Gender in Gnosticism

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Again, there is no reason for saying this. We possess only one compete text of thomas. Therefore this isn't a textual variant. The language is not different from the rest of thomas. There is no reason to think of it as a later addition to the text..

Argue with the scholars.... it is THEIR opinion... not mine!

"

Originally Posted by Oberon

Don't cite a website as evidence if you want me to take it seriously. If you want to cite texts in support, please do it either from books published by an academic press, or from peer-reviewed journals.

I have read extensively in this area, from the earlier authors like A. Harnack, A. D. Nock, and K. Rudolf, to more modern scholars like K. King, E. Pagels, B. Ehrman, J. D. Crossan, J. P. Meier, M. A. Williams, C. Tuckett, and so on.




This is completely false. The most common date accepted by scholars is the beginning of the second century. A very early date (earlier than some or all of the canonical gospels) is proposed by H. Koester. He is followed in this date most notably by J. M. Robinson and J. D. Crossan. Few scholars argue for a date beyond the second century, particularly because we have fragments that are from the gospel of philip contained in the Oxyrhynchus papryi that are dated to the beginning of the third century or end of the second (in other words, the scraps themselves are from this period; they are copies of a much older work, which is evidence that thomas is at least from the second century).





Why? It is universally recognized by scholars that Philip is similiar to Thomas in that it brings together a diverse number of teachings in a haphazard manner.





No i don't see that. Your quote is a typical gnostic expression of "everything in the world is nothing" and "those who are exalted above it are indissoluble, eternal." You seem to have missed the fact that the when Philip states these various dichotomies (good and evil, right and left, etc) are equal, he goes on to say that they will all dissolve, but the exalted (i.e., the gnostics) are indissoluble. He isn't saying that the body and soul are equal. ..

what website did I cite? oh the gnostic society's one... again THEIR opinion not mine... quibble with the ACTUAL original translators if you must

the one that has the scholarly translations lol

well we have a difference of opinion
You are taking Gnosticism as an isolated "religion" though, as opposed to seeing it in relationship to what it is approaching, ie Gnosis.

When it comes to nothing this is a part of the Gnostic paradox, everthign is nothing is akin to gnosti seuton, knowing ourselves is not knowing ourselves. The transcendant nature of God is nothing and yet it isnt..both at the same time.

Ok I retracted my date...

the exalted indeed are eeternal, body and soul are not one or the other, we need both..see thomas 22!

Originally Posted by Oberon

And he explicitly states the opposite.
"No one wil hide a large valuable object in something large, but many a time one has tossed countless thousands into a thing worth a penny. Compare the soul. It is a precious thing (and) it came to be in a contemptible body."



Docetic does not mean hatred of the body. It is from the greek dokein meaning "to appear." It means that Jesus only "appeared" human, but that he wasn't. It has nothing to do with hatred of the body per se.





Yes, because hatred of the body, and thinking of it as a prison was a common expression in gnostic thought.

For SOME Gnostics, sure, not ALL groups...
I have already cited examples that contradict your ideas

I am quite aware of what docetic means, and again not all Gnostics believed in it.
Some did, granted.

Philip, which mentions things such as the bridal chamber which again is akin to the rosicrucian vault, the holy grail etc and "kissing" Mary... again has elemnts that does not hate the body...and encourages sex.... for that IS the bridal chamber, the holy of holies....

Jesus took them all by stealth, for he did not appear as he was, but in the manner in which they would be able to see him. He appeared to them all. He appeared to the great as great. He appeared to the small as small. He appeared to the angels as an angel, and to men as a man. Because of this, his word hid itself from everyone. Some indeed saw him, thinking that they were seeing themselves, but when he appeared to his disciples in glory on the mount, he was not small. He became great, but he made the disciples great, that they might be able to see him in his greatness.
He said on that
---philip

In the end, yes you can conclude that Gnosticism was all about hatred of the body... heck Gnostics have been accused of libertine sexual practices, suicide and other wonderful things. However, the docetic views and all they imply go against the basic alchemy... for one cannot redeem that which is not lived...lead cannot become Gold... loved cannot become lover....

So yes, from the outside looking in, Gnosticism is all about beating ourselves with sticks, hating ourselves, not breeding, commiting sucide... but you know, once again these are all actually practices of extreme catholics... more so than actual gnostics.

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Yes, because hatred of the body, and thinking of it as a prison was a common expression in gnostic thought.

112. Jesus said, "Damn the flesh that depends on the soul. Damn the soul that depends on the flesh."

hmm this "condemns" body AND soul....

the body that has not passed through syzgy is indeed a prison...
again though in your argument is not a full understanding.
Again, one needs to read betweent he lines. Why does Thomas condemn body AND Soul?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Mr Cheese

Argue with the scholars.... it is THEIR opinion... not mine!

