Sketches of Gnosticism & A Possible Gnostic Catholic Canon

mega.nz/#F!AE5yjIqB!y7Vdxdb5pbNsi2O3zyq9KQ
(For the topic of this thread, scroll down to Gnostic Studies).

This is going to be another thread that's hard to approach. It takes 300 pages to give outlines of Gnosticism so I can only give the crudest sketches while directing folks to primary source material.

Who, or what, where the Gnostics? A Christian sect is the easy answer, but you'll quickly find that their opponents painted them as immoral Godless heretics, and their modern extreme apologists like to paint them as innocent contemplative ascetics. The truth is either in between, or both; Gnosticism is not a monolithic ideology. It comes in many strains and flavors: Ophites, Sethites, Mandaeans, Valentineans, Barbeloites, etc., etc., etc., the list goes on. For better or worse, the literature on Gnosticism is better in German, so I'll be borrowing quotes from snippets of translation. RE: The nature of the Gnostic cults - Sloterdijk's distinction between libertine and ascetic Gnosis is illuminating:

>"The amoral style leads to a homeopathic ascetic: this weakens the Evil of sin, in that they are committed thoughtfully and ironically, as if by quota: the Gnostic embraces the sin and experiences thereby a critical decay in his own body, finally to climb out of the gutter fully burnt out. — The world is a pornographic purgatory, from which to filter the immaculate Pneumata. The abstaining style, in contrast, applies allopathic methods against the sickness of the World: against the poisons of the cosmos it administers immediate flight from the world as an antidote. Civil disobedience against the lower body, general strike against the astral works, bathings in tears, fasting of the heart."

This begs some questions: At the beginning of the 3rd C. Clement of Alexandria condemns the Carpocratians for their rites which he describes as excuses to indulge in gluttony and lust. A little while later Celsus accuses Origen of doing this shit, and he quickly points the finger at the Ophites. What's less known is that even the Gnostics were accusing each other of practicing this sort of thing: Pistis Sophia curses, even into the outer darkness, in the name of Christ, those who eat of a lentil dish made with semen and menstrual blood. Two Egyptian testimonies appear in the 3-4th C. that continue this motif, probably in the vein of Phibionite festive meals. The Book of Jesu condemns similar practices. Oddly, though someone then in turn accuses the Barbeloites (who consider the text Pistis Sophia as a core component of their faith, the one that condemns sexual practices) of “obscene rites:...Epiphanius (died. 403) makes this claim in Panarion 26. Irenaeus accuses some Gnostic sect of eating a lentil dish made from menstrual fluid and semen.

A lot of people like to paint the Gnostics writ large as this highly puritanical sort of ascetic group. The fact remains that SOMEONE out there was a dirty degenerate sexual heretic, and I wanna know who, goddamnit. They are probably singularly important for transmitting what few scraps of practice the West inherited.

Early on these texts have no conflict with general Christianity, but then as time wears on Gnosticism is characterized by complex theologies which were borrowed from Neoplatonism and modified according to emerging Christist religion and, to a lesser extent, from the last gasps of the Hekhalot/Merkavah traditions of Hebrew Mysticism. Different sects had different trajectories of practice. The Mandaeans tone down the high philosophy in favor of a REJECTION of Christ (Though NOT explicit in their texts...one wonders why they're called Gnostics) in favor of John the Baptist and other mythical figures; they become more magick/mythic oriented than dwelling on the taxonomy of reality.

As mentioned, other groups have more complex cosmologies. Pic related is a diagram of the Ophite cosmos; with it's division of reality into strata. Above is the Kingdom of God as Father and Son, below being the realm of Life, Spirit, and Soul, ruled over by Sophia; manifesting as both Gnosis (Knowledge) and Synesis (Insight). The intersection is Sophia's subtle nature.

>implying anyone here cares about your stamp-collection of semitic heresiology

Still others are more complex, such as this diagram of the cosmological structure of the Secret Book of (Apocryphon) John.

Anyhow, the two most important texts I can think of are Kurt Rudolph's “Nature and History of Gnosticism” and “The Other Bible” edited by Willis Barnstone. With these texts one gets enough of a footing and understanding of Gnosticism as a whole to figure out which sects attract one's attention the most so one can focus on a particular sect or denomination that resonates with Self.

