Explain gnostic dualism, Veeky Forums

Explain gnostic dualism, Veeky Forums.

Other urls found in this thread:

gnosis.org/library/7Sermons.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>gnostic dualism
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."

Heresy

When you realize the world is fucked up but you still want to hold to the idea of God.

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God
And the Logos was made flesh, and dwelt among us

Some Gnostics don't even think the world's that fucked up and hold a view ranging from Demiurge just being benevolent but incompetent to a full blown Platonic benevolence.

I mean, sorta, but that doesn't sum up the doctrine. Essentially the idea of Gnostic dualism is the idea that the creation of Genesis was imperfect before the inundation of sin.

It should be noted, though, that "Gnostic" is an almost meaningless term applied broadly across groups with wildly divergent theology.

>I mean, sorta, but that doesn't sum up the doctrine.
That would be because it is John1:1 and 14, which is blasphemy in Gnosticism

...

>which is blasphemy in Gnosticism.
>Gnostic" is an almost meaningless term applied broadly across groups with wildly divergent theology.
I don't know a single Gnostic group who denies that Christ was the Word made flesh.

Who or what is Abraxas? I've seen him being referred to as an aeon, an archon or even the demiurge himself. Who is this guy?

In the night, the dead stood along the wall, and cried, "We would have knowledge of God. Where is God? Is God dead?" God is not dead. Now, as ever, he liveth. There is a God whom you know not, for mankind forgot it. We name it by it's name: Abraxas. Abraxas standeth above the sun and above the devil. It is improbable probability, unreal reality. Hard to know is the deity of Abraxas; it's power is greatest because man perceiveth it not. From the sun he draweth absolute good, from the Devil, infinite evil, but from Abraxas: life. Abraxas is the sun and at the same time, the eternally sucking gorge of the void. The power of Abraxas is twofold, but ye see it not, because for your eyes the warring opposites of this power are extinguished. What the Sun-god speaketh is life, what the Devil speaketh is death, but Abraxas speaketh that of power, of the cursed word, which is life and death at the same time. Abraxas speaketh of truth and lie, of good and evil, of light and darkness; in the same word and in the same act. Wherefore is Abraxas terrible? It is as splendid as the lion who [something] striketh down it's victim. It is as beautiful as a day of spring(?). It is the abundance which seeketh the union with emptiness. It is love and love's murder. It is the saint, and [something] betrayer. It is the brightest light of day and the darkest night of madness. God dwelleth behind the sun, the Devil behind the night, but God bringeth forth out of light what the Devil sucketh into the night. Abraxas is the world: it's becoming, and it's passing. Upon every gift that cometh from the Sun-god, the Devil layeth his curse. Everything that ye entreat from the Sun-god, ye getteth indeed from the Devil. Everything that ye create with the Sun-god giveth effective power to the Devil. What is terrible Abraxas? It is the delight of the earth, the cruelty of the heavens. Before it, there is no question and no reply.

>Abraxas
Abraxas (Gk. ΑΒΡΑΞΑΣ, variant form Abrasax, ΑΒΡΑΣΑΞ) was a word of mystic meaning in the system of the Gnostic Basilides, being there applied to the "Great Archon" (Gk., megas archōn), the princeps of the 365 spheres (Gk., ouranoi).

He, generally speaking, rules over time and the movement of planets.

I get a serious "Leviathan as the ability of human systems to consume humanity" vibe from the dude.

To wit:
>With the availability of primary sources, such as those in the Nag Hammadi library, the identity of Abrasax remains unclear. The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit, for instance, refers to Abrasax as an Aeon dwelling with Sophia and other Aeons of the Pleroma Dukias in the light of the luminary Eleleth. In several texts, the luminary Eleleth is the last of the luminaries (Spiritual Lights) that come forward, and it is the Aeon Sophia, associated with Eleleth, who encounters darkness and becomes involved in the chain of events that leads to the Demiurge's rule of this world, and the salvage effort that ensues. As such, the role of Aeons of Eleleth, including Abraxas, Sophia, and others, pertains to this outer border of the Pleroma that encounters the ignorance of the world of Lack and interacts to rectify the error of ignorance in the world of materiality.

This outer border of Pleroma is directly called "Leviathan" by...the...Ophites.

see gnosis.org/library/7Sermons.htm

>you will never be ordained in the EG's reconciled apostolic lineage and run an overtly Gnostic church

Such is life, user.

>Aeon Sophia
>name means wisdom
>acts foolishly
>is responsible for all this mess
I never understood this.

Mandeans claim that Jesus betrayed the true messiah, John The Baptist

read Thunder Perfect Mind

Mandaeans illustrate the insufficiency of the term "Gnostic".

They are to Christianity what the Yazids are to Islam, and look more like (in terms of mytheopia and practice) Middle Eastern paganism.

Hush, you want the bitch to KEEP crying?

Wise user, any good books on the Bogomilists?

>Bogomilists
Saw that thread, they're too new and too far in the boonies to be in my sphere of knowledge. I only have sparse knowledge between Hungary and the 'stans, say Uzbekistan.

Alrighty then. What about the Cathars and just Christian gnosticism in general as a starting point for lecture?

>Christian gnosticism in general
If I've said it once I've said it a bajillion times:
>Kurt Rudolph's "Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism".
It's where the image....here: comes from.

Thank you, most based user.

Really there's never been a better time for it. Now that everything's (mostly) published, it should not be hard to construct sermons from the extant materials, especially through the non-Gnostic texts from Qumran.

This may be the most idiotic image ever posted on Veeky Forums.

Congrats, I guess.

Yes, let's reach all the way back to 1953 AD to receive our ancient wisdom.

I mean, the French Gnostics are already sorta spoken for and don't have a reconciled line.

Hell, I'd settle for Satyr to make me a Wandering Bishop of the EGC but he won't ;_;

Care to give a critique on what Rudolph got wrong on the Ophites here?

That implies there is something there that is not wrong.

>what is comparative religion
I'm sorry the doctrines of others [triggers] you.

It's a class I took at the university level.

They don't trigger me. They sadden me. You can follow known heretics like Origen into hell if you choose; you can follow the gnostics, who left the disciples of Jesus and denied his humanity if you choose; you just cannot choose the consequences of those actions.

Origin's 22 book OT list is my base for a proposed Gnostic Catholic canon.

You keep putting words together that don't fit. Gnosticism says Jesus was not human; Catholicism worships the Queen of Heaven for giving birth to the Son of God.

Here's my proposition for a unified bare-bones and down-to-basics Gnostic canon:

>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.

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.

>Gnosticism says Jesus was not human
For the nth time: >It should be noted, though, that "Gnostic" is an almost meaningless term applied broadly across groups with wildly divergent theology.

Show me in the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Phillip or the Gospel of Truth where it denies Christ's humanity.

"Catholic" in this sense only means universality of doctrine, hence:
>unified bare-bones and down-to-basics

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

SECTION ONE: THE ASSEMBLY -

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:

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.

My copy arrived in post three days ago. Just what I had searched for, thanks lad.

From my point of view you are the heretic!

Another flavor of bullshit.

>Aeon Sophia
>name means wisdom
>acts foolishly
>is responsible for all this mess

you forgot
>she's female

See now?