| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pete
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:46 am Post subject: Aeons |
 |
|
Hello,
I've just been reading the, rather heated, exchange on the Tripartite
Tractate. And there was mention of the Aeons. It just so happens I was
examining Valentius, with his rather intricate scheme of "syzygies".
Since I am not a scholar in these matters, I was wondering whether someone
would be kind enough to explain to me what these Aeons ("Eternal Ones")
really are. Some say they are divine attributes; others say they are
individual beings (30 in number). If the latter, are they people? And in
what way are they different then from regular people?
I realize my questions, to the expert, may seem rather daft. But I am not
ashamed to admit that I find these Aeons rather enigmatic. Probably so
because of a lack of understanding on my part. Hence, the question. :)
Thanks,
- Pete |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2004 11:15 am Post subject: Re: Aeons |
|
|
"Pete" <nospam@gobotherverisign.com>:
Howdy.
| Quote: | I've just been reading the, rather heated, exchange on the Tripartite
Tractate. And there was mention of the Aeons. It just so happens I was
examining Valentius, with his rather intricate scheme of "syzygies".
Since I am not a scholar in these matters, I was wondering whether someone
would be kind enough to explain to me what these Aeons ("Eternal Ones")
really are. Some say they are divine attributes; others say they are
individual beings (30 in number).
|
Both, to a degree. They certainly have individual features.
They talk, think, and act on their own, e.g. "wishing to
glorify the Father" (Ptolemy's myth, Adv. Haer. 1.1.2). Or take
the Barbelo in the Apocryphon of John, who makes various
requests of God (ApJohn 5:10ff). But they emmanate from him, as
you probably know, so it's reasonable to call them his
attributes, although that idea eventually runs into trouble. Is
Church an attribute? Not really.
| Quote: | If the latter, are they people? And in
what way are they different then from regular people?
|
Not people if you mean human beings. They're divine beings.
More like angels than like mankind.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Carlcat
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 12:22 am Post subject: Re: Aeons |
|
|
Kater Moggin wrote:
| Quote: | "Pete" <nospam@gobotherverisign.com>:
would be kind enough to explain to me what these Aeons ("Eternal Ones")
really are. Some say they are divine attributes; others say they are
individual beings (30 in number).
Both, to a degree. They certainly have individual features.
They talk, think, and act on their own, e.g. "wishing to
glorify the Father" (Ptolemy's myth, Adv. Haer. 1.1.2). Or take
the Barbelo in the Apocryphon of John, who makes various
requests of God (ApJohn 5:10ff). But they emmanate from him, as
you probably know, so it's reasonable to call them his
attributes, although that idea eventually runs into trouble. Is
Church an attribute? Not really.
|
The term Aeon can mean a realm/place, a sort of time or age, a
hypostasis or quality of a spiritual reality, a being. It can mean all
of the above.
But for Valentinians, Ptolemy, etc., I think yes if you look at Church,
it is a priciple of an ideal assembly (ecclesia originally meant the
Greek democratic legislative assembly at Athens, and has roots in the
word for clamor as in a clamor of voices)... the Tripartite Tractate
presents an approach of seeing them as the path to God, spiritual
principles manifest by the seeker along the path... Another thing to
consider is that form was considerd male, and essence, female. So you
really have a pair Anthropos-Ecclesia: human assembly. As Christ is the
ideal Human, the mystical Body of Christ, is the spiritual Reality of
the Assembly as it came from the Mind-Truth and Word-Life of God. The
essence of a truly spiritual assembly manifesting spiritual fruit, in
the form of ideal spiritual humanity, is what the pair points toward.
You can certainly ask God to be filled with an Aeon pair's
reality/influence/energy/qualities in yourself and your relationships,
and some visions seem to indicate that you can address them as Angel
sort of beings, too, although the Tripartite Tractate steers the seeker
towards manifesting their qualities in the path of seeking the Divine. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 6:32 am Post subject: Re: Aeons |
|
|
Carlcat <booboo@booboo.net>:
| Quote: | The term Aeon can mean a realm/place, a sort of time or age, a
hypostasis or quality of a spiritual reality, a being. It can mean all
of the above. But for Valentinians, Ptolemy, etc., I think yes if you
look at Church, it is a priciple of an ideal assembly (ecclesia ...
|
Yeah, but assembly isn't an attribute, unlike, say, wisdom
or mind.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Pete
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 12:30 pm Post subject: Re: Aeons |
|
|
"Kater Moggin" <moggin@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
news:moggin-DD8C16.00090513012004@netnews.comcast.net...
| Quote: | "Pete" <nospam@gobotherverisign.com>:
Hello,
Howdy.
I've just been reading the, rather heated, exchange on the Tripartite
Tractate. And there was mention of the Aeons. It just so happens I was
examining Valentius, with his rather intricate scheme of "syzygies".
Since I am not a scholar in these matters, I was wondering whether
someone would be kind enough to explain to me what these Aeons ("Eternal
Ones") really are. Some say they are divine attributes; others say they
are individual beings (30 in number).
Both, to a degree. They certainly have individual features.
They talk, think, and act on their own, e.g. "wishing to
glorify the Father" (Ptolemy's myth, Adv. Haer. 1.1.2). Or take
the Barbelo in the Apocryphon of John, who makes various
requests of God (ApJohn 5:10ff). But they emmanate from him, as
you probably know, so it's reasonable to call them his
attributes, although that idea eventually runs into trouble. Is
Church an attribute? Not really.
If the latter, are they people? And in
what way are they different then from regular people?
