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

Re: Borborites

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    ... it ... Clarification: Yep, I do remember what you wrote, Ernst. I was referring to orthodox heresiologists. And, yes, I fully agree that very possibly
    Message 1 of 29 , Feb 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
      <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > >Whether or not a
      > > separate sperma-cult of "Borborians" even existed in a manner
      > > described by heresiologists is questionable without sufficient
      > > original source material as backup.
      >
      >
      > I 've written before that in the Pistis Sophia, the sperm-cult is
      > mentioned. Also in the second Book of Jeu it is also there. Along
      > with Mandean writting. Now are these writing by heresiologists?
      > (ok, 'orthodox' heresiologists? I want to make sure that when you
      > mean 'heresiologists' you mean 'orthodox' one like Irenaeus and
      > Epiphanus.)
      >
      > So, it is at least not the imagination of heresiolgists. (Or to put
      it
      > more clearly 'orthodox' heresiologists). Some group was indeed
      > doing something with sperm. Now the right interpretation of that
      > ritual was about we'll might never know without the original
      > Borborite document but there is high possibility that a group like
      > Borborites with sperm-cult did existed.



      Clarification: Yep, I do remember what you wrote, Ernst. I was
      referring to "orthodox" heresiologists. And, yes, I fully agree that
      very possibly sperma-cults *like* the so-called Borborians were not
      the imaginations of the (orthodox) heresiologists, as you say.
      However, if you reread carefully what I wrote, I was speaking
      directly to the subject of our thread, specifically, a "sperma-cult
      of Borborians" and whether they existed in the *manner* described by
      heresiologists.

      Now, as you say, the Pistis Sophia and the second book of Jeu also
      level some criticism against practices, such as dining on dishes of a
      supposed mixture of male semen and female menstrual blood. And, of
      course, let us not forget other polemics, such as Clement of
      Alexandria and his reproaches against alleged Carpocratian
      decadent "love-feasts." No doubt various communities might have been
      employing exaggeration in sometimes malicious polemics against other
      groups. In fact, to again, quote Kurt Rudolph (_Gnosis_), "A little
      later Origen had to defend himself against similar charges leveled
      against the `Christians' by Celsus and instead attributed them to the
      Ophites." p. 250 (*meeeeoooow !*)

      And, "We also find here an old example of the awful `myth of ritual
      murder,' which was part of the inventory of religious sectarian
      polemic (similar stories to those told by Epiphanius of the gnostics
      are told for example by Celsus and the Mandeans of the Christians,
      and as is well known, later by the Christians of the Jews.)," p. 249.

      As you noted, Ernst, regarding Borborites, we are missing original
      source documentation. This is not to say, however, that there wasn't
      possibly *some* kind of cultic practice from which these likely
      inflated, traditional accusations were drawn.

      Cari
    • ernststrohregenmantelrad
      ... Orthodox heresiologists? Because Epiphanius was the only one that discribed Borborites cultic practice as such. I don t think Irenaeus or Tertullian
      Message 2 of 29 , Feb 6, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        >... specifically, a "sperma-cult
        > of Borborians" and whether they existed in the *manner*
        >described by heresiologists.


        "Orthodox" heresiologists? Because Epiphanius was the only
        one that discribed Borborites cultic practice as such. I don't think
        Irenaeus or Tertullian discribed the Borborotes as such. (If they
        did let me know)
        >
        > Now, as you say, the Pistis Sophia and the second book of Jeu
        also
        > level some criticism against practices, such as dining on
        dishes of a
        > supposed mixture of male semen and female menstrual
        blood. And, of
        > course, let us not forget other polemics, such as Clement of
        > Alexandria and his reproaches against alleged Carpocratian
        > decadent "love-feasts." No doubt various communities might
        have been
        > employing exaggeration in sometimes malicious polemics
        against other
        > groups.

        It might had been exaggeration but fact that sperm was used in
        some kind of cultic way was attested by 3 distinged groups. More
        sercise drinking it.

