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

Re: The Dieing God

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    You confused me a little here.... I am familiar with the myth where Set commits murder, but where does Seth committ murder in any of the sources? Before we
    Message 1 of 25 , Jan 16, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      You confused me a little here.... I am familiar with the myth where
      Set commits murder, but where does Seth committ murder in any of the
      sources? Before we connect the two, you would have to demonstrate
      some similar actuion or usage, wouldn't you?

      Here is what you have said (if I understand you)

      Seth

      = Set because both kill (but I don't know where you got the first
      one since I don't recall Seth ever killing anyone.)

      Then

      Set/Typhon tricked Osiris into a chest which he tossed into the
      river and later found washed ashore where he tore Osiris apart with
      his own two hands

      = Judas turned Jesus in not realizing the penalty, and then
      regretted it so badly he kills himself.

      Well, there is some similarity with the second grouping.... but no
      more than we could say the same about Jack Ruby and Lee Harvy
      Oswald. Your first equation has me completely confused though.

      Let me get this a bit more on topic though, since so far this has
      nothing to do with Gnosticism. I believe the important point you may
      be making is concerning the notion that we should think of Jesus as
      a myth? And, perhaps that is in line with how some view the Gnostic
      understanding of Jesus? Is this the direction you are heading?

      If so, that could be related to my question concerning Gnostic
      hermeneutics.

      PMCV

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, hermetic_star <no_reply@y...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Alright, PMCV... You seem to be trying to get something rolling in
      > here. I have one for you:
      >
      > I have read in various (modern) texts that Set (the Egyptian Neter)
      > may have origionaly been the same 'Seth' that the Sethians were
      named
      > after (a son of Adam & Eve, I believe?). I don't know enough about
      > Seth to make a comparison...
      >
      > Also, I have noticed Seth commits murder against God (Osiris), and
      > Judas Iscariot commits murder against God (Christ). Both are
      typicly
      > depicted as red headed, and both are called a devil. (Admitedly
      weak
      > links here...)
      >
      > The one I like best, however... Set is equated by the greeks to
      their
      > own Typhon. Typhon has obvious associations with Jesus. Set is
      > sometimes depicted as Set-Horus. Horus and Jesus are both the Son.
      > Other aspects of the Kemetic religion have come down to us through
      > Christianity. Is Christ and/or Judas a Christianised Set?
      >
      > *Sits back and waits to be flamed...*
    • hermetic_star
      Sorry, typo. Some scources say the Sethian-Ophite Seth and the Kemetic Set may both be the Seth that is Adams son. Set may have been inherited from Kemeticism
      Message 2 of 25 , Jan 16, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Sorry, typo. Some scources say the Sethian-Ophite Seth and the Kemetic
        Set may both be the Seth that is Adams son.

        Set may have been inherited from Kemeticism (possably/partialy through
        Judaism) into Christianity (along with certain tools, scriptures, and
        other trappings of the Orthodoxy).

        We know Set WAS concidered to be equitable to Typhon by the greeks, so
        if a tie could be established to Jesus (remember, both were scourged,
        dieing gods) then Jesus may be equitable also to Set.

        In answer to your question, no I am NOT saying Christ is myth. Christ
        is titular, and therefore abstract. Jesus however, may have been myth,
        or at least someone who ENACTED the Typhon or some other myth..? I
        think either way, it is a pretty insignificant piece of trivia in the
        long run. (JMHO)



        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        >
        > You confused me a little here.... I am familiar with the myth where
        > Set commits murder, but where does Seth committ murder in any of the
        > sources? Before we connect the two, you would have to demonstrate
        > some similar actuion or usage, wouldn't you?
        >
        > Here is what you have said (if I understand you)
        >
        > Seth
        >
        > = Set because both kill (but I don't know where you got the first
        > one since I don't recall Seth ever killing anyone.)
        >
        > Then
        >
        > Set/Typhon tricked Osiris into a chest which he tossed into the
        > river and later found washed ashore where he tore Osiris apart with
        > his own two hands
        >
        > = Judas turned Jesus in not realizing the penalty, and then
        > regretted it so badly he kills himself.
        >
        > Well, there is some similarity with the second grouping.... but no
        > more than we could say the same about Jack Ruby and Lee Harvy
        > Oswald. Your first equation has me completely confused though.
        >
        > Let me get this a bit more on topic though, since so far this has
        > nothing to do with Gnosticism. I believe the important point you may
        > be making is concerning the notion that we should think of Jesus as
        > a myth? And, perhaps that is in line with how some view the Gnostic
        > understanding of Jesus? Is this the direction you are heading?
        >
        > If so, that could be related to my question concerning Gnostic
        > hermeneutics.
        >
        > PMCV
        >
        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, hermetic_star <no_reply@y...>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > Alright, PMCV... You seem to be trying to get something rolling in
        > > here. I have one for you:
        > >
        > > I have read in various (modern) texts that Set (the Egyptian Neter)
        > > may have origionaly been the same 'Seth' that the Sethians were
        > named
        > > after (a son of Adam & Eve, I believe?). I don't know enough about
        > > Seth to make a comparison...
        > >
        > > Also, I have noticed Seth commits murder against God (Osiris), and
        > > Judas Iscariot commits murder against God (Christ). Both are
        > typicly
        > > depicted as red headed, and both are called a devil. (Admitedly
        > weak
        > > links here...)
        > >
        > > The one I like best, however... Set is equated by the greeks to
        > their
        > > own Typhon. Typhon has obvious associations with Jesus. Set is
        > > sometimes depicted as Set-Horus. Horus and Jesus are both the Son.
        > > Other aspects of the Kemetic religion have come down to us through
        > > Christianity. Is Christ and/or Judas a Christianised Set?
        > >
        > > *Sits back and waits to be flamed...*
      • pmcvflag
        AH, Ok.... I think we need to draw a line between etymology and a mythological borrowing. Yes, there are many scholors that believe the name Seth may have
        Message 3 of 25 , Jan 16, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          AH, Ok.... I think we need to draw a line between etymology and a
          mythological borrowing. Yes, there are many scholors that believe
          the name "Seth" may have come from the Egyptian "Set" (and after
          all, Hebrew is partly related to Egyptian so this would not be a big
          shock).... however, beyond the word there doesn't seem to be any
          connection at all.

          And yes, I am also well aware that Typhon and Set were equated. I
          don't recall Set dying and resurecting... can you tell me where in
          traditional Egyptian myths we can find that? It isn't my specialty
          so I need a source.

          I have some other questions dealing with how this relates to
          Gnosticism, and whether it does, but first lets deal with those two
          points.