Not people if you mean human beings. They're divine beings. More like
angels than like mankind.
|
Thank you very much for your reply.
The reason I asked, was because of the role of the Aeons in the Gospel of
Truth -- whose boundaries, as far as I can tell, do not seem well defined.
Or, rather, whose meaning, at times, seems to extend to include a lot more
beings than just the original thirty.
At times, the thirty Aeons, together, seem to spell the Name of the Father.
According to Irenaeus, The Name consists of "thirty letters, while each of
these letters, again, contains other letters in itself, by means of which
the name of the letter is expressed. And thus, again, others are named by
other letters, and others still by others, so that the multitude of letters
swells out into infinitude" (Against Heresies 1:14:2).
At times, it seems the Aeons are the letters of the "living book",
"This is acquaintance with the living book, whereby at the ending He has
manifested the Aeons as the alphabet of His revelation. These are not vowels
nor are they consonants, such that one may read them and think of something
void of meaning; but rather they are the true alphabet by which those who
recognize it are themselves expressed. Each letter is perfect thought, like
a complete book written in the alphabet of unity by the Father, who
inscribes the Aeons, so that they by means of His letters might come to know
the Father" (Gospel of Truth 11:3-4).
My special interest goes out to this section,
"After all these came also the little children, those who possess the
knowledge of the Father. When they became strong they were taught the
aspects of the Father's face. They came to know and they were known. They
were glorified and they gave glory. In their heart the living book of the
Living was manifest, the book which was written in the thought and in the
Mind of the Father" (Gospel of Truth 4:4-5).
Here it seems the Aeons are not exclusively part of the "living book", but,
basically, "also the little children, those who possess the knowledge of the
Father," in whose heart the living book became manifest.
See, I have the idea that those who partake of gnosis -- or, as it seems,
those who partake of the Divine Nature -- become themselves Aeons. Such
Aeonic "replication" (for lack of a better term), if I understand Valentian
theology enough, is certainly not a foreign thought. And Carlat, in his
post -- to my delight -- seemed to indicate that this is indeed possible. My
long-winded point being, that the Knowledge of the Father, in The Gospel of
Truth, does not seem exclusively restricted to thirty Aeons, but basically
extends out to the All -- or, rather, to those individuals within the
Totality who have, themselves, taken on Aeonic properties.
Feel free to tell me if I am completely off -- as you know, I am rather new
to this. But I am curious nonetheless.
Thanks,
- Pete |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Carlcat
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 12:30 pm Post subject: Re: Aeons |
|
|
Kater Moggin wrote:
| Quote: | Yeah, but assembly isn't an attribute, unlike, say, wisdom
or mind.
|
True. Lots of ways to look at these.
Since an earlier poster on this or another thread was asking what to do
with the texts, etc., I figured I'd post more details:
Aeons of Valentinus/Ptolemy:
From the 'Top' or transcendent:
The Ogdoad:
primary
Depth (Bythos) -
Silence(Sige)/Grace(Charis)/Idea(Ennoia)/Forethought(Protennoia) =
qualities/phenomenon in meditation and one's spirit's development
Mind (Nous) - Truth (Aletheia)= qualities of mind
Word (Logos) - Life (Zoe) = expression/vitality of being
Human (Anthropos) - Assembly (Ecclesia) = one/many as ideal
realtionship/union
The Decad:
produced by Word (Logos) and Life (Zoe)
more associated wtih abstract metaphysical processes/states
Depthlike (Bythios) - Mixing (Mixis)
Unaging (Ageratos) - Union (Henosis)
Self-existent (Autophyes) - Pleasure (Hedone)
Immovable (Akinetos) - Blending (Syncrasis)
One-begotten (Monogenes i.e. only-begotten/one kind or type in
generation) - Happiness (Makaria i.e. the Blessed)
The Dodecad:
produced by Human (Anthropos) and Assembly (Ecclesia)
very human qualities expressed in relationships
as one develops oneself along the path
The Comfortor (Parakletos i.e. the Paraclete) - Faith (Pistis)
Fatherlike (Patrikos) - Hope (Elpis)
Motherlike (Metrikos) - Love (Agape)
Praise (Ainous) or EverMindful (Aeon-Nous) - Understanding (Synesis)
Assemblylike (Ekklesiastikos) - Blessedness (Makariotes)
Desired-For (Theletos) - Wisdom (Sophia)
------------
In this list, the first name of each pair (Desired-For) is the 'male' or
'form' aspect, the spiritual blueprint, seed, or shaping aspect while
the second name in each pair (Wisdom) is the 'female' or 'essence'
aspect, the nature or spiritual quality/essence aspect of the pair.
For starters I would recommend any Gnostic to recognize their soul, the
principle of spirit/divine sparks, and the transcendence of God, seeking
intimacy and Gnosis. And then to ask for communion with the Desired-For
Wisdom (Theletos Sophia), or the Wisdom that is Desired-For,
contemplating the essence of wisdom, united with a form of a desired-for
spiritual reality that shapes that Wisdom, and the sort of pattern of
desire that takes Wisdom as its essence or nature. And to reflect in
silence, returning if you want to, to the words Wisdom that is
Desired-For, or Theletos that is Sophia. When in deeper contemplation,
you can just rest in quiet.
Be willing to learn something and perhaps keep a journal.
