| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 2:19 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
 |
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | My point is that the demiurge cannot be described as "all evil" given
the 10 commandments.
|
Your point is pointless, since I never claimed that the OT
deity has to be considered "all evil." As I've already
mentioned, the picture of him the Bible, the details of his law
very much included, is good reason to call him evil even
though the law contains some better commandments along with its
worse ones.
Incidentally, your examples aren't very good. Honor one's
father and mother, for example. Why? What did they do to
deserve it? What if they beat and starve you? They definitely
brought a child into this world, which hardly seems like an
honorable thing to do. Evidently one is supposed to honor them
merely because of their status as parents, the way one is
forced to follow the commandment just because it comes from the
Lord and Creator: a very _worldly_ system of values, in
contrast to your notion below about a higher plane of existence.
Also notice the contrast to Jesus' teachings in opposition
to the family in the Gospels. Examples include "Call no man
your father upon the earth" (Matthew 23:9), "If any man come to
me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also
he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26), "Who is my mother?
and who are my brethren?" (Matt. 12:48, where Jesus refuses his
natural family), "Let the dead bury their dead," Jesus
commanding a follower to skip his father's burial (Matthew 8:22
and Luke 9:60), and "I came not to send peace, but a sword"
-- Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51 -- where he goes on "For I am come
to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother," etc. Exactly the opposite of the
Creator's law.
| Quote: | The commandments I provided are given to help
transcend the people to a higher plane of existence than that of
animal.
|
Most of the commandments you quoted are about property and
procreation: animal life.
| Quote: | I'm not sure (given these facts) how you or anyone can
maintain the purely negative concept of the demiurge.
|
You're certainly lying, since I never claimed the demiurge
has to be called all evil. As I said to Heidi, he and his
Creation don't have to be all bad to be bad enough to merit the
label.
| Quote: | Or in other words the Valentinian Monism argument wins out.
|
Judging by Valentinian thinking, you lose. In Valentinian
theology the Creator of this world is reduced from supreme
deity to highly inferior demiurge and divided from the true God.
Dualism. But you contend that's "pure speculation and
arrogance." If required to consider the demiurge, you pick the
flattering picture in Plato over the critical one in
gnosticism, which you insist is corrupted. So the Valentinians'
negative opinion of the demiurge is an attack on your own
outlook. You're welcome to your personal views, but they're in
opposition to the gnostics.'
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 2:37 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
Heideana <heideana@pacbell.net>:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com> wrote:
My point is that the demiurge cannot be described as "all evil" given
the 10 commandments.
But that's the precise question...if you have a system where there's
black "x" plus a white "y" on one side of the equal sign, and a "z" on
the other side represented by a pixilated mixture of black and white
spots that looks grey when you don't examine it too closely. The idea
is to separate all the white dots from the black dots in the grey "z"
so you know how much x and y are in it. Once x is separated from y,
there is no "contamination" of one by the other. If you subsitute
"evil" for x and "good" for y, then your completely separating the two
from each other and there is no evil in good and no good in evil and
never the "twain" shall meet.
If I'm understanding things correctly then I think solving that
equation is the end game/"second coming of Christ"/"The Rapture",
etc... In the mean time, we're working on cleansing ourselves to get
out of the "grey" in the equation before hand using the gift of
"gnosis" to recognize the "real nature of the world"....sorry it
that's too simplistic.
Catawampus can probably explicate it "clearer" then I...
|
I know what you're saying. In gnosticism, the mix of good
and evil is a problem that requires fixing. Rather than
justifying the Creation or exonerating its Creator the presence
of evil alongside good is evidence that something is very
wrong (evil polluted the good or the good tumbled into the evil
world) and needs to be remedied. The answer is to separate
one from the other, for example by liberating the good from its
worldly prison.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 20, 4:19 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
Or in other words the Valentinian Monism argument wins out.
Judging by Valentinian thinking, you lose. In Valentinian
theology the Creator of this world is reduced from supreme
deity to highly inferior demiurge and divided from the true God.
