Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00447)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, samblo@c... wrote:
> Well, I place little credence in the virtue or honesty of the 
Nicene 
> fathers
> who issue proclamation "we create these lies for the good of the 
many"
> and it seems their little value is that they published in their 
irrational
> diatribe of slanders, distortions, character assassinations, and 
actual
> assassinations in their grubby ergos to achieve Universal Power

I don't believe you have read them. The fellow who wanted universal 
power was Constantine, and he was POST Nicene. The writers to whom 
you refer are boring as hell but do not deserve your diatribe of 
character assassinations, slanders, and distortions.

Besides that, the point is not that any of this is "true" in a 
scientific sense. We have had preachers telling us for centuries 
that they have some information which we either believe or else go to 
hell, there to burn relentlessly for all eternity. The argument is 
that since we cannot prove them wrong, we'd better assume they are 
right. However, if their authority rests entirely on ancient texts 
which they do not understand, we can prove that the authority they 
claim for themselves does not exist. The actual meaning of these 
documents is in many cases quite different from what they say it is, 
and there are hidden meanings everywhere.

My point is not that anyone should "believe" this stuff (or 
disbelieve it, for that matter) but that one truth we CAN get at is 
that it is not being properly represented and that the threats that 
are being used are threats aimed at people who do not accept 
misrepresentations.

Just one example: Mark has JC cure some fellow he identifies 
as "Bartimaeus." (That is the way it appears in the 
KJV,) "Bartimaeus" is actually two words: "Bar Timaeus", which 
literally means "son of Timaeus." "Timaeus" is not a Hebrew name at 
all but Greek, and not only Greek but the name of one of the 
dialogues of Plato. Specifically, it is Plato's Pythagorean 
dialogue, in which he introduces the concept of the Demiurge, which 
played an important role in Gnosticism. There are numerous concealed 
references in this text to the Demiurge and the ideas surrounding 
that which were rejected by Palestinian Judaism. So why have I never 
seen this pointed out in a book anywhere? There are also veiled 
references to all sorts of other things in this text, one of which 
was mentioned by Burton Mack, but most of which are passed over. 
There were also unfortunately some alterations to the text by later 
scribes which are easily identified.

Clement of Alexandria says Mark wrote The Gospel of Mark while Peter 
was in Rome, "not, however, declaring all of [Jesus' deeds], nor yet 
hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful 
for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But 
when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both 
his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his 
former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward 
knowledge [gnosis]. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the 
use of those who were being perfected [i.e., those who were doing the 
work of the Second Degree]. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the 
things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic 
teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet 
others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the 
interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the 
innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils."

This document is called Secret Mark and has perished so far as anyone 
knows. The reference to "seven veils" should not be passed over as 
mere metaphor. In one of his rare poetic moments, the writer of the 
apocalypse says:

"I looked and I saw ... a book,
Written within and without,
And sealed with seven seals." 

They only claimed publicly to have three levels of interpretation, 
corresponding to the trichotomy, but it would appear there were seven 
in all.

Incidentally, Clement of Alexandria was one of the anteNicene fathers.

> The "Abortion" of Sophia was "Yaldabaoth" not Sophia Achamoth.

Nope. In the story the Sophia in the Pleroma produced Sophia 
Achamoth in tne Middle Space and Achamoth was consideted 
an "abortion."

> Yaldabaoth represented the Demiurgos

There were three "realms" in this system. Ialdabaoth (which literaly 
means "Child of Chaos") was in the lowest of the three and was the 
presiding genius of the planet Saturn.

> It was Sophia herself who for the first time willed to 
> originate
> a creation entirely of herself without the unity (syzygy) of her 
consort 
> the
> Father of All.

The consort of Sophia was Theletus, who was an AEon and not "Father 
of All."

> As I posted earlier I retain the position, else we would be stuck 
with a
> Deity absent of Wisdom as it's perpetual Consort or Syzygy.

The Gnostics maintained that the Demiurge could not perceive the 
Pleroma just as we cannot and for that reason was "ignorant", 
believing honestly that there was none higher than himself.

> Valentinus was a fully
> ordinate Bishop of the Roman Church. He couldn't stomach their
> atmosphere and cast the dust from his sandals.

Valentinus was a priest who was passed over for promotion. 
Fortunately for posterity he blew their secrets.

> This contrast severely impinged on the
> Roman Church, and desperate and seeing they were about to literally
> be eclipsed and left in the bin of history they effected a 
reconciliation
> in the 7th century era and the two were "Married" A La Valentines, 
and
> Valentines became "St. Valentine" the emblematic patron Saint of 
Love.

That is not quite accurate. Valentinus never was that big and his 
group was suppressed long before the seventh century. "St" Valentine 
had nothing to do with Valentinus.