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

Re: Hey Everybody!

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Hey Penndragon If the NAg Hammadi appears to be influenced by earlier teachings such as Mithraism, would you count them as part of the scholarly definition?
    Message 1 of 13 , Aug 25, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Penndragon

      "If the NAg Hammadi appears to be influenced by earlier teachings
      such as Mithraism, would you count them as part of the scholarly
      definition? That which influenced it mean. Like the Demiurgus being
      almost identical to Ahriman is the sorta thing I'm driving at here."

      Let me restate your question another way. "Classical" music had an
      influence on "Blues", so should we then say that Classical music
      could also be called "Blues"? This is essentially what you have just
      asked me.

      While Gnosticism does not seem to have been significantly influenced
      by Mithraism (it is not even clear that Mithraism predates Gnosticism
      http://eawc.evansville.edu/essays/mithraism.htm ... though it is a
      Hellenic syncratic religion just like Gnosticism and has similar
      elements), the point of your question can still be answered. That
      answer would be "no", Mithraism is not included in the scholastic
      definition. Gnosticism is a form of Platonism, heavily influenced by
      the teachings of Plato, but I have never heard a scholor attempt to
      call Platonism "Gnostic" either.

      PMCV
    • Penndragon
      MM PMCV There is a good sized difference however in this analogy. When we examine the Nag Hamadi, what we find is that they pretty much mirror these earlier
      Message 2 of 13 , Aug 25, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        MM PMCV

        There is a good sized difference however in this analogy. When we examine
        the Nag Hamadi, what we find is that they pretty much mirror these earlier
        teachings. The main difference being the cultural symbolism used. The music
        analogy doesn't tend to do the same thing. In music whilst the influence is
        there, the newer is still a seperate entity. However in the example I mean,
        they are much the same. If I toss you a ball and you repaint it another
        colour, is it still the same ball?

        MP
        Penn

        --
        "Toleration isn't much. But it is the first step towards curiosity,
        interest, study, understanding, appreciating and finally valuing diversity.
        If we can get everyone on the first step of tolerance, at least we won't be
        killing each other."

        Anon



        > Hey Penndragon
        >
        > "If the NAg Hammadi appears to be influenced by earlier teachings
        > such as Mithraism, would you count them as part of the scholarly
        > definition? That which influenced it mean. Like the Demiurgus being
        > almost identical to Ahriman is the sorta thing I'm driving at here."
        >
        > Let me restate your question another way. "Classical" music had an
        > influence on "Blues", so should we then say that Classical music
        > could also be called "Blues"? This is essentially what you have just
        > asked me.
        >
        > While Gnosticism does not seem to have been significantly influenced
        > by Mithraism (it is not even clear that Mithraism predates Gnosticism
        > http://eawc.evansville.edu/essays/mithraism.htm ... though it is a
        > Hellenic syncratic religion just like Gnosticism and has similar
        > elements), the point of your question can still be answered. That
        > answer would be "no", Mithraism is not included in the scholastic
        > definition. Gnosticism is a form of Platonism, heavily influenced by
        > the teachings of Plato, but I have never heard a scholor attempt to
        > call Platonism "Gnostic" either.
        >
        > PMCV
        >
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • Penndragon
        MM PMCV As a side note, Mithraism has been traced back some 2500 years b4 Christianity into it s Vedic origins. Mithras is the evolved name which was also
        Message 3 of 13 , Aug 25, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          MM PMCV

          As a side note, Mithraism has been traced back some 2500 years b4
          Christianity into it's Vedic origins. Mithras is the evolved name which was
          also known as Mita, Mitra, Mehr, etc.

          MP
          Penn

          --
          The enlightenment consists of a mysterious light which
          the shaman suddenly feels in his body, inside his head,
          within the brain, an inexplicable searchlight, a luminous
          fire... for he can now, even with closed eyes, see through
          darkness and perceive things and coming events which are
          hidden from others: thus they look into the future and into
          the secrets of others.

          The candidate obtains this mystical light after long hours
          of waiting, sitting on a bench in his hut and invoking the
          spirits. When he experiences it for the first time, it is
          as if the house in which he is suddenly rises, he sees far
          ahead of him, through mountains, exactly as if the earth
          were one great plain, and his eyes could reach to the end
          of the earth. Nothing is hidden from him any longer; not
          only can he see things far, far away, but he can also
          discover souls, stolen souls, which are either kept
          concealed in far, strange lands or have been taken up or
          down to the Land of the Dead.

