Gender in Gnosticism

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by Mr Cheese
Oh please.... that is why Gnostics worshipped Sophia,
In many gnostic cosmonogies, Sophia had more in common with satan than a figure of worship. Sophia was responsible for all the evil in the world, because she decided to act without the permission of the one true god, and reproduced without a consort, producing the god of the OT, who subsequently produced the evil material world from which gnostics seek to escape.

Ha ha Sophia is satan...
You have shot yourself in the foot.
You really do not understand Gnosticism at all.
Which I thought to be the case but this says it all.
Sophia is not satan... the demi urge would be akin to satan... even though that too is grossly innacurate...

sophia=satan is ridiculously funny...
I understand your assertions now, you simply dont understand Gnosticism


Quote:
had women priests, placed women in high regard in scriptures and some groups even placed a certain woman as Yeshua's equal.....
For example?
for example what?

Quote:
You are just plain wrong....
I find this quite an amusing remark coming from someone who quoted a modern forgery to support his position.

Ha ha, I have apologised and addressed this, if you want to harp on about it fine...I have added additional things to promote my stance

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Mr Cheese

Ha ha Sophia is satan...

how does "has more akin to satan" equal "is satan"?

for example what?

What texts support your assertion that women in gnostic churches were given authority equal to Jesus?

Ha ha, I have apologised and addressed this, if you want to harp on about it fine...I have added additional things to promote my stance

No, you really haven't. You added a bunch of equally sexist quotes all from a single book by Meyer (himslef hardly representative of mainline scholarship), which support the idea that women were considered inferior. You posted a great deal of junk on "enochian gnosticism" which contains a good deal of information that most historical Jesus scholars would find laughable. You have yet to cite a single gnostic text which is openly supportive of the body, or really of women either.

It is very clear to me that your opinion is formed primarily from reading various "gnostic" texts and "reading between the lines" to get the interpretation you wish. You aren't familiar with scholarship in this area, nor do you appear to be very familiar with the culture and intellectual traditions in which the so-called gnostic texts were written.

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by Oberon

how does "has more akin to satan" equal "is satan"?



What texts support your assertion that women in gnostic churches were given authority equal to Jesus?


No, you really haven't. You added a bunch of equally sexist quotes all from a single book by Meyer (himslef hardly representative of mainline scholarship), which support the idea that women were considered inferior. You posted a great deal of junk on "enochian gnosticism" which contains a good deal of information that most historical Jesus scholars would find laughable. You have yet to cite a single gnostic text which is openly supportive of the body, or really of women either.

It is very clear to me that your opinion is formed primarily from reading various "gnostic" texts and "reading between the lines" to get the interpretation you wish. You aren't familiar with scholarship in this area, nor do you appear to be very familiar with the culture and intellectual traditions in which the so-called gnostic texts were written.

yawn I grow tired of this banter....
It is quite clear you seek to be right.

Fine. Sophia is akin to satan, Gnostics all hated the world, Gnosticism hated women and was strictly a mysoginistic religion and still is.

Marvin Meyer, the editor of the Nag Hammadi scriptures is not a mainstream scholar, oh well I know this too now, damn, as one of the original translators of the nag hammadi scriptures he is also not a scholar.... Amazon.com: The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The International Edition: Marvin Meyer: Books

Damn how stooopid of me. Yes my quotations from several people and several books (all quirte clearly outlined) are actually all from one book...

geez I really am stupid.

I know this now....

ha ha

It is quite clear you have nothign to say.

I bid your silly aspersions adieu..as you have clearly demonstrated my stupidity

You have won the conversation...as a Gnostic, I am going to kill myself tomorrow and make sure I take out a few women in the process as women and my body are evil...

How much stoopid can I be....?