You may find the need to deal with the Archons as expressed in
Poemandres, the section on ascent. I.e. You may find that you gain new
insight or ability to understand the nature of change/death that gives
you more patience, or discover something about your impatience and fear
of change/death, you might discover more about how senses distort
perceptions, how your way of life is too domineering over your spirit,
goes against integrity, or how free from the constraints of lifestyle
you are. In general, if you haven't been on a spiritual path long,
these things are very beneficial for you to meditate on: change, decay,
impermanence, transformation, way of life/social and lifestyle
pressures. Buddhist meditation on the body or breath, or reflection on
trying to pin down where the mind is (it can't be pinned down), or
trying to stay focused and aware totally during driving, etc., can show
you a lot about these things. At that point Poemandres says you can
ascend the Archon/Rulers spheres easily, which deal with the cycles of
growth and decay, plotting/machinations of evil, the guile of
desires/addictions/attractions/greed, domineering arrogance, rashness
and audacity, striving for wealth by evil means deprived of its
aggrandizement, and ensnaring falsehood, you basically give away those
negative energies back to the spheres, in the Poemandres, but note that
in Poemandres, the concept of de-energizing is repeated, and in the case
of striving for wealth by evil means, it says deprived of its
aggrandizement, which is interesting. Anyhow, these are psychic traps,
moral addictions, that are common when in the body, and Poemandres is
addressing the ascent of the soul after death, but it is relevant to the
path, that when you have insight into the transitory nature of material
phenomenon and worldly situations, the inevitability of physical death,
and grow, the moral traps and bondage that was once natural can be
alleviated, it is easier to give up the energy that we place in those
sorts of things. Anyhow, these psychic/moral/emotional/bodily/mental
awareness issues exist at a cosmic or psychic level, 'below' the
transcendent levels.
If you aren't used to paths and disciplines, you might want to explore
those issues, and look for wisdom/insight, spend some time on each one
or any one that you become aware needs attention, or heck, learn through
others. The passion of wisdom could be seen in terms of learning from a
mistake, rectifying it, and reuniting with the desired-for spiritual
partner in harmony.
Only when you feel that somehow in your life or reflections,
journalling, in the coming days or weeks, that you have a better
understanding, working knowledge, intimacy with, or insight into this
Aeon pair, in your path, move to the next pair, similarly. This might
take some time to get to that point, and the next Aeon pair (The
Assembly-like/churchlike - Blessedness), involves relating with others
in a way that all together are a blessing to each other, so there is
PLENTY to deal with there, lots of spiritual fruit to seek.
Explore as you will, but I found that taking some time on each pair was
well worth it, and over time I came back to them in different ways, and
I focus on a pair as needed, or take say the Dodecad and explore it
further as a group, etc. Pray with it, meditate with it, contemplate in
silence after praying for it, ascend, and manifest the fruit, BE the
vehicle for these Aeons, let your spirit shine! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nuvoadam
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 6:45 am Post subject: Re: Aeons |
|
|
"Pete" <nospam@gobotherverisign.com> wrote in message news:<0N2dnTZNgr4arpvdRVn-ig@giganews.com>...
| Quote: | "Kater Moggin" <moggin@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
news:moggin-DD8C16.00090513012004@netnews.comcast.net...
"Pete" <nospam@gobotherverisign.com>:
Hello,
Howdy.
I've just been reading the, rather heated, exchange on the Tripartite
Tractate. And there was mention of the Aeons. It just so happens I was
examining Valentius, with his rather intricate scheme of "syzygies".
Since I am not a scholar in these matters, I was wondering whether
someone would be kind enough to explain to me what these Aeons ("Eternal
Ones") really are. Some say they are divine attributes; others say they
are individual beings (30 in number).
Both, to a degree. They certainly have individual features.
They talk, think, and act on their own, e.g. "wishing to
glorify the Father" (Ptolemy's myth, Adv. Haer. 1.1.2). Or take
the Barbelo in the Apocryphon of John, who makes various
requests of God (ApJohn 5:10ff). But they emmanate from him, as
you probably know, so it's reasonable to call them his
attributes, although that idea eventually runs into trouble. Is
Church an attribute? Not really.
If the latter, are they people? And in
what way are they different then from regular people?
Not people if you mean human beings. They're divine beings. More like
angels than like mankind.
Thank you very much for your reply.
The reason I asked, was because of the role of the Aeons in the Gospel of
Truth -- whose boundaries, as far as I can tell, do not seem well defined.
Or, rather, whose meaning, at times, seems to extend to include a lot more
beings than just the original thirty.
At times, the thirty Aeons, together, seem to spell the Name of the Father.
According to Irenaeus, The Name consists of "thirty letters, while each of
these letters, again, contains other letters in itself, by means of which
the name of the letter is expressed. And thus, again, others are named by
other letters, and others still by others, so that the multitude of letters
swells out into infinitude" (Against Heresies 1:14:2).
|
Irenaeus was into numerology, going into some detail why there
should be four gospels and not more or less based on this interest
alone.
| Quote: | At times, it seems the Aeons are the letters of the "living book",
"This is acquaintance with the living book, whereby at the ending He has
manifested the Aeons as the alphabet of His revelation. These are not vowels
nor are they consonants, such that one may read them and think of something
void of meaning; but rather they are the true alphabet by which those who
recognize it are themselves expressed. Each letter is perfect thought, like
a complete book written in the alphabet of unity by the Father, who
inscribes the Aeons, so that they by means of His letters might come to know
the Father" (Gospel of Truth 11:3-4).
My special interest goes out to this section,
"After all these came also the little children, those who possess the
knowledge of the Father. When they became strong they were taught the
aspects of the Father's face. They came to know and they were known. They
were glorified and they gave glory. In their heart the living book of the
Living was manifest, the book which was written in the thought and in the
Mind of the Father" (Gospel of Truth 4:4-5).
