| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
penitent leper
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2003 12:04 am Post subject: special delivery for Cerinthus (Pagels info) |
 |
|
Cerinthus, a while back you (I'm pretty sure it was you) had
inquired re: the existence of Gnostic mystical practices, meditative
states, the conditions whereby Gnostic insight might be achieved, etc.
I just finished Pagel's most recent book, and found some supplemental
stuff on this subject:
= = = = = = = = =
The Secret Book of John...sets forth what theologians call the _via
negativa_, recognizing what _cannot_ be known and discarding
misapprehensions about God. Nevertheless, the Secret Book says that
human beings have an innate capacity to know God but one that offers
only hints and glimpses of divine reality. The Secret Book suggests
that the story of Eve's birth from Adam's side speaks of the awakening
of this spiritual capacity... this story, symbolically read, shows how
the "blessed one above, the Father...feeling compassion for Adam,
sent him "a helper - luminous _Epinioa_ ["creative" or "inventive"
consciousness] which comes out of him, who is called Life [Eve]; and
she 'helps' the whole creation, by working with him, and by restoring
him to his full being..." Thus Eve symbolizes the gift of spiritual
understanding, which enables us to reflect - however imperfectly -
upon divine reality...
The Secret Book intends this story to show that we have a latent
capacity...that links us to the divine - not in our ordinary state of
mind but when this hidden capacity awakens... To speak of various
modes of consciousness susceptible to revelation, the author of the
Secret Book invokes a cluster of words related to the Greek verb
_noein_, which means "perceive," "think," or "be aware." The Secret
Bood explains that, although God is essentially incomprehensible, the
powers that reveal God to humankind include _pronoia_ (anticipatory
awareness), _ennoia_ (internal reflection), and _prognosis_
(foreknowledge or intuition), all personified as feminine presences,
presumably because of the gender of the Greek words... When John asks
whether everyone receives the luminous _epinoia_, the saviour answers
yes - "The power will descend _upon every person_, for without it, no
one can stand" - and adds that _epinois_ strengthens those who love
her by enabling them to discriminate between good and evil, so that
moral insight and ethical power are inseparable from spiritual
understanding...
...however incomplete, these glimpses suffice to reveal the
presence of the divine, for the Secret Book says that, apart from
spiritual intuition, "people grow old without joy...and die...without
knowing God."
.... Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief, The Secret Gospel of Thomas, Random
House, NY, pp. 163-166
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
So, Epinoia, Pronoia, and Prognosis seem to qualify for a Gnostic
list of meditative states.
- pl - |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Cerinthus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2003 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: special delivery for Cerinthus (Pagels info) |
|
|
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:c1vmlvgukhg39c4m1f4qsvj2sejnnm3muc@4ax.com...
| Quote: | Cerinthus, a while back you (I'm pretty sure it was you) had
inquired re: the existence of Gnostic mystical practices, meditative
states, the conditions whereby Gnostic insight might be achieved, etc.
I just finished Pagel's most recent book, and found some supplemental
stuff on this subject:
= = = = = = = = =
The Secret Book of John...sets forth what theologians call the _via
negativa_, recognizing what _cannot_ be known and discarding
misapprehensions about God. Nevertheless, the Secret Book says that
human beings have an innate capacity to know God but one that offers
only hints and glimpses of divine reality. The Secret Book suggests
that the story of Eve's birth from Adam's side speaks of the awakening
of this spiritual capacity... this story, symbolically read, shows how
the "blessed one above, the Father...feeling compassion for Adam,
sent him "a helper - luminous _Epinioa_ ["creative" or "inventive"
consciousness] which comes out of him, who is called Life [Eve]; and
she 'helps' the whole creation, by working with him, and by restoring
him to his full being..." Thus Eve symbolizes the gift of spiritual
understanding, which enables us to reflect - however imperfectly -
upon divine reality...
The Secret Book intends this story to show that we have a latent
capacity...that links us to the divine - not in our ordinary state of
mind but when this hidden capacity awakens... To speak of various
modes of consciousness susceptible to revelation, the author of the
Secret Book invokes a cluster of words related to the Greek verb
_noein_, which means "perceive," "think," or "be aware." The Secret
Bood explains that, although God is essentially incomprehensible, the
powers that reveal God to humankind include _pronoia_ (anticipatory
awareness), _ennoia_ (internal reflection), and _prognosis_
(foreknowledge or intuition), all personified as feminine presences,
presumably because of the gender of the Greek words... When John asks
whether everyone receives the luminous _epinoia_, the saviour answers
yes - "The power will descend _upon every person_, for without it, no
one can stand" - and adds that _epinois_ strengthens those who love
her by enabling them to discriminate between good and evil, so that
moral insight and ethical power are inseparable from spiritual
understanding...
...however incomplete, these glimpses suffice to reveal the
presence of the divine, for the Secret Book says that, apart from
spiritual intuition, "people grow old without joy...and die...without
knowing God."
... Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief, The Secret Gospel of Thomas, Random
House, NY, pp. 163-166
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
So, Epinoia, Pronoia, and Prognosis seem to qualify for a Gnostic
list of meditative states.
|
It was certainly me that asked. Thanks very much for the new information,
and it seems that you are right, from what Pagels says. Is this corroborated
in any other books, I wonder?
--
Cerinthus
"I keep telling you, Gnosticism ain't dualistic."
-- Krag, (30th July, 2003)
"You are perhaps the most literal-minded idiot I've encountered in these
parts."
-- Krag, (referring to Kater, 11th Aug, 2003) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2003 1:07 am Post subject: Re: special delivery for Cerinthus (Pagels info) |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 22:45:17 +1200, "Cerinthus" <Noway@getlost.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:c1vmlvgukhg39c4m1f4qsvj2sejnnm3muc@4ax.com...
Cerinthus, a while back you (I'm pretty sure it was you) had
inquired re: the existence of Gnostic mystical practices, meditative
states, the conditions whereby Gnostic insight might be achieved, etc.
I just finished Pagel's most recent book, and found some supplemental
stuff on this subject:
= = = = = = = = =
The Secret Book of John...sets forth what theologians call the _via
negativa_, recognizing what _cannot_ be known and discarding
misapprehensions about God. Nevertheless, the Secret Book says that
human beings have an innate capacity to know God but one that offers
only hints and glimpses of divine reality. The Secret Book suggests
that the story of Eve's birth from Adam's side speaks of the awakening
of this spiritual capacity... this story, symbolically read, shows how
the "blessed one above, the Father...feeling compassion for Adam,
sent him "a helper - luminous _Epinioa_ ["creative" or "inventive"
consciousness] which comes out of him, who is called Life [Eve]; and
she 'helps' the whole creation, by working with him, and by restoring
him to his full being..." Thus Eve symbolizes the gift of spiritual
understanding, which enables us to reflect - however imperfectly -
upon divine reality...