A project I've been mulling on the last few days/week has be the usefulness of positing a Gnostic Catholic Canon. I'd mentioned this in my previous thread, predicated on the existence of Gnostic Catholic Churches but their relative weakness in preserving the Logos. Maybe they're trying to play catch-up with texts.

Thanks for the reply.

We begin, of course, with Origen:

>That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, which means, ‘In the beginning’; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, ‘These are the names’; Leviticus, Wikra, ‘And he called‘; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, ‘These are the words’; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, ‘The called of God’; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, ‘The kingdom of David’; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreïamein, that is, ‘Records of days’; Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, ‘An assistant’; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.

This gives us the significant number of 22 within the Gematria, and parity to the Rose of the Rose Cross.

5 double books (Judges/Ruth, 1/2 Samuel, 1/2 Kings, 1/2 Chronicles, ½ Esdras, and Jeremiah/Lamentations) starting on representation of Hebrew letters that have double forms.

Replace Maccabees with Ethiopic Maccabees.

I dunno what I'd do about the other letters. As far as Mothers are concerned, my inclination is Genesis and Ezekiel but after that...I'm not sure.

>72
BOOKS OF THE VEIL OF MYSTERY:
The Books of Enoch. 4 Baruch. Sefer Yetzirah. Apocalypse of Moses. Songs of Solomon. The Thanksgiving Psalms. Gnza Rba. The Qwele of the Peacock Angel.

The Hypostasis of the Logos (Aka, The New Testament)

SECTION ONE: THE ASSEMBLEY -

The four synoptic canon gospels are a given. Matt, Mark, Luke, John.

We keep Acts.

We TOSS Hebrews as suspicious and largely irrelevant even if in sound advice (i.e. how Apocrypha gets classed in other compilations).

The Pauline materials are in flux. Last thread had some good arguments for, and I've been reading up on for/against. I've also been reconsidering the next section:

Tell me why it's important. If you can't explain your reasoning in a single reply I doubt you know what you're talking about, or why someone ought to listen at all.

Is this thelema? sounds like a bunch of bullshit to be honest

SECTION TWO: THE ELECT -
Apocalypse of Adam
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Philip
Gospel of Truth
Gospel of the Lord
Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians
Gospel of Judas
Gospel of Mary
Thunder: Perfect Mind
The Naassene Psalm
The Hymn of the Pearl
Apocalypse

The first is selected for its age and parity with Apoc. The next three are admitted because the Coptic Gospels here have like zero conflict with the rest of the Christian text tradition. The next four chosen for their age and diverse usage. The next two set the stage for the Neoplatonic synthesis and as a confession of nonduality. The Hymn is stunning parity with the Qwele.

I guess consider this (and last) thread as open council. The first page of Gospel of Thomas is more than enough to construct a week of daily sermons on. Constraining the "Gnostics" into a thread of more or less shared doctrine from what we know about them is pretty goddamn important if we're going to want any of these Gnostic churches to be viable in any sense of the word.

That graph looks rough. For why it's important, see the paragraph right above this one.

It's Gnosticism.

So let's see.
First of all the Merkabah develops directly out of the Books of Prophecy and some of what we call Kabbalah's old as fuck, see Sefer Yetzirah.

I'm not sure why Gnosticism and Christianity are dichotomized particularly when we take a look at the Coptic Gospels.

"Hermetics" in that chart should properly be lower, derived from notEgypt, and probably attributed to Arabic sources (Kitāb sirr al-ḫalīqa).

Everything after that looks more or less alright tho.

Gonna need a source on Gnostics shitting on each other

Also if you prefer next thread can be on Vajrayana Orthodoxy, the eschatology, astrology, and sexual praxes.

I also have MORE than enough material to mount a new defense of Witchcraft that's reliant on new scholarship and text sources rather than Graves and Murray.

Got little problem doing either of those. It's just this (and Abhinavagupta's aesthetics) have been occupying more space in my head. I should probably be reading through more Quimbanda tho.

???

>What's less known is that even the Gnostics were accusing each other of practicing this sort of thing:
This part

If you're talking about the accusations, then I give the sources here: , just read them. OR, you can crack open your copy of Kurt Rudolph's Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism that you downloaded from my library to....pg....245 (maybe a touch before) through the end of the chapterish.

