Here's a Present, Ish

[Minimalist]

Ultimately that's true, John.

What they "believed" was largely irrelevant to the agenda of the people who won out. One imagines that they were given a chance to accept the literalist point of view and if they did, fine and if not, that was fine, too. They were killed to "encourage" the others. The church had far more important things to do...such as extending their own power... to worry about them.

[Ishtar]

Thank you! That's perfect!

[Ishtar]

To understand how those in a certain religion thought is not the same thing as believing in that religion. And the purpose of it here should not be to take sides.

Sometimes, and especially in this case where the victors have written the history (and destroyed the writings of the other side) how a religion thinks is the only clue we have to understanding why certain historical events happened, and even to filling in the lacuna.

Political history often ignores this aspect, and it's where it falls down. It's a limited tool, to say the least. It's great for recording the decisions of kings and the tracking of movements of armies. But this means that it can only give us broad brushstrokes.

On the "shop window" to this Mythology section it says this:

The study of religious or heroic legends and tales. One constant rule of mythology is that whatever happens amongst the gods or other mythical beings was in one sense or another a reflection of events on earth. Recorded myths and legends, perhaps preserved in literature or folklore, have an immediate interest to archaeology in trying to unravel the nature and meaning of ancient events and traditions.

So that's what we do in this section of the board.

We need to be clear that if we fall into making value judgements (I'm guilty of this myself) about whether certain peoples were right or wrong to think as they do, we are going to lose the plot. It's about being a little more scientific than that, and just examining it as closely (almost forensically) as we can, without passing value judgements based on our own views.

Apart from anything else, we have a lot to get through and so we will never get there if, every five minutes, we have to stop and sneer.

OK - mission statement over!

[Ishtar]

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 don’t need him to spell out every gnostic doctrine. I need him to know about gnostic practises and philosophies, so that it can inform his views. He patently doesn’t.

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

BIG MISUNDERSTANDING ALERT. Please pay attention.

I am not, and nowhere have I ever said, that I'm a Gnostic, let alone serving as a voice for Gnosticism, so please let’s be clear about that.

But I have bothered to study them, and what they believe (as I have many other cultures' belief systems). And because of that research, I understand that Valentinus is most unlikely to have been in a six-of-one and half-a-dozen-of-the-other-power play or that he sneeringly looked down on those at the psychic stage of initiation. Because of I have researched the Gnostics more deeply, I believe I understand better what happened in this case than Ken Humphries.

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.

I don’t know what you mean by 'right'? And also what you mean ‘worrying about knowledge’ as Gnostic practice did not include ‘worrying’. I’m not trying to make the case that the Gnostics were ‘right’. I am merely trying to present them from the point of view of what they believed in, from my research. It’s not about right or wrong.

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

If that was Ken Humphries’ basic point, I would not disagree with it. But it isn’t his basic point, judging from the extract about Valentinus. His basic point is that the Gnostics lost out in a power battle on a level playing field.

The truth is that the Gnostics probably didn’t even know that there was a battle on until it was all over. And it certainly wasn’t a level playing field. Eusebius tells us about riots in the streets surrounding all the major 4th century church councils (Nicaea etc) as the people only then were beginning to realise what was happening but by then, it was too late.

Ken Humphries doesn’t understand how the Gnostics thought, and he also doesn’t even understand how Literalists think today – as evidenced by him beginning that article with his John the Baptist straw man argument, and thus alienating any intelligent Christian in one go.

On that evidence alone, I would go so far as to say that Ken Humphries doesn’t know how anyone thinks – apart from Ken Humphries – because he is blinded by his own egotistical political crusade.

Ken Humphries, imo. is a prime example of someone who is too busy sneering to be able to carry out any clear-headed research to enable him to see the truth objectively.

[Minimalist]

Ish, Humphreys has an entire web site dedicated to the proposition that there was no "historical jesus" and that christianity emerged from existing cults in the first century.

What those individual cults may have thought and why is simply irrelevant to his larger purpose.

They existed and they pre-dated xtianity and some of their doctrines were incorporated into the later story.

Let me tell you something: If Humphreys wrote a web-site about what gnostic xtian beliefs or the cult of Isis or Mithras believed I wouldn't bother reading it.

I don't care what they thought. It's all just superstition. The interesting part, to me, is which pieces were grabbed by the church to be enshrined on their doctrinal altars.

[Ishtar]

The interesting part, to me, is which pieces were grabbed by the church to be enshrined on their doctrinal altars.

That's all that interests me too, Min. But you have to read their doctrines to find those bits, and also delve down into their symbology a bit! Or you could just rely on me, I suppose, to do it for you.



(Sorry, I've just discovered a great smilie site. I'll get over the novelty of it eventually).

[seeker]

There is actually something kind of comical going on here.

Ken Humphries doesn't say that Valentinius was involved in a power play or that he sneered at anybody. That was only Min's characterization of Humphries statement. The only reason Humphries brings it up is to show that Christianity is a result of political maneuvering rather than any sort of divine revelation. in that context the question of exactly what the Gnostics thought is irrelevant because the only real point is that Christianity as we know it is completely different from what earlier Christians believed.

Much as i think Humphries is a good researcher i wouldn't go to him for information about Gnosticism because he doesn't really care about theor beliefs other than in the sense that they werte an early competitor with Christian Orthodoxy.

[Minimalist]

Much as i think Humphries is a good researcher i wouldn't go to him for information about Gnosticism because he doesn't really care about theor beliefs other than in the sense that they werte an early competitor with Christian Orthodoxy.

Yeah. My whole issue with Ish is that she wants him to explain how to transplant a kidney when all he wants to do is take a leak.

[Minimalist]

The interesting part, to me, is which pieces were grabbed by the church to be enshrined on their doctrinal altars.

That's all that interests me too, Min. But you have to read their doctrines to find those bits, and also delve down into their symbology a bit! Or you could just rely on me, I suppose, to do it for you.



(Sorry, I've just discovered a great smilie site. I'll get over the novelty of it eventually).

I'd be the last person to complain about smilies.

[Ishtar]

Much as i think Humphries is a good researcher i wouldn't go to him for information about Gnosticism because he doesn't really care about theor beliefs other than in the sense that they werte an early competitor with Christian Orthodoxy.

Yeah. My whole issue with Ish is that she wants him to explain how to transplant a kidney when all he wants to do is take a leak.

As usual Min, you haven't read my post. Please try to this time.

I said that he needs to KNOW more, to make his views more informed, and NOT that he needs to explain every little thing he knows on the JNE board. That way, he will have enough background knowledge to avoid making stupid mistakes - like thinking that Christians believe the Gospel of John was written by John the Baptist.

Anyway, it will save us all this unpleasantness in future if you don't bring me any more 'presents' containing crap ... er.. sorry, I mean quotes from Group Captain Field Marshall Humphries. The man is not a good researcher. He is a crusader, and crusaders bore me senseless because they cannot hear what the researchers are telling them over the canon booms of their own brain farts.




.

[Minimalist]

I read it.

I just don't agree with it. Big difference.

[Ishtar]

That's fine. Let's agree to differ on this, then.

And btw, in case you were wondering, I thought I'd better just mention that I'm not a member of a Serpent Cult, nor the voice on this board for the Serpent people.







.

[Minimalist]

That's fine.

How did you miss one?

[Ishtar]

That's fine.

How did you miss one?

Miss one what?





.

[Minimalist]

A cult.