The third function of Sophia is that she is also an important figure in Gnostic
mythology. The early Gnostics told many stories about the nature of the world,
about creation, and how things came to be, and so forth. Now it is important of
course to understand that these stories are simply that — stories that we use
to symbolize and reflect on mysteries of the universe around us. Sophia as a
“character” or entity in these stories is very deeply and centrally figured.
There are various Gnostic myths, but in a common myth, we see God emanating
spirit out from God’s self, producing the “pleroma” including Christ and Sophia
(and our own spiritual natures). Sophia, however, comes to desire to produce
something on her own, apart from the rest of God, and ultimately gives birth to
a being/force that is imperfect, separated from the divine — what the myths
call the “demiurge” who in turn becomes the “creator” of the material world,
which is imperfect just as the demiurge is
imperfect, systemically. But Sophia is not a “villain” in this story — it is a
great story of redemption, because she is shown as subsequently being the force
that works to bring about our liberation from imperfections and our
reunification with the rest of the pleroma or spiritual reality. In one version
of the myth, the very production of the demiurge in a sense splits Sophia into
half, a Heavenly Sophia and an earthly one, who long for reunification. It is
the earthly Sophia, moved by her Heavenly counterpart, that comes to the human
beings in the demiurge’s “garden” in the form of a humble, simple animal — the
snake — to lead people on their first steps toward reunification. In a
symbolic sense, then, she becomes our bridge, and we become hers.
I hope this gives you some things to think about and I hope to hear from you
soon. Please accept my warmest blessings and wishes for peace for you and your
family.

R-S « Prayers and Reflections

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by Oberon

No, you really haven't. You added a bunch of equally sexist quotes all from a single book by Meyer (himslef hardly representative of mainline scholarship), which support the idea that women were considered inferior. You posted a great deal of junk on "enochian gnosticism" which contains a good deal of information that most historical Jesus scholars would find laughable. You have yet to cite a single gnostic text which is openly supportive of the body, or really of women either.

.

As for this I suggest you read the Deconick edited "Paradise Now http://www.amazon.com/Paradise-Now-C...74/ref=ed_oe_p" and other books on merkavah/hechkalot literature....

Your dismissal is frankly based solely in ignorance. But then Books on this subject are freaking expensive and hard to find, so i dont blame you for being ignorant

I can supply a list if you like

http://www.aprildeconick.com/

Oh more on that stupid non scholar guy....

Marvin Meyer is a scholar of religion and a tenured professor at Chapman University, in Orange, California.
He is the Griset Professor of Bible and Christian Studies at Chapman University and Director of the Albert Schweitzer Institute. He is also Director of the Coptic Magical Texts Project of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity. Dr. Meyer is the author of numerous books and articles on Greco-Roman and Christian religions in antiquity and late antiquity, and on Albert Schweitzer's ethic of reverence for life. He has been interviewed on television programs that have aired on ABC, BBC, CNN, PBS, A&E, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and the National Geographic Channel.
Professor Meyer is best known for his translations of the texts of documents associated with the ancient mystery religions, early Christian magic, and Gnostic texts, of which the most notable have been the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas. He is regarded as an authority on Gnosticism[1] and has published many books on the subject

Yep, he was a baddun to quote from, being stoopid and all I better kill myself, as the worlsd is a prison

http://www1.chapman.edu/~meyer/

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Mr Cheese

Your dismissal is frankly based solely in ignorance. But then Books on this subject are freaking expensive and hard to find, so i dont blame you for being ignorant

Right. For one thing, as a grad student in the field of NT studies, I have access to a great library, so I don't need to by the books. For another, I actually own a fairly extensive library on gnostic scholarship myself.

True, I know a lot more about historical Jesus research and NT scholarship than later christian history, but I know a good deal about these areas as well, and gnosticism has always been an interest for me. So while I can't read coptic, I can read the all the church fathers (who supply a good deal of information, and from whom the term "gnostic" comes) who wrote mainly in Greek, and I have access to plenty of scholarship on the coptic texts by scholars in that field.

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Right. For one thing, as a grad student in the field of NT studies, I have access to a great library, so I don't need to by the books. For another, I actually own a fairly extensive library on gnostic scholarship myself.

The hechalot period is pre NT dear heart...

but I am stoooopid and you are right.

You are a grad student in the field of NT studies.... that explains much more.. people from your brigrade have been supressing the nag hammadi and associted texts for decades......