        In fact, to again, quote Kurt Rudolph (_Gnosis_), "A little
        > later Origen had to defend himself against similar charges
        leveled
        > against the `Christians' by Celsus and instead attributed them
        to the
        > Ophites." p. 250 (*meeeeoooow !*)
        >
        > And, "We also find here an old example of the awful `myth of
        ritual
        > murder,' which was part of the inventory of religious sectarian
        > polemic (similar stories to those told by Epiphanius of the
        gnostics
        > are told for example by Celsus and the Mandeans of the
        Christians,
        > and as is well known, later by the Christians of the Jews.)," p.
        249.
        >
        > As you noted, Ernst, regarding Borborites, we are missing
        original
        > source documentation. This is not to say, however, that there
        wasn't
        > possibly *some* kind of cultic practice from which these likely
        > inflated, traditional accusations were drawn.
        >
        > Cari

        I think we've came to the same conclusion yet there is still some
        discrepencies between us. Perhaps it is because you earlier
        gave an impression that Borborites and Barbelites are same.
        But again my original assertion is permise that IF this were true.

        If this cultic practice is true then we shouldn't call Borborites as
        Gnostics as same argument for Manichaeans
      • lady_caritas
        ... think ... Okay, sure, make heresiologist singular as far as actual descriptions. Epiphanius seemed to be an orthodox heresiologist who provided some
        Message 3 of 29 , Feb 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
          <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          >
          > >... specifically, a "sperma-cult
          > > of Borborians" and whether they existed in the *manner*
          > >described by heresiologists.
          >
          >
          > "Orthodox" heresiologists? Because Epiphanius was the only
          > one that discribed Borborites cultic practice as such. I don't
          think
          > Irenaeus or Tertullian discribed the Borborotes as such. (If they
          > did let me know)

          Okay, sure, make "heresiologist" singular as far as actual
          descriptions. Epiphanius seemed to be an "orthodox" heresiologist
          who provided some malicious accounts. However, Irenaeus, for
          instance, did indeed use the name, "Borborians," ("filthies"), which
          might indicate a slur, as we previously discussed.

          > > Now, as you say, the Pistis Sophia and the second book of Jeu
          > also
          > > level some criticism against practices, such as dining on
          > dishes of a
          > > supposed mixture of male semen and female menstrual
          > blood. And, of
          > > course, let us not forget other polemics, such as Clement of
          > > Alexandria and his reproaches against alleged Carpocratian
          > > decadent "love-feasts." No doubt various communities might
          > have been
          > > employing exaggeration in sometimes malicious polemics
          > against other
          > > groups.
          >
          > It might had been exaggeration but fact that sperm was used in
          > some kind of cultic way was attested by 3 distinged groups. More
          > sercise drinking it.

          But these are still likely polemical comments, and again, we don't
          have adequate source material for Borborians.

          > In fact, to again, quote Kurt Rudolph (_Gnosis_), "A little
          > > later Origen had to defend himself against similar charges
          > leveled
          > > against the `Christians' by Celsus and instead attributed them
          > to the
          > > Ophites." p. 250 (*meeeeoooow !*)
          > >
          > > And, "We also find here an old example of the awful `myth of
          > ritual
          > > murder,' which was part of the inventory of religious sectarian
          > > polemic (similar stories to those told by Epiphanius of the
          > gnostics
          > > are told for example by Celsus and the Mandeans of the
          > Christians,
          > > and as is well known, later by the Christians of the Jews.)," p.
          > 249.
          > >
          > > As you noted, Ernst, regarding Borborites, we are missing
          > original
          > > source documentation. This is not to say, however, that there
          > wasn't
          > > possibly *some* kind of cultic practice from which these likely
          > > inflated, traditional accusations were drawn.
          > >
          > > Cari
          >
          > I think we've came to the same conclusion yet there is still some
          > discrepencies between us. Perhaps it is because you earlier
          > gave an impression that Borborites and Barbelites are same.

          Let's just say I'm not convinced that they are different based on
          points we have previously discussed, such as even Irenaeus equating
          Barbeliotes and Borborians (A. H).

          > But again my original assertion is permise that IF this were true.
          >
          > If this cultic practice is true then we shouldn't call Borborites
          as
          > Gnostics as same argument for Manichaeans


          This brings me to another point, Ernst. Epiphanius's accounts
          regarding cultic practice of Borborites in particular are worth
          mentioning, and we should look at some possibilities.

          Bentley Layton discusses this on page 200 of _The Gnostic Scriptures_:

          >>>Apart from the usual gnostic myth, he speaks also of an unusual
          gnostic claim to be obliged to "Collect" the dispersed units of
          wisdom's power ("emissions") in the form of "soul" dispersed in
          all "living things, whether beasts, fishes, reptiles, human beings,
          vegetables, trees, or fruit … No matter what we eat," they
          claim, "whether meat, vegetable, bread, or anything else, we are
          doing a favor to created things by collecting soul from all things
          and transporting it with us to the above." Likewise they claim that
          when a gnostic soul ascends through the seven heavens it can only get
          past the rulers if it has "not sown children for the ruler, but …
          eradicated its roots and collected the scattered members…" If it has
          produced a child, the soul is swallowed by Sabaoth, the celestial
          snake (the Milky Way?), and sent back to earth.

