'The Original Gnostic Apostles'

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12694
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 'The Original Gnostic Apostles'

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:07 pm

Come on. Plato invented the term demiurgos? Give me a break. Suggesting that is even possible is only the result of not thinking.. The ancient people had to have had craftsmen. Its like wondering if Christians invented Judaism. Does anyone around here espouse that position? There were never any Jews before Paul? Sounds like a position looking for an advocate at earlychristianwritings.com. Any takers?

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6331
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 'The Original Gnostic Apostles'

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:49 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:07 pm
Come on. Plato invented the term demiurgos? Give me a break.
I got my wire's crossed. I've edited and changed what I originally wrote (not that I owe you an apology. Now fuck off).

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6331
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 'The Original Gnostic Apostles'

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:10 am

The philosophies of a first century AD/CE neoPythagorean like Moderatus, a Middle Platonists like Plutarch, or a combined neoPythagorean and middle Platonism like Numenius (c.160 AD/CE), may have had some influence at least on theology of the both early Christianity and 'Gnosticism' (for want of a better word).

It's said Moderatus may have had some influence on the formation of the Alexandrian School of Philosophy. Stobaeus' Eclogae preserves a fragment of his writings; further extracts survive in the form of quotations in Porphyry's Life of Pythagoras and Simplicius's commentary on Aristotle's Physics.

Various Middle Platonists were writing about various notions of gods in the 2nd century. Theon of Smyrna {f. 100 c.e) wrote a mathematical introduction to Plato. Apuleius (c. 125), a popular writer, expounded an eclectic Platonism in his books On the God of Socrates and On Plato and his Doctrine. Gaius was a 2nd century teacher of Platonist philosophy. His pupil, Albinus, wrote an account of his lectures. Alcinous postulated three principles: the first God; the ideas, which are regarded as thoughts of the 'first God'; and matter.

Both Plutarch and Numenius considered and wrote about the soul and its components and their association with matter.

The works of Numenius were noteworthy enough to have been testimonies preserved by various writiers, including Church Fathers Origen and Eusebius, though some classified him as a Platonist philosopher (Porphyry, Life of Plot. 14.12, Eusebius, Prep. Ev. XI.21.7), and considered him a Pythagorean (Origen, Against Celsus I.15, VI.51, V.38 frs. 1b–1c, 53, Porphyry, Ad Gaurum 34.20–35.2; fr. 36, Calcidius, In Timaeum 297.8).

Sethianism may have started as a pre-Christian tradition, as earlier Sethian texts such as Apocalypse of Adam show signs of being pre-Christian and focus on the Seth of the Jewish bible (It has been postulated to be a syncretic Hebrew Mediterranean baptismal movement from the Jordan Valley, with Babylonian and Egyptian pagan elements, and elements from Hellenic philosophy).

Sethianism and the Valentinianism incorporated elements of Christianity and Hellenic philosophy as they grew, including elements from Plato, Middle Platonism and Neo-Pythagoreanism. Later Sethian texts continued to reflect Platonism, and texts such as Zostrianos and Allogenes drew on the imagery of older Sethian texts, but utilized "a large fund of philosophical conceptuality derived from contemporary Platonism, (that is late middle Platonism) with no traces of Christian content."

In the early 3rd century NeoPlatonism evolved with Plotinius. Sethianism came under attack from him and others such as Porphyry and Amelius and is said to have fragmented into smaller virtual non-entities as a result.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12694
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 'The Original Gnostic Apostles'

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:45 am

So you proved you're not an idiot. Remember I had just dealt with an idiot - Giuseppe - who basically said - (a) gnostic means some bullshit about an evil Demiurge and (b) I don't care what anyone says to the contrary. I am sorry if I came off rude. These discussions form in my brain at least in a continuous flow information. I don't get why people find concepts so difficult:

1. the 20th century theosophists WANTED TO pass off their idiotic teachings as having ancient precursors.
2. they started this understanding of 'gnostic' to mean something like kabbalah.

It's plain when you look at Clement's use of the terminology IT CAN'T MEAN SECRET. The knowledge that the gnostics were bringing people into acquaintance with was secret. Ok. But gnostic just means the capacity for that knowledge. I am/was capable of secret knowledge. We are/were capable of that secret knowledge. I wonder if it would be more helpful to translate it as 'knowledgic' or 'knowledgical' to get the underlying sense.

UPDATE it seems some people have tried to coin this as a word https://www.techknowledgical.com/ Maybe it's urban slang? https://books.google.com/books?id=lywEA ... al&f=false Anyway it seems to be a word https://books.google.com/books?id=Hr4KA ... BXoECAIQAg "Even in translations of Platonic treatises Voulgaris proves that Dogmatism is an absurd theory , since it maintains that man has an unlimited knowledgical ability , a phrase which cannot be confirmed by reality" https://books.google.com/books?id=airnA ... BnoECAMQAg

Geocalyx
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:59 pm

Re: 'The Original Gnostic Apostles'

Post by Geocalyx » Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:42 am

Theosophists & Crowley et al are the worst lot. But I'd rather say I see no distinctive word in English between "knowing something" and "knowing someone", which ends up in lots of confusion when dealing with this. The knowledge 'gnosis' described does not appear to be static, towards Infinity it's more like "awareness".

It's impossible to know all about God. It's possible to know him, still.

The word as used in NHC appears to me as a counter to faith. A pious man might say "I believe God exists", while the 'gnostic' is all "I know God exists". The latter's ends up looking like an atheist, but really isn't.

Post Reply