>245
Eyuh, just after discourse on the Bridal Chamber rite he gets into Spermo-Gnosticism.

Someone help me with my Christology here because I found some shit that's got me in a tizzy.

Christ may be descended in a mortal sense from an accursed line of Elioud.

His line is descended through Canaan according to Luke 3:36.

Canaan was the patriarch of the Amorite giants.

>Genesis 9:25: "And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren,"

In The Book of Jubilees, Chapter 8:

1. In the twenty-ninth jubilee, in the first week, [1373 A.M.] in the beginning thereof Arpachshad took to himself a wife and her name was Rasu'eja, the daughter of Susan, the daughter of Elam, and she bare him a son in the third year in this week, and he called his name Kainan
2. And the son grew, and his father taught him writing, and he went to seek for himself a place where he might seize for himself a city.
3. And he found a writing which former (generations) had carved on the rock, and he read what was thereon, and he transcribed it and sinned owing to it; for it contained the teaching of the Watchers in accordance with which they used to observe the omens of the sun and moon and stars in all the signs of heaven.
4. And he wrote it down and said nothing regarding it; for he was afraid to speak to Noah about it lest he should be angry with him on account of it.

The very concept of Nephilim is in something of contention. There's a chance this could be talking about the taint of the Qayinite line; this is the assertion of most who reject Book of Enoch as non canonical that 'Sons of God' simply meant those who submit to YHVH, while 'daughters of man' meant simply meant the daughters of pagan tribes In either case the admixture stabilized into its own bloodline: Elioud.

Christ's divine nature is an interesting point. The immaculate conception in Mary may have been Christologically necessary in order to circumvent Joseph's well of poison, as it were.

Gimmie feedbacks.

go on 8 chan /christian/, albeit you'll get roasted for being a filthy heretic.

Why do I want to go to a cripplechan board where I already know I'll be banned for framing alone, before I even go into personal doctrines and passtimes?

Besides, I dunno how their policy w/r/t Creeds works with Gnostic or even Armenian Creeds. I'd imagine my rejection of filioque AND the the other half of the Chalcedonian heretics (Eastern Orthodoxy) would be construed as a troll gambit.

I found it to be an interesting and obscure tidbit; just fishing for more perspectives.

Anyway got any perspectives outside "muh haruhsee"?

Then displeasure became audible within the 'Caliphate': "Ideally there should be no need in this Æon for a Priestcraft that ministers to some superstitious people and locks them down with some dogmatic tradition of authority [...] stuff coming out concerning the role of Bishops and the EGC — all these rules and regulations for what a Bishop does and doesn't do [...] I wonder if all the officers in the Mass are really capable of handling the Mass."

The embarrassing question as to whether "some are holier than others by virtue of being touched by the right hands," engendered "no interest in the sort of Vatican politics [...] the pompous, pious and repressive power-over-you attitudes I encounter from officers of the EGC." Elaine Pagels' "The Gnostic Gospels" which was published at this time, cast a good deal of new light on the original functions of a Gnostic bishop for the 'Caliphate'.

The use of purely Christian terms like "Bishop", "Catholic", "Holy Father", and the apparent obsession with traditional apostolic succession apparently left many 'Caliphate' members nonplussed. Some began to ask questions; what would Crowley have thought about such carryings-on? The 'Caliphate's' new "By-Laws" adhered neither to Reuss's spirit nor Crowley's, and offered but a pale imitation of Reuss's presentation of the O.T.O. as a "neo-Christian society."

As a result of all these discontented rumblings, Breeze abruptly realised that there was "no evidence in Crowley's or Reuss' papers" to "support the usage 'Bishop' in OTO." [92] This Gnostic "volte-face" stayed on the back-burner for at least a year, until on October 1st 1991 it was announced that the "Holy Ghost" played a part in the ordination of bishops, and that therefore it now regulated the 'Caliphate', and was introduced as part of the VII°. Whether this new perception resolved the urgent question of 'authentic ordination' within the 'Caliphate' remains unanswered; Phyllis Seckler still equated the 'Caliphate's' Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica with the 'Universal Gnostic Church', [93] which only served to provoke further interminable arguments. Put on the alert as a result, Mrs. Seckler tried to prevent her name appearing in this study with threats of legal action. [94]

