
>>> philosopher, but certainly incorporated theurgy in his
>>> of Forms.
>> I seem to remember Iamblicus On the Mysteries, which was very
>> too. I don't have ready access to my library (long story) or I
>> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
> You must have some amazing library, Mike. Anyway, I was able to find
> this online:
This appears to be the work in question. The style makes it a bit
hard to read, I'm afraid.
Mike Leavitt ac998@...
- 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*
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
> --- In email@example.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
> > Hello lady_caritasTurner
> > On 12/10/04, you wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
> > >>
> > >> It seems to me from this short bit I have read, that Dr
> > >> postulates a later origin for Sethianism, but not so late asabove
> > >> believe.
> > >>
> > >> In looking at this part of Turner's outline....
> > >>
> > >> "So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited
> > >> originated in the period 100-250 C.E.compositions
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III.
> > > and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian
> > > that were written by the end of the first century. I wouldcopy
> > > 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
> > > whole section. Are there sources that postulate a much
> > > origin?in
> > >
> > > 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)
> 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.
- Hey Mike...
>>>"Just one, the early Valentinians were in the church, theSethians 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.