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

Re: [Gnosticism] Valentinian Breakfast

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , Jun 24, 2002
      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 2 of 7 , Jun 24, 2002
        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 3 of 7 , Jun 24, 2002
          --- 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 4 of 7 , Jun 24, 2002
            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 5 of 7 , Jun 24, 2002
              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.