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

[Gnosticism] Re: Define the term for me

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Ditto to Terje s post. There are plenty of instances where non- Valintinian sources meantion Sophia, and in grand mythological fashion. PMCV ... specifically
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 9, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Ditto to Terje's post. There are plenty of instances where non-
      Valintinian sources meantion Sophia, and in grand mythological
      fashion.

      PMCV

      --- In gnosticism2@y..., Terje Dahl Bergersen <terje@b...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Ernst:
      > > > > None of the other points of Gnostic teaching
      > >> > (the Pleroma, the Aions, the Archons,
      > >> > the fall of Sophia, the redemption of
      > >> > Sophia, etc.)
      >
      > Klaus wrote:
      >
      > >The Sophia myth is a valentinian thingy.
      >
      >
      > I beg to differ, and moreover, taking the clue from the
      > post you replied to.. If I used that criteria I would
      > find it difficult to make a writing attributed to
      > Valentinus himself, the Evangelion Veritatis, or
      > "Gospel of Truth", to fit, moreover, in the Tripartite
      > tractate - it is the Logos, in a sense, that "falls".
      > However - the greatest volume of myths and accounts
      > we possess first hand are *non-valentinian* and possibly
      > non-christian in origin ; the Sethian and Barbeloite
      > bulk of the Nag Hammadi find, the Codex Askew, Codex
      > Bruce and Codex Berlin... they are almost exclusively
      > concerned with Sophia and her redemption.
      > The Encratite (Continence) teaching purports an anthropology
      > of some *redeemable* part within Man, however he is defined
      > and dissected in philosophical exegesis, which is pure
      > were the envoirment and the outer "layers", or "skin", of
      > Man is not pure. This purity is associated with light, but
      > also with a "lower spiritual essence" - its corollaries
      > in different systems has to do with The Virgin, who, although
      > she became acquianted with matter,death,the world,desire &c
      > (I think it is valid even in terms of Persephone, or Psyche
      > for that matter) - but She is "not defiled"; rather she
      > is confused,stupified,silenced and in a state of grief.
      >
      >
      >
      > >Not all schools of gnosticism use it.
      > >Simo the mage doesn't,
      >
      > What do you propose Our Lady
      > Helene were supposed to be?
      > Oh..but she is not mentioned in the Megale Apophasis?
      > Well, the MA were written over a century after Simon
      > Magus and not by Simonians.. so no wonder, I would say.
      >
      >
      >
      > > Menandros doesn't,
      >
      > We do not know. Why? Because we have no first hand account
      > of Menandrist doctrine, moreover, the second hand account is
      > very narrow in its choice of topics, probably the account of
      > Menander`s semi-Christian "heresy" given by Ireneaus depends
      > largely on the fact that Ireneaus were a Christological writer
      > /thinker, and said Ireneaus were very disgruntled at the
      > doctrines presented by Menander concerning just this.
      > Ireneaus Menander leaves no particular place or role for
      > Christ, apart from being a honorary even applicable to himself
      > after his own Initiation - his Jesus is a magician like
      > Simon Magus, whose magical practices he has inherited..
      > The "primitives" went in pairs - The Irenite Carpocrates
      > had his consorts, the Irenite Simon Magus had his consort -
      specifically
      > Helen of Tyre who purportedly were the "First-Thought",
      > a feminine Aeon which had emanated out of "The Great Power"
      > - for the salvation and sanctification of a lost portion;
      > because the lost portion came under the subservience and tyranny
      > of servants who had rebelled in heaven and descended upon the earth,
      > like the Nephilim in the Genesis, one among them, the god Jahve.
      >
      >
      >
      > >Satornil doesn't, nor do Kainites,
      >
      > <This is all my very subjective opinion>
      > Since the following is science fiction ;Kainite,Phibionite,
      > Borborite,Nicolaitans ... I have no doubt they would not
      > have mentioned her, moreover, they would not have mentioned
      > anything.. Ireneaus,Ephiphanius of Salamis and a fair
      > sprinkling of aspirants in the genre felt it necessary
      > to do as the Medieaval authors of Bestiaries and good
      > old Ambrose Bierce... I do think there is a point to
      > the mentioning of the litany, It has proven quite usefull
      > in modern times, in sprinkling a lot of fictions and fables
      > in a list which is basically an example of historical and
      chronological
      > name-dropping, you can prove the continuity of one or another
      thingy..
      > usefull for con-artists,pretenders and conspiracy theory
      architechts...
      > oh, I meant - spiritualists,esoterists and historical researchers..
      > sorry..:->
      > And.. its literary method.. this is how you write for instance
      > a Dictionary of the Khazars - the method is even discernable in
      > Umberto Eco`s Foucaults Pendulum...
      >
      >
      >
      > > Archontics, Naassenes,
      > >Peratae, Sethites, Phibionites, Apellians, Severians,
      > >Hermogenians, Nicolaites, ...