The Secret Book intends this story to show that we have a latent
capacity...that links us to the divine - not in our ordinary state of
mind but when this hidden capacity awakens... To speak of various
modes of consciousness susceptible to revelation, the author of the
Secret Book invokes a cluster of words related to the Greek verb
_noein_, which means "perceive," "think," or "be aware." The Secret
Bood explains that, although God is essentially incomprehensible, the
powers that reveal God to humankind include _pronoia_ (anticipatory
awareness), _ennoia_ (internal reflection), and _prognosis_
(foreknowledge or intuition), all personified as feminine presences,
presumably because of the gender of the Greek words... When John asks
whether everyone receives the luminous _epinoia_, the saviour answers
yes - "The power will descend _upon every person_, for without it, no
one can stand" - and adds that _epinois_ strengthens those who love
her by enabling them to discriminate between good and evil, so that
moral insight and ethical power are inseparable from spiritual
understanding...
...however incomplete, these glimpses suffice to reveal the
presence of the divine, for the Secret Book says that, apart from
spiritual intuition, "people grow old without joy...and die...without
knowing God."
... Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief, The Secret Gospel of Thomas, Random
House, NY, pp. 163-166
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
So, Epinoia, Pronoia, and Prognosis seem to qualify for a Gnostic
list of meditative states.
It was certainly me that asked. Thanks very much for the new information,
|
You are welcome.
| Quote: | and it seems that you are right, from what Pagels says. Is this corroborated
in any other books, I wonder?
|
I don't know... Pagels mentions some stuff I already posted from The
Gnostic Gospels. Jonas, Hoeller, Rudolph might have additional
related material, but I'm not certain.
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nuvoadam
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2003 12:54 pm Post subject: Re: special delivery for Cerinthus (Pagels info) |
|
|
| Quote: | So, Epinoia, Pronoia, and Prognosis seem to qualify for a Gnostic
list of meditative states.
It was certainly me that asked. Thanks very much for the new information,
and it seems that you are right, from what Pagels says. Is this corroborated
in any other books, I wonder?
--
Cerinthus
|
Hi Cerinthus.
In and around the Eastern Gnosticism thread I was goading everyone to
relate how they or their sects approached enlightenment. No one
answered at that time, except Klaus. I regretted pushing ya'all after
realizing that there would be many who had undertaken initiatory vows
of silence on such matters. If people were holding their secrets then
they did a commendable job. However, you gave me a hint of where you
were at when you voiced the following opinion:
(snipped from eastern gnosticism post)
"...Although I disagree with Moggin on some major issues,
in this one, he is right. Gnostics are not Ascended Masters. They are
followers of the schools of Gnosticism, essentially characterised by a
belief in dualism, (the true God and Yaldabaoth), special knowledge
that
allows escape from this world and the belief that all matter is
inherently
evil, being created out of ignorance by an arrogant and ignorant
Yaldabaoth."
When you said this it was immediately obvious that you hadn't a grasp
on the concept of what an A.S. can be, or for that matter, what a
full-on Gnostic Master can be. There were obviously individuals or
groups which the Church Fathers felt had not earned the right to call
themselves Gnostic, but I think that by that time the term was taking
on a new meaning to denote not only a Master, but an aspirant or even
a Gnosiologist (student of the ism). In truth, an A.S. is even less
of an appellation than a Gnostic would have been. There are very few
Ascended Masters recognized by the Masons throughout human history.
After debating and arguing the term with ya'all, I have had to amend
my personal definition of what a Gnostic is. When I say Eastern
Gnostic (e.Gnostic) it is with the understanding that, while there
were sects who called themselves as Jnasi or Nassee, they had no
vested interest defending the term as their rightful title. Clearly
the Western Gnostics have planted their flag on the nomen as their
own, but if they were using it accurately, then more as an level of
competence and attainment than an appellation.
I'm not aware of any single sect among the Western Gnostics which used
Gnostic for their Sect or School title. Instead, among what were
often competing sects and schools would be found certain individuals
who had won the right to call themselves as Gnostic. I am not
emotionally invested in such semantics, but having studied the rites
of esoteric passage as long as I have, there seems to have been
litmust tests for any aspirant who was ready to prove they were Master
material. Often such tests involved dying for three days, and I'm not
talking about a meditative ego-death. They were killed by submersion
in water, or burying in earth, or were tested by being thrown in fire.
Lazarus I believe was John-Mark-- the younger brother of Mary the
Magdalene. You might recall the story in which Mary sends for Jesus
because Lazarus is sick, in a cave of all places. What was happening?
This was a rite of passage. Lazarus is a title in the Osiris
mysteries which the Cathars claimed John the Baptist was part and
parcel of (hence all the paintings of John and Jesus near the
pyramids). Recall how John the Baptist did not send all 30 of his
disciples to Jesus right away-- John was one of the last to go over.
As the leader of the Essenes, John would have utilized drugs to enable
enlightenment, hence the Cathar paintings of Jesus as lord of the
psychadelic plants (mushrooms, syrian-rue, poppies). So John was
*sick because he had dosed on the Essene witches brew before seeking
out a dark and private place to die. For three days. Lastly note how
Jesus took his sweet time to come help, tarrying for the first three
days but rushing over on the fourth to raise Lazarus up from the dead.
Before becoming the King, the Egyptian prince would have to prove that
he was chosen by Osiris. This was done by placing a solution of brine
in the great Sarcophagus (hence the dense salt coating we still find
today), then in went the drugged up prince, on went the lid and
badaboom badabing, instant sensory-deprivation chamber. After this
they astrally/mentally projected themselves to the hall of Osiris who
would give them thumbs down or up. If they returned after three days,
they were pronounced as a Pharaoh-- the High Priest/High King.
I believe that Jesus spoke to a less risky method of ascension wherein
very Buddhist techniques were utilized. The right kind of meditation
would require as much sensory deprivation as possible. Light, noise,
digesting food, sexual urges or bodily functions-- all were to be
tuned out. He told his disciples to PRAY in their closets for privacy
and darkness.
How would one know another was a Gnostic? The very word means
'Knowing One', and throughout the Nag Hammadi literature we find Jesus
speaking to the need to KNOW ones true nature. What is mind, ego,
reality, the nature of duality etc. In the Gospel of Phillip the
hidden "Bridal Chamber" is mentioned. This is The Way between the
manifest and the unmanifest, an infinite divide breached by simply
closing ones eyes and seeking the inner connection.
When knowledge of self is attained, then eastern sects would know
because the liberation would manifest with divine powers. Hence,
Moksha (liberation), which the Persii call as MAGUS, or in the
plural-- Magi. Their Masters needn't test a person by trial of death
to ascertain if one was enlightened, they could just look at you and
see the halo, or infilling of the Holy Spirit.
The Egyptians called this as the Occult or hidden knowledge. Their
Masters could see others level of enlightenment as well, and the head
would occult the hidden sun like the moon (Amen) occults the sun (Ra),
hence the cult of Amen-Ra.
Even the Sethians (whom I once disparaged for being mundane and not
Gnostic) differentiated between the ritualized Eucharist and the
baptism of water, and the spiritual Eucharist and the baptism of
LIGHT.