          PMCV

          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, hermetic_star <no_reply@y...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Sorry, typo. Some scources say the Sethian-Ophite Seth and the
          Kemetic
          > Set may both be the Seth that is Adams son.
          >
          > Set may have been inherited from Kemeticism (possably/partialy
          through
          > Judaism) into Christianity (along with certain tools, scriptures,
          and
          > other trappings of the Orthodoxy).
          >
          > We know Set WAS concidered to be equitable to Typhon by the
          greeks, so
          > if a tie could be established to Jesus (remember, both were
          scourged,
          > dieing gods) then Jesus may be equitable also to Set.
          >
          > In answer to your question, no I am NOT saying Christ is myth.
          Christ
          > is titular, and therefore abstract. Jesus however, may have been
          myth,
          > or at least someone who ENACTED the Typhon or some other myth..? I
          > think either way, it is a pretty insignificant piece of trivia in
          the
          > long run. (JMHO)
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > >
          > > You confused me a little here.... I am familiar with the myth
          where
          > > Set commits murder, but where does Seth committ murder in any of
          the
          > > sources? Before we connect the two, you would have to
          demonstrate
          > > some similar actuion or usage, wouldn't you?
          > >
          > > Here is what you have said (if I understand you)
          > >
          > > Seth
          > >
          > > = Set because both kill (but I don't know where you got the
          first
          > > one since I don't recall Seth ever killing anyone.)
          > >
          > > Then
          > >
          > > Set/Typhon tricked Osiris into a chest which he tossed into the
          > > river and later found washed ashore where he tore Osiris apart
          with
          > > his own two hands
          > >
          > > = Judas turned Jesus in not realizing the penalty, and then
          > > regretted it so badly he kills himself.
          > >
          > > Well, there is some similarity with the second grouping.... but
          no
          > > more than we could say the same about Jack Ruby and Lee Harvy
          > > Oswald. Your first equation has me completely confused though.
          > >
          > > Let me get this a bit more on topic though, since so far this
          has
          > > nothing to do with Gnosticism. I believe the important point you
          may
          > > be making is concerning the notion that we should think of Jesus
          as
          > > a myth? And, perhaps that is in line with how some view the
          Gnostic
          > > understanding of Jesus? Is this the direction you are heading?
          > >
          > > If so, that could be related to my question concerning Gnostic
          > > hermeneutics.
          > >
          > > PMCV
          > >
          > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, hermetic_star
          <no_reply@y...>
          > > wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Alright, PMCV... You seem to be trying to get something
          rolling in
          > > > here. I have one for you:
          > > >
          > > > I have read in various (modern) texts that Set (the Egyptian
          Neter)
          > > > may have origionaly been the same 'Seth' that the Sethians
          were
          > > named
          > > > after (a son of Adam & Eve, I believe?). I don't know enough
          about
          > > > Seth to make a comparison...
          > > >
          > > > Also, I have noticed Seth commits murder against God (Osiris),
          and
          > > > Judas Iscariot commits murder against God (Christ). Both are
          > > typicly
          > > > depicted as red headed, and both are called a devil.
          (Admitedly
          > > weak
          > > > links here...)
          > > >
          > > > The one I like best, however... Set is equated by the greeks
          to
          > > their
          > > > own Typhon. Typhon has obvious associations with Jesus. Set is
          > > > sometimes depicted as Set-Horus. Horus and Jesus are both the
          Son.
          > > > Other aspects of the Kemetic religion have come down to us
          through
          > > > Christianity. Is Christ and/or Judas a Christianised Set?
          > > >
          > > > *Sits back and waits to be flamed...*
        • hermetic_star
          ... The Christian myth, being the newest would be based on (and embellished upon) the other greek, hebrew, and kemetic myths. Therefore it may not translate
          Message 4 of 25 , Jan 16, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            > And yes, I am also well aware that Typhon and Set were equated. I
            > don't recall Set dying and resurecting... can you tell me where in
            > traditional Egyptian myths we can find that? It isn't my specialty
            > so I need a source.


            The Christian myth, being the newest would be based on (and
            embellished upon) the other greek, hebrew, and kemetic myths.
            Therefore it may not translate directly over... Also, the myths vary
            from dynasty to dynasty. Since Set was venerated at a relatively early
            time period, and demonised in later time periods, much of Sets
            origional myths have been re-written and/or lost.

            However... If Set is the 'Prince of Darkness', as is Lucifer, and if
            we take a psycho-analytical look at the biblical myth, Lucifer could
            be seen as Christs shadow-self. Then there would be much more to
            concider, because:

            * Set and Lucifer/Satan are both 'The Prince of Darkness'

            * Set opposes Horus/Osiris in a similar manner as Lucifer/Satan
            opposes Jesus

            * Set tempts Osiris, Satan tempts Christ

            * Set kills Osiris, Satan (through the Judaic/Roman system) kills Christ

            * Osiris eventualy overcomes Set through Horus, Christ eventualy
            overcomes Set (Both victors are 'Son' gods...)

            * The snake is associated with both Satan and Set

            * Set and Satan are both outcast for rebelling

            * Set and Satan both rule burning wastes (Sands of Egypt/Fires of
            Hell) concidered unfit for human habitation

            * Set and Satan are both associated with murder, lies and war

            There are also cosmetic similarities:

            * Black and Red are the colors of Satan and Set

            * The Set beast and Satan are both depicted with a forked tail
          • hermetic_star
            ... Then again, Set does die and ressurect in a metaphorical sense, with the rising and setting of the sun in the Bark of Ra...
            Message 5 of 25 , Jan 16, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              > And yes, I am also well aware that Typhon and Set were equated. I
              > don't recall Set dying and resurecting... can you tell me where in
              > traditional Egyptian myths we can find that? It isn't my specialty
              > so I need a source.


              Then again, Set does die and ressurect in a metaphorical sense, with
              the rising and setting of the sun in the Bark of Ra...
            • nakedalchemy@aol.com
              In a message dated 1/16/2005 3:10:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes: I believe the important point you may be making is concerning
              Message 6 of 25 , Jan 16, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 1/16/2005 3:10:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
                I believe the important point you may
                be making is concerning the notion that we should think of Jesus as
                a myth? And, perhaps that is in line with how some view the Gnostic
                understanding of Jesus?
                for myself, the readings suggest that they feel Jesus is not a myth in the sense of a tale, but that it didn't matter if he was historically real or not, but that, the allegories and parables and sayings are what is important, no matter the medium.
                this is in line with my own way of thinking, and As I came to read the texts, this is the air I get ,too.
                 
                I will re-read some texts and see if I can find more specifics.
                 
                mychael
              • nakedalchemy@aol.com
                In a message dated 1/16/2005 3:23:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes: Set may have been inherited from Kemeticism (possably/partialy
                Message 7 of 25 , Jan 16, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 1/16/2005 3:23:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
                  Set may have been inherited from Kemeticism (possably/partialy through
                  Judaism) into Christianity (along with certain tools, scriptures, and
                  other trappings of the Orthodoxy).

                  We know Set WAS concidered to be equitable to Typhon by the greeks, so
                  if a tie could be established to Jesus (remember, both were scourged,
                  dieing gods) then Jesus may be equitable also to Set.

                  In answer to your question, no I am NOT saying Christ is myth. Christ
                  is titular, and therefore abstract. Jesus however, may have been myth,
                  or at least someone who ENACTED the Typhon or some other myth..? I
                  think either way, it is a pretty insignificant piece of trivia in the
                  long run. (JMHO)
                  it has been my connotation that the Set myth in Egyptian myth is near to the concept of Satan, or, in a Gnostic comprehension, related to that of Jehovah...wht's the gnostic name for the demiurge? It slips my mind at the moment, but closely sounding to the name Set?
                  pardon my gaps of ignorance/memory.
                   
                  mychael
                • hermetic_star
                  ... near to the ... at the moment, ... Ialdabaoth, or in some translations Yaldabaoth. The old testament YHWH does in fact act a bit like the demonised
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jan 16, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >
                    > it has been my connotation that the Set myth in Egyptian myth is
                    near to the
                    > concept of Satan, or, in a Gnostic comprehension, related to that of
                    > Jehovah...wht's the gnostic name for the demiurge? It slips my mind
                    at the moment,
                    > but closely sounding to the name Set?