Dualism. But you contend that's "pure speculation and
arrogance." If required to consider the demiurge, you pick the
flattering picture in Plato over the critical one in
gnosticism, which you insist is corrupted. So the Valentinians'
negative opinion of the demiurge is an attack on your own
outlook. You're welcome to your personal views, but they're in
opposition to the gnostics.'
-- Catawumpus
|
Sorry but Valentinus according to all the sources I've researched is
firmly in my philosophical corner.
While Gnostic traditions are typically regarded as dualistic, "a
standard element in the interpretation of Valentinianism and similar
forms of Gnosticism is the recognition that they are fundamentally
monistic" (Schoedel, William, "Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth"
in Bentley Layton (ed.) The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol.1: The
School of Valentinus, E.J. Brill, Leiden.).
"Valentinian gnosticism...differs essentially from dualism" (Pagels
1978) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 20, 4:37 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net>:
zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
My point is that the demiurge cannot be described as "all evil" given
the 10 commandments.
But that's the precise question...if you have a system where there's
black "x" plus a white "y" on one side of the equal sign, and a "z" on
the other side represented by a pixilated mixture of black and white
spots that looks grey when you don't examine it too closely. The idea
is to separate all the white dots from the black dots in the grey "z"
so you know how much x and y are in it. Once x is separated from y,
there is no "contamination" of one by the other. If you subsitute
"evil" for x and "good" for y, then your completely separating the two
from each other and there is no evil in good and no good in evil and
never the "twain" shall meet.
If I'm understanding things correctly then I think solving that
equation is the end game/"second coming of Christ"/"The Rapture",
etc... In the mean time, we're working on cleansing ourselves to get
out of the "grey" in the equation before hand using the gift of
"gnosis" to recognize the "real nature of the world"....sorry it
that's too simplistic.
Catawampus can probably explicate it "clearer" then I...
I know what you're saying. In gnosticism, the mix of good
and evil is a problem that requires fixing. Rather than
justifying the Creation or exonerating its Creator the presence
of evil alongside good is evidence that something is very
wrong (evil polluted the good or the good tumbled into the evil
world) and needs to be remedied. The answer is to separate
one from the other, for example by liberating the good from its
worldly prison.
-- Catawumpus
|
It is due to our ignorance of the true nature of reality that we
believe that things can be separated into opposites. This is discussed
in the Gospel of Philip: "Light and darkness, life and death, right
and left are mutually dependent; it is impossible for them to
separate. Accordingly the 'good' are not good, the 'bad' are not bad,
'life' is not life, 'death' is not death." (Gospel of Philip 53:14-23) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:13 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm>:
| Quote: | In Valentinian
theology the Creator of this world is reduced from supreme
deity to highly inferior demiurge and divided from the true God.
Dualism. But you contend that's "pure speculation and
arrogance." If required to consider the demiurge, you pick the
flattering picture in Plato over the critical one in
gnosticism, which you insist is corrupted. So the Valentinians'
negative opinion of the demiurge is an attack on your own
outlook. You're welcome to your personal views, but they're in
opposition to the gnostics.'
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
You have alot to apologize for, but rather than correcting
your mistakes you just come up with new ones (though in
fairness you sometimes repeat the same errors you were carrying
with you when you came in).
| Quote: | but Valentinus according to all the sources I've researched
|
In other words you're still cribbing from Wikipedia. When
are you going to do some reading?
| Quote: | is firmly in my philosophical corner.
|
You have your head shoved firmly up your ass. As I showed
with evidence from the ancient sources, the Valentinians'
thinking is directly opposed to your personal outlook, contrary
to your claim to be aligned with Valentinus et al. We've
been over this several times now, but it won't hurt anything to
cover the ground again.
In your opinion, dividing God from the Maker of this world
is "pure speculation and arrogance," and if required to
consider the concept of a demiurge, you pick Plato's flattering
portrait over the critical picture in gnosticism, which you
label corrupted. But the Valentinians do just what you condemn.
