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

Praxis

Expand Messages
  • morphodyte
    Ireaeaus wrote of the Carpocratians: They deem it necessary, therefore, that by means of transmigration from body to body, souls should have experience of
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 9, 2002
      Ireaeaus wrote of the Carpocratians:

      "They deem it necessary,
      therefore, that by means of transmigration from body to
      body, souls should have experience of every kind of life
      as well as every kind of action (unless, indeed, by a
      single incarnation, one may be able to prevent any need
      for others, by once for all, and with equal completeness,
      doing all those things which we dare not either speak or
      hear of, nay, which we must not even conceive in our
      thoughts, nor think credible, if any such thing is mooted
      among those persons who are our fellow-citizens), in
      order that, as their writings express it, their souls,
      having made trial of every kind of life, may, at their
      departure, not be wanting in any particular."

      I would query if this consumption of experience as a requisite for
      salvation is itself based in Praxis and not Gnosis and so by
      definition of the soterological function, carpocratian school is
      therefor Practic and not Gnostic?

      Morph
    • pmcvflag
      That would be true Morph. Terje and I have debated this point, and I find myself on the inverse side of the coin as I do in the discussion with Hey Market. Of
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 9, 2002
        That would be true Morph. Terje and I have debated this point, and I
        find myself on the inverse side of the coin as I do in the discussion
        with Hey Market. Of course, it has been said by scholors
        that "Ireneaus is a better study for the psychologist than the
        historian". My point being that almost no scholors believe that this
        is actually an accurate description of the Carpocratians.

        PMCV

        --- In gnosticism2@y..., "morphodyte" <morphodyte@y...> wrote:
        > Ireaeaus wrote of the Carpocratians:
        >
        > "They deem it necessary,
        > therefore, that by means of transmigration from body to
        > body, souls should have experience of every kind of life
        > as well as every kind of action (unless, indeed, by a
        > single incarnation, one may be able to prevent any need
        > for others, by once for all, and with equal completeness,
        > doing all those things which we dare not either speak or
        > hear of, nay, which we must not even conceive in our
        > thoughts, nor think credible, if any such thing is mooted
        > among those persons who are our fellow-citizens), in
        > order that, as their writings express it, their souls,
        > having made trial of every kind of life, may, at their
        > departure, not be wanting in any particular."
        >
        > I would query if this consumption of experience as a requisite for
        > salvation is itself based in Praxis and not Gnosis and so by
        > definition of the soterological function, carpocratian school is
        > therefor Practic and not Gnostic?
        >
        > Morph
      • hey_market
        Morph makes a good point PMCV. And I m kinda curious how you re juxstaposing praxis vs. gnosis (and it does seem like you re opposing the two). Or maybe not.
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 10, 2002
          Morph makes a good point PMCV. And I'm kinda curious how
          you're juxstaposing praxis vs. gnosis (and it does seem like
          you're opposing the two).

          Or maybe not. Please shed some light.

          --- In gnosticism2@y..., "morphodyte" <morphodyte@y...> wrote:
          > Ireaeaus wrote of the Carpocratians:
          >
          > "They deem it necessary,
          > therefore, that by means of transmigration from body to
          > body, souls should have experience of every kind of life
          > as well as every kind of action (unless, indeed, by a
          > single incarnation, one may be able to prevent any need
          > for others, by once for all, and with equal completeness,
          > doing all those things which we dare not either speak or
          > hear of, nay, which we must not even conceive in our
          > thoughts, nor think credible, if any such thing is mooted
          > among those persons who are our fellow-citizens), in
          > order that, as their writings express it, their souls,
          > having made trial of every kind of life, may, at their
          > departure, not be wanting in any particular."
          >
          > I would query if this consumption of experience as a requisite
          for
          > salvation is itself based in Praxis and not Gnosis and so by
          > definition of the soterological function, carpocratian school is
          > therefor Practic and not Gnostic?
          >
          > Morph
        • pmcvflag
          ... A very important point indeed Morph and Hey Market. Well, of course you know that I don t mean to say that I think praxis is in opposition to Gnosis. You
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 10, 2002
            --- In gnosticism2@y..., hey_market <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            > Morph makes a good point PMCV. And I'm kinda curious how
            > you're juxstaposing praxis vs. gnosis (and it does seem like
            > you're opposing the two).

            A very important point indeed Morph and Hey Market. Well, of course
            you know that I don't mean to say that I think praxis is in
            opposition to Gnosis. You know, Hey Market, that I am all about the
            praxis ;) Let me put it another way....

            Anders Nygren was an emenent theologan. He was a Bishop for the
            Church of Sweden, and some of his books are required reading in
            Lutheran seminaries around the world. In his most famous work "Agape
            and Eros" he sets forth the basic church belief concerning "Gnosis".
            The church does in fact officially recognize the existance of a
            spiritual "Gnosis", which is said to be one of the "charismata".
            This "Gnosis" is even related to the salvational effect..... because
            it leads to a more perfect practice of faith and agape. Without that
            result though, "Gnosis" is not only seen as useless, but even harmful
            to the spirit (the way many of us see pistis). His attack on "Gnosis"
            is the same as the other polemicists... it "puffs up", creates to
            much examination of the self, and a host of other evils. In fact, it
            is stated pretty clearly that one is better off leaving this "Gnosis"
            alone. If one is given "Gnosis" by providence, then one should only
            use it to bolster thier true and perfect pistis, and agape.

            In spite of such dangers, and the fact that Gnosis is not salvation,
            Gnosis is still officially recognized. I don't think any of us here
            would suggest that Anders or the Lutheran church is a Gnostic by any
            means.

            Gnostic texts do not say that we should not have faith. In fact,
            faith is repeatedly dealt with in a positive light.... as something
            that can lead to the more important Gnosis. Sophia is even called
            Pistis _before_ the fall. There are also numerous passages in the Nag
            Hammadi that make very clear the importance of praxis. I mean, after
            all, initiation is a praxis right? No one can dispute the importance
            that Gnosticism placed on the initiatory process... certainly not I.
            The question here is, which is the goal and which is the methodology
            meant to reach it.

            I am unaware of no belief systems that don't have some kind of
            version of all three... praxis, gnosis, and pistis. Pentecostals
            accept all three but pistis is where the final salvific effect rests.
            Populist versions of Judaism in the time of Jesus excepted all three
            as well, but the emphasis rested in praxis... keep the contract with
            YHVH, and he will do so with you.

            I think it can be amply demonstrated that traditional forms of
            Gnosticism accepted all three. As we already know, Valintinus worked
            within the orthodox church. Opposition to "othodoxy" is not an
            intrinsic Gnostic attribute, so faith had it's place just as praxis
            did with the Valintinians.

            What I'm trying to say is, these three principles are not opposed
            within a single path (though some may be left behind in favor of
            others), I only set them up in contrast (for conversational purposes)
            when we are talking about where the emphasis rests, where that final
            salvific effect is based.

            PMCV
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.