          The striking notion of a religious elect who deliberately gather
          entrapped particles of the divine from foodstuffs and transport them
          to the metaphysical universe is well known from the Manichaean
          religion – though the Manichaean diet was vegetarian and the
          Manichaean elect were extreme ascetics. Since Manichee missionaries
          were active in Egypt starting in the late third century A.D., St.
          Epiphanius may have encountered a gnostic church that had been
          influenced by the pattern of Manichaean theology. Alternatively, he
          may be using a polemical source that parodies Manichaeism.

          In the absence of further information, it is impossible to
          reconstruct any rationalization of the gnostic diet as described in
          this excerpt. The reputedly licentious behavior of the sect appears
          difficult to justify or explain on the basis of the theology just
          described. St. Epiphanius's description of the gnostic church
          therefore remains a mystery. The historian must weigh the saint's
          claim of first-hand observation and the grisly detail of his report
          against his avowed desire to discredit and destroy the sect. In any
          case, there is no reason to assume that this is a typical description
          of gnostic Christianity.<<<


          So, Ernst, as you say, even "if this cultic practice is true"
          specifically for Borborians,...which has been questioned,... whether
          we use an argument based on practice, like for Manichaeans, would
          involve a whole other discussion which I frankly don't care to
          initiate at this time.

          In the end we'd need to determine whether a group that outwardly
          appears to accentuate pratice does indeed hold a soteriology based on
          practices or whether that practice is based on gnosis as the salvific
          element. Such investigations can be edifying, and although there are
          definite opinions out there, we have already had heated discussions
          in this forum regarding Manichaeans with no real resolution.

          Cari
        • ernststrohregenmantelrad
          ... which ... where? could you cite the passage? ... equating ... and you trust Irenaeus account but not Epiphanus? Besides the term Borborites was only
          Message 4 of 29 , Feb 12, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <
            no_reply@y...> wrote:

            > However, Irenaeus, for
            > instance, did indeed use the name, "Borborians," ("filthies"),
            which
            > might indicate a slur, as we previously discussed.
            >
            >

            where? could you cite the passage?


            >
            > Let's just say I'm not convinced that they are different based on
            > points we have previously discussed, such as even Irenaeus
            equating
            > Barbeliotes and Borborians (A. H).
            >

            and you trust Irenaeus' account but not Epiphanus? Besides the
            term Borborites was only attested in the title which leads me to
            believe as I stated it might have been from the later redactor. In
            actual document it discribes only the Barbelo myth NO mention
            of flithy sperm. Again if the definate characteristic of the group is
            this sperm cult thus the name filthy is conjured up then why
            didn't Irenaeus mention it. He does speak of unspeable
            perverse act of Carpocrates.


            >
            > So, Ernst, as you say, even "if this cultic practice is true"
            > specifically for Borborians,...which has been questioned,...

            whether
            > we use an argument based on practice, like for Manichaeans,
            would
            > involve a whole other discussion which I frankly don't care to
            > initiate at this time.
            >
            > In the end we'd need to determine whether a group that
            outwardly
            > appears to accentuate pratice does indeed hold a soteriology
            based on
            > practices or whether that practice is based on gnosis as the
            salvific
            > element. Such investigations can be edifying, and although
            there are
            > definite opinions out there, we have already had heated
            discussions
            > in this forum regarding Manichaeans with no real resolution.
            >
            > Cari

            we had no resolution because we are all biased on the matter. If
            one made up one's mind about thing then it is hard to see the
            new point of view.

            But I agree with PMCV, that Manichaeans were not "Gnostics"
            and I extend that to Mandeans and also to Cathars, and
            Carpocrates to some extent and to Borborites IF sperm cult is
            true.
          • lady_caritas
            ... It was mentioned in the title as you well know, Ernst, and whether or not we know whether Irenaeus was the originator of that title, SOMEone thought they
            Message 5 of 29 , Feb 12, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
              <no_reply@y...> wrote:
              > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <
              > no_reply@y...> wrote:
              >
              > > However, Irenaeus, for
              > > instance, did indeed use the name, "Borborians," ("filthies"),
              > which
              > > might indicate a slur, as we previously discussed.
              > >
              > >
              >
              > where? could you cite the passage?