Here it seems the Aeons are not exclusively part of the "living book", but,
basically, "also the little children, those who possess the knowledge of the
Father," in whose heart the living book became manifest.
See, I have the idea that those who partake of gnosis -- or, as it seems,
those who partake of the Divine Nature -- become themselves Aeons. Such
Aeonic "replication" (for lack of a better term), if I understand Valentian
theology enough, is certainly not a foreign thought. And Carlat, in his
post -- to my delight -- seemed to indicate that this is indeed possible. My
long-winded point being, that the Knowledge of the Father, in The Gospel of
Truth, does not seem exclusively restricted to thirty Aeons, but basically
extends out to the All -- or, rather, to those individuals within the
Totality who have, themselves, taken on Aeonic properties.
Feel free to tell me if I am completely off -- as you know, I am rather new
to this. But I am curious nonetheless.
Thanks,
- Pete
|
Pete -- ever check out Basilides? He wrote of 365 Aeons.
http://www.sarahsarchangels.com/archangels/references.html
(snip)
"In the beginning, the Gnostics believed that there was only
the transcendent God, a male principle that existed for eternity
with a female principle, the Ennoia (Thought). Together they
produced two archetypes, Mind (male) and Truth (female). In their
turn these principles produced thirty pairs of males and females
known as Aeons who, together, constituted the Divine Realm, known
as the Pleroma or Fullness."
http://www.nullens.org/ancient/Part_1_Concepts/Aeons-Avesta.htm
More linkies:
http://www2.angelhaven.com/columns/view/view.asp?ID=61
http://www.enemies.com/html/oldtestament/2/basilides_365_heavens.html
Within Gnosticism you might consider taking the original Aeonic
emenations (30) ending in Sophia, then begin again with her son
Yaldabaoth, who creates a sub-reality in which one Aeon after
another creates a sub-reality until it all comes full circle
(360/365).
The word Aeon means AGE. It is a place, called an Aeon, created
or ruled over by a being, called an Aeon, for a set amount of
time, called an Aeon.
Like the Hebrew Olam, the word Aeon has been translated as
eternity. But the Greek Aeturnus never denoted an infinite
amount of time, but a-turning of some celestial clock. The
Greeks saw the constellations as an animal Zoo and, calling
the celestial clock by connotations of this name: Zooaeon,
we have the ZODIAC. The Hindus and Buddhists, like the
Greeks, saw a Great Year (25,500 years give or take) as
an Eternity, and a Zodiac Year (2100 years or so), also
as an Eternity.
Some divide this time up further into 1000+ years (the
term of the various "1000 year Kings". Buddhists called
this an EON, some sects believing that an Eon lasted for
another halfed amount of time-- 500 years. Now we are
syncopating with other myths as well, for instance that
of the Egyptian Phoenix as mentioned by Herodotus among
others.
The Jews called an Aeonic age as an "Olam", which while
denoting for them an eternal amount of time, also was
used in a peculiar way, for they saw their G*d as
returning to them from somewhere else only periodically,
and his return and rule itself were deliniated by a
set amount of time-- 'from Olam to Olam', or from
eternities beginning to eternities end.
Consider in the Book of Revelations that Satan is to be
punished for an *eternity. The real word is AEON, and
thankfully we do not have to view the Xian God as being
cruel enough to punish another being for an infinite
amount of time. And eternity is not an infinity!
Each Aeonic Age ruled over by a Buddha/Arch-angel
or etc. has its own version of the Pleromic Heaven
associated with it. There are people missing in
each Pleroma, and thus the Essenes spoke of the
Unity as the Yachad/Yechad-- not a complete and
total Unity but only a partial one.
The Tripartite Tractate has the Logos creating
the copy-Demiurge, who creates the many Pleromas.
These Pleromas did not know of each other, or had
little knowledge of just how extensive the whole
Pleromic realm of alternate realites actually was.
The Logos is enlightened by the hidden
Father/Mother, and thereafter begins to travel to
the many Pleromas to inform them of the overarching
unifying reality where each of them never left
from in the first place.
That is emenationism. The original source doesn't
leave where it is, it just spins off a copy of itself,
which being blind to its alternate selfs thereafter
creates a alternate Universe.
Watch the new Ashton Kutcher flick "The Butterfly Effect"
(I think thats what its called) for the consequences of
time-travel and mucking about in the Quantum reality.
When Pete is sitting on a couch, he thinks-- should I
get a beer? Kick the dog? Change the T.V. channel?
Each thought splits Pete of into another Pete. Some
return to the couch to reconverge in a sense, while
others just go about their lifes. One Pete might
die in a car crash, another Pete buys winning lotto
tix. You might understand more now.
Since each Aeon has an end, the ruler (Buddha) of the
next Aeon is chosen by one (Chosen of God) or elected
by the All (the Elect of God). The Church has long
complained that the Gnostics believed they each of
them had a Universe within them. Pete's universe
has a copy of Moggin in it, of Adam and etc.
So if one is chosen, they are chosen from within
the Buddha as well as without, and for them to attain
to the Buddha-mind they must seek the Unity within
themselves. The whole picture gets convoluted but
properly understood, the aspirant will see that they
each of them are part of a sort of unbroken chain.