Valentinus distinguishes "the uncreated Father" from the
demiurge, a being who's created by Sophia while she's "deprived
of her spiritual substance." (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1.) Ditto
other Valentinians like Ptolemy, who divides Bythos, located up
"in the invisible and ineffable heights above," from the
demiurge, "creator of all animal and material substances," once
again the product of Sophia's fall (Irenaeus AH 1.1.1. and
1.5.2); Heracleon, who explains pneumatics "worship neither the
creation nor the Demiurge, but the Father of truth" (I'm
quoting from Frag. 20), and Marcus, who similarly separates God
the Father from the demiurge, the Maker of this world (see
Irenaeus AH 1.16.3-1-17.2), who we're told "followed that which
was false."
So Valentinian theology makes a very clear division between
the demiurge and God: exactly what you object to and an
example of the dualism you wrongly contend isn't there. What's
more, the Valentinians share the negative opinion of the
Creator characteristic of gnosticism, not the positive one seen
in Platonic philosophy. Separating him from the true God
removes him from his traditional role as supreme being, and the
Valentinians go on from there, e.g., they describe him as
unspiritual (Valentinus), picture him doing evil (in the Gospel
of Truth), depict him as a combination of ignorance and
arrogance (Ptolemy), label him disgusting (Theodotus, _Excerpta
33.4), and accuse him of incompetence: Marcus. Once again
Valentinian thinking contradicts yours, here by criticizing the
Creator of the world.
You say that the body is the temple of the soul and you're
unhappy with judgments against the Creation. (You even
rejected Jesus' relatively mild teaching "Be passers-by" in the
Gospel of Thomas.) But the Valentinians look forward to
ascending to the pleroma leaving body and soul behind, and they
prophesy the destruction of material existence (example:
Ptolemy in Irenaeus, AH 1.7.1). Valentinus labels the ordinary
body "corruption" (Clement of Alexandria Strom. 3.59.3) and
teaches the nullification of this world (Strom. 4.89:1-3). Etc.
You like to think about Jesus as a "mortal man with mortal
desires." But the Valentinians see him as a heavenly
emmanation (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1, AH 1.2.6): "perfect beauty and
star of the fullness." Time and again the Valentinians
plainly stand opposed to your own beliefs despite your pretence
to the opposite.
| Quote: | While Gnostic traditions are typically regarded as dualistic, "a
standard element in the interpretation of Valentinianism and similar
forms of Gnosticism is the recognition that they are fundamentally
monistic" (Schoedel, William, "Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth"
in Bentley Layton (ed.) The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol.1: The
School of Valentinus, E.J. Brill, Leiden.).
"Valentinian gnosticism...differs essentially from dualism" (Pagels
1978)
|
So the sum total of your research is just an argument from
authority lifted from Wikipedia. Truth be told the
Valentinian perspective includes any number of dualities. Some
examples: God vs. the demiurge, the divine realm vs. the
demiurge's Creation, incorruptibility vs. corruption, knowledge
versus ignorance, infinity vs. finitude, reality versus
illusion, completion versus deficiency, incorruptibility versus
corruption, and eternity vs. time.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:20 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm>:
| Quote: | In gnosticism, the mix of good
and evil is a problem that requires fixing. Rather than
justifying the Creation or exonerating its Creator the presence
of evil alongside good is evidence that something is very
wrong (evil polluted the good or the good tumbled into the evil
world) and needs to be remedied. The answer is to seate
one from the other, for example by liberating the good from its
worldly prison.
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | It is due to our ignorance of the true nature of reality that we
believe that things can be separated into opposites.
|
You've firmly established your ignorance of gnosticism and
your lack of interest in learning. Your pontifications on
reality's "true nature" are neither here nor there. But thanks
all the same.
| Quote: | This is discussed in the Gospel of Philip: "Light and darkness, life and death, right
and left are mutually dependent; it is impossible for them to
separate. Accordingly the 'good' are not good, the 'bad' are not bad,
'life' is not life, 'death' is not death." (Gospel of Philip 53:14-23)
|
Interesting where you broke off the quote. The next thing
in the same passage is an assertion that "each will be
dispersed to its original source," showing that the idea "It is
impossible for them to separate" is highly qualified: come
the day they _will_ be unmixed. What's more, the mixes of life
and death, light and dark, etc. are distinguished from "the
things that are superior to the world," which are claimed to be
eternal. You left that out, too.
