Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Valentinian Christians
- On 1/6/06, lady_caritas <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
--- In email@example.com, Benjamin BAum <hoomerick2@g...> wrote:
> On 1/5/06, Gerry gerryhsp@y... wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Benjamin BAum hoomerick2@g... wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > try
> > > *St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies*
> > >
> > Given the relative paucity of firsthand Gnostic material available to us,
> > it's pretty much a given that we will find ourselves synthesizing
> > information from a wide spectrum of sources. If I had to put my eggs in one
> > basket, however, I really can't see going with St. Heresy Hunter, *par
> > excellence*. That would be rather like asking a Nazi to illuminate us on
> > the finer points of Judaism.
> > Gerry
> Yes ..but as you mentioned "As David Brons mentioned in his essay on the
> organization of the Valentinian church, it seems that Valentinians didn't
> really see themselves as "separate" from their increasingly orthodox
> thus Gnosticism was within the "original" christianity......
Of course, David Brons was referring only to the Valentinians, not other Gnostics like, oh, Sethians, for instance.
but I dont
> really feel the need to scream from the rafters "I am not like them" as many
> do...... Iraneus' theology was a lot more interestring to me than say
> Basildean...with the allusions of abraxis and "cosmic sperm" creating
I don't hear anyone screaming, Ben, but hey, different strokes... Then again, it seems most of the blaring came from the likes of people such as Tertullian and Irenaeus.
Also from the article:
"With a few exceptions, Valentinians were an accepted part of Christian congregations until the fourth century. Gradually the views of extremists such as Irenaeus and Tertullian prevailed and known Valentinians were expelled from Catholic congregations. They continued to meet in secret but increasingly they began to take on an identity as an independent sect."
BTW, Basilides was not a Valentinian, but, of course, was considered a "heretic" by Irenaeus who reviled him. Also, were these allusions you mention purported to be statements of Basilides? Do you have a reference?
>>Members wore stones or gems cut in various symbolic forms, such as the heads of fowl and serpents. The Basilideans worshipped a supreme god called Abraxas (or Abracax) and claimed that Jesus Christ was only a phantom sent to earth by him....etcVSThe central point of Irenaeus' theology is the unity of God, in opposition to the Gnostics' division of God into a number of divine " Aeons", and their distinction between the "High God" and the wicked " Demiurge" who created the world. Irenaeus uses the Logos theology he inherited from Justin Martyr, but prefers to speak of the Son and the Spirit as the "hands of God". Christ, for him, is the invisible Father made visible....etcSHrug..."a phantom sent to earth" a bit like magic floating sperm in the spirit realm waiting to incarnate....as opposed to God...but then that is a split within modern and ancient Gnosticism is it not? magic vs mystic......(awaits screaming "no" from people here...)
By working the soil we cultivate good manners
Is to say "please" and "thank you"
Especially for the things you never had
And always say "thank you"
Especially for broccoli
16 Feb 1962 - 13 Nov 2004
- hello AA.... maybe these particular Wiccan and NewAge teachers you speak of need to develop the capacityto recognize those "empty containers" (I think of thetype of approach you described more as entertainmentand identity seeking) and turn them away at the doorbefore they waste everbody else's time and energy....unless, of course, as part of the teaching, thesemystical tourists are being made examples of. sometransformative traditions have this technique down toa virtual art form. its not as cruel or cold as it soundswhen to do so serves a higher purpose. which is notto say that the individual, whether they are turnedaway or made an example of, does not benefit atsome level.Your friend,Crispin Sainte IIIIn a message dated 1/26/2006 5:34:03 PM Central Standard Time, koalaKards@... writes:Hi,I don't know if this is Homer or Crispin's quote:"but imitating hand-me-down transformative traditionsin hopes of duplicating their highest accomplishmentsis pretty silly, yet it is the most common thing in theworld and few ever think twice about it. this may be abit of a cliche, but it really does boil down to containerand content; surface and depth. so if you canrecognize those who rely on the container; those whoappear to you to be empty vessels, you're way aheadof the game. and I believe you are!"I'm seeing this in Wiccan/New Age Community. Lots of wannabees they see Charmed and they look for people in the craft to teach "all that they know" then they consider themselves to be a High Priest/tess or in even New Age circles, Reiki Mastership in a weekend, or people calling themselves shaman after taking a single class just to say they are. I consider them to be "empty vessels". AA
Tsharpmin7@... wrote:hey Homer... you seem to have developed a prettymature and perceptive outlook regarding thesematters in a very short time. you're going to spareyourself a lot of wasted energy.some people approach traditional systems like Fredand Barney in the Flintstones cartoons approach theBuffalo Lodge: for its entertainment and social benefit.The secret handshakes are fun and its good to makefriends with a common interest and slip away fromthe mundane and routine. and there is nothing atall wrong with that as long you're not mistaking it forsomething higher.but imitating hand-me-down transformative traditionsin hopes of duplicating their highest accomplishmentsis pretty silly, yet it is the most common thing in theworld and few ever think twice about it. this may be abit of a cliche, but it really does boil down to containerand content; surface and depth. so if you canrecognize those who rely on the container; those whoappear to you to be empty vessels, you're way aheadof the game. and I believe you are!the use of specialized language, myth and allegorymay serve a very specific purpose when employed bythose who have already arrived where I think you wishto someday arrive, Homer. i think you'll understandthe way and why of it as you continue to study theancient Gnostics. and i do agree with you in the sensethat if there were a live and functioning Gnosticismtoday -- and i can't say for sure there isn't -- i imaginetheir use of metaphor and allegory would draw frommore contemporary sources than those employed bythe ancients; that those dusty old paradigms wouldhave long since been discarded as barriers to learningin favor of something much more accessible andimmediate. to foment confusion, even if it'sinadvertant, should be a very trustworthy indication tous that IT'S NOT HERE!as you so wisely suggest, Homer, mystery for the sakeof mystery is just plain vanity and gamesmanship.they are what they are, not what they could be.Your friend,Crispin Sainte IIIIn a message dated 1/26/2006 2:03:26 PM Central Standard Time, shaftpopper@... writes:Dear Crispin,This makes good sense to me. From what I've seen I think there is a lot of copying without understanding if what they're copying is even needed anymore. Its the same with some of the language and the myths and allegories. If I really want somebody to understand me or learn something I can teach I would try to make it as plain as I could. But I think some people like to be mysterious because it makes them feel special, and I think that just encourages the false self or our vanity. I feel like that's the wrong direction to go if you are trying to find something like what the original Gnostics were searching for. I like how in the Gnostic Gospels the Gnostics wouldn't waste their lives to be martyrs if they could help it. What a shame and a waste it would have been if they copied the orthodox Christians who thought that copying the Jesus myth would automatic get them in heaven. I think the Gnostics knew God would have to be insane to want something so cruel.Homer