                    Ialdabaoth, or in some translations Yaldabaoth. The old testament YHWH
                    does in fact act a bit like the demonised version of Set.
                  • elmoreb
                    ... I ... in ... specialty ... vary ... early ... if ... could ... Christ ... While we are equating mythological beings here, I want to clear some things up.
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jan 19, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, hermetic_star <no_reply@y...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > > And yes, I am also well aware that Typhon and Set were equated.
                      I
                      > > don't recall Set dying and resurecting... can you tell me where
                      in
                      > > traditional Egyptian myths we can find that? It isn't my
                      specialty
                      > > so I need a source.
                      >
                      >
                      > The Christian myth, being the newest would be based on (and
                      > embellished upon) the other greek, hebrew, and kemetic myths.
                      > Therefore it may not translate directly over... Also, the myths
                      vary
                      > from dynasty to dynasty. Since Set was venerated at a relatively
                      early
                      > time period, and demonised in later time periods, much of Sets
                      > origional myths have been re-written and/or lost.
                      >
                      > However... If Set is the 'Prince of Darkness', as is Lucifer, and
                      if
                      > we take a psycho-analytical look at the biblical myth, Lucifer
                      could
                      > be seen as Christs shadow-self. Then there would be much more to
                      > concider, because:
                      >
                      > * Set and Lucifer/Satan are both 'The Prince of Darkness'
                      >
                      > * Set opposes Horus/Osiris in a similar manner as Lucifer/Satan
                      > opposes Jesus
                      >
                      > * Set tempts Osiris, Satan tempts Christ
                      >
                      > * Set kills Osiris, Satan (through the Judaic/Roman system) kills
                      Christ
                      >
                      > * Osiris eventualy overcomes Set through Horus, Christ eventualy
                      > overcomes Set (Both victors are 'Son' gods...)
                      >
                      > * The snake is associated with both Satan and Set
                      >
                      > * Set and Satan are both outcast for rebelling
                      >
                      > * Set and Satan both rule burning wastes (Sands of Egypt/Fires of
                      > Hell) concidered unfit for human habitation
                      >
                      > * Set and Satan are both associated with murder, lies and war
                      >
                      > There are also cosmetic similarities:
                      >
                      > * Black and Red are the colors of Satan and Set
                      >
                      > * The Set beast and Satan are both depicted with a forked tail

                      While we are equating mythological beings here, I want to clear some
                      things up.

                      Satan - is a form of Shaitan (arabic i think, considered to be a
                      dirty language by the hebrew) and simply means adversary. All
                      religions attempt to deal with the problem of evil, so he can be
                      equated with any of the "adversarial" mythological beings.
                      His "colors" and much of our idea of what he looks like is fairly
                      modern.

                      Lucifer - is simply the church taking a word out of context. Lucifer
                      means "bringer of light." Its talking about babylon. It refers to
                      the King of Babylon putting himself higher than the stars of God (
                      in this case Venus or Lucifer, which is the brightest "star" in the
                      sky next to the sun).

                      The forked tail and black and red is not an old idea. So comparing a
                      relatively modern idea of of how satan looks to an ancient idea of
                      set, is irrelevant.

                      I agree that Satan and Set do have alot in common though. But the
                      same can be said of many religions. Ahura Mazda ( good, christ) vs
                      Azhi Dahaka ( evil, satan, sepentine), Quetzalcoatl( good, VERY
                      similar to Christ) vs black Tezcatlipoca( there is also a red
                      Tezcatlipoca... hmm black and red), and the list goes on.

                      A more intriguing comparison is Julius Caesar and Christ.

                      see: http://www.carotta.de/
                    • hermetic_star
                      ... No disagreements here. :) Except maybe the part about Shaitan. I have seen no references to him outside of Golden Dawn and other Rosecrucian material. Do
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jan 19, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "elmoreb" <elmoreb@y...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, hermetic_star <no_reply@y...>
                        > wrote:
                        > >
                        > > > And yes, I am also well aware that Typhon and Set were equated.
                        > I
                        > > > don't recall Set dying and resurecting... can you tell me where
                        > in
                        > > > traditional Egyptian myths we can find that? It isn't my
                        > specialty
                        > > > so I need a source.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > The Christian myth, being the newest would be based on (and
                        > > embellished upon) the other greek, hebrew, and kemetic myths.
                        > > Therefore it may not translate directly over... Also, the myths
                        > vary
                        > > from dynasty to dynasty. Since Set was venerated at a relatively
                        > early
                        > > time period, and demonised in later time periods, much of Sets
                        > > origional myths have been re-written and/or lost.
                        > >
                        > > However... If Set is the 'Prince of Darkness', as is Lucifer, and
                        > if
                        > > we take a psycho-analytical look at the biblical myth, Lucifer
                        > could
                        > > be seen as Christs shadow-self. Then there would be much more to
                        > > concider, because:
                        > >
                        > > * Set and Lucifer/Satan are both 'The Prince of Darkness'
                        > >
                        > > * Set opposes Horus/Osiris in a similar manner as Lucifer/Satan
                        > > opposes Jesus
                        > >
                        > > * Set tempts Osiris, Satan tempts Christ
                        > >
                        > > * Set kills Osiris, Satan (through the Judaic/Roman system) kills
                        > Christ
                        > >
                        > > * Osiris eventualy overcomes Set through Horus, Christ eventualy
                        > > overcomes Set (Both victors are 'Son' gods...)
                        > >
                        > > * The snake is associated with both Satan and Set
                        > >
                        > > * Set and Satan are both outcast for rebelling
                        > >
                        > > * Set and Satan both rule burning wastes (Sands of Egypt/Fires of
                        > > Hell) concidered unfit for human habitation
                        > >
                        > > * Set and Satan are both associated with murder, lies and war
                        > >
                        > > There are also cosmetic similarities:
                        > >
                        > > * Black and Red are the colors of Satan and Set
                        > >
                        > > * The Set beast and Satan are both depicted with a forked tail
                        >
                        > While we are equating mythological beings here, I want to clear some
                        > things up.
                        >
                        > Satan - is a form of Shaitan (arabic i think, considered to be a
                        > dirty language by the hebrew) and simply means adversary. All
                        > religions attempt to deal with the problem of evil, so he can be
                        > equated with any of the "adversarial" mythological beings.
                        > His "colors" and much of our idea of what he looks like is fairly
                        > modern.
                        >
                        > Lucifer - is simply the church taking a word out of context. Lucifer
                        > means "bringer of light." Its talking about babylon. It refers to
                        > the King of Babylon putting himself higher than the stars of God (
                        > in this case Venus or Lucifer, which is the brightest "star" in the
                        > sky next to the sun).
                        >
                        > The forked tail and black and red is not an old idea. So comparing a
                        > relatively modern idea of of how satan looks to an ancient idea of
                        > set, is irrelevant.
                        >
                        > I agree that Satan and Set do have alot in common though. But the
                        > same can be said of many religions. Ahura Mazda ( good, christ) vs
                        > Azhi Dahaka ( evil, satan, sepentine), Quetzalcoatl( good, VERY
                        > similar to Christ) vs black Tezcatlipoca( there is also a red
                        > Tezcatlipoca... hmm black and red), and the list goes on.
                        >
                        > A more intriguing comparison is Julius Caesar and Christ.
                        >
                        > see: http://www.carotta.de/

                        No disagreements here. :) Except maybe the part about Shaitan. I have
                        seen no references to him outside of Golden Dawn and other Rosecrucian
                        material. Do you have any scources?

                        As for Lucifer, I think he was origionaly a Roman diety... A torch
                        bearer of the gods, or some such.
                      • pmcvflag
                        Just to add to Elmoreb and Hermetic_Star s observations here..... The word Lucifer first appears in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. Jerome was on the opposing
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jan 19, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Just to add to Elmoreb and Hermetic_Star's observations here.....

                          The word "Lucifer" first appears in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.
                          Jerome was on the opposing side with a Catholic Bishop by the name
                          of "Lucifer", and may not have made this mistranslation on accident.
                          In the original Hebrew it is, as Elmoreb states, about King
                          Nebuchadnezzar (who according to Bible legend lost his mind and ran
                          out to the field where he lived for a time as an animal, but was
                          then restored to sanity). In the later Christian context the fall of
                          the famous Babylonian king was attributed to "Satan", which also
                          ignored the passages of his return to grace. So, the name of a
                          bishop became part of Bible history, though almost no modern Bible
                          translations actually have the word "Lucifer" anywhere in them.

