Archaeologica.org

Are we agreed so far?

No, but continue.

Ken Humphries, in not bothering to properly understand how Gnostics thought, has misunderstood their motives and thus misrepresented them.

And if he bothered to spell out every gnostic doctrine and evaluate it how would that lengthy and doubtlessly boring discussion impact his basic point which as I stated above is to show that the gnostic pre-dated literalist xtianity?

I understand your point which is to serve as voice for gnostic doctrine but it is irrelevant to Humphrey's p-o-v.

Had the gnostics BEEN right in their doctrines they'd still be dead and their doctrines trampled by the far-better organized literalist group which spent less time worrying about knowledge and more time cozying up to the Emperor.

Do you disagree with his basic point that the gnostics were first and they were crushed?

I think he is imagining something that happened based on not understanding Gnosticism.

Despite the intrinsic elitism of Valentinus – he held that pagans were irredeemable, ‘psychics’ (ordinary Christians) capable of redemption, and ‘pneumatics’ (like himself!) without need for redemption – he built up a following in Egypt and Syria and, in 136, Valentinus tried his hand in Rome.

He remained in the city for at least a decade and in 143 was involved in a power struggle for the position of bishop.

None of this attested about Valentinus and nowhere does Valentinus express such opinions - in any case, they would be counter to his beliefs.

Even the Literalists at Wikipedia believe he was shafted because of his Gnostic beliefs, which is a bit different to be being "involved in a power struggle."

Anyone after power would not be a Gnostic, in the same way that no-one who wanted to get rich would try to get there by writing a book (speaking from experience)


But Ken wouldn't know that because he doesn't understand Gnosticism.

Um, actually....Wiki cites the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church as saying:

Valentinus produced a variety of writings, but only fragments survive, not enough to reconstruct his system except in broad outline.[1] His doctrine is known to us only in the developed and modified form given to it by his disciples.[1] He taught that only some Christians, his own followers, received the gnosis (knowledge) that allowed them to return to the divine pleroma, while other Christians would attain a lesser form of salvation, while the rest of humankind was doomed to eternal perdition.[1]

so...someone got that idea. I doubt that Humphreys made it up.

But Ken wouldn't know that because he doesn't understand Gnosticism.

Nor is such understanding necessary to make the historical point he is making. In fact, it would be a distraction.

Minimalist wrote:Um, actually....Wiki cites the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church as saying:

Valentinus produced a variety of writings, but only fragments survive, not enough to reconstruct his system except in broad outline.[1] His doctrine is known to us only in the developed and modified form given to it by his disciples.[1] He taught that only some Christians, his own followers, received the gnosis (knowledge) that allowed them to return to the divine pleroma, while other Christians would attain a lesser form of salvation, while the rest of humankind was doomed to eternal perdition.[1]

Yes this is the belief of Gnosticism. But the way Ken puts it, Valentinus is looking down in a judgemental way on those who only have received one initiation (making them a psychic), rather than it being a stepping stone to the second initation. He and his followers would provide both initiations and you couldn't have the second until you had had the first.

so...someone got that idea. I doubt that Humphreys made it up.

I didn't say Humphries made it up. I said he recounted a situation from his own perspective which was faulty - he portrayed Valentinus in a certain derogoratory way, as someone who was a power hungry, and because he didn't understand that Valentus would give both initiations in a stepping stone kind of way.

I think I'm going to give up trying to convince you of this now.. I'm running out of ways to explain it ...and obviously failing to make myself understood.

Sorry!

Min, next time, a bar of chocolate might be better! Anything but something from Humphries ...

But the way Ken puts it, Valentinus is looking down in a judgemental way on those who only have received one initiation

Well that's quite a modern outlook because all religions adhere to the "we're right and you're going to burn in hell" or some such variant, routine.

Honestly, I don't think Ken thinks any more of religion than I do. He is being much more polite about it than I usually am. You know, I frequently refer to it as bullshit and at least Ken doesn't do that.

Min, next time, a bar of chocolate might be better!

I never give fattening stuff to women. That rarely works out well.

Minimalist wrote:
Honestly, I don't think Ken thinks any more of religion than I do. He is being much more polite about it than I usually am. You know, I frequently refer to it as bullshit and at least Ken doesn't do that.

Yes, well Min - for someone who doesn't care about religion, or thinks it's bullshit, you spend an awful lot of time in here talking about it to me.

Minimalist wrote:

Min, next time, a bar of chocolate might be better!

I never give fattening stuff to women. That rarely works out well.

Kind of goes back to an earlier discussion about whether someone who believes in a religion is really capable of analyzing it.

Ishtar wrote:

Minimalist wrote:
Honestly, I don't think Ken thinks any more of religion than I do. He is being much more polite about it than I usually am. You know, I frequently refer to it as bullshit and at least Ken doesn't do that.

Yes, well Min - for someone who doesn't care about religion, or thinks it's bullshit, you spend an awful lot of time in here talking about it to me.

I do not mind talking about BULLSHIT, though....especially when others try to pretend that its "real" and should be the basis of our laws and educational system.

seeker wrote:Kind of goes back to an earlier discussion about whether someone who believes in a religion is really capable of analyzing it.

Of course they can't.

Yes Min ...

I'm going to bed now ...

Remember next time, please.... chocolate, preferably dark.

All -

Seems to me that this whole argument

Is devolving

To an end-game

"Proof of purchase".

Which fits, given the economic/poliical/religious constabulary

And entirely disregards

The knowledge with which people learn and grow,

To get on with their lives.

Aye, there's the rub.


hoka hey

john