At least now I can see your bias, an anti gnostic one...

but anyway, you have proven you are superior, as a grad student to published professors (plural) thank you for that

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Mr Cheese

You are a grad student in the field of NT studies.... that explains much more.. people from your brigrade have been supressing the nag hammadi and associted texts for decades......

Right. The reason anyone has access to the library is because of such scholars.


The Gnostic myth calls Yaldabaoth and his fellow archons/angels weak (ApJn NH II 11:15-16; HypArch 87:17). They lack power. Yaldabaoth has no father who could have provided it for him. By bringing forth alone, Sophia deprived her offspring of perfection. The Gnostics knew what the medical authorities knew: the female seed was weak and could give no adequate form to the fetus. For example, the writer of A Valentinian Expositions ays "... the seeds of Sophia are incomplete and formless" (35:12). Jesus representing the high deity, or Father, provides the form (35:14-18). In the TripartiteT ractate,f orm is identified with maleness and weakness with femaleness. Maleness refers to the aeons to whom the Father gives form, weakness designates those who do not belong to "the Church" (94: 10-23). And Theodotus (the Valentinian) holds that the Logos implanted a male seed into the elect soul (Excerpta ex Theodoto 2). Says he, "As long as we are children of the female only, as of a dishonorable union, weak, and without form, brought forth like abortions, in short we are children of the women. But having been given form by the Savior, we are children of the man (husband)...." (ExTheo 68).24
In the Gnostic myth adequate form comes to Adam not from Yaldabaoth. Yaldabaoth lacks the power that could give his product the strength to move and stand up. The Apocryphonof J ohn says of the creature "And it lay for a long time without moving, since the seven powers were not able to raise it up nor were the 360 angels who fitted together the joints" (BG 50:15-51: 1; cf. NH II 19:13-14; HypArch 88:5-6). Yet Yaldabaoth unwittingly blows the power/breath into Adam's face which he had taken from his mother. This power makes Adam human. "The body moved and gained strength, and it was luminous" (ApJn NH II 11:33-34). The luminosity is the spirit from on high. It is the light from the Pleroma, or the male principle. Sophia brings forth a miscarriage as long as she acts without the help and consent of the male consort. Yet she turns into a savior figure when she acts from her spirit. I believe Richard Smith states a keen insight by saying "In order to redeem her creation, Sophia begins to perform as a male. Inasmuch as Sophia is a female character, she can only create an imperfect malformation. Inasmuch as she is to save that creation, she must assume male characteristics".25


Yaldabaoth: The Gnostic Female Principle in Its Fallenness Author(s): E. Aydeet Fischer-Mueller. Novum Testamentum, Vol. 32, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1990), pp. 79-95

[Oberon]

On thomas 114:

Peter's misogyny-specifically directed at Mary Magdalene-is well-attested from other early Christian Gnostic sources such as Gos. Mary and Pistis Sophia. Responding to Peter's utterance, Jesus defends Mary. His reply means, I think, that maleness is a pre-requisite for becoming a "living spirit." This spiritual entity resembles the male disciples. Assuming that all of Jesus' followers are to become such spirits, one may infer that female followers will have to attain maleness before they may become "living spirits." Male disciples, then, appear to have to make only one step: from maleness to the spiritual level. So, the hierarchy of salvation here is: female-- male-"living spirit." That every woman taking the step into maleness will "enter the Kingdom of Heaven", implies an automatic salvation if the correct procedures are followed. Males, already "naturally" in the second category, may also become "living spirits." I suspect that the hierarchical order of female, male, and "living spirit" expresses that of Genesis 2. For, the envisioned goal, as Jesus presents it, can be seen as a "backward" creation: from the female rib into the male Adam, back into the "living spirit" created by dust and God's breath (Gen. 2:7).4 If this is a valid departure-point for an interpretation of logion 114, Jesus' directions to Mary imply that she must return, via the male element, to the spiritual being in Gen.
2:7.5
...
In The Gnostic Gospels Pagels says that the logion, "simply states what religious rhetoric assumes: that the men form the legitimate body of the community, while women are allowed to participate on-ly when they assimilate themselves to men."

