Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt01599)

Okay, I see that you're quite often reflecting the historical 
perspectives of the ancients, without necessarily attempting to 
colorize them as so many people do.  That's very respectable and I 
greatly appeciate the history lessons.  Many times in the past when 
people have expressed historical perspectives to me, they only did 
so to secretly communicate their own personal perspectives, and were 
not able to intricately differentiate between the two.  They would 
often try to appeal to external authority, but would be afraid to 
tell me their true beliefs, perhaps fearing that those beliefs would 
otherwise be passed off as mere opinions.  Again, I appreciate the 
distinctions that you make between what 'they' believe and 
what 'you' believe.

You wrote:

"No. I am saying that an ante Nicene Father named Irenaeus asserted 
that gnosticism originated from Simon Magus. --- No.  I believe that 
Gnosticism is a term Irenaeus coined to describe the various sects 
of Christianity he was aware of and condemned as evil because they  
were competing with his own sect of Christianity for members. --- 
Neither is evil, in my opinion. --- I was describing the beliefs of 
Valentenian and Sethian Gnosticism, not necessarily my own beliefs. -
-- I was again describing the above mentioned Gnostic belief: That 
God is three in one: Monad, Logos, Barbelo. --- In my perspective, 
it is a concept borrowed from neo-Platonism.  Specifically from 
Plotinus and from the Hermetic writings of "The Good Shepard.""

LOLOL.  Maybe there's something that I've read here, if it's the 
same book.  I've read the Shepherd of Hermes, if that's what you're 
referring to.  Although I'm not much learned in church history by 
the classical post-apostolic church fathers, I've nonetheless 
collected and read many portions of about 200 pseudipigraphal works 
(approximately 100 OT period and 100 NT period), insofar as some of 
these were used in the older bibles (although many not).

My direct reading of the Bible itself is also quite extensive, 
although my two decades of biblical self-education has largely been 
without resorting to commentaries too much.  There are so many 
material resources out there, that it's hard to split my readings up 
too much between them.  And now my focus is to actually write more 
frequently than I read, so that I may potentially contribute 
something to the world as well, versus simply take away.

"I don't believe in physical immortality."

How about the immortality of the soul (psyche)?  Do you believe that 
the soul (psyche) is immortal?  Personally I mean.  Why or why not?  
Or are you neutral on that?  I think that there may be some people 
who believe in reincarnation, for example, who believe that the soul 
(psyche) passes away sometime shortly after physical death, even as 
the physical body passes from this life, with only a spirit left.  
But I'm not sure about that.

"Gnosticism is a blanket term originally coined by Irenaeus.  Today 
the term is used in different ways.  Church Theologians generally 
use it as a blanket term for any early Christian sect that the 
Church wiped out in the fifth century, and for the Cathars in 
France, which the Church exterminated by genocide in the twelfth or 
thirteenth century.  Secular biblical scholars refer to specific 
early sects of Christianity as Gnostic and other sects as not 
gnostic, depending upon their teachings involved gaining 
enlightenment through the gnosis of Christ.  I suppose Gnosticism 
could be described as a form of mysticism, but a mystic is not 
necessarily a gnostic.  I would not call St. Theresa of Avila a 
Gnostic, for instance."

So gnostics are often mystics (if not always), but mystics are not 
always gnostics (but they can be sometimes).  That makes a little 
bit more sense to me now.  I'm the type to often interpret a word by 
it's literal meaning prior to interpreting a word according to it's 
historical usage.  But this is largely because I'm ignorant of 
history too, although I'd like to learn more.

For example, I interpret the word 'Christian' to be 'a follower of 
Christ', versus 'those people who historically burned people at 
stakes and engaged in mass killing crusades'.  There are 'literal' 
word interpretations and 'historical' word interpretations, and when 
I use a word that someone doesn't understand, I am more prone to 
say 'go look it up in the dictionary as opposed to a history book'.  
But that's just me.  We're all respectively unique, which makes it 
possible to learn from each other too in many different ways.

Blessings

Vince

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@...> 
wrote:
>
> Dear Vince,
> 
> >So you're saying that gnosticism originated from Simon Magus in 
the 
> >Bible? 
> >
> No. I am saying that an ante Nicene Father named Irenaeus asserted 
that 
> gnosticism originated from Simon Magus. 
> 
> >Gnosticism is evil in your perspective? 
> >
> No.  I believe that Gnosticism is a term Irenaeus coined to 
describe the 
> various sects of Christianity he was aware of and condemned as 
evil 
> because they  were competing with his own sect of Christianity for 
members.
> 
> >Or are you rather 
> >referring to mysticism as opposed to gnosticism?
> >
> Neither is evil, in my opinion.
> 
> >In what specific way(s) do you believe that the Christ is 
knowable?  
> >
> I was describing the beliefs of Valentenian and Sethian 
Gnosticism, not 
> necessarily my own beliefs.
> 
> >And who specifically are you referring to when you mention the 
> >trinity?
> >
> I was again describing the above mentioned Gnostic belief: That 
God is 
> three in one: Monad, Logos, Barbelo.
> 
> >Who or what is the trinity in your perspective?
> >
> In my perspective, it is a concept borrowed from neo-Platonism.  
> Specifically from Plotinus and from the Hermetic writings of "The 
Good 
> Shepard."
> 
> >How about yourself?  Do you believe in physical immortality?  
Let's 
> >take Jesus, for example.
> >
> I don't believe in physical immortality.
> 
> >In what way are you differentiating between mysticism and 
> >gnosticism, if any?  Aren't they virtually the same thing, or at 
> >least intricately interrelated?
> >  
> >
> Gnosticism is a blanket term originally coined by Irenaeus.  Today 
the 
> term is used in different ways.  Church Theologians generally use 
it as 
> a blanket term for any early Christian sect that the Church wiped 
out in 
> the fifth century, and for the Cathars in France, which the Church 
> exterminated by genocide in the twelfth or thirteenth century.  
Secular 
> biblical scholars refer to specific early sects of Christianity as 
> Gnostic and other sects as not gnostic, depending upon their 
teachings 
> involved gaining enlightenment through the gnosis of Christ.  I 
suppose 
> Gnosticism could be described as a form of mysticism, but a mystic 
is 
> not necessarily a gnostic.  I would not call St. Theresa of Avila 
a 
> Gnostic, for instance.
> 
> >So I am both gnostic and agnostic then, depending on context?
> >  
> >
> Or depending on the perspective of the one who is making the 
> classification. 
> 
> Best
> Jerry
> 
> 
>