And now the Abraxas within Abraxas within Abraxas motif
is contemplated. The Demiurge within the Demiurge,
the Adam Kadmon within the Adam Kadmon. The Kabbalists
taught that the Kadmon was a series of realities, each
to be found within the body of another being who may or
may not know he is an ARK like this. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 9:54 am Post subject: Re: Aeons |
|
|
Pete <nospam@gobotherverisign.com>:
| Quote: | See, I have the idea that those who partake of gnosis -- or, as it seems,
those who partake of the Divine Nature -- become themselves Aeons. Such
Aeonic "replication" (for lack of a better term), if I understand Valentian
theology enough, is certainly not a foreign thought. And Carlat, in his
post -- to my delight -- seemed to indicate that this is indeed possible. My
long-winded point being, that the Knowledge of the Father, in The Gospel of
Truth, does not seem exclusively restricted to thirty Aeons, but basically
extends out to the All -- or, rather, to those individuals within the
Totality who have, themselves, taken on Aeonic properties. Feel free to
tell me if I am completely off -- as you know, I am rather new to this.
|
Join the Aeons, that is, enter the Pleroma, would probably
be more accurate. In Ptolemy (this is from Irenaeus, Adv.
Haer. 1.7.1) the spirits will eventually depart from this world
leaving body and soul behind them, reach the Pleroma and
"become brides of the angels." Epiphanius says the same in the
_Panarion_ 31.7, with the difference that psychics who've
"risen above the demiurge" become angels' brides along with the
spiritual.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:11 am Post subject: Re: Aeons |
|
|
Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):
| Quote: | Irenaeus was into numerology, going into some detail why there
should be four gospels and not more or less based on this interest
alone.
|
More misinformation from Nuvoadam. (Like I said, he's the
last person to listen to about this stuff.) Irenaeus
definitely does not base his argument that there should be only
four Gospels on numerology alone. He depends on analogy
instead, reasoning from the idea that there are four winds, the
world is divided into four parts, the heavenly throne is
surrounded by four beasts (Rev. 4), etc., to his conclusion the
Gospels are "in accord with these things" and "it is fitting
that she [the Church] should have four pillars." See AH 3.11.8.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:55 am Post subject: Re: Aeons |
|
|
"Kater Moggin" <moggin@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
news:moggin-E33520.23054015012004@netnews.comcast.net...
| Quote: | Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):
Irenaeus was into numerology, going into some detail why there
should be four gospels and not more or less based on this interest
alone.
More misinformation from Nuvoadam. (Like I said, he's the
last person to listen to about this stuff.) Irenaeus
definitely does not base his argument that there should be only
four Gospels on numerology alone. He depends on analogy
instead, reasoning from the idea that there are four winds, the
world is divided into four parts, the heavenly throne is
surrounded by four beasts (Rev. 4), etc., to his conclusion the
Gospels are "in accord with these things" and "it is fitting
that she [the Church] should have four pillars." See AH 3.11.8.
|
I was planning a response to Nuvo, until I saw that Moggin had said pretty
much what I was going to. However, I would like to add detail.
Irenaeus states that,
"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in
number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which
we live, and four principal winds,..." (AH 3:11:8)
Additionally, he states:
"For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of
the dispensation of the Son of God......[a description of the
Cherubim].....And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things,
among which Christ Jesus is seated." (AH 3:11:8)
Finally, he also states:
"For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform,
as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four
principal (kaqolikai/) covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the
deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the
third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates
man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and
bearing men upon heavenly kingdom." (also AH 3:11:8)
While this may indicate an interest in numbers, it does not in the least
prove that Irenaeus was using numerology as we understand that term or in
any sense as gematria.
As Moggin has said, it indicates that he was using analogous argument from
both creation and God's history of communication to establish 4 Gospels as
fitting. Basically, he was pointing to a numerical pattern. We can say
nothing more than that.
Of course, some would like to prove more, but what they like and what is
proveable are most often two different things.
--
Mouldy Jester
"I keep telling you, Gnosticism ain't dualistic."
-- Krag, (30th July, 2003) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nuvoadam
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 2:52 pm Post subject: Re: Aeons |
|
|
"Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com> wrote in message news:<l9KNb.13424$9k7.252593@news.xtra.co.nz>...
| Quote: | "Kater Moggin" <moggin@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
news:moggin-E33520.23054015012004@netnews.comcast.net...
Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):
Irenaeus was into numerology, going into some detail why there
should be four gospels and not more or less based on this interest
alone.
More misinformation from Nuvoadam. (Like I said, he's the
last person to listen to about this stuff.) Irenaeus
definitely does not base his argument that there should be only
four Gospels on numerology alone. He depends on analogy
instead, reasoning from the idea that there are four winds, the
world is divided into four parts, the heavenly throne is
surrounded by four beasts (Rev. 4), etc., to his conclusion the
Gospels are "in accord with these things" and "it is fitting
that she [the Church] should have four pillars." See AH 3.11.8.
I was planning a response to Nuvo, until I saw that Moggin had said pretty
much what I was going to. However, I would like to add detail.
Irenaeus states that,
"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in
number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which
we live, and four principal winds,..." (AH 3:11:8)
Additionally, he states:
"For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of
the dispensation of the Son of God......[a description of the
Cherubim].....And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things,
among which Christ Jesus is seated." (AH 3:11:8)
Finally, he also states:
"For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform,
as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four
principal (kaqolikai/) covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the
deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the
third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates
man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and
bearing men upon heavenly kingdom." (also AH 3:11:8)
While this may indicate an interest in numbers, it does not in the least
prove that Irenaeus was using numerology as we understand that term or in
any sense as gematria.
As Moggin has said, it indicates that he was using analogous argument from
both creation and God's history of communication to establish 4 Gospels as
fitting. Basically, he was pointing to a numerical pattern. We can say
nothing more than that.