                          And Elmoreb seemed a little unsure as to whether "Shaitan" was
                          Arabic, so let me confim that here as well. It is from the Koran,
                          which obviously postdates the Hebrew it was taken from.

                          PMCV

                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, hermetic_star <no_reply@y...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "elmoreb" <elmoreb@y...> wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, hermetic_star
                          <no_reply@y...>
                          > > wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > > And yes, I am also well aware that Typhon and Set were
                          equated.
                          > > I
                          > > > > don't recall Set dying and resurecting... can you tell me
                          where
                          > > in
                          > > > > traditional Egyptian myths we can find that? It isn't my
                          > > specialty
                          > > > > so I need a source.
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > The Christian myth, being the newest would be based on (and
                          > > > embellished upon) the other greek, hebrew, and kemetic myths.
                          > > > Therefore it may not translate directly over... Also, the
                          myths
                          > > vary
                          > > > from dynasty to dynasty. Since Set was venerated at a
                          relatively
                          > > early
                          > > > time period, and demonised in later time periods, much of Sets
                          > > > origional myths have been re-written and/or lost.
                          > > >
                          > > > However... If Set is the 'Prince of Darkness', as is Lucifer,
                          and
                          > > if
                          > > > we take a psycho-analytical look at the biblical myth, Lucifer
                          > > could
                          > > > be seen as Christs shadow-self. Then there would be much more
                          to
                          > > > concider, because:
                          > > >
                          > > > * Set and Lucifer/Satan are both 'The Prince of Darkness'
                          > > >
                          > > > * Set opposes Horus/Osiris in a similar manner as
                          Lucifer/Satan
                          > > > opposes Jesus
                          > > >
                          > > > * Set tempts Osiris, Satan tempts Christ
                          > > >
                          > > > * Set kills Osiris, Satan (through the Judaic/Roman system)
                          kills
                          > > Christ
                          > > >
                          > > > * Osiris eventualy overcomes Set through Horus, Christ
                          eventualy
                          > > > overcomes Set (Both victors are 'Son' gods...)
                          > > >
                          > > > * The snake is associated with both Satan and Set
                          > > >
                          > > > * Set and Satan are both outcast for rebelling
                          > > >
                          > > > * Set and Satan both rule burning wastes (Sands of
                          Egypt/Fires of
                          > > > Hell) concidered unfit for human habitation
                          > > >
                          > > > * Set and Satan are both associated with murder, lies and war
                          > > >
                          > > > There are also cosmetic similarities:
                          > > >
                          > > > * Black and Red are the colors of Satan and Set
                          > > >
                          > > > * The Set beast and Satan are both depicted with a forked tail
                          > >
                          > > While we are equating mythological beings here, I want to clear
                          some
                          > > things up.
                          > >
                          > > Satan - is a form of Shaitan (arabic i think, considered to be a
                          > > dirty language by the hebrew) and simply means adversary. All
                          > > religions attempt to deal with the problem of evil, so he can be
                          > > equated with any of the "adversarial" mythological beings.
                          > > His "colors" and much of our idea of what he looks like is
                          fairly
                          > > modern.
                          > >
                          > > Lucifer - is simply the church taking a word out of context.
                          Lucifer
                          > > means "bringer of light." Its talking about babylon. It refers
                          to
                          > > the King of Babylon putting himself higher than the stars of God
                          (
                          > > in this case Venus or Lucifer, which is the brightest "star" in
                          the
                          > > sky next to the sun).
                          > >
                          > > The forked tail and black and red is not an old idea. So
                          comparing a
                          > > relatively modern idea of of how satan looks to an ancient idea
                          of
                          > > set, is irrelevant.
                          > >
                          > > I agree that Satan and Set do have alot in common though. But
                          the
                          > > same can be said of many religions. Ahura Mazda ( good, christ)
                          vs
                          > > Azhi Dahaka ( evil, satan, sepentine), Quetzalcoatl( good, VERY
                          > > similar to Christ) vs black Tezcatlipoca( there is also a red
                          > > Tezcatlipoca... hmm black and red), and the list goes on.
                          > >
                          > > A more intriguing comparison is Julius Caesar and Christ.
                          > >
                          > > see: http://www.carotta.de/
                          >
                          > No disagreements here. :) Except maybe the part about Shaitan. I
                          have
                          > seen no references to him outside of Golden Dawn and other
                          Rosecrucian
                          > material. Do you have any scources?
                          >
                          > As for Lucifer, I think he was origionaly a Roman diety... A torch
                          > bearer of the gods, or some such.
                        • elmoreb
                          ... accident. ... ran ... of ... Thanks, I had completely forgotten about the opposing bishop. As for Shaitan, after a bit more research, I think I got it a
                          Message 12 of 25 , Jan 20, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Just to add to Elmoreb and Hermetic_Star's observations here.....
                            >
                            > The word "Lucifer" first appears in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.
                            > Jerome was on the opposing side with a Catholic Bishop by the name
                            > of "Lucifer", and may not have made this mistranslation on
                            accident.
                            > In the original Hebrew it is, as Elmoreb states, about King
                            > Nebuchadnezzar (who according to Bible legend lost his mind and
                            ran
                            > out to the field where he lived for a time as an animal, but was
                            > then restored to sanity). In the later Christian context the fall
                            of
                            > the famous Babylonian king was attributed to "Satan", which also
                            > ignored the passages of his return to grace. So, the name of a
                            > bishop became part of Bible history, though almost no modern Bible
                            > translations actually have the word "Lucifer" anywhere in them.
                            >
                            > And Elmoreb seemed a little unsure as to whether "Shaitan" was
                            > Arabic, so let me confim that here as well. It is from the Koran,
                            > which obviously postdates the Hebrew it was taken from.
                            >
                            > PMCV

                            Thanks, I had completely forgotten about the opposing bishop.

                            As for Shaitan, after a bit more research, I think I got it a little
                            backwards. Shaitan seems to originally be a hebrew word ( as PMCV
                            stated). Muhammed was educated by a sect of jews after he had his
                            revelation and was trying to defend his new religion. He had no clue
                            about religion in general and had no defenses against christian and
                            jewish apologists. So one group of jewish ( rabbis i think, not just
                            congregation members) sat down with him and taught him the old
                            testament so that he would have the tools to defend himself. I think
                            this is where Shaitan goes from hebrew to arabic, then back again as
                            Satan. I think the difference in Satan and Shaitan is merely in
                            dialect. Same persona, meaning, etc. This is also why you see alot
                            of Judeo-Christian ideas in the Koran.
                          • hermetic_star
                            ... Even so, Satan is a title, or description. It means Opposer or Opponent . The main personification of evil (if there be such a thing) in the OT is
                            Message 13 of 25 , Jan 20, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "elmoreb" <elmoreb@y...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Just to add to Elmoreb and Hermetic_Star's observations here.....
                              > >
                              > > The word "Lucifer" first appears in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.
                              > > Jerome was on the opposing side with a Catholic Bishop by the name
                              > > of "Lucifer", and may not have made this mistranslation on
                              > accident.
                              > > In the original Hebrew it is, as Elmoreb states, about King
                              > > Nebuchadnezzar (who according to Bible legend lost his mind and
                              > ran
                              > > out to the field where he lived for a time as an animal, but was
                              > > then restored to sanity). In the later Christian context the fall
                              > of
                              > > the famous Babylonian king was attributed to "Satan", which also
                              > > ignored the passages of his return to grace. So, the name of a
                              > > bishop became part of Bible history, though almost no modern Bible
                              > > translations actually have the word "Lucifer" anywhere in them.
                              > >
                              > > And Elmoreb seemed a little unsure as to whether "Shaitan" was
                              > > Arabic, so let me confim that here as well. It is from the Koran,
                              > > which obviously postdates the Hebrew it was taken from.
                              > >
                              > > PMCV
                              >
                              > Thanks, I had completely forgotten about the opposing bishop.
                              >
                              > As for Shaitan, after a bit more research, I think I got it a little
                              > backwards. Shaitan seems to originally be a hebrew word ( as PMCV
                              > stated). Muhammed was educated by a sect of jews after he had his
                              > revelation and was trying to defend his new religion. He had no clue
                              > about religion in general and had no defenses against christian and
                              > jewish apologists. So one group of jewish ( rabbis i think, not just
                              > congregation members) sat down with him and taught him the old
                              > testament so that he would have the tools to defend himself. I think
                              > this is where Shaitan goes from hebrew to arabic, then back again as
                              > Satan. I think the difference in Satan and Shaitan is merely in
                              > dialect. Same persona, meaning, etc. This is also why you see alot
                              > of Judeo-Christian ideas in the Koran.