              It was mentioned in the title as you well know, Ernst, and whether or
              not we know whether Irenaeus was the originator of that title,
              SOMEone thought they were the same or that Irenaeus thought they were
              the same. In any case, you and I can make imaginative conjectures,
              but as I've said ad nauseum before, without original source
              documentation, we cannot make any absolutely conclusive statements as
              to the practices of this alleged sect(s), especially based on
              possibly specious testimony (or redactions thereof) of heresiologists.

              > > Let's just say I'm not convinced that they are different based on
              > > points we have previously discussed, such as even Irenaeus
              > equating
              > > Barbeliotes and Borborians (A. H).
              > >
              >
              > and you trust Irenaeus' account but not Epiphanus?

              No, after reading my preceding posts, you should know that I don't
              necessarily trust implicitly either Irenaeus's or Epiphanius's
              accounts.


              > Besides the
              > term Borborites was only attested in the title which leads me to
              > believe as I stated it might have been from the later redactor.


              I already discussed the subject of titles in a post last summer.


              In
              > actual document it discribes only the Barbelo myth NO mention
              > of flithy sperm. Again if the definate characteristic of the group
              is
              > this sperm cult thus the name filthy is conjured up then why
              > didn't Irenaeus mention it. He does speak of unspeable
              > perverse act of Carpocrates.


              There could be various possibilities, but they would be speculative
              at best. No mention of "filthy sperm" does not make a case one way
              or another, and I believe I already discussed this in a past post.
              Again, see comment above about lack of original source material.

              In the end, Ernst, I'm pretty much at an impasse here because, as I
              said before, evidence is too weak to totally convince me whether or
              not there existed a separate sperm cult called Borborians.


              > > So, Ernst, as you say, even "if this cultic practice is true"
              > > specifically for Borborians,...which has been questioned,...
              >
              > whether
              > > we use an argument based on practice, like for Manichaeans,
              > would
              > > involve a whole other discussion which I frankly don't care to
              > > initiate at this time.
              > >
              > > In the end we'd need to determine whether a group that
              > outwardly
              > > appears to accentuate pratice does indeed hold a soteriology
              > based on
              > > practices or whether that practice is based on gnosis as the
              > salvific
              > > element. Such investigations can be edifying, and although
              > there are
              > > definite opinions out there, we have already had heated
              > discussions
              > > in this forum regarding Manichaeans with no real resolution.
              > >
              > > Cari
              >
              > we had no resolution because we are all biased on the matter. If
              > one made up one's mind about thing then it is hard to see the
              > new point of view.
              >
              > But I agree with PMCV, that Manichaeans were not "Gnostics"
              > and I extend that to Mandeans and also to Cathars, and
              > Carpocrates to some extent and to Borborites IF sperm cult is
              > true.


              And that still begs the question as to how much emphasis on ritual
              and practice as part of a salvific course hinders or aids the process
              of gnosis, which could vary among individuals even within the same
              environment.

              Cari
            • ernststrohregenmantelrad
              ... whether or ... they were ... But then that is conjucture. So what makes those two sects same from that conjucture? If someone thought including Irenaeus
              Message 6 of 29 , Feb 13, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                > > where? could you cite the passage?
                >
                >
                > It was mentioned in the title as you well know, Ernst, and
                whether or
                > not we know whether Irenaeus was the originator of that title,
                > SOMEone thought they were the same or that Irenaeus thought
                they were
                > the same.

                But then that is conjucture. So what makes those two sects
                same from that conjucture? If someone thought including
                Irenaeus that the two are same then you are relying on Irenaeus
                or heresiolist redactor. But as you state it is not the original
                source.

                In any case, you and I can make imaginative conjectures,
                > but as I've said ad nauseum before, without original source
                > documentation, we cannot make any absolutely conclusive
                statements as
                > to the practices of this alleged sect(s), especially based on
                > possibly specious testimony (or redactions thereof) of
                heresiologists.


                Again to make myself clear. Some sect did do something with
                sperm. What they do with it and reason behind is unknown. That
                is all. But you are mixing up this with whether Borborites and
                Barbelites are same. It is still conjuction that this sperm cult
                known as Borborites is same as Barbelites because it is from
                the heresiologist documents.

