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

Re: Peter, Paul and Mary! pt8

Expand Messages
  • ErnstStrohregenmantelrad
    >>>Sethians came before Valintinians. Well, of course I m using Sethian in the Generic sense, but that is widely accepted and pretty
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 6, 2001
      >>>Sethians came before Valintinians.
      Well, of course I'm using "Sethian" in the Generic
      sense, but that is widely accepted and pretty
      obvious.<<<<br><br>When you say "Sethian" there is STILL discrepency to
      what constitutes "Sethian." Some scholar such as
      Frederik Wisse asserts that there is no such group
      existed. ("Stalking Those Elusive Sethians" in _The
      Rediscovery of Gnosticism II Sethian Gnosticism ed. Bentley
      Layton, Brill 1981 , p.563-576). What the scholars did
      was come up with the term, "Sethian" based upon the
      common mythological theme of Seth (the son of Adam) in
      the litertures of Nag Hammadi and names of heresies
      produced by heresiologists such as Hippolytus. There is
      still arguement as to see what really constitute
      "Sethian". Is it a "school", a "sect", a "tradition" etc....
      or just literary genre or motiv? We really don't
      know. One thing for certain is that we can not claim
      "Sethian" like "Valentinian" (which had definate founder)
      under the current circumstance. If you claim to be
      using "Sethian" as "generic" sense as you stated then
      you are also falling into the trap of classifying
      what is Jewish in nature in Gnosticism (or Nag
      Hammadi) under the simple rubic of "Sethianism". This
      arguement could be deconstructed under the same arguement
      set forth by Michael Williams on the term Gnosticism
      (which you feel dear to). If Jewishness of Gnosticism
      (Sethian) came before Christianization then then it is
      obvious fact; however, to term that as a specific entity
      without any tangeble evidence is pretty
      immature.<br><br>>>> ...but then again, if you notice I state things
      like "it has been argued", meaning we don't have
      enough facts so I'm not saying these things are positive
      truths.<<<<br><br>The thing is even though you incerted a pharse like
      "it has been argued" if you don't present the total
      picture of that arguement (meaning also give other
      arguments) then less imformed will take your 'argument" as
      fact. Further more, I feel that the way you presensed
      your "argument" it gives the hint of it being proven
      aruguement which doesn't call for any substantial support.
      The topic you covered DO NEED substantial support.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.