The whole story of why the 'apostolic succession', by laying on the hands, was banned in 'Caliphate' has not been told. David Scriven in an article in 'Red Flame, A Thelemic Research Journal No.2' was jabbing at what the Order 'now' calls Auxiliary Bishops. It's referring to the antics at Thelema Lodge which used to be very, very anti-William Breeze in the mid-to-late-eighties. Many of the members hated their Patriarch. It was no secret they resented someone from the East Coast (New York) taking over the Order after McMurtry's death. They thought William Heidrick (or someone else from California) should have assumed the position and this attitude was fueled by Heidrick's behind the scene activities to that effect. Thelema Lodge, although it has a figure-head type of Lodge Master, has always been Heidrick's Lodge and in many ways, still is. In the "old days" a Bishop was made by 'the laying on of hands.' Each Bishop, although in the Gnostic Church, was autonomous or self-ruling believing strongly in the Creed of the Wandering Bishops.

This came back to haunt Breeze who made a lower degree member named David Jones, then Lodge Master of Thelema Lodge, a Bishop. Jones later turned on him. He started making 'everyone' a Bishop by the laying on his hands - for a price. Sadly, many 'bought' their Bishophood for $3.33 and it's no secret Mr Jones and others were simply trying to defy the then newly appointed Frater Hymenaeus Beta (= Breeze), which should say it all. The 'Caliphate' had to put a stop on making Bishops in this fashion and said officially it was no longer recognizing such Bishops. They feared, if a hostile Thelema Lodge was making Bishops like water, it would only be a matter of time before they would be the controlling number of Bishops within the Gnostic Church and not Breeze. The question then arose, "What to do with all these renegade Bishops?" Thus the Order created the term Auxiliary Bishop. This is a term hated by those individuals in the Bay Area who hold the title because it implies that they are not FULL O.T.O. Bishops, a fact they constantly try to hide. To be a FULL Bishop within the 'Caliphate' (now) you must be a VIIth. The majority of the Auxiliary Bishops were below Fourth Degree and few of them have ever risen up to become full Bishops.


As the Vilatte-'apostolic succession'line that Breeze claimed until 1990 had turned out to be bogus, in 1993, David Scriven was seeking consecration as a Bishop under Bishop Robert Cokinis and Bishop John Cole (both EGA).
The EGA USA is in concordat with Bishop Stephan Hoeller of California, even though his lineage is through Duc de Palatine. Scriven's request was turned over to Hoeller, and nothing ever came of this. Before they would ever consecrate anyone, the issue of Intent would have to be clearly established to be in conjunction with their purpose. Dioceses are in the midwestern bible belt, and great care must be taken to ensure that the EGA is not mislabeled as a thelemic church.

Scriven nevertheless seeked consecration into the EGA and in 1996 found so through Jorge Rodriguez.
Rodriguez was consecrated an EGA bishop by Roger St.-Victor Herard. Rodriguez later left the EGA to found his own church, Eglise Catholica Apostolica Orthodoxa. He caused quite a lot of problems for the EGA and the fact that he left was welcomed. The consecration by Rodriguez is not considered valid by any EGA bishops. Rodriguez has been working outside the guise of the E.G.A., so the E.G.A feels that he doesn't have the right to be making Gnostic Bishops even though he shares the same succession that they share. To quote a passage from Bishop Hoeller "We ordain clergy for our own jurisdiction and not for "independent" activities on their own. The Ecclesia has no interest in expansion for its own sake, rather it prefers to have a few parishes led by properly trained priests of true Gnostic commitment." The EGA has very stringent regulations for consecration (e.g. above mentioned issue of Intent). Also, the bull of election is most important. For a valid consecration, there must be a bull of election signed by at least three of EGA Bishops. Rodriguez did not even initiate a bull of election for Scriven at all. — No wonder that only Jack B. Hogg Jr. and Jorge Rodriguez are named as "Bishops in Amity" in the official list of the active 'Caliphate'-Gnostic Church members.

Study a version of Stephan Hoeller's Mass that was modified by the EGA's late Primate, Roger St. Victor Herard (Tau Charles). Up to that point, The E.G.A had used a French mass only, and the English mass was basically the Roman mass with a few slight alterations.