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

Re: Peter, Paul and Mary! pt2

Expand Messages
  • ErnstStrohregenmantelrad
    >>>I don t believe ANY of them came up with the ideas on thier own. Why would I asuume such of Mani if not to Basilides who was before
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 8, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      >>>I don't believe ANY of them came up
      with the ideas on thier own. Why would I asuume such
      of Mani if not to Basilides who was before
      him?<<<<br><br>Again quoting me out of the context. Please, read
      carefully as what I wrote and keep in mind the word
      "metrix".<br><br>>>>In my opinion Elchasaites or any other
      Jewish-Christians did indeed have the cosmology of what is later
      termed as Gnostics. That is the concept "die
      Himmelsreise". It is premature to say just because Manichaeism
      has the anti-Judaic concept within the dualistic
      cosmology that one comes from another. One must keep in
      mind that Judaic setting is needed as much as
      rejecting it. Gnostic Sethians (more on them later) and
      Valentinians came up with the cosmology within this matrix
      (supposely all on their own). Why not Mani? If we follow
      your reasoning here we should also assume that
      Sethians and Valentinians got thier cosmology from Marcion
      (which might be the case, who
      knows).<<<<br><br>You see "within this matrix" refers to "Himmelsreise"
      which is so prevent in Merkabah and apocry Jewish
      writings and also in Hermetism. You had me saying Mani
      pulled out his cosmology from the thin air. I stated no
      such a thing. All I stated was why just simply assume
      Mani got his cosmology from Marcionites where he could
      got it from myriad of sources not to the least the
      "Himmelsreise" concept that is inherited in a Jewish Christian
      group like Elchasaites. And Basilides came up with from
      the thin air? No he also produced it within that
      metrix.<br><br>---------------------------------------------------------------<br>>>>When you say "Sethian" there is STILL discrepency to
      what constitutes "Sethian."<<<<br><br>As I
      was the first in this club to point out, thank you
      much.<br><br>---------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>What? What I am suppose to do? Give you a medal? So do
      you also pointed out first in the club that the term
      "Sethian" is more or less a usuless term (if you follow
      that discrepency) devised by modern scholars much to
      the same argument brought in by M. Williams to the
      term "Gnosticism"? I sure you wrote all of that. So
      please point out to me
      where.<br><br>>>>Actually I thought most of this book was crap (with the
      exception of a few essays).<<<<br><br>Which books?
      One edited by van den Broek and Hanegraaff or by
      Rudolf? I assume it is the formar because you mentions "a
      few essays" Anyway I pointed out the books to give
      the reference to Mani's birthday nothing more. I
      didn't expect your full inditement on the book based
      upon your bias which disagrees with some conclusions
      in the book. In fact, you open the can of worm why
      don't you list and state the reason why you thought the
      book was "crap" rather then just weine about it. As
      you know Hey_Market for one reason or another
      recomends the book as a suggested reading. Isn't that fly
      right in his face? Is that would be confusing to a
      beginner who reads this board? I also don't agree with
      every point that is made in that book; however, I don't
      dismiss it as "crap" as you did. In minor detail some
      information MIGHT be wrong but what they are trying to
      achieve (by try to unify the Western Esoteric Tradition
      through ages) it must be commented to a certain
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.