Even if one had gained a degree of liberation (from duality as the
w.Gnostics would say) then the eastern Masters would inform such a one
that manifest Moksha was only the first step towards final liberation.
Even the Buddha is depicted in some Sutra's as needing further
refinement after his life, only on a higher spiritual realm.
During the era of Jesus there were few Gnostic masters and many
aspirants. Simon Magus and Apollonius lived at the same time as
Jesus, and both are depicted doing the same basic miracles. I think
the Church Fathers knew what a real Gnostic was, but I feel the need
to qualify this by saying that I think they must not have been talking
about a real sect or school rather than what might have been their
understanding that a real Gnostic Master was an individual and not an
aspirant. More importantly, such a Master would be manifesting their
liberation by demonstrating the outward gifts of Moksha/Magi powers.
So when you said:
"Ascended Masters is not a Gnostic concept. To suggest they are, is
nothing more than patent falsehood and lies."
In reply I would agree that an A.S. is not a Gnostic-al concept in
that the appellation was never used. But the same things which
distinguished a A.S. also once distinguished a Gnostic. I say "once",
because I feel the concept of what a Gnostic is has been expanded to
the point where it is necessary to differentiate between the
accomplice and the accomplished by suffixing Master to the word. I no
longer take any issue with anyone at all calling themselves a Gnostic,
even if they are a student of the many isms. If they are an
accomplished Gnostic Master, then they are either an Ascended Master
or they are close to gaining that degree of liberation from duality
which would award them the right to the title. But by that time Ego
is so defeated or tamed that they could probably care less about
titles. They leave such cares to others.
The more you dig into the w.Gnostics tricks and techniques for
liberation, usually even ascetic and libertine could be grouped
together in that they believed that, after death one would travel
through the 7 or 9 Gates guarded by Archons and had to utter certain
magick words to gain safe passage. This harks to post-death
Transmigration knowledge and in my humble opinion was a very very very
very risky business.
Jesus was speaking about not waiting until death to gain liberation,
but instead that we should meditate and try to gain the "first death"
achieved by some Buddhists and Hindu Masters while utilizing certain
meditation techniques. I've been calling these techniques as
Transcendental Meditation, or TM. But recently I've been reminded
that, while TM has been a term and technique for millenia, only
recently has it been acquired and personalized by a certain sect,
whose particular methods might not always accord with the age-old
understandings of what TM could be.
For Jesus, the first death led one to the "second birth", where part
of our mind (mostly sans ego) could be projected outside of our
bodies. Plato beheld darkness when he closed his eyes, and called this
darkness as the CAVE. He looked for the small opening and tried to
squeeze through it to attain to the light of the hidden Sun.
This act of squeezing out needn't be like a birth however. So many
esoterics think it has to be a violent act like this and they are
mistaken. Just relax and gaze into the darkness when you close your
eyes. Look for the little sparks of light. Simon Magus called this
the "dark fire". Soon enough a form will appear in the darkness-- a
dark pearl with dark blue flame coming off of it. Meditate on this
for three days straight. Do not fall asleep. This is Rumi's
chickpea, which must be boiled for three days.
For three days you will be **dead** to the world. When you polish
your dark mirror enough, you will begin to see the light and the Dark
Star will become the White Pearl. Welcome to the Bridal Chamber.
Cheers! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:39 pm Post subject: Re: special delivery for Cerinthus (Pagels info) |
|
|
Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):
| Quote: | I'm not aware of any single sect among the Western [sic] Gnostics which used
Gnostic for their Sect or School title.
|
According to the sources, some gnostics or gnostic schools
used "gnostic" as a label for themselves. Hippolytus names
the Naasenes (RH 5.1.1.; 5.6) and the Justinians (RH 5.1 . He
may also include the Sethians and the Peratae in the second
reference, although there are two difficulties. H writes, "All
those ... style themselves Gnostics" without making plain
exactly who he's talking about: all Justin's followers, or all
the schools he's discussing. Also, some scholars claim the
"all" is a corruption. So the Naasenes and Justinians are both
examples; the Sethians and Peratae are maybes.
Clement of Alexandria says that Prodicus and his followers
"falsely claim the name of Gnostics for themselves."
(_Stromata_ 3.30.) Irenaeus names the Marcellians (which is to
say the group of Carpocratians following Marcellina), who
"style themselves Gnostics" (AH 1.25.6). Origen writes, "There
are some who give themselves out as Gnostics" (see _Contra
Celsus_ 5.61), Christians "who deny that our God is the same as
that of the Jews." He seems to be referring to the
Valentinians, but the gnostics he's talking about might be some
other group.
Epiphanius says that the Valentinians called themselves by
the name "gnostics" (Pan. 31.1.1., 31.1.5, 31.7., and
claims other gnostics used the name for themselves, for example
Carpocrates, Basilides, and Satornilus.
There are also the Mandaeans. "Mandayi," which means "the
knowing ones, the gnostics," is one of their several
self-appellations. And note how Irenaeus uses "gnostic" in his
work. He often refers to those "who are falsely called
gnostics." Since he claims the word doesn't apply to the folks
in question, he wouldn't have given it to them. Somebody
else must have called them gnostics before he disputed the name
-- probably the gnostics themselves.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nuvoadam
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 1:09 am Post subject: Re: special delivery for Cerinthus (Pagels info) |
|
|
Thanks Kater for this information, very much appreciated.
Nuvoadam:
| Quote: | I'm not aware of any single sect among the Western [sic] Gnostics which used
Gnostic for their Sect or School title.
|
You are suggesting (I think) that there might have been groups who
called their Sect or School by the title of Gnostic. But for me, most
of the information you have supplied instead suggests that the title
they chose was particular to their discipleship to an individual
person or ideology, and that they called themselves Gnostic in the
sense of being *Gnostical or even in the sense of a level of
accomplishment above that of aspirant. Just like we might call a
College by its name: 'George Washington' and then further qualify its
function: 'Technical College' and a graduating student: a 'welder'
etc.
Again, the groups listed here are mostly being identified by their
real titles first, and then their intended Sect/School function
second: Gnostic. So they were teaching about Gnosis (Ascension
technique, spiritual roadmap) and Gnosticism (myth, ritual, dogma),
and as such they were calling themselves Gnostics in the sense that
certain Tech. students might call themselves as a welder, hopefully
AFTER they graduated and were a practicing welder (...)
Withholding possible asterixes affixed to corruptions or question
marks, your suggestions can be recompiled but only as possibilities
and are not offered as concrete proof of my own suggestion that the
title Gnostic _MIGHT HAVE_ denoted the function of their Sect/School
rather than a true title.
Their true titles: Naasenes, Justinians, Sethians, Peratae
Their Sect/School functions: "styled themselves as Gnostics"
Their true titles: Prodicus (ians?)
