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

Re: Peter, Paul and Mary! pt1

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    >>>I would be satisfied if you only revised to not put the word, simply <<<< Oh for crying out loud Ernst, is that all? Ok, if you
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 11, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      >>>I would be satisfied if you only
      revised to not put the word,
      "simply"<<<<<br><br>Oh for crying out loud Ernst, is that all? Ok, if
      you don't wish to look past details to the intent,
      even after I clerify, then I'll restate it. In fact,
      I'll be safe, then argue beyond my statement... will
      that work? How is this....<br><br>"Manicheaism could
      have gained it's pseudo-Gnostic cosmology from it's
      contact with the Marcionites"<br><br>How is that for a
      rephrasing? Now for the arguement. There is no evidence that
      I'm aware of that indicates the Elkesaites had a
      cosmology that was anything like that of Mani's (at least
      you have not sited any in spite of me asking you to
      do so... hypocrite), or of Gnosticism. However, The
      Marcionites certainly did. Elkasites used Matthew,
      Marcionites and Mani used Luke (sources... Augustine and
      Faustus). Manicheans and Marcionites both emphasized faith
      and praxis over Gnosis (something we have already
      agreed apon). Of course we are dealing mostly with
      polemic sources here (Irenaeus) but what can ya do huh?
      My point is that I see some evidence in common with
      Marcion (as well as differences) where I have seen none
      for the Elkasites.<br><br>>>>As far as I can
      see he even refused to state the sourse or the line
      of thinking where this came
      from.<<<<br><br>I have not refused, I quite explicitly stated that
      there are none. After your *constant* complaints that
      no one reads your posts right, this is either sheer
      idiocy, or concious lieing on your part Ernst. If you
      ever complain about any one else not paying attention
      to you again we will be forced to assume it is
      simply adolescent
      complaining.<br><br>>>>Support please! Oh, I forgot that sort of thing hinder
      your creativety.<<< (in referrence to the
      date of Hermeticism [the added destinction of
      "hermetism" is plastic in my view])<br><br>Ok, you were
      right, I got the date wrong.... it was the 11th century
      instead of the 12th when interest (both for and against)
      Hermetic works revived. Sources (and your little quip on
      creativity was out of context once again)... Michael Psellus
      1100s,... works written between the 11th and 13th centuries
      that cite H. Trismagistos as thier source.... Tabula
      Smargdina, Picatrix, Hermes on the Reproof of the soul...
      and here is one from the twelfth century that was
      written in England "The Book of Hermes on the Six
      Principles of Nature", or how about the 12th century latin
      text "Book of Propositions or Rules of Theology said
      to be by the Philosopher Trismagistos" if you want
      theoretic rather than alchemical works. ... how about a
      list of early writers that site hermetic texts Thierry
      of Chartes (Chartres was also the seat of the
      Platonic Academy remember), Peter Abelard, Bernardus
      Silvestrus, John of Salisbury, Alain de Lille, Vincent of
      Beauvais and William of Auvergne, Thomas Bradwardine. Are
      those enough sources for you?<br><br>PMCV
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.