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

Re: Valentinian Breakfast

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    ... Hi, Felis. I would imagine this fragment could serve to support a docetic view. Also, Bentley Layton suggests in _The Gnostic Scriptures_, p. 238 ~ ...
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 24, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@y..., s_e_k_h_m_e_t <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > Did we have this quote before?
      >
      > Fragment 3: From the 'Epistle to Agathopous'
      >
      > He was continent, enduring all things. (The risen) Jesus digested
      > divinity: he ate and drank in a special way without excreting his
      > solids. He had such a great capacity for continence that the
      > nourishment within him was not corrupted, for he did not experience
      > corruption.
      >
      > http://www.cyberus.ca/~brons/valfrag.htm#AGATHOPOUS

      Hi, Felis. I would imagine this fragment could serve to support a
      docetic view.

      Also, Bentley Layton suggests in _The Gnostic Scriptures_, p. 238 ~
      >In this fragment Valentinus discusses Jesus' "continence" (the greek
      term, _enkrateia_, means abstemiousness in the use of wine, meat,
      sex, etc.), perhaps as a model for Christian behavior (cf. IrSat
      1.24.2). His exaggerated statement about Jesus' digestion may be
      based on a New Testament story of Jesus' command to the people of
      Tiberias in Jn 6:27, playing upon the double meaning of the Greek
      verb "to labor for," which can also mean "to digest": "Jesus answered
      them . . . `Do not _labor for_ (or _digest_) the food which perishes,
      but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the son of man
      will give to you.'"<

      Any other ideas?

      Cari
    • Coraxo
      We had a different quote; but I do like the play on eating excreting which we also see in the Manichee theogony. The quote I proferred was; The Savior
      Message 2 of 7 , Jun 24, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        We had a different quote; but I do like the play on eating excreting which
        we also see in the Manichee theogony.

        The quote I proferred was; "The Savior swallowed up death - (of this) you
        are not reckoned as being ignorant - for he put aside the world which is
        perishing. He transformed himself into an imperishable Aeon and raised
        himself up, having swallowed the visible by the invisible, and he gave us
        the way of our immortality."

        This is from the Treatise on Resurrection, the epistle to Rheginos.

        But the exotericist critique of the fragment you posted has been based on
        the reduction ad absurdum that Christ did not make caca.

        However, Caritas makes a good point that this speaks to docetic principles.

        Corax



        From: s_e_k_h_m_e_t <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
        Reply-To: gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:39:37 -0000
        To: gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [Gnosticism] Valentinian Breakfast


        Did we have this quote before?

        Fragment 3: From the 'Epistle to Agathopous'

        He was continent, enduring all things. (The risen) Jesus digested
        divinity: he ate and drank in a special way without excreting his
        solids. He had such a great capacity for continence that the
        nourishment within him was not corrupted, for he did not experience
        corruption.

        http://www.cyberus.ca/~brons/valfrag.htm#AGATHOPOUS


        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
        <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
      • s_e_k_h_m_e_t
        Yes I remembered the quote about the saviour swallowing death and thought the one I posted made a kind of complement to it. And yes I thought it either
        Message 3 of 7 , Jun 24, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes I remembered the quote about the saviour swallowing death and
          thought the one I posted made a kind of complement to it.

          And yes I thought it either referred to docetism or could be read in
          such a way as to refer to it, but I was interested in what others
          might make of it so refrained from spelling that out.

          I also thought it might relate to that idea about eating being a
          means of converting gross matter into light (although, so help me, I
          am troubled over what a sewage worker might make of such a concept).

          I am still wondering about the saviour swallowing up death. Of
          course it is a dramatic piece of rhetoric, in that death is
          conventionally perceived as swallowing the individual and the saviour
          is seen to subvert this process.

          But if docetism is accepted, then there *is* no death in the first
          place. Just as the saviour might not excrete solids on the basis
          that there are in reality no solids to excrete and no solid body with
          which to excrete them.

          Thus the saviour does not excrete solids because docetism suggests
          there was no true substance to what he ate in the first place. What
          then of death?

          And who in this is the 'saviour'?

          Is it Jesus or is it the Christed gnostic?