          Native American Religions Iglulik Eskimo Shaman Initiation
          > Hey Penndragon
          >
          > "If the NAg Hammadi appears to be influenced by earlier teachings
          > such as Mithraism, would you count them as part of the scholarly
          > definition? That which influenced it mean. Like the Demiurgus being
          > almost identical to Ahriman is the sorta thing I'm driving at here."
          >
          > Let me restate your question another way. "Classical" music had an
          > influence on "Blues", so should we then say that Classical music
          > could also be called "Blues"? This is essentially what you have just
          > asked me.
          >
          > While Gnosticism does not seem to have been significantly influenced
          > by Mithraism (it is not even clear that Mithraism predates Gnosticism
          > http://eawc.evansville.edu/essays/mithraism.htm ... though it is a
          > Hellenic syncratic religion just like Gnosticism and has similar
          > elements), the point of your question can still be answered. That
          > answer would be "no", Mithraism is not included in the scholastic
          > definition. Gnosticism is a form of Platonism, heavily influenced by
          > the teachings of Plato, but I have never heard a scholor attempt to
          > call Platonism "Gnostic" either.
          >
          > PMCV
          >
          >
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
        • pmcvflag
          Penn qoth... There is a good sized difference however in this analogy. When we examine the Nag Hamadi, what we find is that they pretty much mirror these
          Message 4 of 13 , Aug 25, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Penn qoth...

            "There is a good sized difference however in this analogy. When we
            examine the Nag Hamadi, what we find is that they pretty much mirror
            these earlier teachings. The main difference being the cultural
            symbolism used. The music analogy doesn't tend to do the same thing.
            In music whilst the influence is there, the newer is still a seperate
            entity. However in the example I mean, they are much the same. If I
            toss you a ball and you repaint it another colour, is it still the
            same ball?"

            Hmmmm, the ball may be harder or easier to see if it is a different
            color, and thus it's function may be effected. *lol*

            Seriously though, the ball analogy is not historically viable. You
            say that Mithraism dates back into the ancient past (2500 BC) but if
            we are talking about the Roman Mystery religion that does have so
            many similarities with Gnosticism, that is far from historically
            varified (that link I gave you in my last post should have made this
            very clear). In fact, there is no solid evidence for the existance of
            this religion prior to the first century.

            Many scholors have argued that "Mithraism" was exactly what I just
            described Wicca as. Mithraism may well have been invented by Romans,
            only using the terms of the much older Persian and Zoroastrian
            beliefs. Mithraism seems to have been the Wicca of it's time.

            You are making many connections that you have not in any way backed
            with evidence, neither historical, or textual. Perhaps it would be
            helpful if you attempted to demonstrate the connection that you
            postulate. Otherwise, there is no reason that we have to assume we
            are talking about the same ball painted a different color, especially
            once we observe a different shape and size as well. On the contrary,
            there are sharp and distinct differences between Zoroastrian beliefs
            (or Persian, if we want to talk about the PreZoroastrian usage of the
            name Mithra) and Gnosticism.

            More than this, I might ask where you are going with this,
            Penndragon? The only thing I can see you doing is trying to possibly
            proslytize a wider definition for Gnosticism. However, as you well
            know, there are already other clubs for that. This club is talking
            about specific set of beliefs, and that is NOT open to debate. For
            this club the academic definition is the one we will use... end of
            story.

            PMCV
          • pmcvflag
            BTW, Penn, I am in no way telling you that you can t argue historical connections. You are welcome to do so... but you have to provide evidence. We can claim
            Message 5 of 13 , Aug 25, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              BTW, Penn, I am in no way telling you that you can't argue historical
              connections. You are welcome to do so... but you have to provide
              evidence. We can claim anything, I can say that Gnosticism came from
              aliens. But in this club we maintain some scientific principles, and
              that means that we draw sharp lines between demonstrated fact, good
              theory, and mere speculation (not to mention, just plain fantasy).

              By the same token, on your own time you can use the word "Gnosticism"
              in any way you see fit.

              PMCV

              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
              > Penn qoth...
              >
              > "There is a good sized difference however in this analogy. When we
              > examine the Nag Hamadi, what we find is that they pretty much
              mirror
              > these earlier teachings. The main difference being the cultural
              > symbolism used. The music analogy doesn't tend to do the same
              thing.
              > In music whilst the influence is there, the newer is still a
              seperate
              > entity. However in the example I mean, they are much the same. If I
              > toss you a ball and you repaint it another colour, is it still the
              > same ball?"
              >
              > Hmmmm, the ball may be harder or easier to see if it is a different
              > color, and thus it's function may be effected. *lol*
              >
              > Seriously though, the ball analogy is not historically viable. You
              > say that Mithraism dates back into the ancient past (2500 BC) but
              if
              > we are talking about the Roman Mystery religion that does have so
              > many similarities with Gnosticism, that is far from historically
              > varified (that link I gave you in my last post should have made
              this
              > very clear). In fact, there is no solid evidence for the existance
              of
              > this religion prior to the first century.
              >
              > Many scholors have argued that "Mithraism" was exactly what I just
              > described Wicca as. Mithraism may well have been invented by
              Romans,
              > only using the terms of the much older Persian and Zoroastrian
              > beliefs. Mithraism seems to have been the Wicca of it's time.
              >
              > You are making many connections that you have not in any way backed
              > with evidence, neither historical, or textual. Perhaps it would be
              > helpful if you attempted to demonstrate the connection that you
              > postulate. Otherwise, there is no reason that we have to assume we
              > are talking about the same ball painted a different color,
              especially
              > once we observe a different shape and size as well. On the
              contrary,
              > there are sharp and distinct differences between Zoroastrian
              beliefs
              > (or Persian, if we want to talk about the PreZoroastrian usage of
              the
              > name Mithra) and Gnosticism.
              >
              > More than this, I might ask where you are going with this,
              > Penndragon? The only thing I can see you doing is trying to
              possibly
              > proslytize a wider definition for Gnosticism. However, as you well
              > know, there are already other clubs for that. This club is talking
              > about specific set of beliefs, and that is NOT open to debate. For
              > this club the academic definition is the one we will use... end of
              > story.
              >
              > PMCV
            • Rodney Cecil
              Thanks for the welcome! Say, I can t actually think of any Gnostic texts writtin in Hebrew... wouldn t Coptic be a better choice? PMCV Coptic would indeed be
              Message 6 of 13 , Aug 26, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks for the welcome!