                              Even so, Satan is a title, or description. It means 'Opposer' or
                              'Opponent'. The main personification of 'evil' (if there be such a
                              thing) in the OT is Belial. There is some arguement against this even,
                              however. The book of Enoch (once accepted by both Jew and Christian
                              alike, later rejected by both groups) names Azazel as the arch-nemesis
                              of mankind.
                            • nakedalchemy@aol.com
                              In a message dated 1/19/2005 8:52:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes: As for Lucifer, I think he was origionaly a Roman diety... A
                              Message 14 of 25 , Jan 20, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 1/19/2005 8:52:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
                                As for Lucifer, I think he was origionaly a Roman diety... A torch
                                bearer of the gods, or some such.
                                Lucifer,in the Stregheria Tradition(Italian,Etruscan Witch-Craft, also called La Vecchia
                                Religione-The Old Religion) was the Brother/Husband of Diana, later denoted as Apollo, while Lucifer was not "evil" and understood as the Morning or Evening Star--light-bringer, Apollo was a sun god. The Traditon itself developing  before the Medieval times or thereabouts, is an extension of many other earlier "crafts of the wise"
                              • hermetic_star
                                ... denoted ... Morning or ... itself developing ... other ... Thank you, that s interesting information.
                                Message 15 of 25 , Jan 20, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, nakedalchemy@a... wrote:
                                  >
                                  > In a message dated 1/19/2005 8:52:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                  > no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
                                  >
                                  > As for Lucifer, I think he was origionaly a Roman diety... A torch
                                  > bearer of the gods, or some such.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Lucifer,in the Stregheria Tradition(Italian,Etruscan Witch-Craft, also
                                  > called La Vecchia
                                  > Religione-The Old Religion) was the Brother/Husband of Diana, later
                                  denoted
                                  > as Apollo, while Lucifer was not "evil" and understood as the
                                  Morning or
                                  > Evening Star--light-bringer, Apollo was a sun god. The Traditon
                                  itself developing
                                  > before the Medieval times or thereabouts, is an extension of many
                                  other
                                  > earlier "crafts of the wise"

                                  Thank you, that's interesting information.
                                • Michael Johnson
                                  Hmmm, Caesar and Christ huh? Have you been reading Neitzshe? lol. Anyways, the comparisons are very peculiar, and I appreciate this post greatly. Thanks. Mike
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Jan 21, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hmmm, Caesar and Christ huh? Have you been reading
                                    Neitzshe? lol. Anyways, the comparisons are very
                                    peculiar, and I appreciate this post greatly. Thanks.

                                    Mike





                                    --- hermetic_star <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                    >
                                    > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "elmoreb"
                                    > <elmoreb@y...> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, hermetic_star
                                    > <no_reply@y...>
                                    > > wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > > And yes, I am also well aware that Typhon and
                                    > Set were equated.
                                    > > I
                                    > > > > don't recall Set dying and resurecting... can
                                    > you tell me where
                                    > > in
                                    > > > > traditional Egyptian myths we can find that?
                                    > It isn't my
                                    > > specialty
                                    > > > > so I need a source.
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > The Christian myth, being the newest would be
                                    > based on (and
                                    > > > embellished upon) the other greek, hebrew, and
                                    > kemetic myths.
                                    > > > Therefore it may not translate directly over...
                                    > Also, the myths
                                    > > vary
                                    > > > from dynasty to dynasty. Since Set was venerated
                                    > at a relatively
                                    > > early
                                    > > > time period, and demonised in later time
                                    > periods, much of Sets
                                    > > > origional myths have been re-written and/or
                                    > lost.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > However... If Set is the 'Prince of Darkness',
                                    > as is Lucifer, and
                                    > > if
                                    > > > we take a psycho-analytical look at the biblical
                                    > myth, Lucifer
                                    > > could
                                    > > > be seen as Christs shadow-self. Then there would
                                    > be much more to
                                    > > > concider, because:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > * Set and Lucifer/Satan are both 'The Prince of
                                    > Darkness'
                                    > > >
                                    > > > * Set opposes Horus/Osiris in a similar manner
                                    > as Lucifer/Satan
                                    > > > opposes Jesus
                                    > > >
                                    > > > * Set tempts Osiris, Satan tempts Christ
                                    > > >
                                    > > > * Set kills Osiris, Satan (through the
                                    > Judaic/Roman system) kills
                                    > > Christ
                                    > > >
                                    > > > * Osiris eventualy overcomes Set through Horus,
                                    > Christ eventualy
                                    > > > overcomes Set (Both victors are 'Son' gods...)
                                    > > >
                                    > > > * The snake is associated with both Satan and
                                    > Set
                                    > > >
                                    > > > * Set and Satan are both outcast for rebelling
                                    > > >
                                    > > > * Set and Satan both rule burning wastes (Sands
                                    > of Egypt/Fires of
                                    > > > Hell) concidered unfit for human habitation
                                    > > >
                                    > > > * Set and Satan are both associated with
                                    > murder, lies and war
                                    > > >
                                    > > > There are also cosmetic similarities:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > * Black and Red are the colors of Satan and Set
                                    > > >
                                    > > > * The Set beast and Satan are both depicted
                                    > with a forked tail
                                    > >
                                    > > While we are equating mythological beings here, I
                                    > want to clear some
                                    > > things up.
                                    > >
                                    > > Satan - is a form of Shaitan (arabic i think,
                                    > considered to be a
                                    > > dirty language by the hebrew) and simply means
                                    > adversary. All
                                    > > religions attempt to deal with the problem of
                                    > evil, so he can be
                                    > > equated with any of the "adversarial" mythological
                                    > beings.
                                    > > His "colors" and much of our idea of what he looks
                                    > like is fairly
                                    > > modern.
                                    > >
                                    > > Lucifer - is simply the church taking a word out
                                    > of context. Lucifer
                                    > > means "bringer of light." Its talking about
                                    > babylon. It refers to
                                    > > the King of Babylon putting himself higher than
                                    > the stars of God (
                                    > > in this case Venus or Lucifer, which is the
                                    > brightest "star" in the
                                    > > sky next to the sun).
                                    > >
                                    > > The forked tail and black and red is not an old
                                    > idea. So comparing a
                                    > > relatively modern idea of of how satan looks to an
                                    > ancient idea of
                                    > > set, is irrelevant.
                                    > >
                                    > > I agree that Satan and Set do have alot in common
                                    > though. But the
                                    > > same can be said of many religions. Ahura Mazda (
                                    > good, christ) vs
                                    > > Azhi Dahaka ( evil, satan, sepentine),
                                    > Quetzalcoatl( good, VERY
                                    > > similar to Christ) vs black Tezcatlipoca( there is
                                    > also a red
                                    > > Tezcatlipoca... hmm black and red), and the list
                                    > goes on.
                                    > >
                                    > > A more intriguing comparison is Julius Caesar and
                                    > Christ.
                                    > >
                                    > > see: http://www.carotta.de/
                                    >
                                    > No disagreements here. :) Except maybe the part
                                    > about Shaitan. I have
                                    > seen no references to him outside of Golden Dawn and
                                    > other Rosecrucian
                                    > material. Do you have any scources?
                                    >
                                    > As for Lucifer, I think he was origionaly a Roman
                                    > diety... A torch
                                    > bearer of the gods, or some such.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >


                                    =====


                                    __________________________________________________
                                    Do You Yahoo!?
                                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                                  • pmcvflag
                                    Mychael... ... Craft, also called La Vecchia Religione-The Old Religion) was the Brother/Husband of Diana, later denoted as Apollo, while Lucifer was not
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Jan 21, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Mychael...