                Besides as I pointed out. in Pistis Sophia (which is the original
                document) it talks about sperm cult as bad. Yet is the same
                document Barbelo myth is told. Now how can that happen when
                those two are supposed to be same? Now, the problem is what
                is Barbelo Gnostics? Is it Gnostics groups that adhere to
                Barbelo myth? Again we are dealing here with termiology that
                crated by the scholars recently. I doubt that there was such a
                group as Barbelo Gnostics as much as Sethians But it is
                attested in Irenaeus which is to suspect that the term is like
                "Gnostics" a catch all phrase for heretics by hereiologists.

                Again I am of the opinion that IF Irenaeus did see Borbrites as
                Barbelites then he classified them based upon one discription of
                Babelo myth. But I don't think it was Irenaeus but later reductor
                that did that (having read Epiphaius and saw the Borbrites
                name). Borborites did have Barbelo (or their version of ) myth.
                That doesn't mean that Borbrites and Barbelo are same
                because many other sects including those that are encratic also
                have the Barbelo myth. The only conclusion that could be drawn
                is that Barbelites (if such a group really existed) split into
                several
                groups or some group adopted Barbelo myth. In the formar case
                it would be like the author of the "Testimony of Truth". It is very
                likely that the the author in this case is one Julius Cassianus
                who split off from Valentinians over the question of encratism.
                Although he labes Valentinans as heretic in Test. Th. he also
                espouses Valentinianism. Later case is more likely because if
                we are to believe Epiphanius Borbrites, themselves, are a
                splinter group of Nichocians.

                So are you confused yet?



                > In
                > > actual document it discribes only the Barbelo myth NO
                mention
                > > of flithy sperm. Again if the definate characteristic of the
                group
                > is
                > > this sperm cult thus the name filthy is conjured up then why
                > > didn't Irenaeus mention it. He does speak of unspeable
                > > perverse act of Carpocrates.
                >
                >
                > There could be various possibilities, but they would be
                speculative
                > at best. No mention of "filthy sperm" does not make a case
                one way
                > or another, and I believe I already discussed this in a past
                post.
                > Again, see comment above about lack of original source
                material.
                >

                Pistis Sophia Book of Jeu. If these are written by so called
                Barbelo Gnostics then why would they critisize their own practice
                IF as you mentain that they are Borborites

                and they are original source

                > In the end, Ernst, I'm pretty much at an impasse here because,
                as I
                > said before, evidence is too weak to totally convince me
                whether or
                > not there existed a separate sperm cult called Borborians.
                >

                and there is no convising arguement or put it bluntly NO
                arguement period for them to be same.

                >
                > >
                > > But I agree with PMCV, that Manichaeans were not "Gnostics"
                > > and I extend that to Mandeans and also to Cathars, and
                > > Carpocrates to some extent and to Borborites IF sperm cult
                is
                > > true.
                >
                >
                > And that still begs the question as to how much emphasis on
                ritual
                > and practice as part of a salvific course hinders or aids the
                process
                > of gnosis, which could vary among individuals even within the
                same
                > environment.
                >
                > Cari

                It depends on seeing sacraments as ends or means.
              • lady_caritas
                ... So, why? Is it your intention to try to confuse me, Ernst? ;-) It s very possible that I haven t made myself clear. So, I shall endeavor to do so one
                Message 7 of 29 , Feb 14, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
                  <no_reply@y...> wrote:

                  > So are you confused yet?


                  So, why? Is it your intention to try to confuse me, Ernst? ;-)

                  It's very possible that I haven't made myself clear. So, I shall
                  endeavor to do so one more time, hopefully not just making things
                  more confusing.

                  First, let's look at various names given to sects that allegedly
                  adhered to a Barbelo myth (although I do note that you question this
                  distinction). Examples of designations are Barbeloites,
                  Barbelognostics, Barberites, Barbelites. Now, we also see mentioned
                  Borborites ("filthies or muddies"), a name which certainly takes on a
                  derogatory tone and could be indicative of real, sinister behaviors
                  that Epiphanius would have us believe... or it could very well be an
                  unfounded polemical tag used to discredit an aforementioned group or
                  sub-group.

                  IOW, when I said I wasn't convinced Borborites were different from
                  the other sects, that did not mean that I was convinced there
                  actually even existed such a creepy cult that represented the nature
                  of all the others. I was referring to the fact that "Borborite"
                  might have only been a polemical epithet, as mentioned above. On the
                  contrary, in past messages I have stated reservations as to
                  whether "Borborites," if they even existed, conducted rituals in the
                  way Epiphanius portrays them.