Of course, some would like to prove more, but what they like and what is
proveable are most often two different things.
|
Mr. Jester, congrats on one of your best posts. However, all you did
was support my comment, so I'm not sure what the beef was.
Jester said:
"Basically he was pointing to a numerical pattern."
That is numerology.
Moggin said:
"..more misinformation.."
"Irenaeus definitely does not base his argument that there should be
only four Gospels on numerology alone."
After this, I was at expecting Moggs to give an example of some
other method I. might have used to justify four gospels rather
than more/less. Instead, he proceeds to support my statement,
because every "analogy" he mentioned was numerological speculation.
So where is the "misinformation" except Moggins that stemming
from his own confusion as to what numerology is?
Irenaes uses numerology and gematria to delve into various Ism's,
and on many occasions too. For instance, when looking into the
Valentinian speculation, he tries to connect the number of Aeons
with the gematria of the name of God. "The enunciation of the
whole Name consisted of thirty letters or elements, and of four
distinct utterances" (Irenaeus Against Heresies 1:14:1)
Irenaeus loved numbers! He used numerology to unlock the meaning
of 666, with Hippolytus' later support:
http://www.guam.net/home/wresch/stories/R.%20Wresch/Beast666.htm
(snip)
"Irenaeus (c. 130 - c. 202) bishop of Lyons, was the first of
the church fathers to stress the mystic number 666. He expected
a future division of Rome, and cautioned all to wait for that
division before attempting to solve the riddle. He did suggest
several names that might fit the number, among them Lateinos
(The Latin-speaking man) in Greek numerology: L=30; A=1; T=300;
E=5; I=10; N=50; 0=70; S=200; total 666.–Ireneaus, Against
Heresies, book 5, chap. 30, sec. 2.[Froom, The Prophetic Faith
of our Fathers, vol. 1 pp. 248, 249, Review and Herald Publishing
Association, 1950]."
(endsnip)
For some reason Lyons was a hotbed of numerology. Marcus, still
Valentinian I presume, wrote a work called "Writings on numerology",
which Irenaeus comments on in (Adv. haer), but I'm too tired
to look right now.
I'm not sure offhand, but I think he even mentions using
numerology, for instance (perhaps) in (Against Heresies 1.5.3)
where I believe he remarks upon the difficult time he had
interpreting the numerology of the 7 (or even  Heavens.
Here is a site (just) touching on numerology as it pertains
to deciphering religious works:
http://tinyurl.com/2yxbq |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nuvoadam
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:55 pm Post subject: Re: Aeons |
|
|
Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message news:<moggin-347A49.22482515012004@netnews.comcast.net>...
| Quote: | Pete <nospam@gobotherverisign.com>:
See, I have the idea that those who partake of gnosis -- or, as it seems,
those who partake of the Divine Nature -- become themselves Aeons. Such
Aeonic "replication" (for lack of a better term), if I understand Valentian
theology enough, is certainly not a foreign thought. And Carlat, in his
post -- to my delight -- seemed to indicate that this is indeed possible. My
long-winded point being, that the Knowledge of the Father, in The Gospel of
Truth, does not seem exclusively restricted to thirty Aeons, but basically
extends out to the All -- or, rather, to those individuals within the
Totality who have, themselves, taken on Aeonic properties. Feel free to
tell me if I am completely off -- as you know, I am rather new to this.
Join the Aeons, that is, enter the Pleroma, would probably
be more accurate. In Ptolemy (this is from Irenaeus, Adv.
Haer. 1.7.1) the spirits will eventually depart from this world
leaving body and soul behind them, reach the Pleroma and
"become brides of the angels." Epiphanius says the same in the
_Panarion_ 31.7, with the difference that psychics who've
"risen above the demiurge" become angels' brides along with the
spiritual.
-- Moggin
|
Pete -- close your eyes. What do you see? Darkness perhaps?
Look within for the light (seeking = meditation). Find the
light, dwell on it (contemplation). Try to merge with it,
(Samadhi = absorption).
This light is the Universe. You can travel anywhere in time
and space once you find The Way. You ARE a Universe when
you awaken to your potentiality!
John Scotus Eriugena wrote "Periphyseon", translated Pseudo-
Dionysius from Greek into Latin. He holds that humans are a
microcosm of the universe. That which is shared, the essence
of all things, is God. This idea that we are each of us a
microcosm of the Universe is shared by Kabbalah, which
teaches that we each of us have this potential to at once
be part of the larger Universe, but to also carry within us
a reflection of the Universe.
The Catholic's teach about the Gnostics:
"..it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the
salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-
intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe.."
(Catholic Encyclopedia online)
In Indian Brahminic thought we each of us are identified
with the Universe. Brahma awakes from a dream, finding
himself in total darkness. He shouts "KA!?!", or "Who
Am I?". By seeking within that darkness he finds Vishnu,
who always represents the Universe. When they make their
connection, Shiva-mind is attained (the Pillar of Fire),
and the microcosmic Universe is united with the macrocosmic
Universe.
"Further, they must also confess either that He is mere
vacuity, or that the entire universe is within Him; and in
that case all will in like degree partake of the Father."
(Irenaeus: Adv. haer. 2.13.7 -- I think)
http://m759.freeservers.com/PHarchetype.html
(snip)
'...It is told that, when the Merciful One made the worlds,
first of all He created that Stone and gave it to the Divine
One whom the Jews call Shekinah, and as she gazed upon it the
universes arose and had being.'"