Their Sect/School functions: "claim the name of Gnostics"
Their true titles: Marcellians/Carpocratians
Their Sect/School functions: "style themselves Gnostics"
Their true titles: Basilidians, Satornilians, Valentinians
Their Sect/School functions: "used the name [gnostic] for themselves"
Their true titles: Mandaeans
Their Sect/School functions: turn students into "knowing ones, the
gnostics"
As an aside, I have a question for you--
Moggin: "Mandayi," which means "the knowing ones, the gnostics,"
Nuvoadam:
I've heard speculation that the Mandaeans, or Mandayi, were students
of Menander-- himself a disciple of Simon the Magus. Something about
that didn't ring true for me, even though Menander is said to have
exported his teachings to the same area where the Mandaeans later
emerged from (southern Iraq/Iran).
However, if my doubts are unfounded then the name would be more
indicative of their true title rather than their Sect/School function,
and so "Madayi" would not denote a "Knowing One/Gnostic" but a
disciple of a man. I just remember walking away from that particular
class session with the feeling that my instructor might as well have
been transliterating Mandaeans to Montanists.
Back on topic, an interesting twist to the accusations of the Church
Fathers might be found in the faith-roots of those who were doing the
accusing. Along with Plotinus and Longinus, Origen was a student of
the great Ammonius Saccus. Like A.S., Origen was an Alexandrian
Christian who utilized his Alexandrian Logos philosophy when helping
form the orthodoxy of the emerging central church. Another
Alexandrian Christian was the famous Clement, whom like Origen was
determined to attack whom he thought were false Gnostics.
These associates (Clement) and students of Ammonius Saccus had
accepted the Hermetic belief that before most of these newer Sects,
the Hermetics had used the word Gnostic and Gnosis, finding them in
libelli which may or may not be redactions of pre- C.E. texts lost in
the Alexandria fire. Decades before Hippolytus was arguing with
Callistus over the Trinity, there were Neo-Platonists who were intent
upon taking back the usage of Gnostic/Gnosis from other groups who
were decidedly anti-Logos and Anti-Demiurge in their platform.
Most, but certainly not all of these groups were Syriac or Antiochian.
I believe that Valentinus was kind of encouraged to leave Alexandria
due to his anti-Logian/anti-Demiurgic platform. Note how when he was
also encouraged to leave Rome he is never recorded as returning to
Alexandria but first went to Cyprus before emigrating to eastern
Africa to found a handful of Valentinian Churches.
I have no immediate evidence to provide for the following observation,
but must mention it nonetheless as a possible link to help ascertain
whom the accusative voices might have been contrasting the "falsely so
called" Gnostics against.
Irenaeus became the Bishop of Lyons in S. Gaul. He was born around
140 and lived to 202-- the precise year that Origen's Alexandrian
Christian parents were said to have been martyred. There was a
student of Ammonius Saccus who was called by the name of "Erennius",
and also a student or son of his called "Irenacus". Just like
Irenae-us, Irenac-us and Erenni-us denotes a child or student of Irene
or someone called the Aryan/Iranian.
Irenaeus wrote the Contra Celsum to oppose a pagan critic of
Christianity called Celsus of Alexandria, and it seems to me that like
the other Church Fathers criticising false-Gnostics, Irenaeus might
have been opposing them to the Hermetics who had long used this
descriptor as a signifier of attainment. The Hermetics didn't call
themselves Gnostics as an appellation as others seemed to be doing,
but the Church Fathers who exported Neo-Platonism (including the
peace/unity promoting Irenics) to the larger Christic Church
nonetheless seemed to be offended that these anti-Logians had taken up
a title used to denote an Knowing One to instead denote one who was
still an initiate and an aspirant.
I think that in the eyes of the Hermetics who became Church Fathers,
the "falsely so called" Gnostics were seen as being a Master's
accomplice rather than an accomplished Master who had rightly earned
the title of Gnostic.
Both Marcion and Leucius were accused of writing the racist Gospel of
John. I believe that Marcion did so first, and later Leucius used his
work (just as he did Markion's Gospel of Mark) to put out his own
version of John for the benefit of Theophilus (Bishop of first
Caesarea and then Antioch). Leucius the infamous copyist would have
been determined to take back John's work because it was directed
towards John's Alexandrian Bishopry (hence the Logos theme). The
point being, that it is not well known that Leucius was a Bishop of
Alexandria before moving begin the Church at Brindisi, Italy (same
place Simon Magus may have suicided). Clement of Alexandria was
pro-Leucius, choosing to support his works. And if the famous
heresiologist Clement can be seen as an authority, here is a further
(albeit tenuous) connection to the Alexandrian Hermetics as being the
"Gnostics" whom the Church Fathers were opposing the "falsely
so-called" Gnostics with.
That being said, I find that in several Gnostical groups a theme of
redemption for the Logos, whom was persuaded to regretfully oppose his
father, and so not all *false Gnostics can be seen as anti-Logian.
I hope some of this speculation and observation was helpful.
| Quote: | According to the sources, some gnostics or gnostic schools
used "gnostic" as a label for themselves. Hippolytus names
the Naasenes (RH 5.1.1.; 5.6) and the Justinians (RH 5.1. He
may also include the Sethians and the Peratae in the second
reference, although there are two difficulties. H writes, "All
those ... style themselves Gnostics" without making plain
exactly who he's talking about: all Justin's followers, or all
the schools he's discussing. Also, some scholars claim the
"all" is a corruption. So the Naasenes and Justinians are both
examples; the Sethians and Peratae are maybes.
Clement of Alexandria says that Prodicus and his followers
"falsely claim the name of Gnostics for themselves."
(_Stromata_ 3.30.) Irenaeus names the Marcellians (which is to
say the group of Carpocratians following Marcellina), who
"style themselves Gnostics" (AH 1.25.6). Origen writes, "There
are some who give themselves out as Gnostics" (see _Contra
Celsus_ 5.61), Christians "who deny that our God is the same as
that of the Jews." He seems to be referring to the
Valentinians, but the gnostics he's talking about might be some
other group.
Epiphanius says that the Valentinians called themselves by
the name "gnostics" (Pan. 31.1.1., 31.1.5, 31.7., and
claims other gnostics used the name for themselves, for example
Carpocrates, Basilides, and Satornilus.
There are also the Mandaeans. "Mandayi," which means "the
knowing ones, the gnostics," is one of their several
self-appellations. And note how Irenaeus uses "gnostic" in his
work. He often refers to those "who are falsely called
gnostics." Since he claims the word doesn't apply to the folks
in question, he wouldn't have given it to them. Somebody
else must have called them gnostics before he disputed the name
-- probably the gnostics themselves.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Krag
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 1:10 am Post subject: Re: special delivery for Cerinthus (Pagels info) |
|
|
Nuvoadam wrote in message
<93508a0.0309102354.7966544d@posting.google.com>...
| Quote: | So, Epinoia, Pronoia, and Prognosis seem to qualify for a Gnostic
list of meditative states.
It was certainly me that asked. Thanks very much for the new information,
and it seems that you are right, from what Pagels says. Is this
corroborated
in any other books, I wonder?
--
Cerinthus
Hi Cerinthus.