                  Now the Pistis Sophia and the second book of Jeu admonish rites such
                  as using mixtures of semen and menstrual blood. Important to note
                  though, as I quoted from Kurt Rudolph in a previous message, there
                  were also "a goodly number of traditional reproaches leveled by
                  religious communities against one another," even if such consequences
                  from cultic practice were drawn from traditional ideology. So, yes,
                  there is still some possibility that a specific group (the title of
                  our thread), "Borborites," existed, but then again without adequate
                  first-hand source material, we cannot conclusively state this as
                  fact, in addition to whether they would be guilty of slanders brought
                  against them even if they did exist.

                  So, is this sometimes malicious opposition based on fact or legend?
                  We can only speculate. And you are certainly welcome to your
                  informed opinion, Ernst. You might just be right.



                  > > > But I agree with PMCV, that Manichaeans were not "Gnostics"
                  > > > and I extend that to Mandeans and also to Cathars, and
                  > > > Carpocrates to some extent and to Borborites IF sperm cult
                  > is
                  > > > true.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > And that still begs the question as to how much emphasis on
                  > ritual
                  > > and practice as part of a salvific course hinders or aids the
                  > process
                  > > of gnosis, which could vary among individuals even within the
                  > same
                  > > environment.
                  > >
                  > > Cari
                  >
                  > It depends on seeing sacraments as ends or means.


                  This seems to somewhat tie in to PMCV's query in Post #7201. Ernst,
                  would you view a difference between "`shallow' vs. `deep'
                  spirituality" that PMCV mentions, and if so, could that depend
                  partially on whether one sees "sacraments as ends or means" ? Maybe
                  we could move this discussion over to the other post, huh? LOL


                  Cari
                • Mike Leavitt
                  Hello ernststrohregenmantelrad ... It would help is someone could give full definition of encrantism. I know approximately what it means from context, but
                  Message 8 of 29 , Feb 15, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello ernststrohregenmantelrad

                    On 13-Feb-03, you wrote:

                    > groups or some group adopted Barbelo myth. In the formar case
                    > it would be like the author of the "Testimony of Truth". It is very
                    > likely that the the author in this case is one Julius Cassianus
                    > who split off from Valentinians over the question of encratism.
                    > Although he labes Valentinans as heretic in Test. Th. he also
                    > espouses Valentinianism. Later case is more likely because if
                    > we are to believe Epiphanius Borbrites, themselves, are a
                    > splinter group of Nichocians.
                    >
                    > So are you confused yet?

                    It would help is someone could give full definition of encrantism. I
                    know approximately what it means from context, but that would help,
                    as all it says is one in a 1st century sect(s) who refrained from
                    marriage and animal food--then places encrantism at the end of the
                    definition of Encrantite, and I had to go to the huge old Webster's
                    International to get that much. Maybe that's all there is.

                    Regards
                    --
                    Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                  • lady_caritas
                    ... very ... I ... Hello, Mike. You re right on the money. Here is a passage from Chapter 1, Prehistory , _A HISTORY OF MONASTIC SPIRITUALITY_by Luc
                    Message 9 of 29 , Feb 16, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                      > Hello ernststrohregenmantelrad
                      >
                      > On 13-Feb-03, you wrote:
                      >
                      > > groups or some group adopted Barbelo myth. In the formar case
                      > > it would be like the author of the "Testimony of Truth". It is
                      very
                      > > likely that the the author in this case is one Julius Cassianus
                      > > who split off from Valentinians over the question of encratism.
                      > > Although he labes Valentinans as heretic in Test. Th. he also
                      > > espouses Valentinianism. Later case is more likely because if
                      > > we are to believe Epiphanius Borbrites, themselves, are a
                      > > splinter group of Nichocians.
                      > >
                      > > So are you confused yet?
                      >
                      > It would help is someone could give full definition of encrantism.
                      I
                      > know approximately what it means from context, but that would help,
                      > as all it says is one in a 1st century sect(s) who refrained from
                      > marriage and animal food--then places encrantism at the end of the
                      > definition of Encrantite, and I had to go to the huge old Webster's
                      > International to get that much. Maybe that's all there is.
                      >
                      > Regards
                      > --
                      > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


                      Hello, Mike. You're right on the money.