      >
      > .......The Naassene Hymn pertains specifically to Sophia
      > and the Sophia myth, and Christ`s descent as Salvational Gnosis
      > embodied... (see Hippolytus treatment of the Naassenes)
      > The Sethians are several different directions - the
      > "Sethian-Ophites" of Celsus/Origen does not have a Sophia
      > Myth/element - whereas the Barbeloites had.. as for
      > Apellians and Severians.. they were later Christological
      > heresies which were not clustered among the metaphysical
      > quibblers and Gnosis soteriologists which is usually
      > associated with the phenomenon of Gnosticism..I have no
      > doubt that the Severians and Apellians did not possess a smidgeon of
      > Sophia, but they had no (salvational) Gnosis either..
      > Nicolaitans are associated with the Book of Revelation,¨
      > were a party belonging to the presbyter/deacon Nicolai, who
      > scandalized his _orthodox_ community, just like Jezebel..
      > did N and J necessarely need to exist for their appearance
      > in the Revelation? Hermogenes were a "sophist" according
      > to the accusation of his Christian contemporaries, he dabbled
      > with metaphysics and ontology (arguing about first origins)
      > but not with Sophia.. his sophistry relates to the Greek
      > Philosophical school (and swearword) the Sophists and had
      > nothing to do with Sophia as such, so there you are right..
      > however, how he became a Gnostic, if you don`t become
      > a Gnostic on account of being mentioned in the same book
      > .. such as is the case in Ireneaus,Hippolytus and Epiphanius
      > among others.. I have no idea..
      >
      > >The sophia may be demythologized or considered insignificant
      > >for the particular purpose of the gospel.
      >
      > This is a strong argument in relationship to the topic of
      > the "Gnosticity" of the Gospel of Thomas,
      > not particularly against it being Gnostic, because some
      > texts we have ,specifically _The Exegesis on the Soul_ and
      > _The Authoritative Teaching_ do not mention Sophia by Name,
      > nor do they cite details of the Myth in Mythological language,
      > Allegory is used from the Premise that the Soul has its origin
      > before actual incarnation and that a recollection, restoration
      > of origin is exhorted as a possible Salvation -
      > the technical names and the sequential order is not necessary
      > for those who are intelligent concerning the contents and
      > meaning of the Myth. Another issue is the "Valentinianity" of
      > another Nag Hammadi text, namely _The Gospel of Truth_ -
      > if the Sophia Myth is a "valentinian thing", it is absolutely
      > astounding that the one text which is attributed to the founder
      > , Valentinus, himself, make no use whatsoever of any of the
      > usual elements of the Myth.
      >
      >
      > >And what is so strikingly encratite in the Evangelion following
      Thomas?
      > >It even points out exceptions,
      > >like adaption to foreign cultures when travelling abroad.
      >
      > What goes into the mouth does not matter, rather what goes out of
      the mouth..
      > in fact this is a dictum universally adapted in every monastic
      community
      > I have encountered in my religious studies.. What do I mean: There
      > is a continence of the flesh, and a continence of the mind - the
      Mind
      > is not the solution in context with the Logiae of Gosp.Thomas.
      > The ethical guidlines in Gosp.Thomas goes against the grain for
      > being very specific where the traditional Logia of the Synoptics
      > are vague - if you fast you may even bring sin upon yourself;
      > concerns, either pro or con, concerning the body (which is a corpse
      > at default, dead had it not been for the light given it from the
      > "image" or "light-man" inside) and its trappings..is indulgences
      > the seekers cannot afford. The discipline elevated above the
      purities
      > of a superficial zeal is humility,compassion,continence of
      mind/heart,
      > inquisitiveness(seek and you shall find),sobriety(seeing things as
      such
      > they are, and in their due time, not planning or scheming to better
      tommorrow
      > or secure positions) and a watchfullness.
      > Everything is revealed to the heavens, and all is plain - yet here
      > the perpetrator of mistakes in the parables, whoever he or she is,
      > thinks he/she can somehow compromise their visibility and do things
      > all of their own..
      >
      >
      > >
      > >
      > >Now, what is particularly adaptionist in the Evangelion of Thomas?
      >
      > No mention of the Incarnation....
      > No emphasis on the genealogy of Jesus.
      > However, that could also earn the Text another denigrating term,
      > namely "Docetist".
      > I am not so sure about the Adoptionalist doctrine being generically
      > Gnostic, this would mean theologians participant in the 4th to 7th
      > century Christological debates were Gnostic as well, despite the
      > lack of a Gnosis Soteriology.
      >
      >
      > > > >
      > >> > << Also as mentioned the 'libertine' of Borborbites and
      discuss what
      > >> > is so
      > > > > libertine or antinomian about them and Carp >>
      >
      > None, since the Borborites didnt appreciate the Law at all.. in
      order
      > to be Antinomian one has to believe that some
      event,dispensation,new
      > prophecy or whatever replaces a Law which is recognized and
      > appreciated.. with basical freedom from obligation.