                Say, I can't actually think of any Gnostic texts writtin in Hebrew...
                wouldn't Coptic be a better choice?

                PMCV

                Coptic would indeed be appropriate for the Nag Hammadi codices, but
                would certainly fail one in attempting to comment on, e.g. Genesis (in
                a scholarly fashion) from a Gnostic understanding of religion. So, I
                suppose the point I was originally trying to make is that since when a
                Gnostic such as Theodotus "picked up" the Old Testament, he didn't see
                it as lacking application to his experience simply because it wasn't a
                Gnostic "source doucment", and that it might be helpful (not to
                mention interesting)if we took a similar approach.
                Plus, there's the added bonus that it would drive all my orthodox
                friends insane.

                Peace

                Rodney


                On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 23:02:07 -0000 pmcvflag (no_reply@yahoogroups.com)
                wrote:
              • Don Tipton
                Hi Rodney & All: (Tip) As a student of the Hebrew Old Testment I must say that the litugy and mesages of Paul the 13th Apostle is repleat with his own
                Message 7 of 13 , Aug 27, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Rodney & All: (Tip)

                  As a student of the Hebrew Old Testment I must say
                  that the litugy and mesages of Paul the 13th Apostle is repleat with
                  his own policies, and his adverse feeling about the original
                  apostles some of whom were illiterate, remains obvious. After
                  arranging the deaths and persecution of numberless Christians, he
                  all of a sudden has a vision and thereby transformed into the most
                  viable of all Jesus followers. As in the Hebrew Old Testament,
                  pseudipigrapha is the term to describe most of the stories, liturgy
                  and rationale presented, being written and alleged as the work of an
                  original master. (Apostle, prophet or major figure) The work is of
                  course the effort of scribes that paraphrase the words of their dead
                  masters.

                  Having traveled the Middleast at some length and interviewing
                  the original editors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, professors John
                  Strugnell & J. T. Milik I must say that the UN-Ordained Judaic
                  Priesthood did a wonderful job of changing the name of Abraham's God
                  El Shaddai to a more managable name of yahweh, and destroyed the
                  only Priesthood ordained by Moses, that of Aaron. Credit to the AD
                  Gnostics that their views differed a bit. I've written two books
                  about this subject. "A Tale of Genesis" and "The Mizpah", dealing
                  with the traditions, culture, lifestyle and religion of the Hebrews
                  and others of the middleast.

                  Best regards,






                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "wvdog61" <wvdog61@7...> wrote:
                  > I don't know about everyone else but I'm really enjoying the on-
                  > going discussions. I'm new to the Gnosis, but my life is changing
                  as
                  > a result in ways I would never have dreamed possible only a year
                  ago.
                  >
                  > One thing I've noticed about my gnostic fellow - seekers is an
                  > almost palpable excitement regarding the Gnostic scriptures,
                  > especially the Nag Hammadi corpus. While I think this fascination
                  is
                  > understandable I find in studying the extant material from our
                  > forebears (especailly those of the Valentinian school) that they
                  > were quite obviously deeply in love with what we now refer to as
                  > the "New Testament", or at least the greater part of it,
                  especially
                  > the four gospels and most of the letters attributed to Paul and
                  that
                  > they commented at great length on it *and* the Old Testament. To
                  say
                  > the least I find their exegesis breathtaking. When I first read
                  > Heracleon's treatment of Christ's encounter with the woman at the
                  > well in St. John's gospel, I found it so beautiful I was moved to
                  > tears (literally!!! ha!).
                  > I just wonder if there are any of you out there who are skilled in
                  > either Hebrew or Greek who are ready to take up the ancient task
                  of
                  > commenting on the sacred texts, especially those found in
                  the "Old"
                  > and "New" testaments. It seems to me that Gnostics were, in those
                  > early days of the Church the true "pathbreakers". Heracleon, for
                  > example, wrote, so far as anyone knows, the first commentary on
                  any
                  > of the gospels. I have a copy of Adolph Harnack's "Outlines of the
                  > History of Dogma" wherein he refers to the Gnostics as the
                  Church's
                  > first theologians.
                  > Just some thoughts on the subject; I suppose I was just wondering
                  if
                  > it was just me or if anyone else would like to read something
                  > similar?
                  > Maybe there are works like this available by living, breathing
                  > Gnostics and I've just missed them. If anyone knows of any, please
                  > let me know!
                  >
                  > Peace,
                  >
                  > Rodney
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.