                      Here is a passage from Chapter 1, "Prehistory", _A HISTORY OF
                      MONASTIC SPIRITUALITY_by Luc Brésard, of the abbey of Citeaux ~
                      http://www.scourmont.be/studium/bresard/

                      "The word 'monk' appears for the first time at the end of the second
                      century in the apocryphal gospel of Thomas which celebrates the
                      blessedness of the monachus.

                      In the same period, between 150 and 200, we know that there were
                      people in Syria and in Corinth who led a life of poverty and
                      asceticism, and practised chastity. Here too they were still
                      individuals, probably living in the family home or in the town, and
                      we cannot yet speak of monasticism. But very soon there appeared,
                      mixed with this good grain the darnel of self-complacency in the form
                      of contempt of the world. Self-control, in Greek egkrateia =
                      abstinence, continence, became a movement: "encratism" which enforced
                      abstinence and chastity; marriage was forbidden, the diet was fresh
                      vegetables and wine."


                      Cari
                    • ernststrohregenmantelrad
                      ... ernststrohregenmantelrad ... No not really but I m beginning get confused myself. ... things ... So basic what your are saying that there are POSSIBLITY
                      Message 10 of 29 , Feb 18, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <
                        no_reply@y...> wrote:
                        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com,
                        ernststrohregenmantelrad
                        > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > So are you confused yet?
                        >
                        >
                        > So, why? Is it your intention to try to confuse me, Ernst? ;-)


                        No not really but I'm beginning get confused myself.


                        >
                        > It's very possible that I haven't made myself clear. So, I shall
                        > endeavor to do so one more time, hopefully not just making
                        things
                        > more confusing.

                        So basic what your are saying that there are POSSIBLITY that
                        Epiphanius took the aforementioned group, Barbeloites, and
                        called then Borborites and slander these flithy practices? Am I
                        correct in this? please tell me.



                        >
                        > IOW, when I said I wasn't convinced Borborites were different
                        from
                        > the other sects, that did not mean that I was convinced there
                        > actually even existed such a creepy cult that represented the
                        nature
                        > of all the others. I was referring to the fact that "Borborite"
                        > might have only been a polemical epithet, as mentioned
                        above. On the
                        > contrary, in past messages I have stated reservations as to
                        > whether "Borborites," if they even existed, conducted rituals in
                        the
                        > way Epiphanius portrays them.


                        So the question is did Epiphanius made these things up?

                        >
                        > Now the Pistis Sophia and the second book of Jeu admonish
                        rites such
                        > as using mixtures of semen and menstrual blood. Important
                        to note
                        > though, as I quoted from Kurt Rudolph in a previous message,
                        there
                        > were also "a goodly number of traditional reproaches leveled
                        by
                        > religious communities against one another," even if such
                        consequences
                        > from cultic practice were drawn from traditional ideology. So,
                        yes,
                        > there is still some possibility that a specific group (the title of
                        > our thread), "Borborites," existed, but then again without
                        adequate
                        > first-hand source material, we cannot conclusively state this as
                        > fact, in addition to whether they would be guilty of slanders
                        brought
                        > against them even if they did exist.
                        >
                        > So, is this sometimes malicious opposition based on fact or
                        legend?
                        > We can only speculate. And you are certainly welcome to your
                        > informed opinion, Ernst. You might just be right.
                        >

                        So my point is Epiphnius may over blown the account but there
                        was a cult of sperm in existance at that time as seen from
                        Pistius Sophia and the Book of Jeu and the account of
                        Mandeanas.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > This seems to somewhat tie in to PMCV's query in Post #7201.
                        Ernst,
                        > would you view a difference between "`shallow' vs. `deep'
                        > spirituality" that PMCV mentions, and if so, could that depend
                        > partially on whether one sees "sacraments as ends or means"
                        ? Maybe
                        > we could move this discussion over to the other post, huh?
                        LOL
                        >
                        >
                        > Cari


                        Before we do that could you define me what "spirituality" is? So
                        to avoid confusion.

                        And also the terms "deep"and "shallow"
                      • ernststrohregenmantelrad
                        I think there was a post that I posted about the difference between. Encrantism, acceticism and libertinism.
                        Message 11 of 29 , Feb 18, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I think there was a post that I posted about the difference
                          between. Encrantism, acceticism and libertinism.
                        • lady_caritas
                          ... Well, yes, Ernst. I believe that is what I already did say was just ONE possibility. ... Unless you re aware of some original source material that would
                          Message 12 of 29 , Feb 19, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
                            <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                            > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <
                            > no_reply@y...> wrote:
                            > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com,
                            > ernststrohregenmantelrad
                            > > <no_reply@y...> wrote:

                            > So basic what your are saying that there are POSSIBLITY that
                            > Epiphanius took the aforementioned group, Barbeloites, and
                            > called then Borborites and slander these flithy practices? Am I
                            > correct in this? please tell me.


