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

Re: Idea of Gnosis

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.