          Felis


          --- In gnosticism2@y..., Coraxo <coraxo@e...> wrote:
          > We had a different quote; but I do like the play on eating
          excreting which
          > we also see in the Manichee theogony.
          >
          > The quote I proferred was; "The Savior swallowed up death - (of
          this) you
          > are not reckoned as being ignorant - for he put aside the world
          which is
          > perishing. He transformed himself into an imperishable Aeon and
          raised
          > himself up, having swallowed the visible by the invisible, and he
          gave us
          > the way of our immortality."
          >
          > This is from the Treatise on Resurrection, the epistle to Rheginos.
          >
          > But the exotericist critique of the fragment you posted has been
          based on
          > the reduction ad absurdum that Christ did not make caca.
          >
          > However, Caritas makes a good point that this speaks to docetic
          principles.
          >
          > Corax
          >
          >
          >
          > From: s_e_k_h_m_e_t <no_reply@y...>
          > Reply-To: gnosticism2@y...
          > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:39:37 -0000
          > To: gnosticism2@y...
          > Subject: [Gnosticism] Valentinian Breakfast
          >
          >
          > Did we have this quote before?
          >
          > Fragment 3: From the 'Epistle to Agathopous'
          >
          > He was continent, enduring all things. (The risen) Jesus digested
          > divinity: he ate and drank in a special way without excreting his
          > solids. He had such a great capacity for continence that the
          > nourishment within him was not corrupted, for he did not experience
          > corruption.
          >
          > http://www.cyberus.ca/~brons/valfrag.htm#AGATHOPOUS
          >
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > gnosticism2-unsubscribe@y...
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
          > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
        • morphodyte
          ... saviour ... If we consider the greek term sarcophagus; body swallower, then I think you may be on to something. Would you care to expand on this further?
          Message 4 of 7 , Jun 24, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gnosticism2@y..., "s_e_k_h_m_e_t" <sekhmet@z...> wrote:

            > I am still wondering about the saviour swallowing up death. Of
            > course it is a dramatic piece of rhetoric, in that death is
            > conventionally perceived as swallowing the individual and the
            saviour
            > is seen to subvert this process.

            If we consider the greek term sarcophagus; body swallower,
            then I think you may be on to something.

            Would you care to expand on this further?

            Morph
          • s_e_k_h_m_e_t
            There is a quote: Since by Man came Death By Man came also the resurrection of the Dead Unfortunately I only remember it from Handel s Messiah and am not
            Message 5 of 7 , Jun 24, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              There is a quote:

              "Since by Man came Death
              By Man came also the resurrection of the Dead"

              Unfortunately I only remember it from Handel's Messiah and am not
              sure whether he lifted it from Psalms, Proverbs or somewhere in the
              NT.

              But the inference is that the Saviour is undoing something set in
              motion by the first Adam.

              On the other hand the sarcophagus brings up ideas of Essene (and
              masonic and pyramidial) rites of rebirth (adolescent angst cliches
              from Samuel beckett too).

              Of course we have the cave like borrowed tomb (though apparently
              without a sarcophagus in it - perhaps that had to wait for Houdini)
              swallowing up the body - if there was one - taken down from the cross.

              Again, in the Valentinian theology, the Son is seen to emit the Logos.

              Now he is swallowing death. Let us hope that in his continence he
              managed to burp quietly - all that festering and fermentation could
              not be good for the digestion.



              --- In gnosticism2@y..., "morphodyte" <morphodyte@y...> wrote:
              > --- In gnosticism2@y..., "s_e_k_h_m_e_t" <sekhmet@z...> wrote:
              >
              > > I am still wondering about the saviour swallowing up death. Of
              > > course it is a dramatic piece of rhetoric, in that death is
              > > conventionally perceived as swallowing the individual and the
              > saviour
              > > is seen to subvert this process.
              >
              > If we consider the greek term sarcophagus; body swallower,
              > then I think you may be on to something.
              >
              > Would you care to expand on this further?
              >
              > Morph
            • Coraxo
              Ptolemy writes; Finally, there is the part translated and changed from the literal to the spiritual, this symbolic legislation which is an image of
              Message 6 of 7 , Jun 24, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Ptolemy writes;

                "Finally, there is the part translated and changed from the literal to the
                spiritual, this symbolic legislation which is an image of transcendent
                things. For the images and symbols which represent other things were good as
                long as the Truth has not come; but since the Truth has come, we must
                perform the actions of the Truth, not those of the image. "

                Thus we find the translation from exoteric to esoteric, similar applications
                are found among the Ismaili regard towards the fast and obligatory prayers
                in modern Ismailism.