In and around the Eastern Gnosticism thread I was goading everyone to
relate how they or their sects approached enlightenment. No one
answered at that time, except Klaus. I regretted pushing ya'all after
realizing that there would be many who had undertaken initiatory vows
of silence on such matters. If people were holding their secrets then
they did a commendable job. However, you gave me a hint of where you
were at when you voiced the following opinion:
(snipped from eastern gnosticism post)
"...Although I disagree with Moggin on some major issues,
in this one, he is right. Gnostics are not Ascended Masters. They are
followers of the schools of Gnosticism, essentially characterised by a
belief in dualism, (the true God and Yaldabaoth), special knowledge
that
allows escape from this world and the belief that all matter is
inherently
evil, being created out of ignorance by an arrogant and ignorant
Yaldabaoth."
When you said this it was immediately obvious that you hadn't a grasp
on the concept of what an A.S. can be, or for that matter, what a
full-on Gnostic Master can be. There were obviously individuals or
groups which the Church Fathers felt had not earned the right to call
themselves Gnostic, but I think that by that time the term was taking
on a new meaning to denote not only a Master, but an aspirant or even
a Gnosiologist (student of the ism). In truth, an A.S. is even less
of an appellation than a Gnostic would have been. There are very few
Ascended Masters recognized by the Masons throughout human history.
After debating and arguing the term with ya'all, I have had to amend
my personal definition of what a Gnostic is. When I say Eastern
Gnostic (e.Gnostic) it is with the understanding that, while there
were sects who called themselves as Jnasi or Nassee, they had no
vested interest defending the term as their rightful title. Clearly
the Western Gnostics have planted their flag on the nomen as their
own, but if they were using it accurately, then more as an level of
competence and attainment than an appellation.
I'm not aware of any single sect among the Western Gnostics which used
Gnostic for their Sect or School title. Instead, among what were
often competing sects and schools would be found certain individuals
who had won the right to call themselves as Gnostic. I am not
emotionally invested in such semantics, but having studied the rites
of esoteric passage as long as I have, there seems to have been
litmust tests for any aspirant who was ready to prove they were Master
material. Often such tests involved dying for three days, and I'm not
talking about a meditative ego-death. They were killed by submersion
in water, or burying in earth, or were tested by being thrown in fire.
Lazarus I believe was John-Mark-- the younger brother of Mary the
Magdalene. You might recall the story in which Mary sends for Jesus
because Lazarus is sick, in a cave of all places. What was happening?
This was a rite of passage. Lazarus is a title in the Osiris
mysteries which the Cathars claimed John the Baptist was part and
parcel of (hence all the paintings of John and Jesus near the
pyramids). Recall how John the Baptist did not send all 30 of his
disciples to Jesus right away-- John was one of the last to go over.
As the leader of the Essenes, John would have utilized drugs to enable
enlightenment, hence the Cathar paintings of Jesus as lord of the
psychadelic plants (mushrooms, syrian-rue, poppies). So John was
*sick because he had dosed on the Essene witches brew before seeking
out a dark and private place to die. For three days. Lastly note how
Jesus took his sweet time to come help, tarrying for the first three
days but rushing over on the fourth to raise Lazarus up from the dead.
Before becoming the King, the Egyptian prince would have to prove that
he was chosen by Osiris. This was done by placing a solution of brine
in the great Sarcophagus (hence the dense salt coating we still find
today), then in went the drugged up prince, on went the lid and
badaboom badabing, instant sensory-deprivation chamber. After this
they astrally/mentally projected themselves to the hall of Osiris who
would give them thumbs down or up. If they returned after three days,
they were pronounced as a Pharaoh-- the High Priest/High King.
I believe that Jesus spoke to a less risky method of ascension wherein
very Buddhist techniques were utilized. The right kind of meditation
would require as much sensory deprivation as possible. Light, noise,
digesting food, sexual urges or bodily functions-- all were to be
tuned out. He told his disciples to PRAY in their closets for privacy
and darkness.
How would one know another was a Gnostic? The very word means
'Knowing One', and throughout the Nag Hammadi literature we find Jesus
speaking to the need to KNOW ones true nature. What is mind, ego,
reality, the nature of duality etc. In the Gospel of Phillip the
hidden "Bridal Chamber" is mentioned. This is The Way between the
manifest and the unmanifest, an infinite divide breached by simply
closing ones eyes and seeking the inner connection.
|
| Quote: |
When knowledge of self is attained, then eastern sects would know
because the liberation would manifest with divine powers. Hence,
Moksha (liberation), which the Persii call as MAGUS, or in the
plural-- Magi. Their Masters needn't test a person by trial of death
to ascertain if one was enlightened, they could just look at you and
see the halo, or infilling of the Holy Spirit.
The Egyptians called this as the Occult or hidden knowledge. Their
Masters could see others level of enlightenment as well, and the head
would occult the hidden sun like the moon (Amen) occults the sun (Ra),
hence the cult of Amen-Ra.
Even the Sethians (whom I once disparaged for being mundane and not
Gnostic) differentiated between the ritualized Eucharist and the
baptism of water, and the spiritual Eucharist and the baptism of
LIGHT.
Even if one had gained a degree of liberation (from duality as the
w.Gnostics would say) then the eastern Masters would inform such a one
that manifest Moksha was only the first step towards final liberation.
Even the Buddha is depicted in some Sutra's as needing further
refinement after his life, only on a higher spiritual realm.
During the era of Jesus there were few Gnostic masters and many
aspirants. Simon Magus and Apollonius lived at the same time as
Jesus, and both are depicted doing the same basic miracles. I think
the Church Fathers knew what a real Gnostic was, but I feel the need
to qualify this by saying that I think they must not have been talking
about a real sect or school rather than what might have been their
understanding that a real Gnostic Master was an individual and not an
aspirant. More importantly, such a Master would be manifesting their
liberation by demonstrating the outward gifts of Moksha/Magi powers.
So when you said:
"Ascended Masters is not a Gnostic concept. To suggest they are, is
nothing more than patent falsehood and lies."
In reply I would agree that an A.S. is not a Gnostic-al concept in
that the appellation was never used. But the same things which
distinguished a A.S. also once distinguished a Gnostic. I say "once",
because I feel the concept of what a Gnostic is has been expanded to
the point where it is necessary to differentiate between the
accomplice and the accomplished by suffixing Master to the word. I no
longer take any issue with anyone at all calling themselves a Gnostic,
even if they are a student of the many isms. If they are an
accomplished Gnostic Master, then they are either an Ascended Master
or they are close to gaining that degree of liberation from duality
which would award them the right to the title. But by that time Ego
is so defeated or tamed that they could probably care less about
titles. They leave such cares to others.
The more you dig into the w.Gnostics tricks and techniques for
liberation,
|
Krag: that you view them as *tricks* and techniques, says quite a lot. You
seem to be caught up on 'powers' siddhis etc. They aren't important and
seeking them is a hindrance to liberation. No *trick* or technique,
breathing exercise, mudra, no drug, or any sort of psycho-technical hocus
pocus ever has or ever will create the soma psychikon/incorruptible body
that is necessary for full liberation from matter. "It is a gift from God"
says Paracelsus (and he should know).