An Interpretation of Logion 114 in "The Gospel of Thomas" Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley. Novum Testamentum, Vol. 27, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1985), pp. 245-27

[Oberon]

On Thomas 114

Whoever investigates the early development of Christianity-the field called "patristics," that is, study of "the fathers of the church"-may not be surprised by the passage that concludes the recently discovered, secret Gospel of Thomas: "Simon Peter said to them [the disciples]: Let Mary be excluded from among us, for she is a woman, and not worthy of Life. Jesus said: Behold I will take Mary, and make her a male, so that she may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For I tell you truly, that every female who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Strange as it sounds, this only states explicitly what religious rhetoric often assumes: that the men form the legitimate body of the community, while women will be allowed to participate only insofar as their own identity is denied and assimilated to that of the men.


What Became of God the Mother? Conflicting Images of God in Early Christianity Elaine H. Pagels. Signs, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter, 1976), pp. 293-303

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Right. The reason anyone has access to the library is because of such scholars:


The Gnostic myth calls Yaldabaoth and his fellow archons/angels weak (ApJn NH II 11:15-16; HypArch 87:17). They lack power. Yaldabaoth has no father who could have provided it for him. By bringing forth alone, Sophia deprived her offspring of perfection. The Gnostics knew what the medical authorities knew: the female seed was weak and could give no adequate form to the fetus. For example, the writer of A Valentinian Expositions ays "... the seeds of Sophia are incomplete and formless" (35:12). Jesus representing the high deity, or Father, provides the form (35:14-18). In the TripartiteT ractate,f orm is identified with maleness and weakness with femaleness. Maleness refers to the aeons to whom the Father gives form, weakness designates those who do not belong to "the Church" (94: 10-23). And Theodotus (the Valentinian) holds that the Logos implanted a male seed into the elect soul (Excerpta ex Theodoto 2). Says he, "As long as we are children of the female only, as of a dishonorable union, weak, and without form, brought forth like abortions, in short we are children of the women. But having been given form by the Savior, we are children of the man (husband)...." (ExTheo 68).24
In the Gnostic myth adequate form comes to Adam not from Yaldabaoth. Yaldabaoth lacks the power that could give his product the strength to move and stand up. The Apocryphonof J ohn says of the creature "And it lay for a long time without moving, since the seven powers were not able to raise it up nor were the 360 angels who fitted together the joints" (BG 50:15-51: 1; cf. NH II 19:13-14; HypArch 88:5-6). Yet Yaldabaoth unwittingly blows the power/breath into Adam's face which he had taken from his mother. This power makes Adam human. "The body moved and gained strength, and it was luminous" (ApJn NH II 11:33-34). The luminosity is the spirit from on high. It is the light from the Pleroma, or the male principle. Sophia brings forth a miscarriage as long as she acts without the help and consent of the male consort. Yet she turns into a savior figure when she acts from her spirit. I believe Richard Smith states a keen insight by saying "In order to redeem her creation, Sophia begins to perform as a male. Inasmuch as Sophia is a female character, she can only create an imperfect malformation. Inasmuch as she is to save that creation, she must assume male characteristics".25


Yaldabaoth: The Gnostic Female Principle in Its Fallenness Author(s): E. Aydeet Fischer-Mueller. Novum Testamentum, Vol. 32, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1990), pp. 79-95

well yes and...

You still dont understand Gnosticism.
That is one version you portray, as I have said CONSTANTLY...
Also it is frankly like you, looking from the outside IN...

there is MORE to the story.

But anyway....

I felt I have said enough..I cant bothered to "prove" I am right
So you can feel happy that you as a grad student have a superior opinion to actual people who have handled and read the nag hammadi texts, published books and have a Phd....

Oh and my girl friend as an egyptian can read coptic, greeak and hebrew...

but I am of course wrong... once again I assure you, I hate women as did all Gnostics..the reverence of Sophia was all baloney, as was the allowance of women priests........ Afterall Gnosticism is all one big heresy right....

I also as a devotee of Sophia, worship satan..as all matter is evil.
Pass the rubber goat I need to make a sacrifice