Minimalist wrote:
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.
Minimalist wrote:
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.
Minimalist wrote:
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.