Re: Who (or what) is "THE DEVIL"?/Great Fall of the Spirits
- Hey Fred, I am glad you took the time to make it more clear in your
last post because I was left scratching my head by what seemed to be
the same inconsistancy that Mike pointed out.
Much of what I would state in answer to you has already been stated
by others, but let me recap so you know where I stand as well.
>>So, in that context, do you think perhapsthat you are drawing a finer distinction, from your "modern"
perspective, between the texts in the NHL than the historical
Gnostics actually drew?<<
As Gerry pointed out, "Gnosticism" it self is a modern term. As he
also points out, it is far from clear who or why the Nag Hammadi
Library was brought together. It has become something of an urban
legend amongst interested laypersons that they were compiled by a
Gnostic who hid them to save them from being destroyed by the
church.... but it is just a legend. In addition to the theory that
Gerry quoted (that the inter-relation between the texts was
asceticism) I have heard others. One theory holds that the texts were
brought together in order to use in a polemic (can't remember which
scholor offered that one), and then burried when the task was
daunting. The more common theory that I have heard is that they were
part of a larger collection that may have had works by a number of
sects and these were simply the ones that seemed the most heretical
and were thus burried when the orders came around.
In fact, while the texts are generally thought to have been the
property of the monks, we don't know that they could not have been
commissioned by a third party to be translated and compiled. The
majority of scholors that I am aware of do NOT believe that these
books were created and burried by Gnostics who were interested in the
texts as examples of Gnostic works.
>>>To group the Gnostic, Hermetic, and Platonic texts together, theymust have seen a common theme to all the texts. I don't believe they
even referred to themselves as Gnostics, let alone to label certain
texts as being either Hermetic or Gnostic.<<<
But, once again, you would even have to prove that the person who
compiled the texts actually agreed with them beyond some specific
aspect... such as asceticism.
In any event, since the Category of "Gnosticism" is a modern
invention, there is absolutely nothing in your argument.... or in the
Nag Hammadi Library... that implies the destinction should be
changed. In fact, your points do not deal with the category. Even IF
the person who compiled the works saw them as the same (the Gnostic,
Hermetic, Platonic) how do you know that the thing they saw as the
same was not the Platonic element that we find in most of the texts?
After all, I already pointed out that Platonism is the larger
category, how do you know that this monk (or whoever it was) did not
intend to compile a group of Platonic, rather than "Gnostic" texts?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
> Hello Georgea
> On 06/16/04, you wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> > Someone on my list said modern Gnostic churches do not allow women
> > to be priests. Is that true of your church?
> > George
> Stephan ordained Rosa Miller to the priesthood, and consecrated her
> bishop. We currently have two active women priests, and an activeGnostic
> woman deacon or three, I can't keep up with it. The short answer is
> no it is not true of our church, nor is it true of the French
> Church, our confederate. It may be true of some more traditionallyHi Mike,
> Catholic Gnostic churches, milage may vary. Years ago I asked an
> old Liberal Catholic Priest (they have no women in orders to this
> day), "how can you deny one of the sacraments to half the human
> race." He was stunned by the question, and said that was the only
> thing anyone had said to him that gave him doubts about the all male
> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
Thank you. I suspected she was wrong but didn't know for sure.