Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00493)

Steve,
Thanks for your comments. Well, I made no mention of Constantine
my reflections were limited to the Nicene Fathers whom you, apparently
carefully sifting and filtering through the immense mountain of their
writings that can be accessed at Advent.com (a prolific archive of
Catholic writings, edicts and Bulls as well as the Diplomatic artifacts)
selected out only those portions from the writings of the Nicene Fathers
that contained very base diminishing origination's they made in their
charges against virtual all who had independent activity outside the
Canon. Hence Heretic to them. If you had selected uplifting origination's
taken from the Nicene Fathers that were of a higher emotional tone level
to place before me and others I would not have had the same response. 

I do have in my possession certain volumes of the Nicene Library. But I 
admit that it has been since the late 1970's that I last referenced them.
Justin Martyr
Athenagoras
Tertullianus
Ireneues
Hippolytus
Clementine Homilies

These are the Edinberg Edition 1867
T & T Clark 38 George Street , London

Albeit it is an incomplete set by far, so I have read at length some but
certainly not waded through the entire Nicene library. I completely
agree that they are boring, even exceedingly boring, if you will. If Hell
exists one of the most severe punishments would be to have to Read the
Nicene Library for eternity,lol!

I agree with your view about "Believing." My enjoyment comes from the
Concepts that the Gnostic Literature presents to one's mind and the 
working out that can happen from the abstractional exercise one can
engage in as they attempt to grasp the communication contained
therein. All Religions utilize Thought forms one way or another and the
internal effort to understand can be causative of expansion and have
development of modes and visualizations not previously present in the
person.

Yes, I agree about Bartimaeus as you state the case. I asked a similar
question to myself about "Lazarus," why did this man have a Latin name?
I have Plato's Timaeus, most other works of his.
And also agreement about the Demiurgos. It appears at least to me that
the Concept of the Demiurgos has a lost trail in history, both in the 
past
before Plato and later through expungement for possibly various
expedient reasons. But all in all the emotional, desire, character faults
and the rest that he exhibits can be found in several other jealous
personifications including the mundane conditioned mind of us all.

I am not familiar with Burton Mack, what specifically did he mention?

I have read the short paper about the Secret Mark. But it remains that
centuries the Catholic Church has collected all it considered
contraband and illicit literature across all domains of the world under
it's reach, often by force, and to include burning's to effect the 
purpose
of depriving us of any knowledge which is revenant to history and the
common inheritance of us all. The likelihood is they have much of it and
we are absent of it. Same case in the Nag Hammadi, but they failed, it
was only through the United Nations effort to publish that we have the 
right to read the Nag hammadi, in my personal opinion.

I also find common agreement about the Seven Veils, have often
wondered about Salome's Dance of the Seven Veils and how it can be
an allusion leading to another insight. the Wedding Song of the Bride
is another multiple choice metaphor type.

About what I posted regards "the Abortion of Sophia" and Yaldabaoth.

> "And the Sophia of the Epinoia, being an aeon, conceived a thought from 
> herself and the conception of the invisible Spirit and foreknowledge. She wanted 
> to bring forth a likeness out of herself without the consent of the Spirit, 
> - he had not approved - and without her consort, and without his 
> consideration. And though the person of her maleness had not approved, and she had not 
> found her agreement, and she had thought without the consent of the Spirit and 
> the knowledge of her agreement, (yet) she brought forth. And because of the 
> invincible power which is in her, her thought did not remain idle, and 
> something came out of her which was imperfect and different from her appearance, 
> because she had created it without her consort. And it was dissimilar to the 
> likeness of its mother, for it has another form. "And when she saw (the 
> consequences of) her desire, it changed into a form of a lion-faced serpent. And its 
> eyes were like lightning fires which flash. She cast it away from her, 
> outside that place, that no one of the immortal ones might see it, for she had 
> created it in ignorance. And she surrounded it with a luminous cloud, and she 
> placed a throne in the middle of the cloud that no one might see it except the 
> holy Spirit who is called the mother of the living. And she called his name 
> 

ref.: Nag Hammadhi Library
The Apocryphon of John
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html 

It is interesting that his name means "child of chaos," one of the current 
scientific theories about creation, quantum and all includes the "Chaos
Theory.

As to our difference about Valentinus, I will have to take a trip to search
the details, I know how much you dislike Mead who Blavatsky made her
personal Secratary, so i will see if I can find a better resource.

Also, i have not read much of what we discuss for approx 20 yeas and my
post earlier about the Abortion of Sophia and Yaldabaoth was from
memory which is why I did not put that in qoutes.

cordially,
John


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]