ALL true adepts without exception say that the preparation of the stone is
revealed only by God, and only to those who are truly worthy. The only way
is to die to every single desire and technique. No mantra will work. No TM
technique will work. Nothing at all will work. A mortal human being can't
attain this sublime goal. "It is impossible for man," says Christ, "but with
God, everything is possible". It is very very rare, because most people,
like you, are caught up on silly ideas involving drugs and so on. Recently,
I heard a pseudo-rosicrucian call the Lord's prayer a "Pater-noster
persuasion exercise". This statement could have been made by you. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 3:10 am Post subject: Re: special delivery for Cerinthus (Pagels info) |
|
|
Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):
| Quote: | You are suggesting (I think) that there might have been groups who
called their Sect or School by the title of Gnostic.
|
Nope. I'm demonstrating that according to the evidence in
the sources, and despite your advertised unawareness, a
variety of gnostics and gnostic schools labeled themselves with
the term "gnostic."
Details in:
news:moggin-72C413.06364711092003@netnews.attbi.com
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nuvoadam
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 7:22 am Post subject: Re: special delivery for Cerinthus (Pagels info) |
|
|
Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message news:<moggin-FF3906.18070711092003@netnews.attbi.com>...
| Quote: | Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):
You are suggesting (I think) that there might have been groups who
called their Sect or School by the title of Gnostic.
Nope. I'm demonstrating that according to the evidence in
the sources, and despite your advertised unawareness, a
variety of gnostics and gnostic schools labeled themselves with
the term "gnostic."
Details in:
news:moggin-72C413.06364711092003@netnews.attbi.com
-- Moggin
|
Moggs, thanks again for you work, but that is all old news with me.
You posted this data in opposition to my statement:
Nuvoadam:
| Quote: | I'm not aware of any single sect among the Western Gnostics which used
Gnostic for their Sect or School title.
|
So you were trying to prove that the word 'Gnostic' was actually used
as a TITLE. The only "advertised unawareness" is in your ignorance
over the INFLECTION behind the use of the key word: "Title". You've
already provided most of the real **titles** of these groups
(Naasenes, Justinians, Sethians, Peratae, Marcellians/Carpocratians,
Basilidians, Satornilians, Valentinians, Mandaeans). There is no need
to look for inflection when the Sectarian TITLE is so blatantly
stated. Furthermore, when most of these groups are reputed to "styled
themselves as Gnostics" I'm not sure what led you to offer this data
as a repudiation against my observation. Any Sect reported to have
"styled" themselves as such would have been trying to be LIKE the real
Gnostics they were emulating. Dig?
Even the three that "used the name" for themselves already had well
known TITLES (names), and thus, if your logic processors are not
seriously malfunctioning as they tend to do, we are looking for the
inflective meaning behind the word. In what connotation or sense was
the word "Gnostic" being used to further signify some characteristic
of this group?
To demonstrate:
If a person were to introduce him/herself to us: "I am a Gnostic". We
would have to ask in what way they meant the word. You would probably
sh*t kittens if it was meant in any way contrary to your own singular
definition, and then try to draw them into a long inane argument about
the subject. However, if they were to introduce him/herself to us: "I
am a Naasene", really then no further qualification is necessary,
because **Naasene** is a TITLE whereas **Gnostic** describes a great
many things, mostly FUNCTIONS or levels of attainment of the
Sect/School to which the Gnostic belonged.
Another demonstration:
If a person introduced themselves: "I am a politician", in America
they could be presented with logical questions designed to define or
characterize the inflection behind the word, i.e. their FUNCTION. Are
they in the Judicial Branch? Executive Branch? Are they a
Congressional aide? Perhaps a pollster? It's all about function.
However, if they introduced themselves as Rep. Dingle Berry, R.
Nebraska, chairman of the House subcommittee on Chocolate Chip Cookie
Oversite Spending, then we know the TITLE and can guess the FUNCTION
all-in-one. Or they could just have said: "I am the Vice-President of
the U.S. of A." and with this Title, no further definition of function
is necessary.
So if the Sects or Schools you mentioned gave their TITLE first
(Basilidians), most people familiar with their ideology would need no
further introduction of their Sect/School FUNCTION-- to turn
initiatory aspirants into full-fledged Gnostics.
Paul was reputed to have created a second, esoteric level of teaching
for only the worthy and chosen ones among the exoteric Churchs he
established. The mundane in the exoteric audience could be called by
whatever title they wished, but only the special chosen ones were
invited to begin training to become an enlightened Gnostic.
Jesus would rail on the Pharisee's for not divulging to laypeople any
of the esoteric secrets they where hoarding. Pharisee was a Title of
office, and their individual Sect/School would have a further Title,
such as Simonian. And since the Catholic Church often maintains Simon
Magus was the 'Father of the Gnostics', we are to see Simon as
teaching the Pharisee's how to become a Gnostic, as he was. And as a
Gnostic Master, Simon could do some pretty amazing things.
And for another demonstration, anybody joining the Masons could call
themselves as such, but their level of initiatory attainment was
further defined (York, Brown etc). Since both of us can only guess at
what or whom the Church-Fathers criticising the "falsely so-called"
Gnostics were contrasting them to, I imagine that they would have
known that Gnostic was a level of attainment usually only reserved for
an enlightened Master rather than a plebian newbie.
I know Semantics are important to you, and because of this it would be
prudent to reconsider placing so much authority on your un-thought-out
gist of the issue. A Sects/School whose Title has already been
established (George Washington University) could further define their
function: (Technical College), and then further define the level of
education of their students. For instance, a graduate would have
gained a certain right to call themselves as a Welder or Carpenter.
In the same manner we can seperate the Sect Title (Naasene,etc.) from
the Function or purpose of the Sect: to educate initiates into
Gnostics.
Thus, [frex] while your Old School challenge of my observation was
worthy, it wasn't convincing enough to automatically invalidate it.
Nuvoadam:
| Quote: | I'm not aware of any single sect among the Western Gnostics which used
Gnostic for their Sect or School title. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nuvoadam
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 9:28 am Post subject: Re: special delivery for Cerinthus (Pagels info) |
|
|
| Quote: | The more you dig into the w.Gnostics tricks and techniques for
liberation,
Krag: that you view them as *tricks* and techniques, says quite a lot.
|
There are millions of meditators, and yet mabe once or twice in every
thousand years is a Buddha produced from among them. And often its the
same person who came back to be a Nabus-- which is to say, to reign in
the dogma which had overtaken the religion he had left 500 years in
the past. So the success rate, and especially in the Western world,
is abysmally low. Why? Because most people simply know how to become
a Buddha. Most Buddhists I've ever met have no idea how to go about
meditation for liberation, instead choosing to do so for balance or
harmony or healing. So yes, it "says quite a lot" when I recognize
that there are certain meditative techniques which will allow one to
mentally/spiritually Transcend from the material realm to the 'Mental
Plane', as the Mason's call it.