(Pp. 43-44, Many Dimensions, by Charles Williams,
Eerdmans paperback, April 1979)
(endsnip)
When Jesus was about to leave post-crucifixion, the
disciples had many questions about the nature of reality.
"When they gathered together and were perplexed about the
underlying reality of the universe and the plan.."
(The Sophia of Jesus Christ, Nag Hammadi)
Jesus answers by describing Samadhi meditation, wherein
one sort of becomes the Universe:
"And he has a semblance of his own - not like what you have
seen and received, but a strange semblance that surpasses all
things and is better than the universe. It looks to every side
and sees itself from itself. Since it is infinite, he is ever
incomprehensible. He is imperishable and has no likeness (to
anything). He is unchanging good. He is faultless. He is
eternal. He is blessed. While he is not known, he ever knows
himself. He is immeasurable. He is untraceable. He is perfect,
having no defect. He is imperishability blessed. He is called
'Father of the Universe'". "
Jesus further qualifies the All-Father/Mother:
"I want you to know that he who appeared before the
universe in infinity, Self-grown, Self-constructed Father.."
So if he is saying that somehow we are part of or can
conjoin to the All-Father/Mother, then how is this
possible since he "appeared before the universe" was
even created?
"When you see a likeness of yourself, you are happy.
But when you see your images that came into being
before you, and that neither die nor become visible,
how much will you be able to tolerate!"
(Jesus: The Gospel of Thomas)
"Have you already discovered the beginning, that now
you can seek after the end? For where the beginning
is, the end will be."
(Jesus: The Gospel of Thomas)
How does one find the beginning? I say again, when
you meditate, you are entering into the mental realm.
Time and space can be folded or pinched together and
one moves at the speed of thought. It is within us
that we find the depths of the universe, for we each
are a microcosm and a window into the universe, like
a portal or gateway.
"For whoever does not know self does not know anything,
but whoever knows self already has acquired knowledge
about the depth of the universe."
(Jesus: The Book of Thomas)
Close your eyes. You are in darkness. Welcome to the
Abyss.
The Diamond Archetype is to be found within you. Jesus
told John to see the beam of wood as metaphor, and that
he should seek the "cross of light" (The Mystic Cross,
Acts of John). When during meditation you see the
infinite sea of rainbow eyes stretching off to infinity
in all directions, you are seeing the Universe as it
looks in the mental realm. Welcome to the Matrix. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:15 pm Post subject: Re: Aeons |
|
|
Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):
| Quote: | I was at expecting Moggs to give an example
|
I gave three examples, all showing Irenaeus reasons to his
conclusion that there are properly only four Gospels -- no
more or less -- by analogy instead of numerology alone, despite
Nuvodam's claim. To repeat:
... He depends on analogy
instead, reasoning from the idea that there are four winds, the
world is divided into four parts, the heavenly throne is
surrounded by four beasts (Rev. 4), etc., to his conclusion the
Gospels are "in accord with these things" and "it is fitting
that she [the Church] should have four pillars." See AH 3.11.8.
Like I said before, Nuvoadam is a highly unreliable source
of info.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 8:35 am Post subject: Re: Aeons |
|
|
"Nuvoadam" <Nuvoadam@AOL.com> wrote in message
news:93508a0.0401170052.74b49878@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com> wrote in message
news:<l9KNb.13424$9k7.252593@news.xtra.co.nz>...
"Kater Moggin" <moggin@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
news:moggin-E33520.23054015012004@netnews.comcast.net...
Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):
Irenaeus was into numerology, going into some detail why there
should be four gospels and not more or less based on this interest
alone.
More misinformation from Nuvoadam. (Like I said, he's the
last person to listen to about this stuff.) Irenaeus
definitely does not base his argument that there should be only
four Gospels on numerology alone. He depends on analogy
instead, reasoning from the idea that there are four winds, the
world is divided into four parts, the heavenly throne is
surrounded by four beasts (Rev. 4), etc., to his conclusion the
Gospels are "in accord with these things" and "it is fitting
that she [the Church] should have four pillars." See AH 3.11.8.
I was planning a response to Nuvo, until I saw that Moggin had said
pretty
much what I was going to. However, I would like to add detail.
Irenaeus states that,
"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in
number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in
which
we live, and four principal winds,..." (AH 3:11:8)
Additionally, he states:
"For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images
of
the dispensation of the Son of God......[a description of the
Cherubim].....And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things,
among which Christ Jesus is seated." (AH 3:11:8)
Finally, he also states:
"For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is
quadriform,
as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four
principal (kaqolikai/) covenants given to the human race: one, prior to
the
deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the
third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which
renovates
man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising
and
bearing men upon heavenly kingdom." (also AH 3:11:8)
While this may indicate an interest in numbers, it does not in the least
prove that Irenaeus was using numerology as we understand that term or
in
any sense as gematria.
As Moggin has said, it indicates that he was using analogous argument
from
both creation and God's history of communication to establish 4 Gospels
as
fitting. Basically, he was pointing to a numerical pattern. We can say
nothing more than that.
Of course, some would like to prove more, but what they like and what is
proveable are most often two different things.
Mr. Jester, congrats on one of your best posts. However, all you did
was support my comment, so I'm not sure what the beef was.
Jester said:
"Basically he was pointing to a numerical pattern."
That is numerology.
Moggin said:
"..more misinformation.."
"Irenaeus definitely does not base his argument that there should be
only four Gospels on numerology alone."
After this, I was at expecting Moggs to give an example of some
other method I. might have used to justify four gospels rather
than more/less. Instead, he proceeds to support my statement,
because every "analogy" he mentioned was numerological speculation.
