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

Re: Peter, Paul and Mary! pt2

Expand Messages
  • ErnstStrohregenmantelrad
    >>>There is no such a thing as direct continuation of Hermetism.<<< So what? Never said there was, and it is irrelevent to what I
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 8, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      >>>There is no such a thing as direct
      continuation of Hermetism.<<<<br><br>So what? Never
      said there was, and it is irrelevent to what I
      said.<br>--------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Is it irrelevant? The statement is a reply to
      this.<br><br>>>>Also, do we include Hermetics and Kabbalah (both of
      which obviously continue to this day)?
      <<<<br><br>My answer is NO at least in Hermetic it didn't
      continue to this day. It was *revived* during the
      Renaissance. You are implying that di Medici upon reading the
      translated _Corpus Hermeticum_ instantly knew the complex
      initiatory esoteric system that was practiced during
      Hellenistic time which the writing was based upon (or vise
      versa)? I don't think so. So is it Hermetism the longest
      running based upon
      this?<br><br>---------------------------------------------------------------<br>>>>The question was more or less put to the rest by the
      Cologne Mani Codex verifiying the writing of
      al-Nad�m<<<<br><br>al_Nadim also states that Manicheans hated
      Jesus.<br><br>---------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Again, you are quoting out of the context. My reply to
      al-Nadim is based upon this from the post #5307<br><br>
      >>>It is genneraly accepted (though it has been
      questioned) that Mani was an Elkasite who left the group due
      to certain disputes.<<<<br><br>WHICH I
      REPLIED<br><br>"The question was more or less put to the rest by the
      Cologne Mani Codex verifiying the writing of al-Nad�m.
      Mani didn't leave the group according to CMC what he
      did was he had revelations from his heanenly twin
      "syzygos" in which his concepts were not recoincidable with
      those of baptists. He kept the revelation secret until
      he was forced to do so and even then he tried to
      reform the sects. Many in the baptists including his
      father joined him after he made his revelation public.
      So it is pretty simplilastic to write what you
      wrote."<br><br>You see, the "question" I am refering to, if you take
      my statement in context, deals with Mani's
      association with the baptists and his reason for leaving
      NOTHING MORE. That part of al-Nadim's writing is varified
      in CMC. I do appolize that I should of wrote "that
      question" instead of "the question". Still if one sees in
      context. You see I was refereing those two specific points
      in al-Nadim's writing that was varified by CMC. I
      was not referring to the whole al-Nadim document as
      verrified. Of course one must take al-Nadim's writing with a
      grain of salt and with a caution. It is after all a
      polmetic written against Manichaeans. But as with many
      polmetics it does contain some factual (and I do stress
      SOME) imformation (like Irenaeus'
      work)<br><br>---------------------------------------------------------------<br>>>>Again if we are to take CMC at the face
      value<<<<br><br>*IF*, and how much legend should we take at face
      value?<br><br>---------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>I don't know WHY DON'T *YOU* TELL ME. How much of
      Nag Hammadi material are you going to take at the
      face value? Tell me how much of the canonical gospel
      you are going to take at the face value. I would
      ventured to say take it unless there would surface
      external evidences that invalidate the point.<br><br>cont.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.