(You)
| Quote: | seem to be caught up on 'powers' siddhis etc. They aren't important and
seeking them is a hindrance to liberation.
|
You aren't the first to accuse me of this Krag, so I shall give you my
pat response. First of all, does the bird have to apologize for
enjoying the ability to fly through the sky? Need the young Colt
apologize for exhibiting sheer delight in frolicking through the
fields? My Grandmother raised horses, and she would say that the Colt
was "filled with spirit". No one will stand there and tsk-tsk the
horse for enjoying the benefits of youthful spirit. Which leads me to
my point: Being a spirit-filled Gnostic will always manifest as
siddhis, and this is the primary benchmark of liberation
(Moksha/Magi). No apology is necessary for exhibiting the powers of a
true Gnostic Master.
Please learn not to ascribe a value-judgement to a simple recognition
of fact. We are dealing with some Western Gnostics here who are just
now beginning to investigate how the Eastern Jnasi might have gone
about liberation. It's not their fault; the TM techniques once taught
by Haggadic (oral) method in the West were lost due to political
upheaval. For many sects, almost all that is left is the encoded or
ciphered meaning behind the metaphor in their myths.
So when I mention what originally signified a Gnostic Master, I tend
to stress that it would have been obvious who was and was not
enlightened. In a way, I'm re-selling them on their own faith,
baiting a hook so they can seek out the methodology most of their
Sects once practiced (and I'm sure some still do).
Furthermore, it is not for you to say what is or is not important to
others. When you get to the highest mind Krag, and live there in Unity
for as long as you desire, you just might find Omniscience gets a
little boring after a long while. For cryin out loud, let others
enjoy the fruits of the spirit without the frickin guilt trip! Jesus
often said something like 'when you have the proper faith, you too can
do the things which I can' (telekenetically casting a "mountain" into
the sea, walking on water, transmuting one substance into another etc.
etc. etc.). He never laid a guilt trip on his disciples for actually
thinking that doing these things might be kind of kewl.
Furthermore, why is it that we have to follow in Siddhartha's
footsteps and seek liberation because of our suffering and angst?
This scenario plays into the hands of the Western Gnostic sects who
rail against the evil creation of Yaldabaoth, and I'm not buying into
this mindset as the sole motivation for liberation. Why can't it be
out of curiosity? Why can't the manifestation of siddhi powers be a
celebrated part of their spiritual evolution? A not-so-small reward
for all the hard work of many lifetimes to get to this level of
attainment? Let go of the guilt trip Krag, I'm not hearing that
stuff.
(No *trick* or technique),
| Quote: | breathing exercise, mudra, no drug, or any sort of psycho-technical hocus
pocus ever has or ever will create the soma psychikon/incorruptible body
that is necessary for full liberation from matter. "It is a gift from God"
says Paracelsus (and he should know).
|
Yes it is always a gift of grace, and you'd be right if you were
saying that ultimately, much information surrounding illumination is
not necessary to the actual liberation. But the phrase "hocus pocus"
is a blunt weapon and you just might find yourself bashing things
which will indeed "create the soma" feeding the incorruptible body.
It doesn't just create itself my friend. And thus, anything and
everything you could ever do to create it will be considered a
technique. I'll leave off using the word "trick" because it does lend
itself to a hocus-pocus visual now that you mention it.
| Quote: | ALL true adepts without exception say that the preparation of the stone is
revealed only by God, and only to those who are truly worthy.
|
You are God. I am God. They are God. Even if you don't agree, I say
that you and everybody else is worthy, and that is my prerogative.
Furthermore, be mindful that you are in a ng that is dominated by
Western Gnostics who have very particular beliefs that such
information is kept from them only because of the machinations of an
evil God. And please do yourself a favor: do not ever again
catagorically sum up what "all true adepts" say "without exception".
RECKLESS!!!
(The only way)
| Quote: | is to die to every single desire and technique.
|
Bullshit. You are too Zen for your own good. Why don't you go
ultra-zen and just die to the desire for liberation in the first
place? The desire to defeat desire will lead you in circles until your
right back in Oz, Dorothy. Zen meditators place way too much credence
on letting go of all techniques, just as Buddhist meditators
misunderstand why Guatama originally exhorted them to still their
thoughts. It's ALL about technique my friend! You think that somatic
body is going to build itself? It's not. It takes work and the right
kind or you're just wasting prescious time and energy.
(No mantra will work. No TM)
| Quote: | technique will work. Nothing at all will work.
|
Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit. Now quit lumping all manner of paths
together in one, and furthermore, how the hell do you know if they
never worked or not? Stop trying to tell others what won't work for
them and work on yourself Krag. Because without help, you are at best
years away from enlightenment, if you ever attain it at all in this
lifetime. You are not an authority on enlightenment. For you it is
all speculation and book reading, until you see the light inside.
You want to know the litmus test for ascertaining if you or anyone
else is enlightened? Close your eyes. If you see darkness, you have
not yet approached enlightenment. I will always be interested in your
opinions Krag.
(A mortal human being can't)
| Quote: | attain this sublime goal. "It is impossible for man," says Christ, "but with
God, everything is possible". It is very very rare,
|
Well is it impossible or is it "very very rare"? Make up my mind for
me already. Or your own. That would be even better. And Jesus
wasn't talking about enlightenment when he said that. It is actually
quite easy to become enlightened. It shouldn't take an adept any
longer than 6 or 7 years to enlighten another. If you have already
philosophically prepared yourself (as you have), then it might even be
a matter of months or weeks. Granting one a glimpse of Samadhi is as
easy as a look or a touch, and that in and of itself is a first step
towards understanding God-mind. With me so far?
(because most people,)
| Quote: | like you, are caught up on silly ideas involving drugs and so on.
|
All I did was mention that the Cathars, Essenes, Rosicrucians,
Kingfishers and other esoteric groups helped their initiates to
Samadhi by use of psychotropic drugs. Please don't make the mistake
of assuming that everything I post is my own particular belief. This
forum is for an exchange of ideas and there is no rule that they have
to be our own. Should I qualify everything I post as if it were my
own belief or practice? That would be tedious.
(Recently,)
| Quote: | I heard a pseudo-rosicrucian call the Lord's prayer a "Pater-noster
persuasion exercise". This statement could have been made by you.
|
I'm not sure what this means Krag, but is Moggin tainting you with his
nastyness? You don't know me at all. I will always be interested in
your opinion, and if you want to learn about real enlightenment, then
you'll have to go through me and that is the nekkid truth. You can
help me be more diplomatic in return, but if you want to know The Way,
then you can start by realizing that you are not on it. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 3:10 pm Post subject: Re: special delivery for Cerinthus (Pagels info) |
|
|
Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com>:
| Quote: | ... According to the evidence in
the sources, and despite your advertised unawareness, a
variety of gnostics and gnostic schools labeled themselves with
the term "gnostic."
