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

Re: [Gnosticism2] Basilides

Expand Messages
  • Benjamin BAum
    ... Ok ...its interesting yes....but I seek to do more than merely study...so I really dont see the point of spending a great deal of energy on somthing you
    Message 1 of 99 , Jan 7, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On 1/6/06, lady_caritas <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Benjamin BAum <hoomerick2@g...> wrote:
      >
      > On 1/6/06, lady_caritas no_reply@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      > >
      > > 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?
      > >
      > > Thanks,
      > >
      > > Cari
      > >
      > > >>

      >
      > SHrug..."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...)
      >
      >
      >
      > --Ben
      >
      >

      Say, Ben, again, no one is screaming here.  We're just seeking some accurate information and sometimes a glimpse of truth.  I find it all interesting, actually.

       
      Ok ...its interesting yes....but I seek to do more than merely study...so I really dont see the point of spending a great deal of energy on somthing you know is piffle.....UNLESS you are just doing it for information....which is ok......but I am not.

       

      >> 

      First of all, since you view Irenaeus's writings as interesting, let's look at Basilides' Myth According to St. Irenaeus of Lyon in _Against Heresies, Book I_. Chapter 24, Sections 3-7 (Scroll down about ¾ of the following page.):

      http://www.gnosis.org/library/advh1.htm

      Ok I shall read this when I get a chance..certainly..thank you

       

       
       

       

      >> 

      You may notice that the "father" is not the same as the ruler "Abraxas" (Abrasaks) (chief of the heavens, but not a supreme god) and that it was the unengendered parent (unborn father), not the ruler, from whom Christ emanated.

        >>

      Now as far as phantoms et al., may I assume you're referring to a docetic depiction of Christ, in which Jesus only appeared to have a body and was not "waiting to incarnate," ~

      http://www.answers.com/topic/docetism?gwp=

       
      no I am referring to this: The Basilideans worshipped a supreme god called Abraxas (or Abracax) and claimed that Jesus Christ was only a phantom sent to earth by him.
       
      >> 

      in contrast to an adoptionist portrayal in which Jesus, the man, would be infused with the Christ at some point, such as his baptism?

      >> 

       
      yes in contrast to this idea....which is again cosmic sperm floating about...."jesus the spirit channeler" .."jesus the medium".....this to me is false.....he's either God or he isnt......I realise this view is too Christian for many Gnostics.....I too had the view of Christ the man who awakend this special cosmic semen in himself.  Thats a nice view...its all a bit new age fluffy and "cosmic christ" like.....either God is God...or he isnt....

      How literally should we take all this?  It's evident that the historicity of a corporeal man, Jesus, didn't seem so important in a docetic rendering.   What about the possibility of this as a literary device to further underline the corruptible and incorruptible differentiations in Gnostic mythology?  The incorruptible Christ wouldn't be the same as the physical man, Jesus, of the corruptible world.

       
      yes in contrast to this idea....which is again cosmic sperm floating about...."jesus the spirit channeler" .."jesus the medium".....this to me is false.....he's either God or he isnt......I realise this view is too Christian for many Gnostics.....I too had the view of Christ the man who awakend this special cosmic semen in himself.  Thats a nice view...its all a bit new age fluffy and "cosmic christ" like.....either God is God...or he isnt....
      This means Christ was not God....but merely a lesser being...it almost makes Christ into an Archon! in my mind.....I dont fully agree with Docetism but however I dont cling to the fact that Christ was incarnate...or human...to me that is superflous......BUt....either Christ WAS/IS God or he isnt.......thats my point......thus the cosmic sperm is just as I mentioned....like some special floating archon ready to incarnate or appear on earth..when told to......which is NOT God....

      Well I fully beleive the Physical Christ was a reincarnation of the Adam Cadmon....frankly one thing I like about Gnosticism is that it fully embraces the fact that even God can make mistakes!

      But then this again is magick vs mysticism......cosmic sperm vs God......
       
      In Christ and Sophia
      Ben
       

      >> 

      Just some thoughts.

      >> 

      Cari

       

      >> 

       --
      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

      Jhonn Balance
      16 Feb 1962 - 13 Nov 2004

    • Tsharpmin7@aol.com
      hello AA.... maybe these particular Wiccan and New Age teachers you speak of need to develop the capacity to recognize those empty containers (I think of
      Message 99 of 99 , Jan 27, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        hello AA....   maybe these particular Wiccan and New
        Age teachers you speak of need to develop the capacity
        to recognize those "empty containers" (I think of the
        type of approach you described more as entertainment
        and identity seeking) and turn them away at the door
        before they waste everbody else's time and energy....
        unless, of course, as part of the teaching, these
        mystical tourists are being made examples of.  some
        transformative traditions have this technique down to
        a virtual art form.  its not as cruel or cold as it sounds
        when to do so serves a higher purpose.  which is not
        to say that the individual, whether they are turned
        away or made an example of, does not benefit at
        some level.
         
        Your friend,
         
        Crispin Sainte III
         
         
        In 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 traditions
        in hopes of duplicating their highest accomplishments
        is pretty silly, yet it is the most common thing in the
        world and few ever think twice about it.  this may be a
        bit of a cliche, but it really does boil down to container
        and content; surface and depth.  so if you can
        recognize those who rely on the container; those who
        appear to you to be empty vessels, you're way ahead
        of 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 pretty
        mature and perceptive outlook regarding these
        matters in a very short time.  you're going to spare
        yourself a lot of wasted energy.
         
        some people approach traditional systems like Fred
        and Barney in the Flintstones cartoons approach the
        Buffalo Lodge: for its entertainment and social benefit. 
        The secret handshakes are fun and its good to make
        friends with a common interest and slip away from
        the mundane and routine.  and there is nothing at
        all wrong with that as long you're not mistaking it for
        something higher.
         
        but imitating hand-me-down transformative traditions
        in hopes of duplicating their highest accomplishments
        is pretty silly, yet it is the most common thing in the
        world and few ever think twice about it.  this may be a
        bit of a cliche, but it really does boil down to container
        and content; surface and depth.  so if you can
        recognize those who rely on the container; those who
        appear to you to be empty vessels, you're way ahead
        of the game.  and I believe you are!
         
        the use of specialized language, myth and allegory
        may serve a very specific purpose when employed by
        those who have already arrived where I think you wish
        to someday arrive, Homer.  i think you'll understand
        the way and why of it as you continue to study the
        ancient Gnostics.  and i do agree with you in the sense
        that if there were a live and functioning Gnosticism
        today -- and i can't say for sure there isn't -- i imagine
        their use of metaphor and allegory would draw from
        more contemporary sources than those employed by
        the ancients; that those dusty old paradigms would
        have long since been discarded as barriers to learning
        in favor of something much more accessible and
        immediate.  to foment confusion, even if it's
        inadvertant, should be a very trustworthy indication to
        us that IT'S NOT HERE!
         
        as you so wisely suggest, Homer, mystery for the sake
        of mystery is just plain vanity and gamesmanship.
        they are what they are, not what they could be.
         
        Your friend,
         
        Crispin Sainte III
         
        In 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
         
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.