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

Re: The Dieing God

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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.