Re: Theos-World Re: Jerry- Agnostics defined
Mar 29, 2006 03:10 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
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.
I see. So, instead of just communicating their opinions, they would
present some historical scenario as authoritative in order to get you to
buy into their belief. That would be a misuse of the original idea of
history. It is dishonest manipulation. The word history comes from the
Greek and originally met "inquiry." So, history, in its original use,
was a means of discovery--a way to inquire into and thus more deeply
understand ourselves and others. That is also how I use history and how
,I believe, history ought to be properly used.
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.
The usual titles for these works are "The Corpus Hermeticum" or "The
Discourses of Hermes Trismegistus." The Collection is made up of 18
surviving discourses to which is also usually added a Latin work:
Asclepius. The Title, "Shepard of Hermes" sounds like it might be the
hermetic writings, or a book about them. The Shepard (Poimandres)
represents the Divine Intellect in these writings, and is the second
person in the dialogue. So the Poimandres is the Logos or Christos of
Gnosticism. The best translation which I am currently aware is entitled
"Hermetica" by Brian P. Copenhaver. Cambridge U. Press, 1992. It should
still be in print.
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).
And what do you make of them?
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.
Writing is a noble aspiration. However, how are you to present the
fruits of your own studies without being aware of the findings and
insights of others? True scholarship is done in a discourse community
where people share their ideas and everyone benefits from hearing very
different points of view, and learning about other's research in many
more areas than one is capable of doing on one's own. One can, for
instance, create an exegetical interpretation, but would benefit by
reading about exegetical systems that have been worked out by others.
How about the immortality of the soul (psyche)? Do you believe that
the soul (psyche) is immortal?
The word "soul" has become fuzzy in its meaning. Recently, I had a
psychology professor try to tell me that what was meant by the soul was
really the physical brain. Obviously, going by her definition, I do not
believe the soul is immortal. Under normal conditions, the brain rots
with the rest of the body at death. Descartes, if I understood him
correctly, has the soul as the mind--the mechanism through which we
perceive the world. I don't know off hand exactly what he thought of
the soul in terms of immortality. If he includes memory and
personality--ie those things we accumulate through our ordinary earthly
experiences, then I would question why one would think that most of such
experiences are worthy of immortality. The early church Fathers had the
soul as an immortal part of us, which distinguishes us from the
animals. Descartes also made such a distinction, likening animals to
little mechanical toys incapable of feelings. The justification for
vivisection (dissecting live and fully awake animals) was for years
justified based upon this notion. Paul, on the other hand, made a
distinction between body, soul and spirit. There is a theologian who
used to live in this town and, for ten years, I used to meet him for
lunch every Tuesday at the local Chinese restaurant. Needless to say,
we talked mainly about theology. I remember asking him what he thought
Paul met by soul and spirit. He replied that he thought the two words
were synonymous. My own opinion was that by "spirit" Paul meant a force
which gives life to all creatures, and is therefore not unique to
humanity. "Soul," I understand him to mean, the immortal part of each
individual. I would be interested in hearing what other explanations you
have heard from your local theologians. The neo-Platonists took Plato's
notion of the soul being duel: that is, it has a irrational and a
rational aspect. They say that the irrational soul leads us into
sensuality--towards the physical and selfishness, while the rational
soul leads us towards the spiritual, away from the material and back to
its spiritual source. The mechanism which determines our choices is the
human will, which is independent of the soul yet can guide our choices.
The Gnostics borrowed this idea and expanded it to show (as Plato did)
that the source of evil is with matter--the opposite pole (i.e. other
side of the same coin). The early church fathers rejected the Gnostic
ideas in favor of evil as a separate and independent entity (i.e. the
Devil). They also rejected the notion of will as the mechanism for
salvation in favor of Grace, which they could use to account for the
wiping away of original sin (the Greeks did not have a notion of
original sin). Clement argued, for instance, that the original sin (of
Adam's and Eve's eating the forbidden fruit) can only be wiped away
through a dispensation received at Baptism. But Clement also argued
that Baptism only erased sins committed before the time of Baptism.
Now, with all of this said, my opinion favors the Hellenistic notions of
a rational and irrational soul, which means that we are capable of
working out our own salvation through the correct exercise of the will.
So, in that sense, I am probably more of a Gnostic then you are :-)
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.
Yes, have you read the Apocryphon of John? I have analyzed it pretty
closely and found that it was used as a sophisticated meditation
template that is strikingly similar to the kabbilistic tree of life.
Whatever this community was, that wrote the Apocryphon of John, it is
clear to me that they had worked out a system of worlds and
correspondences for meditation leading to realization.
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.
As do most people. The problem is that literal meanings change all the
time. That is why they keep revising dictionaries. The King James
translation is full of obsolete words as well as currently used words
that had different meaning back then. To make it worse, The King James
Version is a translation of Greek and Hebrew scriptures that were
already over a thousand years old. So the then current Greek and Hebrew
had already changed. Worse yet, fro translating the OT, the KJV relied
heavily on the Ptolemaic Greek translations from the Hebrew. So it was
a translation from Ptolemaic Greek into Biblical Greek, into Latin, into
English. Confusion upon confusion. It has only been in the last 125
years or so that new generations of Biblical scholars have been going
back over everything, trying to clean up the mess.
For example, I interpret the word 'Christian' to be 'a follower of
Christ',
That would be a standard historically based interpretation, because that
is the sense the Romans originally used the word. Since the Gnostics
also followed Christ, I would also call them Christian.
versus 'those people who historically burned people at
stakes and engaged in mass killing crusades'.
I would say that this is less of a definition, and more of an
observation of what a certain group of Christians did in the past. I
recall once meeting an evangelical Christian who did not consider Roman
Catholics to be Christian at all. Therefore, in reference, to the
crusades and the inquisition, she could say with a clear conscience that
the people who did those things were not Christians. I might have
responded (but out of courtesy, didn't) that they might not have been
Christian in her definition, but they were followers of Christ and did
those things in the name of Jesus. The point I am trying to make here
is that: the way we define our words also defines our personal reality.
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'.
I am more prone to answer such a query by simply defining the word
according to how I understand it. Sometimes I will be asked that
question and suddenly realize that I am not as clear about the meaning
of the word as I had assumed, and ask their input so that we my come to
an agreement for the sake of the conversation. In some cases, we might
look the word up in a dictionary (if one is handy). For every day
conversation that is fine, since a current dictionary is supposed to
define the word according to its common usage. A very good dictionary,
like the Oxford English Dictionary, will also show how the word was used
in earlier centuries and how the meanings have changed. Sometimes, we
need to know that too. For Greek words, I have a nice copy of the
unabridged Riddle and Scott Greek English Lexicon, which also shows how
a Greek word changed meaning over the centuries. I also have similar
lexicons for Chaldeo-Hebrew, Egyptian, Sanskrit and Latin. Sometimes
there are interesting and helpful articles on the Internet. But there
is a lot of garbage there too.
We're all respectively unique, which makes it
possible to learn from each other too in many different ways.
Absolutely.
Best,
Jerry
Vincent wrote:
Jerry-
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
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