Also notice the immediately preceding section, which talks
about the annointed liberating "those who were alien" from
captivity in this world, rescuing the soul from its prison here:
that is, separating the spiritual from the material and
returning what belongs in the higher world from its place below.
Gospel of Philip 52:35-53:13.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 24, 1:13 am, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm>:
In Valentinian
theology the Creator of this world is reduced from supreme
deity to highly inferior demiurge and divided from the true God.
Dualism. But you contend that's "pure speculation and
arrogance." If required to consider the demiurge, you pick the
flattering picture in Plato over the critical one in
gnosticism, which you insist is corrupted. So the Valentinians'
negative opinion of the demiurge is an attack on your own
outlook. You're welcome to your personal views, but they're in
opposition to the gnostics.'
zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
Sorry
You have alot to apologize for, but rather than correcting
your mistakes you just come up with new ones (though in
fairness you sometimes repeat the same errors you were carrying
with you when you came in).
but Valentinus according to all the sources I've researched
In other words you're still cribbing from Wikipedia. When
are you going to do some reading?
is firmly in my philosophical corner.
You have your head shoved firmly up your ass. As I showed
with evidence from the ancient sources, the Valentinians'
thinking is directly opposed to your personal outlook, contrary
to your claim to be aligned with Valentinus et al. We've
been over this several times now, but it won't hurt anything to
cover the ground again.
In your opinion, dividing God from the Maker of this world
is "pure speculation and arrogance," and if required to
consider the concept of a demiurge, you pick Plato's flattering
portrait over the critical picture in gnosticism, which you
label corrupted. But the Valentinians do just what you condemn.
Valentinus distinguishes "the uncreated Father" from the
demiurge, a being who's created by Sophia while she's "deprived
of her spiritual substance." (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1.) Ditto
other Valentinians like Ptolemy, who divides Bythos, located up
"in the invisible and ineffable heights above," from the
demiurge, "creator of all animal and material substances," once
again the product of Sophia's fall (Irenaeus AH 1.1.1. and
1.5.2); Heracleon, who explains pneumatics "worship neither the
creation nor the Demiurge, but the Father of truth" (I'm
quoting from Frag. 20), and Marcus, who similarly separates God
the Father from the demiurge, the Maker of this world (see
Irenaeus AH 1.16.3-1-17.2), who we're told "followed that which
was false."
So Valentinian theology makes a very clear division between
the demiurge and God: exactly what you object to and an
example of the dualism you wrongly contend isn't there. What's
more, the Valentinians share the negative opinion of the
Creator characteristic of gnosticism, not the positive one seen
in Platonic philosophy. Separating him from the true God
removes him from his traditional role as supreme being, and the
Valentinians go on from there, e.g., they describe him as
unspiritual (Valentinus), picture him doing evil (in the Gospel
of Truth), depict him as a combination of ignorance and
arrogance (Ptolemy), label him disgusting (Theodotus, _Excerpta
33.4), and accuse him of incompetence: Marcus. Once again
Valentinian thinking contradicts yours, here by criticizing the
Creator of the world.
You say that the body is the temple of the soul and you're
unhappy with judgments against the Creation. (You even
rejected Jesus' relatively mild teaching "Be passers-by" in the
Gospel of Thomas.) But the Valentinians look forward to
ascending to the pleroma leaving body and soul behind, and they
prophesy the destruction of material existence (example:
Ptolemy in Irenaeus, AH 1.7.1). Valentinus labels the ordinary
body "corruption" (Clement of Alexandria Strom. 3.59.3) and
teaches the nullification of this world (Strom. 4.89:1-3). Etc.