                                      >>>"Lucifer,in the Stregheria Tradition(Italian,Etruscan Witch-
                                      Craft, also called La Vecchia
                                      Religione-The Old Religion) was the Brother/Husband of Diana, later
                                      denoted as Apollo, while Lucifer was not "evil" and understood as
                                      the Morning or Evening Star--light-bringer, Apollo was a sun god.
                                      The Traditon itself developing before the Medieval times or
                                      thereabouts, is an extension of many other earlier "crafts of the
                                      wise"<<<

                                      Just wanted to point out that like Wicca, Stregharia's origin is
                                      more modern legend than historical fact. I know, Wicca claims to be
                                      very old. Historically though it did not come into existance until
                                      the 1950s and has almost no similarity to the religions of the times
                                      it claims to a continuence of. Stregheria is a similar case, being
                                      based largely on Wicca but adding an Italian flavor.

                                      PMCV
                                    • nakedalchemy@aol.com
                                      In a message dated 1/22/2005 2:37:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes: Just wanted to point out that like Wicca, Stregharia s origin
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Jan 22, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        In a message dated 1/22/2005 2:37:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
                                        Just wanted to point out that like Wicca, Stregharia's origin is
                                        more modern legend than historical fact. I know, Wicca claims to be
                                        very old. Historically though it did not come into existance until
                                        the 1950s and has almost no similarity to the religions of the times
                                        it claims to a continuence of. Stregheria is a similar case, being
                                        based largely on Wicca but adding an Italian flavor.

                                        PMCV
                                        nope, you have this backwards, Wicca, is in part, based upon Stregheria and Golden Dawn concept along with Crowley's input to Gardner who created Wicca.
                                        Stregheria existed long beofre Wicca. but, now both have sort of melded.
                                        stregheria came out of the persecutions of the Church and of those who would make them suffer, but its roots go further back than even its beginnings of it persecutions, into Etruscan, Egyptian, and perhaps even further, which they understood, therefore calling it La Vecchia Religione.
                                        There have been modern writers who have melded Stregheria and Wicca together such as Raven Grimasi, which has done more damage to the older Streghe lore. such was discovered by a few researchers in the 1800-early 1900's long before Gardner appeared on the scene.
                                        Aradia, Gospel of the Witches by Charles Leland first published in 1899, and the Gold Bough by George Frazer first published in 1922 who also touches upon "Diana of the Woods" etc having to do with the "craft".
                                        Witchcraft was alive and kicking in Italy and other places long before Wicca came about, although many joined the Church while practicing the OLD WAYS in secret.
                                         
                                        mychael
                                      • pmcvflag
                                        Mychael.... ... those who would make them suffer, but its roots go further back than even its beginnings of it persecutions, into Etruscan, Egyptian, and
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Jan 23, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Mychael....

                                          >>"stregheria came out of the persecutions of the Church and of
                                          those who would make them suffer, but its roots go further back than
                                          even its beginnings of it persecutions, into Etruscan, Egyptian, and
                                          perhaps even further, which they understood, therefore calling it La
                                          Vecchia Religione.

                                          There have been modern writers who have melded Stregheria and Wicca
                                          together such as Raven Grimasi, which has done more damage to the
                                          older Streghe lore. such was discovered by a few researchers in the
                                          1800-early 1900's long before Gardner appeared on the scene.
                                          Aradia, Gospel of the Witches by Charles Leland first published in
                                          1899, and the Gold Bough by George Frazer first published in 1922
                                          who also touches upon "Diana of the Woods" etc having to do with
                                          the "craft"."<<<

                                          Could be, that is the story anyways, eh? The problem is, in the eyes
                                          of most historians Leland's Aradia is no more historical fact than
                                          the Da Vinci Codes, and Frazer fairs only slightly better against
                                          historical evidence. The same is true of Murrey's works on the
                                          subject, and a host of modern notions like the so called "Burning
                                          Times" (as you are already aware) Here is what I mean for anyone who
                                          is not sure.... http://www.cog.org/witch_hunt.html ...(though it is
                                          off topic here).

                                          I know, just because historians generally don't believe this "La
                                          Vecchia Religione" ever really existed doesn't mean it isn't so. Let
                                          me relate this to Gnosticism though, because there are some out
                                          there who do try to make the connection (though I know you did not,
                                          Mychael).

                                          There are many people out there, especially people interested in
                                          Crowley or Samael Aun Woer, who have a need to talk about sexual
                                          rituals in Gnosticism via the so called "Cainites". Similar claims
                                          are made for the so called "Craft" (here is an example
                                          http://www.thecrookedheath.com/witchnf.htm ) I can't count how many
                                          times I have heard people claim that the "Great Rite" is Gnostic in
                                          origin or that Gnosticism originated with the Greek or Italian
                                          version of "the Old Religion". The problem is that this sect
                                          of "Cainites" didn't actually exist and there is no good evidence
                                          that ANY ancient Gnostic sect practiced anything similar to the OTO,
                                          Wicca, or the so called "Great Rite" (and more than simply the lack
                                          of evidence, the essence of the rite itself simply isn't Gnostic).
                                          When I point this out to people they sometimes become very angry and
                                          can't accept this information because it goes against what they
                                          believe in spite of the fact that there is not really evidence to
                                          support their belief (and a good reason to deny this belief).

                                          To add to this topic, Hermetic_Star mentioned Kemeticism. The word
                                          has two meanings.... one being historical practice of, and the other
                                          being the recreation of, Egyptian rites. The problem is that what
                                          most people talk about with the word "Kemeticism" is something that
                                          didn't actually exist in historical Egypt. Like "stregheria"
                                          and "wicca" this is something that people have tried to attatch to
                                          Gnosticism (though I understand that was not Hermetic Star's intent
                                          at all, I am just adding to the examples).

                                          I think you can see why I would want to be very careful, and a bit
                                          skeptical, in how this subject may come up in this particular group.

                                          PMCV
                                        • nakedalchemy@aol.com
                                          In a message dated 1/24/2005 2:30:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes: Mychael.... ... those who would make them suffer, but its roots
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Jan 24, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            In a message dated 1/24/2005 2:30:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:

                                            Mychael....

                                            >>"stregheria came out of the persecutions of the Church and of
                                            those who would make them suffer, but its roots go further back than
                                            even its beginnings of it persecutions, into Etruscan, Egyptian, and
                                            perhaps even further, which they understood, therefore calling it La
                                            Vecchia Religione.