So where is the "misinformation" except Moggins that stemming
from his own confusion as to what numerology is?
Irenaes uses numerology and gematria to delve into various Ism's,
and on many occasions too. For instance, when looking into the
Valentinian speculation, he tries to connect the number of Aeons
with the gematria of the name of God. "The enunciation of the
whole Name consisted of thirty letters or elements, and of four
distinct utterances" (Irenaeus Against Heresies 1:14:1)
Irenaeus loved numbers! He used numerology to unlock the meaning
of 666, with Hippolytus' later support:
http://www.guam.net/home/wresch/stories/R.%20Wresch/Beast666.htm
(snip)
"Irenaeus (c. 130 - c. 202) bishop of Lyons, was the first of
the church fathers to stress the mystic number 666. He expected
a future division of Rome, and cautioned all to wait for that
division before attempting to solve the riddle. He did suggest
several names that might fit the number, among them Lateinos
(The Latin-speaking man) in Greek numerology: L=30; A=1; T=300;
E=5; I=10; N=50; 0=70; S=200; total 666.-Ireneaus, Against
Heresies, book 5, chap. 30, sec. 2.[Froom, The Prophetic Faith
of our Fathers, vol. 1 pp. 248, 249, Review and Herald Publishing
Association, 1950]."
(endsnip)
For some reason Lyons was a hotbed of numerology. Marcus, still
Valentinian I presume, wrote a work called "Writings on numerology",
which Irenaeus comments on in (Adv. haer), but I'm too tired
to look right now.
I'm not sure offhand, but I think he even mentions using
numerology, for instance (perhaps) in (Against Heresies 1.5.3)
where I believe he remarks upon the difficult time he had
interpreting the numerology of the 7 (or even Heavens.
Here is a site (just) touching on numerology as it pertains
to deciphering religious works:
http://tinyurl.com/2yxbq
|
"Numerology": (n) the study of the supposed occult meaning of numbers.
(Concise Oxford Dictionary: 1995, pg 934)
"Gematria": (n) "Gematria ist he calculation of the numerical equivalence of
letters, words, or phrases, and, on that basis,
gaining, insight into interrelation of different concepts and exploring the
interrelationship between words and ideas." (reference:
http://www.inner.org/gematria/gematria.htm )
From your reference at Guam.net, they claim:
"Irenaeus (c. 130 - c. 202) bishop of Lyons, was the first of the church
fathers to stress the mystic number 666. He expected a future division of
Rome, and cautioned all to wait for that division before attempting to solve
the riddle. He did suggest several names that might fit the number, among
them Lateinos (The Latin-speaking man) in Greek numerology: L=30; A=1;
T=300; E=5; I=10; N=50; 0=70; S=200; total 666.-Ireneaus, Against Heresies,
book 5, chap. 30, sec. 2."
This is entirely wrong. Irenaeus suggests nothing of ther sort. Here is AH
5:30:2 in full:
"These men, therefore, ought to learn [what really is the state of the
case], and go back to the true number of the name, that they be not reckoned
among false prophets. But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture,
that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the
division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings
are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their
kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the
kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been
speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the
abomination of desolation. This, too, the apostle affirms: "When they shall
say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction shall come upon them." And
Jeremiah does not merely point out his sudden coming, but he even indicates
the tribe from which he shall come, where he says, "We shall hear the voice
of his swift horses from Dan; the whole earth shall be moved by the voice of
the neighing of his galloping horses: he shall also come and devour the
earth, and the fulness thereof, the city also, and they that dwell therein."
This, too, is the reason that this tribe is not reckoned in the Apocalypse
along with those which are saved."
A quick read of AH 5:30:1 will reveal what Irenaeus was really doing:
telling people not to use numerology to find out who the Beast will be which
is often wrong anyway as they have only a "spurious number".
"But as for those who, for the sake of vainglory, lay it down for certain
that names containing the spurious number are to be accepted, and affirm
that this name, hit upon by themselves, is that of him who is to come; such
persons shall not come forth without loss, because they have led into error
both themselves and those who confided in them." (AH 5:30:1)
Irenaeus is telling people to only go to what they know for sure from the
Revelation and other prophets. Nothing proves here that he was interested in
numerology.
And your reference is shit. If you bothered to check the reference, you
would have know this.
--
Mouldy Jester
"You really *are* Moggins kiss-ass lapdoggie aren'tcha?"
--Nuvoadam, 17th January, 2004
(in reference to myself). |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 8:37 am Post subject: Re: Aeons |
|
|
"Kater Moggin" <moggin@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
news:moggin-A0FF7D.10095017012004@netnews.comcast.net...
| Quote: | Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):
I was at expecting Moggs to give an example
I gave three examples, all showing Irenaeus reasons to his
conclusion that there are properly only four Gospels -- no
more or less -- by analogy instead of numerology alone, despite
Nuvodam's claim. To repeat:
... He depends on analogy
instead, reasoning from the idea that there are four winds, the
world is divided into four parts, the heavenly throne is
surrounded by four beasts (Rev. 4), etc., to his conclusion the
Gospels are "in accord with these things" and "it is fitting
that she [the Church] should have four pillars." See AH 3.11.8.
Like I said before, Nuvoadam is a highly unreliable source
of info.
|
His reference was full of shit, anyway.
--
Mouldy Jester
"You really *are* Moggins kiss-ass lapdoggie aren'tcha?"
--Nuvoadam, 17th January, 2004
(in reference to myself). |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