You like to think about Jesus as a "mortal man with mortal
desires." But the Valentinians see him as a heavenly
emmanation (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1, AH 1.2.6): "perfect beauty and
star of the fullness." Time and again the Valentinians
plainly stand opposed to your own beliefs despite your pretence
to the opposite.
While Gnostic traditions are typically regarded as dualistic, "a
standard element in the interpretation of Valentinianism and similar
forms of Gnosticism is the recognition that they are fundamentally
monistic" (Schoedel, William, "Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth"
in Bentley Layton (ed.) The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol.1: The
School of Valentinus, E.J. Brill, Leiden.).
"Valentinian gnosticism...differs essentially from dualism" (Pagels
1978)
So the sum total of your research is just an argument from
authority lifted from Wikipedia. Truth be told the
Valentinian perspective includes any number of dualities. Some
examples: God vs. the demiurge, the divine realm vs. the
demiurge's Creation, incorruptibility vs. corruption, knowledge
versus ignorance, infinity vs. finitude, reality versus
illusion, completion versus deficiency, incorruptibility versus
corruption, and eternity vs. time.
-- Catawumpus
|
Actually the sum total of the argument is from years of research from
Schoedel and others who came to the conclusion that the teaching of
Valentinus is monistic. This in NO way states non-duality and it's to
bad you can't comprehend this concept. Are they incorrect in this
assessment? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | Actually the sum total of the argument is from years of research from
|
Your argument-from-authority consisted of two quotes you'd
lifted from a Wikipedia page (although you didn't bother to
say so, pretending that you'd been doing research), neither one
offering even a scrap of evidence from the sources. By
contrast, I gave chapter and verse showing Valentinian thinking
is directly opposed to your beliefs on one point after the
next, contrary to your claim to line up with Valentinus and his
followers.
Short version. You say dividing the Creator of this world
from the true God is "pure speculation and arrogance." The
Valentinians do just what you condemn by distinguishing between
God and the demiurge. If forced to consider the idea of a
demiurge you pick Plato's flattery over the gnostics' criticism.
Granted the Valentinians take a mild view of the demiurge
compared to other gnostic schools. Nonetheless they once again
do exactly what you object to, describing him or her as
unspiritual, arrogant and ignorant, evil, incompetent, given to
falsehood, disgusting, and so on. You call the body the
temple of the soul, but the Valentinians call it corruption and
look forward to leaving it behind. You're offended by
judgments against the Creation, but the Valentinians label this
world a mountain of evil and predict its destruction. You
consider Jesus "a mortal man with mortal desires," while to the
Valentinians he's a heavenly emmanation. You're fully
entitled to your opinions, but your claim that the Valentinians
share them is false.
Quotes and cites in my previous post, if anyone wants them.
| Quote: | Schoedel and others who came to the conclusion that the teaching of
Valentinus is monistic. This in NO way states non-duality and it's to
bad you can't comprehend this concept. Are they incorrect in this
assessment?
|
You're incorrect to contend that the Valentinians stand in
your corner, as you put it, since their outlook, like the
gnostic perspective generally speaking, contradicts yours again
and again, including your rejection of dualism, e.g. the
division of the true God from the demiurge and of the spiritual
world from the material one.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:50 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 25, 2:00 am, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
Actually the sum total of the argument is from years of research from
Your argument-from-authority consisted of two quotes you'd
lifted from a Wikipedia page (although you didn't bother to
say so, pretending that you'd been doing research), neither one
offering even a scrap of evidence from the sources. By
contrast, I gave chapter and verse showing Valentinian thinking
is directly opposed to your beliefs on one point after the
next, contrary to your claim to line up with Valentinus and his
followers.
Short version. You say dividing the Creator of this world
from the true God is "pure speculation and arrogance." The
Valentinians do just what you condemn by distinguishing between
God and the demiurge. If forced to consider the idea of a
demiurge you pick Plato's flattery over the gnostics' criticism.