                                            There have been modern writers who have melded Stregheria and Wicca
                                            together such as Raven Grimasi, which has done more damage to the
                                            older Streghe lore. such was discovered by a few researchers in the
                                            1800-early 1900's long before Gardner appeared on the scene.
                                            Aradia, Gospel of the Witches by Charles Leland first published in
                                            1899, and the Gold Bough by George Frazer first published in 1922
                                            who also touches upon "Diana of the Woods" etc having to do with
                                            the "craft"."<<<

                                            Could be, that is the story anyways, eh? The problem is, in the eyes
                                            of most historians Leland's Aradia is no more historical fact than
                                            the Da Vinci Codes, and Frazer fairs only slightly better against
                                            historical evidence. The same is true of Murrey's works on the
                                            subject, and a host of modern notions like the so called "Burning
                                            Times" (as you are already aware) Here is what I mean for anyone who
                                            is not sure.... http://www.cog.org/witch_hunt.html ...(though it is
                                            off topic here).
                                            I wouldn't put any historical credence to witchcraft except to say it has always existed in some form or another...it was never organized, and likely many of the ritual aspects, besides being in the minds of Crowley and Gardner, et al.,stemmed from the mystery traditions of Dionysus, The Bona Dea cults and many other elements
                                            Like myth of another type, Leland and Frazer only delved into mythical aspects, Leland mostly from a single source. So, like any myth there are elements of truth.. this aside, the "burning Times" I was never sold on since it wasn't merely "witches" but anyone the Church deemed to be. Not to say it didn't happen, it did, many people died, but over a long period which reached a peak, but this is neither here nor there concerning gnostic thought.
                                            My only point was that there is a vast difference between Wicca and Stregheria, of which I will not go into here, and I believe my only other point was that it came long before Wicca.

                                            I know, just because historians generally don't believe this "La
                                            Vecchia Religione" ever really existed doesn't mean it isn't so. Let
                                            me relate this to Gnosticism though, because there are some out
                                            there who do try to make the connection (though I know you did not,
                                            Mychael).
                                             
                                            There are two points to make here, regardless of what some historians conjecture, that witchcraft did exist in very ancient times, that as far as it relating to being the Old Religion, it stems from the earliest of shamans(which is a borrowed word) and the onset of a matriarchal society and more of a "folk religion" than anything. Now, as far as the Great Rite is concerned, I feel it is an extension of the ritual connotation of the King and Queen of Alchemy, and goes back to a time when there was a sacred notion about intercourse between man and woman representative of god and goddess in the creation themes all around the world, which is the closest it comes to gnostic concept..although I understand there were gnostic sects who practiced ritual sex (The Barbeloites?) It was never the invention of witches, possibly only at a later time when many were accused also of having sex with the Devil.

                                            There are many people out there, especially people interested in
                                            Crowley or Samael Aun Woer, who have a need to talk about sexual
                                            rituals in Gnosticism via the so called "Cainites". Similar claims
                                            are made for the so called "Craft" (here is an example
                                            http://www.thecrookedheath.com/witchnf.htm ) I can't count how many
                                            times I have heard people claim that the "Great Rite" is Gnostic in
                                            origin or that Gnosticism originated with the Greek or Italian
                                            version of "the Old Religion". The problem is that this sect
                                            of "Cainites" didn't actually exist and there is no good evidence
                                            that ANY ancient Gnostic sect practiced anything similar to the OTO,
                                            Wicca, or the so called "Great Rite" (and more than simply the lack
                                            of evidence, the essence of the rite itself simply isn't Gnostic).
                                            When I point this out to people they sometimes become very angry and
                                            can't accept this information because it goes against what they
                                            believe in spite of the fact that there is not really evidence to
                                            support their belief (and a good reason to deny this belief).

                                            To add to this topic, Hermetic_Star mentioned Kemeticism. The word
                                            has two meanings.... one being historical practice of, and the other
                                            being the recreation of, Egyptian rites. The problem is that what
                                            most people talk about with the word "Kemeticism" is something that
                                            didn't actually exist in historical Egypt. Like "stregheria"
                                            and "wicca" this is something that people have tried to attatch to
                                            Gnosticism (though I understand that was not Hermetic Star's intent
                                            at all, I am just adding to the examples).
                                             
                                            I see very little similarities between Stregheria, Wicca and Gnosticism, except that my own base is as a Pagan, and as a Pagan I have had an open mind towards all sort of avenues, paths or whatnot, and my Pagan base is Hermetic as such are considered Pagan Gnostic texts. this is the only attachment, but being a Pagan does not necessarily entail being a witch. In fact, if there is such a thing as a "pagan religion" it is a highly personalized one much like Gnosticism has become.

                                            I think you can see why I would want to be very careful, and a bit
                                            skeptical, in how this subject may come up in this particular group.
                                            PMCV
                                             
                                            Yes, I would agree, there are sensitive ideas pertaining to Paganism and certain aspects of Gnostic based Christianity and such and would not fit the topics too well.I also read somewhere, at the time, the gnostic sects did not care much for pagans in general, either.

                                            Mychael


                                             
                                          • pmcvflag
                                            Now it looks like we have some interesting topical material to discuss, Mychael. You state..... ... care much for pagans in general, either.
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Jan 24, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Now it looks like we have some interesting topical material to
                                              discuss, Mychael. You state.....

                                              >>"I also read somewhere, at the time, the gnostic sects did not
                                              care much for pagans in general, either."<<

                                              That would depend on what we mean by "pagan". As you already know,
                                              in those days the word "pagan" simply meant any kind of ignorant
                                              rural person... it didn't have anything to do with religion. The
                                              notion of "pagans" being any non-Cchristian religion the way it
                                              means to many people today simply didn't exist in the time of the
                                              Gnostics. So, it is actually impossible to say "Gnostics didn't like
                                              pagans", and mean it in the modern usage of the word.

                                              Gnostics did value education and, well, "knowledge", so if we use
                                              the older meaning of "pagan" as "ignorant peasant", then there is no
                                              doubt that ignorance is opposed to knowledge.

                                              You brought up a good example though... Hermeticism. Let me briefly
                                              outline this for others who may be following the conversation in
                                              case they are not sure what we are talking about. Of course, there
                                              are two types of Hermeticism, the magical/alchemical form and
                                              the "classical" form. There are some writers out there who have
                                              talked about Classical Hermeticism as "Pagan Gnosticism".... which
                                              is a misnomer because this kind of Hermeticism is neither
                                              technically pagan, nor is it technically Gnostic. It is however very
                                              closely related to Gnosticism..... so much so that if we removed
                                              some key terms you might have a hard time telling if some of the
                                              texts actually fit in one group or the other.

                                              So back to your point, Mychael. There are Hermetic texts that were
                                              discovered in the Nag Hammadi codexes that weren't known from the
                                              Corpus Hermeticum. There are also commonly used terms that exist
                                              both in Gnostic texts and in the Hermetic counterparts (such
                                              as "Thrice Great", etc..) In fact, there is even a passage in the
                                              Bruce Codex that outright uses the term "the thrice begotton
                                              Hermes".... and we also see the Logos in the hermetic
                                              text "Poimandres", for an instance in the other direction.

                                              It is obvious there was an interaction between Hermetic and Gnostic
                                              sources, and the influence most likely went both ways.
                                              Pythagorianism seems also to have been practiced by some Gnostics
                                              (we are told that Carpocratians held Pythagoras to be equal with
                                              Jesus). Again, though, like Hermeticism Pythagorianism is not
                                              technically "pagan".... so perhaps this doesn't help. However, from
                                              modern common usage neither Hermeticism nor Pythagoreanism
                                              are "Christian", so I suppose many would call it "pagan", in which
                                              case it could not be accurate to say that Gnostics "did not care for
                                              pagans in general".

                                              >>>"although I understand there were gnostic sects who practiced
                                              ritual sex (The Barbeloites?)"<<<

                                              Ah, but that is my point... the Borborites are accused of these
                                              things, but in fact the accusation can be removed by observation of
                                              the elements of the accusation itself. For one, none of the sources
                                              actually claim to have seen these kind of rituals, and Irenaus even
                                              admits that he doubts the accusations are more than urban legends
                                              (and this is not a man known for pulling punches).