                Ptolemy writes;

                "Thus the Savior commaned us to make offerings not of irrational animals or
                of the incense of this worldly sort, but of spiritual praise and
                glorification and thanksgiving and of sharing and well-doing with our
                neighbors. He wanted us to be circumcised, not in regard to our physical
                foreskin but in regard to our spiritual heart; to keep the Sabbath, for he
                wishes us to be idle in regard to evil works; to fast, not in physical
                fasting but in spiritual, in which there is abstinence from everything evil.
                "

                By modern analogy, the ismailis likewise fast not only in Ramezan, but are
                enjoined to abstain from all unrighteous speech and actions, the true
                meaning of the fast.

                So it would seem that Ptolemy is making esoteric interpretation of the Law,
                enjoining Flora to ethics rather than obedience to exoteric code.

                and again Ptolemy writes;

                "And if the perfect God is good by nature, in fact he is, for our Savior
                declared that there is only a single good God, his Father whom he
                manifested; and if the one who is the opposite nature is evil and wicked,
                characterized by injustice; then the one situatedbetween the two is neither
                good nor evil or unjust, but can properly be called just, since he is the
                arbitrator of the justice which is his.

                On the one hand, this god will be inferior to the perfect God and the lower
                than his justice, since he is generated and not ungenerated -- there is only
                one ungenerated Father, from whom are all things [1 Cor 8:6], since all
                things depend on him in their own ways. "

                Ptolemy thus establishes the Law is only indirectly from the Father but is
                the Law of the Craftsman.

                The curious thing about Valentinian gnosticism is that it also obtains a
                salvation for the Demiurge as well, Irenaeus recorded;

                "But they relate that when the Saviour came, the Demiurge learned all things
                from Him, and gladly with all, his power joined himself to Him. They
                maintain that he is the centurion mentioned in the Gospel, who addressed the
                Saviour in these words: "For I also am one having soldiers and servants
                under my authority; and whatsoever I command they do." They further hold
                that he will continue administering the affairs of the world as long as that
                is fitting and needful, and specially that he may exercise a care over the
                Church; while at the same time he is influenced by the knowledge of the
                reward prepared for him, namely, that he may attain to the habitation of his
                mother. "

                At least that is what I can see to resolve the Ptolemaic apologies in the
                Florine Epistle.

                Again I bear in mind for my understanding is that the Florine Epistle is
                basic catechism about the Law, a letter of psychic initiation perhaps, used
                to assuage doubts regarding the Law and its relation to the Valentinian
                school, sort of a "spin-doctoring" of Mosaic Law for new converts.

                What say?

                Corax



                From: "s_e_k_h_m_e_t" <sekhmet@...>
                Reply-To: gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:02:52 -0000
                To: gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [Gnosticism] Valentinian Breakfast



                There is a quote:

                "Since by Man came Death
                By Man came also the resurrection of the Dead"

                Unfortunately I only remember it from Handel's Messiah and am not
                sure whether he lifted it from Psalms, Proverbs or somewhere in the
                NT.

                But the inference is that the Saviour is undoing something set in
                motion by the first Adam.

                On the other hand the sarcophagus brings up ideas of Essene (and
                masonic and pyramidial) rites of rebirth (adolescent angst cliches
                from Samuel beckett too).

                Of course we have the cave like borrowed tomb (though apparently
                without a sarcophagus in it - perhaps that had to wait for Houdini)
                swallowing up the body - if there was one - taken down from the cross.

                Again, in the Valentinian theology, the Son is seen to emit the Logos.

                Now he is swallowing death. Let us hope that in his continence he
                managed to burp quietly - all that festering and fermentation could
                not be good for the digestion.



                --- In gnosticism2@y..., "morphodyte" <morphodyte@y...> wrote:
                > --- In gnosticism2@y..., "s_e_k_h_m_e_t" <sekhmet@z...> wrote:
                >
                > > I am still wondering about the saviour swallowing up death. Of
                > > course it is a dramatic piece of rhetoric, in that death is
                > > conventionally perceived as swallowing the individual and the
                > saviour
                > > is seen to subvert this process.
                >
                > If we consider the greek term sarcophagus; body swallower,
                > then I think you may be on to something.
                >
                > Would you care to expand on this further?
                >
                > Morph


                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.