                            Well, yes, Ernst. I believe that is what I already did say was just
                            ONE possibility.


                            > > IOW, when I said I wasn't convinced Borborites were different
                            > from
                            > > the other sects, that did not mean that I was convinced there
                            > > actually even existed such a creepy cult that represented the
                            > nature
                            > > of all the others. I was referring to the fact that "Borborite"
                            > > might have only been a polemical epithet, as mentioned
                            > above. On the
                            > > contrary, in past messages I have stated reservations as to
                            > > whether "Borborites," if they even existed, conducted rituals in
                            > the
                            > > way Epiphanius portrays them.
                            >
                            >
                            > So the question is did Epiphanius made these things up?


                            Unless you're aware of some original source material that would clear
                            things up, the answer is that we don't know for sure. He might have
                            made these things up OR at least exaggerated the makeup of cult
                            practices for polemical purposes. He might have even been totally
                            honest. Heh.


                            > > Now the Pistis Sophia and the second book of Jeu admonish
                            > rites such
                            > > as using mixtures of semen and menstrual blood. Important
                            > to note
                            > > though, as I quoted from Kurt Rudolph in a previous message,
                            > there
                            > > were also "a goodly number of traditional reproaches leveled
                            > by
                            > > religious communities against one another," even if such
                            > consequences
                            > > from cultic practice were drawn from traditional ideology. So,
                            > yes,
                            > > there is still some possibility that a specific group (the title
                            of
                            > > our thread), "Borborites," existed, but then again without
                            > adequate
                            > > first-hand source material, we cannot conclusively state this as
                            > > fact, in addition to whether they would be guilty of slanders
                            > brought
                            > > against them even if they did exist.
                            > >
                            > > So, is this sometimes malicious opposition based on fact or
                            > legend?
                            > > We can only speculate. And you are certainly welcome to your
                            > > informed opinion, Ernst. You might just be right.
                            > >
                            >
                            > So my point is Epiphnius may over blown the account but there
                            > was a cult of sperm in existance at that time as seen from
                            > Pistius Sophia and the Book of Jeu and the account of
                            > Mandeanas.

                            And you might be correct. My point was that even though it was
                            *possible* some type of sperma-cult existed, we don't know for sure
                            or to what extent alleged practices took place. The sources you
                            mentioned above seem more reliable than Epiphanius, but then again,
                            as Rudolph says, these religious communities might have just been
                            using a traditional type of reproach commonly used against one
                            another. And the content of these criticisms might have been based
                            on tradition ideology. IOW, as I mentioned before ~ fact or
                            fiction?

                            At this point, Ernst, I feel like we're going around in circles, and
                            I don't have much more to offer on this subject.



                            > > This seems to somewhat tie in to PMCV's query in Post #7201.
                            > Ernst,
                            > > would you view a difference between "`shallow' vs. `deep'
                            > > spirituality" that PMCV mentions, and if so, could that depend
                            > > partially on whether one sees "sacraments as ends or means"
                            > ? Maybe
                            > > we could move this discussion over to the other post, huh?
                            > LOL
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Cari
                            >
                            >
                            > Before we do that could you define me what "spirituality" is? So
                            > to avoid confusion.
                            >
                            > And also the terms "deep"and "shallow"


                            Ernst, it might be more appropriate for PMCV to expand on these
                            points since the words were his. OR you could comment, defining how
                            YOU would interpret such. You might want to read them within the
                            context of his Post #7201. PMCV's questions related to "practical
                            magic" vs. "philosophical speculation."


                            Cari
                          • lady_caritas
                            ... Yes, Ernst, you remember correctly. I did a search of the archives (I do like that group feature) and found a discussion about this starting with your
                            Message 13 of 29 , Feb 19, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
                              <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                              > I think there was a post that I posted about the difference
                              > between. Encrantism, acceticism and libertinism.


                              Yes, Ernst, you remember correctly. I did a search of the archives
                              (I do like that group feature) and found a discussion about this
                              starting with your Post #6390.

                              Thanks.

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