Granted the Valentinians take a mild view of the demiurge
compared to other gnostic schools. Nonetheless they once again
do exactly what you object to, describing him or her as
unspiritual, arrogant and ignorant, evil, incompetent, given to
falsehood, disgusting, and so on. You call the body the
temple of the soul, but the Valentinians call it corruption and
look forward to leaving it behind. You're offended by
judgments against the Creation, but the Valentinians label this
world a mountain of evil and predict its destruction. You
consider Jesus "a mortal man with mortal desires," while to the
Valentinians he's a heavenly emmanation. You're fully
entitled to your opinions, but your claim that the Valentinians
share them is false.
Quotes and cites in my previous post, if anyone wants them.
Schoedel and others who came to the conclusion that the teaching of
Valentinus is monistic. This in NO way states non-duality and it's to
bad you can't comprehend this concept. Are they incorrect in this
assessment?
You're incorrect to contend that the Valentinians stand in
your corner, as you put it, since their outlook, like the
gnostic perspective generally speaking, contradicts yours again
and again, including your rejection of dualism, e.g. the
division of the true God from the demiurge and of the spiritual
world from the material one.
-- Catawumpus
|
Well Shoedel,Pagels and myself will keep our version of Valentinus and
you and uh...you can have yours. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:40 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm>:
| Quote: | You're incorrect to contend that the Valentinians stand in
your corner, as you put it, since their outlook, like the
gnostic perspective generally speaking, contradicts yours again
and again, including your rejection of dualism, e.g. the
division of the true God from the demiurge and of the spiritual
world from the material one.
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | Well Shoedel,Pagels and myself will keep our version of Valentinus and
you and uh...you can have yours.
|
All you've got is the false claim that your beliefs are in
line with the Valentinians.' The evidence in the sources
plainly contradicts you, as I already demonstrated, and so does
the description in Pagels. In fact that's where we began: you
wrongly said that you "share her view on pretty much
everything" when she actually _disputes_ you about the gnostics
and gnosticism.
One more time. In your opinion, dividing the Creator from
the true God is "pure speculation and arrogance," but the
Valentinians do just what you condemn. Valentinus
distinguishes "the uncreated Father" from the demiurge, a being
created by Sophia while she's "deprived of her spiritual
substance" (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1). Ditto other Valentinians like
Ptolemy, who divides Bythos, located "in the invisible and
ineffable heights above," from the demiurge, who's described as
the "creator of all animal and material substances," once
again the product of Sophia's fall (Irenaeus AH 1.1.1. and
1.5.2); Heracleon, who explains pneumatics "worship neither the
creation nor the Demiurge, but the Father of truth" (I'm
quoting from Frag. 20), and Marcus, who similarly separates God
the Father from the demiurge, the Maker of this world who
"followed that which was false." See Irenaeus AH 1.16.3-1-17.2.
If you're required to consider the idea of a demiurge, you
choose the flattering portrait in Plato over the gnostics'
critical picture, and again once the Valentinians clearly argue
against you. Granted they don't attack the demiurge as
sharply as some other gnostic schools. Nonetheless they demote
him from his traditional position as supreme being and
describe him as unspiritual (Valentinus), depict him doing evil
-- Gospel of Truth 16:15-20, 16:30-36 -- picture him as
arrogant and ignorant (Ptolemy), call him disgusting (Theodotus
in _Excerpta_ 33.4), and accuse him of incompetence and
falsehood (Marcus), contradicting your claim that you have them
on your side.
You say that the body is the temple of the soul and you're
unhappy with judgments against the Creation. (You even
rejected Jesus' relatively mild teaching "Be passers-by" in the
Gospel of Thomas.) But the Valentinians look forward to
ascending to the pleroma leaving body and soul behind, and they
prophesy the destruction of material existence (example:
Ptolemy in Irenaeus, AH 1.7.1). Heracleon refers to this world
as "a total mountain of evil," (Fragment 20), Valentinus
labels the ordinary body "corruption" (Clement of Alexandria in
Strom. 3.59.3) and teaches the nullification of this world
(Strom. 4.89:1-3), yet again showing your opinions are contrary
to the Valentinians.'