I have. Very few of them argue that 114 is an addition, those that do have reasoning which amounts to "I don't like what it says."

well we have a difference of opinion
You are taking Gnosticism as an isolated "religion" though, as opposed to seeing it in relationship to what it is approaching, ie Gnosis.

No, I'm not. Rather, I take it as an umbrella term which describes a number of syncretic movements characterized by cosmological duality, cosmogony, soteriology, and eschatology.

When it comes to nothing this is a part of the Gnostic paradox, everthign is nothing is akin to gnosti seuton

Gnosti seuton? Did you mean gnothi (aorist imperative of gignosko) seauton ?

For SOME Gnostics, sure, not ALL groups...
I have already cited examples that contradict your ideas

No, you haven't.

I am quite aware of what docetic means, and again not all Gnostics believed in it.
Some did, granted.

Then why did you equate it with hatred of the body?

Philip, which mentions things such as the bridal chamber

It is a metaphor dependent on the canonical gospels. It doesn't encourage sex. Sex is referred to as evil in many gnostic texts, and nowhere is there a gnostic texts which reflects even the barely positive views of the canonical gospels (where jesus basically says, well, if you gotta do it, at least be married).

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Mr Cheese

112. Jesus said, "Damn the flesh that depends on the soul. Damn the soul that depends on the flesh."

hmm this "condemns" body AND soul....

No, it means "damn the fact that the two depend on each other." The gnostics rejected the body and sought to escape the material world with their spirit.

[Mr Cheese]

We are,however
, the pleroma itself, for we are a part of the eternal and the infinite.
But we have no share thereof, as we are from the pleroma infinitely
removed; not spiritually or temporally, but essentially, since we are
distinguished from the pleroma in our essence as creatura, which is
confined within time and space.
Yet because we are parts of the pleroma, the pleroma is also in us.
Even in the smallest point is the pleroma endless, eternal, and
entire, since small and great are qualities which are contained in it.
It is that nothingness which is everywhere whole and continuous.
Only figuratively, therefore, do I speak of created being as part of
the pleroma. Because, actually, the pleroma is nowhere divided,
since it is nothingness. We are also the whole pleroma, because,
figuratively, the pleroma is the smallest point (assumed only, not
existing) in us and the boundless firmanent about us. But wherefore,
then, do we speak of the pleroma at all, since it is thus everything
and nothing? I speak of it to make a beginning somewhere, and also
to free you from the delusion that somewhere, either without or within,
there standeth something fixed, or in some way established, from the
beginning. Every so-called fixed and certain thing is only relative.
That alone is fixed and certain which is subject to change.
What is changeable, however, is creature. Therefore is it the one thing
which is fixed and certain because it hath qualities: or as even a quality itself.
--THE SEVEN SERMONS TO THE DEAD WRITTEN BY
BASILIDES (CG Jung Translation)

Everything is the pleroma, thus for this influential Gnostic writer, there is no conflict. Pretending that the body is a prison and thus “hated” is clearly only a partial Gnostic picture, one generally shared by earlier scholarly research such as those you cite; mainly due to ignorance (lack of a full plethora of texts) and biases 9ties with churches etc)..

But yes again, some Gnostics fell within your argument, but NOT all


Further:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilides

Basilides: (?-138) An Alexandrian Gnostic who formed sects around 120 to 138. Known to be associated with Valentinus, and Mathias, and other early Christian leaders. May have also had knowledge of Dositheos and others associated with Simon Magus, or Gnosticism in Samaria. He is associated with Sethian works by Theodotus, and Clement. Thought to have had knowledge of both mystical and Hellenistic philosophy. (See also; ”The Other Bible,” by Barnstone, Harper, 1980; See also; ”Stromata.”) </SPAN>
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/chj/chj09.htm
ART. XV. — Buddhist Gnosticism, the System of Basilides
From Basilides to Baudrillard…

[Mr Cheese]

Quote:

For SOME Gnostics, sure, not ALL groups...
I have already cited examples that contradict your ideas
No, you haven't.


Please see my earlier posts! lol

my mandaean, manichaean and Irinaeus, augustine et al quotations.....

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by Oberon

No, it means "damn the fact that the two depend on each other." The gnostics rejected the body and sought to escape the material world with their spirit.

again not the full story....

for the mandaeans not breeding is a sin, for example.

One can see the sentiment of not being a part of the world, yet within it elsewhere...

one just has to look to sufism for example, which holds the EXACT same principle...

that homosapiens are "aliens"...