                                              The fact is this.... one of the main accusations that Romans charged
                                              against Christianity was the supposed practice of cannibalism, based
                                              on the liturature outlining the Eucharist. The notion that
                                              historical Gnostics practiced sex rites was based on the same kind
                                              of readings. Just as we are pretty safe questioning the accusation
                                              that Christians were actually cannibals, we are also pretty safe
                                              questioning these supposed sex rituals.... generally speaking.

                                              PMCV
                                            • nakedalchemy@aol.com
                                              In a message dated 1/25/2005 12:07:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes: Now it looks like we have some interesting topical material
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Jan 24, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                In a message dated 1/25/2005 12:07:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
                                                Now it looks like we have some interesting topical material to
                                                discuss, Mychael. You state.....

                                                >>"I also read somewhere, at the time, the gnostic sects did not
                                                care much for pagans in general, either."<<

                                                That would depend on what we mean by "pagan". As you already know,
                                                in those days the word "pagan" simply meant any kind of ignorant
                                                rural person... it didn't have anything to do with religion. The
                                                notion of "pagans" being any non-Cchristian religion the way it
                                                means to many people today simply didn't exist in the time of the
                                                Gnostics. So, it is actually impossible to say "Gnostics didn't like
                                                pagans", and mean it in the modern usage of the word.

                                                Gnostics did value education and, well, "knowledge", so if we use
                                                the older meaning of "pagan" as "ignorant peasant", then there is no
                                                doubt that ignorance is opposed to knowledge.

                                                You brought up a good example though... Hermeticism. Let me briefly
                                                outline this for others who may be following the conversation in
                                                case they are not sure what we are talking about. Of course, there
                                                are two types of Hermeticism, the magical/alchemical form and
                                                the "classical" form. There are some writers out there who have
                                                talked about Classical Hermeticism as "Pagan Gnosticism".... which
                                                is a misnomer because this kind of Hermeticism is neither
                                                technically pagan, nor is it technically Gnostic. It is however very
                                                closely related to Gnosticism..... so much so that if we removed
                                                some key terms you might have a hard time telling if some of the
                                                texts actually fit in one group or the other.

                                                So back to your point, Mychael. There are Hermetic texts that were
                                                discovered in the Nag Hammadi codexes that weren't known from the
                                                Corpus Hermeticum. There are also commonly used terms that exist
                                                both in Gnostic texts and in the Hermetic counterparts (such
                                                as "Thrice Great", etc..) In fact, there is even a passage in the
                                                Bruce Codex that outright uses the term "the thrice begotton
                                                Hermes".... and we also see the Logos in the hermetic
                                                text "Poimandres", for an instance in the other direction.

                                                It is obvious there was an interaction between Hermetic and Gnostic
                                                sources, and the influence most likely went both ways.
                                                Pythagorianism seems also to have been practiced by some Gnostics
                                                (we are told that Carpocratians held Pythagoras to be equal with
                                                Jesus). Again, though, like Hermeticism Pythagorianism is not
                                                technically "pagan".... so perhaps this doesn't help. However, from
                                                modern common usage neither Hermeticism nor Pythagoreanism
                                                are "Christian", so I suppose many would call it "pagan", in which
                                                case it could not be accurate to say that Gnostics "did not care for
                                                pagans in general".

                                                >>>"although I understand there were gnostic sects who practiced
                                                ritual sex (The Barbeloites?)"<<<

                                                Ah, but that is my point... the Borborites are accused of these
                                                things, but in fact the accusation can be removed by observation of
                                                the elements of the accusation itself. For one, none of the sources
                                                actually claim to have seen these kind of rituals, and Irenaus even
                                                admits that he doubts the accusations are more than urban legends
                                                (and this is not a man known for pulling punches).

                                                The fact is this.... one of the main accusations that Romans charged
                                                against Christianity was the supposed practice of cannibalism, based
                                                on the liturature outlining the Eucharist. The notion that
                                                historical Gnostics practiced sex rites was based on the same kind
                                                of readings. Just as we are pretty safe questioning the accusation
                                                that Christians were actually cannibals, we are also pretty safe
                                                questioning these supposed sex rituals.... generally speaking.

                                                PMCV
                                                Yes, back in the times, there may have been two views of the Pagan, that rural crowd set apart from them, since I understand gnostics in general dwelled in an urban context, but I think what is referred to is the larger belief system of general Pagan myth such as a belief in the pantheons of gods and goddesses, and, to me, at the time of the gnostic sects, when there was a sort of syncretism, but also distinctions, likely beginning with the Hebrews in Egypt when "pagan" thought was still very much alive in contrast to Jewish thought, which eventually both borrowed heavily from a Hellenistic influences or whatever.
                                                 
                                                Maybe it is a modern distinction of the point of the Hermeticists which is so closely related to Gnostic considerations whereas both involved deep philosophical contextual aspects of the Platonic sort, which, in my mind was neither pagan nor gnostic to be begin with, but since , at the time of Plato, the mythic gods were still in evidence.
                                                Why it is called Pagan Gnostic is because they were outside the realm by some small points, yet, in the Poimandres it is pretty much monistic, even as there was still a general feeling of pluralism. It is difficult from our perspectives now to distinguish between much of it except that the "gods" had relevance, and, it seems to me that the Gnostic tellings indicated by the concept of Aeons and Archons, as such were very similar in concept if not in jargon just like now we might consider "saints" as akin to the earlier versions of demi-godlike heroes of later Greek myth.
                                                Technicalities aside, there is a distinction made now between Pagan and other Gnostic sects, as might also at the time they(the gnostics) flourished, but how they viewed that distinction is anyone's guess. I think many of the gnostics saw paganism with the same disdain they had for orthodox Christians. Seemingly the gnostics stood in the middle of both extremes and as some gnostic thought filtered through just as the borrowings of pagan notions into the "stronger" Christian world as it began to grow, Christianity absorbing and meshing both in different ways.
                                                 
                                                As for sex, there is much conjecture, but, like you said, little evidence.
                                                 
                                                mychael
                                              • pmcvflag
                                                Mychael ... they had for orthodox Christians.
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Jan 27, 2005
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Mychael

                                                  >>>"I think many of the gnostics saw paganism with the same disdain
                                                  they had for orthodox Christians."<<<

                                                  Just a curious trivia that I can't remember if I mentioned here
                                                  before, but Celsus refers to the Christians as "pagans".

                                                  Anyway, the word "distain" seems rather strong.

                                                  PMCV
                                                • nakedalchemy@aol.com
                                                  In a message dated 1/28/2005 1:17:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes: Mychael ... they had for orthodox Christians.
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Jan 28, 2005
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    In a message dated 1/28/2005 1:17:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
                                                    Mychael

                                                    >>>"I think many of the gnostics saw paganism with the same disdain
                                                    they had for orthodox Christians."<<<

                                                    Just a curious trivia that I can't remember if I mentioned here
                                                    before, but Celsus refers to the Christians as "pagans".

                                                    Anyway, the word "distain" seems rather strong.

                                                    PMCV
                                                    yes, I recall reading that as well...disdain is a harsh word...would you prefer..at odds with?yet,much in common in many ways .
                                                    One thing for sure, the Gnostics did not last much longer than 300 years after Christianity took itshold. Paganism went underground but began, historically, much earlier than Biblical accounts of God. Paganism never died off, but resurfaces here and there and even now, neo-pagans are the largest growing tracts of people who have lost their other "faith"
                                                    The threads of Gnostic thought may have continued in certain philosophies over time until very recently the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts came to light again.
                                                     
                                                    mychael
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.