Details in:
news:moggin-72C413.06364711092003@netnews.attbi.com
|
Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):
| Quote: | Moggs, thanks again for you work, but that is all old news with me.
|
Evidently not, since you said you were unaware. But let's
not bother arguing about your ignorance. Point is, the
sources indicate that the word "gnostic" was used as a
self-appellation by certain of the gnostics and gnostic schools.
| Quote: | Any Sect reported to have
"styled" themselves as such would have been trying to be LIKE the real
Gnostics they were emulating.
|
Bullshit. These comments are from the Church Fathers, who
would naturally deny the gnostics had a valid claim to
knowledge, since gnosticism separates the Creator of this world
from the true God, while Christian orthodoxy equates them.
You've offered no evidence that the Dads were referring to some
third party as "the real gnostics."
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nuvoadam
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 10:30 pm Post subject: Re: special delivery for Cerinthus (Pagels info) |
|
|
Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message news:<moggin-144153.06073212092003@netnews.attbi.com>...
| Quote: | Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com>:
... According to the evidence in
the sources, and despite your advertised unawareness, a
variety of gnostics and gnostic schools labeled themselves with
the term "gnostic."
Details in:
news:moggin-72C413.06364711092003@netnews.attbi.com
Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):
Moggs, thanks again for you work, but that is all old news with me.
Evidently not, since you said you were unaware.
|
I'm aware you have some serious emotional issues. But let's not
bother discussing your shrink bill. I'm also aware of what I said--
to my knowledge there were no Sects/Schools using the word as the
TITLE for their group. You provided a few possibilities who "USED"
the name (Basilidians, Satornilians, Valentinians) but already had a
TITLE-Signifier for their Sect/School, one who "CLAIMED" the name
(Prodicus), and a small handful who "STYLED" themselves as Gnostics.
Used, Claimed, Styled.... I'm not saying that some or even of these
groups weren't producing Gnostic Masters. In fact I'm sure that the
Naasenes were, among others. But the Church Fathers were specifically
saying that certain groups had misappropriated the signifier and had
no right to do so. Obviously they had knowledge of what signified a
Gnostic and were expressing their offense that the signifier was being
debased and abused, probably by the more libertine sects.
(Point is, the)
| Quote: | sources indicate that the word "gnostic" was used as a
self-appellation by certain of the gnostics and gnostic schools.
Any Sect reported to have
"styled" themselves as such would have been trying to be LIKE the real
Gnostics they were emulating.
Bullshit.
|
The Village People "styled" themselves as Indian/construction
worker/Navy/etc. but that sure as hell didn't make them the real deal.
Style: (1) The way in which something is said or done, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS SUBSTANCE. (The American Heritage Dictionary)
If Moggin is called the 'King of the Assholes', that is a Title.
If Moggin "styles" himself as such, that is emulation and acting.
If Moggin is studying in a School to become such, then he is an
aspirant.
If this School has a name (Harvard for instance), then this is it's
TITLE.
If this School is training Moggin how to become the biggest and best
Asshole he can be, then this is a FUNCTION of the School.
(These comments are from the Church Fathers, who)
| Quote: | would naturally deny the gnostics had a valid claim to
knowledge, since gnosticism separates the Creator of this world
from the true God, while Christian orthodoxy equates them.
|
Naturally. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that
these "falsely so-called" Gnostics were being contrasted to what the
Daddies felt or knew to be real Gnostics.
| Quote: | You've offered no evidence that the Dads were referring to some
third party as "the real gnostics."
|
Which is why I specifically offered up my thoughts as "observations",
not intended to drive that stick further up your Moggin-hole.
The truth is that the Church Pappies were comparing these "falsely
so-called" Gnostics to the real deal or they wouldn't have been so
offended on behalf of the TRUE GNOSTICS. And since I pointed out that
many if not most of the complaining Fathers had a common Alexandrian
background, and were connected to the Hermetics which had not only
used the word Gnostic and Gnosis far before these Anti-Logians, but
had used it as a signifier of a MASTER and not a buncha plebian
newbies, then perhaps it's time for you to reconsider your assumptions
on the subject and stop being so intractable.
> -- Moggin: remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nuvoadam
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 10:34 pm Post subject: Re: special delivery for Cerinthus (Pagels info) |
|
|
Why? Because most people simply know how to become
This should read they "simply (DON'T) know how to become a Buddha" |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 3:08 am Post subject: Re: special delivery for Cerinthus (Pagels info) |
|
|
Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com>:
| Quote: | .. Let's
not bother arguing about your ignorance. Point is, the
sources indicate that the word "gnostic" was used as a
self-appellation by certain of the gnostics and gnostic schools.
|
Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):
| Quote: | Used, Claimed, Styled.... I'm not saying that some or even of these
groups weren't producing Gnostic Masters. In fact I'm sure that the
Naasenes were, among others. But the Church Fathers were specifically
saying that certain groups had misappropriated the signifier and had
no right to do so.
|
Of course. The gnostics divided the Creator of this world
from the true God, which put them very much at odds with
Christian orthodoxy. (Or proto-orthodoxy, I should say.) They
also had other heretical notions. So the Church Fathers
naturally denied that the gnostics had a valid claim to
knowledge, that is, any right to label themselves with the word
"gnostic."
| Quote: | Obviously they had knowledge of what signified a Gnostic
|
Obviously the Church Dads had some opinions about what was
and was not genuine knowledge. From their angle, the idea
that the Creator of this world was a crappy demiurge counted as
a falsehood. Same for various other gnostic beliefs. So
looking at it from an orthodox perspective, the gnostics had no
right to that name.
| Quote: | and were expressing their offense that the signifier was being
debased and abused
|
Right. Heresy-hunters like Irenaeus weren't about to give
their gnostic opponents the credit implied by terms like
"gnostic" and "gnosis." From their point of view, the gnostics
were offering falsehoods, not knowledge. So Irenaeus talks
about "so-called gnostics," indicating his idea of knowledge is
very different from theirs.
Moggin:
| Quote: | ... These comments are from the Church Fathers, who
would naturally deny the gnostics had a valid claim to
knowledge, since gnosticism separates the Creator of this world
from the true God, while Christian orthodoxy equates them.
You've offered no evidence that the Dads were referring to some
third party as "the real gnostics."
|
NA:
| Quote: | Naturally. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that
these "falsely so-called" Gnostics were being contrasted to what the
Daddies felt or knew to be real Gnostics.
|
You're still bullshitting. To repeat, the Church Dads had
their own ideas of knowledge directly contradicting the
gnostics.' For example, the Fathers viewed the Creator of this
world as God, while the gnostics distinguished the two. So
far as the Church Dads were concerned, the gnostics were in the
wrong, and thus wrongly-named.
| Quote: | The truth is that the Church Pappies were comparing these "falsely
so-called" Gnostics to the real deal or they wouldn't have been so
offended on behalf of the TRUE GNOSTICS.
|
Truth is you're full of crap. The Church Fathers had good
reason to feel offended on their own behalf, since the
knowledge claimed by the gnostics -- for example, that the
Creator of this world is a crappy demiurge -- was an affront to
Christian proto-orthodoxy.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nuvoadam
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 8:21 am Post subject: Re: special delivery for Cerinthus (Pagels info) |
|
|
Pope John XXIII:
"See everything; | |
