[Gnosticism] Re: Define the term for me
- View SourceDitto to Terje's post. There are plenty of instances where non-
Valintinian sources meantion Sophia, and in grand mythological
--- In gnosticism2@y..., Terje Dahl Bergersen <terje@b...> wrote:
> > > > 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 -
> 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
> name-dropping, you can prove the continuity of one or another
> usefull for con-artists,pretenders and conspiracy theory
> oh, I meant - spiritualists,esoterists and historical researchers..
> 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
> >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
> in fact this is a dictum universally adapted in every monastic
> 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
> 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
> of a superficial zeal is humility,compassion,continence of
> inquisitiveness(seek and you shall find),sobriety(seeing things as
> they are, and in their due time, not planning or scheming to better
> 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
> >> > is so
> > > > libertine or antinomian about them and Carp >>
> None, since the Borborites didnt appreciate the Law at all.. in
> to be Antinomian one has to believe that some
> 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
> "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
> guilty of Antinomianism and Libertine appetites.. If I choose to
> light a cigarette outside, after attending some New Agey
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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...
> would speak of God as the Compassionate,Merciful and as Love
> and his audience would listen to him, reflecting upon his exegesis
> 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
> is perfect nor perfected before the Day...(this is the non-gnostic
> portion of his gospel of course)...So basically, the Commandments
> Our Fathers is of no use? God wont be pleased? The Torah is a load
> 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
> 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
> taken a quite dramatic leap into some conclusion or another.. but
> proposed that companionship of some certain intimate quality (but
> generative) or the fellowship in Agape itself, would replace the
> order of marriage and domestic lifestyles established before the
> coming of the Dispensation.
> He didn`t instruct people to become fornicators, and those who
> 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
> 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
> is an hopelessly modern or modernized term which could mean
> If I go bathing without my drawers on, I am sure someone would
> me promiscuous, even an exhibitionist.. or perhaps a bit of
> or pervert.. and I could be labeled a Nudist as well.. however,
> if this is the case, what I do is go bathing without my drawers
> could be a Nudist..
> but not necessarely...
> One accusation against the Gnostics were that they ate of food
> 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
> 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
> ideologically suicidial...lusting for martyrdom) that it was
> 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
> their lives a little more precious than some of the later