But you are content with only looking at the surface and taking the words of scholars instead of thinkign for yourself. Which is fine. Your opinion IS correct, but it is however not the entire conclusive water tight conclusion one can reach

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Mr Cheese

THE SEVEN SERMONS TO THE DEAD WRITTEN BY
BASILIDES (CG Jung Translation)

We have none of Basilides' actual writings. You are quoting a forgery which is well known to be written by Jung himself. We have only what is preserved through opponents. For example:

"The Valentinians, who hold that the union of man and woman is derived from the divine emanation in heaven above, approve of marriage. The followers of Basilides, on the other hand, say that when the apostles asked whether it was not better not to marry, the Lord replied: "Not all can receive this saying; there are some eunuchs who are so from their birth, others are so of necessity." And their explanation of this saying is roughly as follows: Some men, from their birth, have a natural sense of repulsion from a woman; and those who are naturally so constituted do well not to marry. Those who are eunuchs of necessity are those theatrical ascetics who only control themselves because they have a passion for the limelight. [And those who have suffered accidental castration have become eunuchs of necessity.] Those, then, who are eunuchs of necessity have no sound reason for their abstinence from marriage. But those who for the sake of the eternal kingdom have made themselves eunuchs derive this idea, they say, from a wish to avoid the distractions involved in marriage, because they are afraid of having to waste time in providing for the necessities of life.

2. And they say that by the words "it is better to marry than to burn" the apostle means this: "Do not cast your soul into the fire, so that you have to endure night and day and go in fear lest you should fall from continence. For a soul which has to concentrate upon 'endurance has lost hope." In his Ethics, Isidore [son of Basilides] says in these very words: " Abstain, then, from a quarrelsome woman lest you are distracted from the grace of God. But when you have rejected the fire of the seed, then pray with an undisturbed conscience. And when your prayer of thanksgiving," he says, "descends to a prayer of request, and your request is not that in future you may do right, but that you may do no wrong, then marry. But perhaps a man is too young or poor or suffers from weak health, and has not the will to marry as the apostle's saying suggests. Such a man should not separate himself from his brother Christian. He should say, I have come into the sanctuary, I can suffer nothing. And if he has a presentiment that he may fall, he may say, Brother, lay your hand on me lest I sin, and he will receive help both spiritually and physically. Let him only wish to accomplish what is right and he will achieve his object. 3. "Sometimes, however, we say with our mouth 'I wish not to sin' while our mind is really inclined towards sin. Such a man does not do what he wishes for fear lest any punishment should be in store for him. Human nature has some wants which are necessary and natural, and others which are only natural. To be clothed is necessary and natural; sexual intercourse is natural but not necessary."

From Stromata, book III by Clement

But yes again, some Gnostics fell within your argument, but NOT all

We possess NO gnostic texts which advocate that the body or the world is positive, and plenty of quotations from a variety of these texts which show clear animosity to both.

And I am amazed that you would try to support your position on what the gnostics felt by quoting a forgery of the 20th century by Jung.

But you are content with only looking at the surface and taking the words of scholars instead of thinkign for yourself.

Why is it that every time I cite scholarship someone has to come back with this? I have read the texts themselves. I have read Irenaeus and the other church fathers in their original languages. I have also read a great deal of scholarship on the gnostics. And, like all scholars, if I want to progress rather than recreating the wheel I interact with that scholarship, so I avoid making mistakes others have.

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Why is it that every time I cite scholarship someone has to come back with this? I have read the texts themselves. I have read Irenaeus and the other church fathers in their original languages. I have also read a great deal of scholarship on the gnostics. And, like all scholars, if I want to progress rather than recreating the wheel I interact with that scholarship, so I avoid making mistakes others have.

I had no idea this was a forgery, I stand corrected

Scholarship is from the outside looking in.

It is like onwe who studies apples but refuses to eat them.

I guess the manichaen, mandaean, augistine etc quotations are all none extant texts ....

I guess we'll never agree...which is fine.

I am happy seeing the bigger picture, while you are happy withiin your confines...

alchemy is alchemy.... without the lead, there can be no gold

"That which is not lived, cannot be redeemed"

You make NO mention of Carpocrates, who was a fully sexual Gnostic....

[Buttons*]

Originally Posted by Oberon

No, it means "damn the fact that the two depend on each other." The gnostics rejected the body and sought to escape the material world with their spirit.

Well... but it's a transformation rather than a suicide to rid oneself of the body in order to free the soul. It wasn't a cult, it's more of a mystic transformation. You don't have to be separate from the body, you just have to realize that your body is impermanent and imperfect. You also can't depend on it for your "being" .... or "becoming." It's simply unreliable to only depend on ones body and bend to the wills of the flesh.