You like to think about Jesus as a "mortal man with mortal
desires." But the Valentinians see him as a heavenly
emmanation (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1, AH 1.2.6): "perfect beauty and
star of the fullness." Time and again the Valentinians
plainly stand opposed to your own beliefs despite your pretence
to agree with them.
Pagels tones things down, but the gist is still there. In
_The Gnostic Gospels_, for example, she says, referring to
Valentinus, "What gnostics know is that the creator makes false
claims to power ('I am God, and there is no other') that
derive from his own ignorance." (Ch. two, "One God, One Bishop."
The quote is on page 37 in my copy.) There she plainly
describes Valentinus dividing God from the creator of the world
-- i.e., the demiurge -- who he accuses of falsehood and
ignorance. She also recognizes the Valentinians (Heracleon, in
particular) feel materiality "belongs to 'the devil'; it is
'his cosmos,' the totality of evil, 'the dwelling place of wild
beasts.'" (_The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis_, ch.
five, "Two Types of Conversion," p. 89.) She mentions that the
Valentinians identified "the demiurge and his archons" with
the enslaving elements in Gal. 4:3. (See _The Gnostic Paul_ ch.
four, "Galatians," p. 109 in my paperback.) Etc. The
Valentinians, in Pagels' description, separate the Creator from
God, reduce him to a very inferior demiurge, attack his
Creation, and so on, putting their perspective in conflict with
yours, contrary to your claim to have them lined up behind
you, but consistent with the evidence in the historical sources.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 25, 4:40 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm>:
You like to think about Jesus as a "mortal man with mortal
desires." But the Valentinians see him as a heavenly
emmanation (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1, AH 1.2.6): "perfect beauty and
star of the fullness." Time and again the Valentinians
plainly stand opposed to your own beliefs despite your pretence
to agree with them.
|
I don't have the time to correct all the lies but for the record
Valentinians draw a sharp distinction between the human and the divine
Jesus. In fact it's central to Valentinian theology.
"Joseph the carpenter planted a garden because he needed wood for his
trade. It was he who made the cross from the trees which he planted.
His own offspring hung on that which he planted. His offspring was
Jesus..." Gospel of Philip |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:50 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 26, 6:04 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
I don't have the time to correct all the lies but for the record
For the record, the lies are all yours, and you don't have
any excuse for not correcting them, especally since you've
found the time to repeat them again and again. As I've already
showed, your claim that your beliefs are in line with the
Valentinians' is false. Examples: you deny a division between
the Creator of this world and God, calling it "pure
speculation and arrogance" -- but the Valentinians separate God
from the Creator, reduced to a mere demiurge. If forced to
consider the idea of a demiurge, you opt for Plato's flattering
portrait over the critical picture in gnosticism, but the
Valentinians consider the demiurge arrogant and ignorant, label
him disgusting, picture him doing evil, describe him as
incompetent, etc. You call the body the temple of the soul and
reject criticism of the material world. But to the
Valentinians the ordinary body is _corruption_ and the material
world is a "total mountain of evil," a place made from
suffering and destined to be destroyed. Etc. Quotes and cites
in my earlier posts.
kimmerian-03EE49.17400925062...@unknown.sj.astraweb.com has the
specifics, or most of them.
Confronted with the evidence about the Valentinians in the
historical sources, which shows their thinking directly
opposes your point of view, you tried to pretend you had Pagels
on your side: an argument-from-authority or less, since
Pagels' description of the Valentinians _still_ contradicts the
claims you make about them. According to her, they
distinguish God from the Creator of this world, who they reduce
to a demiurge, accuse of falsehood and ignorance, and
connect, together with his archons, with the enslaving elements
in Galatians 4. They also take a very critical view of the
material world, calling it evil, assigning it to the devil, etc.
The Valentinians stand opposed to your opinions both in the
sources _and_ in the account that Pagels gives. Details in the
post I linked to above.
Valentinians draw a sharp distinction between the human and the divine
Jesus.