      > Libertine, well - its just laissez-faire, if some innovation or
      > argument in theology or philosophy shoves the orthodoxist position
      of
      > "either you abstain/either you observe.. or you will perish/get
      > tortured/have God send you to a warm place after you are properly
      > dead" out of the way for even an instant.. this and the other is
      both
      > guilty of Antinomianism and Libertine appetites.. If I choose to
      > light a cigarette outside, after attending some New Agey
      conference..
      > I most certainly will hear how Gaia/God/Goddess cries endless tears
      > over my apostacy and fall into Nicotinism (or Libertinism), and it
      > isnt even so much that I believe I possess such liberties, or even
      > challenges their non-existence, I indulge in what is frowned upon...
      > Concerning this, the strictest canon of do`s and don`ts I know of
      is
      > found in the Torah...and even as it was, that the Lambs were
      > slaughtered along with Turtledoves, and offered as scent unto the
      > deity... the High Priests would still dine on the meat that were
      left
      > over afterwards, with no concern or thought whatsoever about it
      > containing Blood, having been sacrificed to Graven Images and not
      > being prepared by a Kosher Butcher in advance..
      > Marcion would oppose marriage.
      > Now, Marcion had mass-appeal and attracted quite a lot of people
      who
      > would never in their life take priestly vows or dedicate themselves
      > to an hermitage.. they would actually live in the cities, and at
      > that, more or less the urban lifestyle of any city-dweller...
      Marcion
      > would speak of God as the Compassionate,Merciful and as Love
      itself,
      > and his audience would listen to him, reflecting upon his exegesis
      as
      > they were able to, and adapting it to their city-lives.
      > What happens? Listen in on a conversation in the background at a
      > public appearance
      > 1."Hey! What did that kid just say?"
      > 2"He says they should not pay Tithes.. He says there is no need for
      > martyrdom for the Gospel,"
      > 1.He just said; "God does not thirst for blood" He said..He says
      none
      > is perfect nor perfected before the Day...(this is the non-gnostic
      > portion of his gospel of course)...So basically, the Commandments
      of
      > Our Fathers is of no use? God wont be pleased? The Torah is a load
      of
      > hooey?
      > 2. Basically..yes, now then.. what does he say? We should not Marry?
      > 1. Why?
      > 2. Because it is instituted so as to procreate and strenghten the
      > grip of the God of Justice, the Lawgiver, Judge in the Sky - who he
      > says isn`t the real God at all, and that Jesus came with the Holy
      > Spirit to clear up the misunderstanding..
      > 1. So if I werent married and a Christian in good standing, and I
      > were to follow his doctrine.. I could basically do as I pleased,
      > since the True God doesnt care about the Law nor Justice, but
      rather
      > is Good and Compassionate and pardons everything, only if I did
      > believe... I could have relations with whomsoever I pleased without
      > thinking of it..
      > 2. He says you could, or should...
      > 1. Lynch the poor sod! He´s deranged and dangerous.
      > There´s a few more detailed accounts which suggest to me that one
      > thing might be said from the chair in the auditorium and something
      > quite different settling in the minds of those who attend...
      > Marcion took Paul´s letters at their word, and might have misheard
      or
      > taken a quite dramatic leap into some conclusion or another.. but
      he
      > proposed that companionship of some certain intimate quality (but
      not
      > generative) or the fellowship in Agape itself, would replace the
      old
      > order of marriage and domestic lifestyles established before the
      > coming of the Dispensation.
      > He didn`t instruct people to become fornicators, and those who
      stayed
      > long enough were not disturbed by such suggestions as he did give,
      > because their minds where something else than witnesses 1 and 2.
      > Libertine is well and good as a title for some kind of encyclopedia
      > article, I am just worried that whats stamped with that label, I
      mean
      > what it is and what it means gets obscured by the label.
      > Encratite isn´t consistently used among the scholars, Ascetic isn`t
      > always the term which covers best the topic/phenomenon and
      Libertine
      > is an hopelessly modern or modernized term which could mean
      > everything...
      > If I go bathing without my drawers on, I am sure someone would
      call
      > me promiscuous, even an exhibitionist.. or perhaps a bit of
      libertine
      > or pervert.. and I could be labeled a Nudist as well.. however,
      even
      > if this is the case, what I do is go bathing without my drawers
      on..I
      > could be a Nudist..
      > but not necessarely...
      >
      > One accusation against the Gnostics were that they ate of food
      offered
      > to goods.. and participated in pagan rites.. this is all, after the
      > event, considered quite unchristian of them to do.. but we are not
      > certain, today, whether or not it was uncommon or even deemed
      morally
      > reprehensible to participate in Mandatory Celeberations under the
      > Roman Aegis On Pain of Death..
      > and we have only the word of some rather suspect characters (who
      are
      > ideologically suicidial...lusting for martyrdom) that it was
      immoral
      > and unchristian to behave as such.
      > Where those who "broke" whatever norm which instituted you shouldnt
      > participate libertine? They could be hungry, or they could just
      hold
      > their lives a little more precious than some of the later
      > Churchfathers...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.