In some cases true. Again note the difference between the
Valentinian concept of a divine Jesus and your preferred
understanding that he's is a mortal man with mortal desires, as
you put it before.
|
He is a mortal man with mortal desires. When baptized into the holy
spirit he became much more...UNDERSTAND YET?
| Quote: |
Let's take Ptolemy's system as an example. Two distinctly
different beings called Jesus there. One is the heavenly
Jesus emmanated by the aeons and said to be the "perfect beauty
and star" of the pleroma (Irenaeus AH 1.2.6), explicitly
reported to be an immaterial being (AH 1.6.1). As you could've
learned from Pagels, he borrows the _likeness_ of a man
without putting on the flesh. The demiurge, by contrast, makes
his own, earthly Jesus, "of an animal nature," i.e., "the
animal Christ" worshipped in Christian proto-orthodoxy. See AH
1.7.2.
-- Catawumpus |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:51 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 26, 9:22 pm, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:04:24 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm
wrote:
zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
I don't have the time to correct all the lies but for the record
For the record, the lies are all yours
-- Catawumpus
Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen. Maybe if he changed
his nym he would become more open to the truth you've been patiently
spooning him. Doubtul, though.
- sl -
|
don't think that I haven't noticed his ability to avoid my questions
while repeating the same ol demiurg fetish. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:04 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | I don't have the time to correct all the lies but for the record
|
For the record, the lies are all yours, and you don't have
any excuse for not correcting them, especally since you've
found the time to repeat them again and again. As I've already
showed, your claim that your beliefs are in line with the
Valentinians' is false. Examples: you deny a division between
the Creator of this world and God, calling it "pure
speculation and arrogance" -- but the Valentinians separate God
from the Creator, reduced to a mere demiurge. If forced to
consider the idea of a demiurge, you opt for Plato's flattering
portrait over the critical picture in gnosticism, but the
Valentinians consider the demiurge arrogant and ignorant, label
him disgusting, picture him doing evil, describe him as
incompetent, etc. You call the body the temple of the soul and
reject criticism of the material world. But to the
Valentinians the ordinary body is _corruption_ and the material
world is a "total mountain of evil," a place made from
suffering and destined to be destroyed. Etc. Quotes and cites
in my earlier posts.
kimmerian-03EE49.17400925062008@unknown.sj.astraweb.com has the
specifics, or most of them.
Confronted with the evidence about the Valentinians in the
historical sources, which shows their thinking directly
opposes your point of view, you tried to pretend you had Pagels
on your side: an argument-from-authority or less, since
Pagels' description of the Valentinians _still_ contradicts the
claims you make about them. According to her, they
distinguish God from the Creator of this world, who they reduce
to a demiurge, accuse of falsehood and ignorance, and
connect, together with his archons, with the enslaving elements
in Galatians 4. They also take a very critical view of the
material world, calling it evil, assigning it to the devil, etc.
The Valentinians stand opposed to your opinions both in the
sources _and_ in the account that Pagels gives. Details in the
post I linked to above.
| Quote: | Valentinians draw a sharp distinction between the human and the divine
Jesus.
|
In some cases true. Again note the difference between the
Valentinian concept of a divine Jesus and your preferred
understanding that he's is a mortal man with mortal desires, as
you put it before.
Let's take Ptolemy's system as an example. Two distinctly
different beings called Jesus there. One is the heavenly
Jesus emmanated by the aeons and said to be the "perfect beauty
and star" of the pleroma (Irenaeus AH 1.2.6), explicitly
reported to be an immaterial being (AH 1.6.1). As you could've
learned from Pagels, he borrows the _likeness_ of a man
without putting on the flesh. The demiurge, by contrast, makes
his own, earthly Jesus, "of an animal nature," i.e., "the
animal Christ" worshipped in Christian proto-orthodoxy. See AH
1.7.2.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
shriven leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:22 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:04:24 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
I don't have the time to correct all the lies but for the record
For the record, the lies are all yours
-- Catawumpus
|
Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen. Maybe if he changed
his nym he would become more open to the truth you've been patiently
spooning him. Doubtul, though.
- sl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
