Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Nag Hammadi (Gnostic Christian AstroTheology)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JohnHermes
    replied
    All mainstream religions have an esoteric belief system, where just about everything is read in parables as well as the Nag Hammadi. But I believe there's a line between allegory and literalism. In a gnostic sense the Archons also represent the planets. Those planets in ancient times were referred to as the "gods" as we see in roman mythology and greek mythology connection. Indigenous shamans would call them Gatekeepers of reality. Is anyone is familiar with esoteric yoga and the nerve-plexuses chakra system? Each chakra is associated with each of the 7 planets and their respective zodiac signs. The physical realm is known as the first gate also associated with the root chakra (physical aspects of our being). We can go on for days, but let me just post this for you guys.


    I found this interesting article on a conversation between someone and a Djinn. They funny thing is the information in there falls perfectly in line with Carlos Castaneda's books. Either someone's talking out their butt and just mimicking his works, or they had this real experience, or they're nuts.



    HW: Are those the ones that the Gnostikoi called the archons?

    (I used the Greek term for the Gnostics.)

    J: Oh… so you know about them… (The Jinn’s field brightened reflecting excitement.) The archons are not true spirits. They are mind beings, mental entities many of who were created by humans as thought-forms. Many of these function as attachments… as mental parasites.

    HW: How do they do that?

    J: They feed on the energy… on the attention paid to them by humans. This includes the energy generated by human belief systems. But they are not true spirits and they will cease to exist if nobody pays attention to them any more. The ones you call ‘the archons’ are those that we call ‘the deceivers,’ and like us they are not creative. But they can mimic and they can take on forms in response to human belief systems.”


    http://www.sharedwisdom.com/article/...nn-genie-egypt
    Last edited by JohnHermes; 03-09-2019, 04:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by guacamole View Post
    I read another that guessed that they were from a nearby monastery or religious community that purged heretical texts but didn't want to destroy them.
    That's more or less what I was getting at with the second part of my response; it doesn't address why disparate texts were bound together.
    By formulation, I meant hinting at the processes you have described here. I suppose "widespread" would be in the eye of the beholder--there was an audience wide enough to justify the economics of scribal work. Valentinus was regarded as enough of a threat that he is directly addressed by church fathers.
    On the other hand, it did not long survive its heyday; conversely, Manichaeanism (which is rather more related than orthodox Christianity) lasted for centuries. It was not sufficiently widespread to self-propagate in the face of resistance.

    Leave a comment:


  • guacamole
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    From what I recall, the best guess is that the collector simply found them interesting to read, and got buried instead of destroyed during Theophilus patriarch of Alexandria's crackdown on Origenism c. 400.
    I read another that guessed that they were from a nearby monastery or religious community that purged heretical texts but didn't want to destroy them.

    They shed some light on beliefs which were rejected early on as not normative and did not survive such rejection. There is no indication that any of those beliefs were widespread. There is no indication, other than unsupported assertions here and there of it being material handed down in secret, that the material can be linked to the apostolic kerygma. The most celebrated work found in the collection, the Gospel of Thomas, is arguably dependent on the Diatesseron of Tatian, which would mark it firmly as pseudepigraphic.
    By formulation, I meant hinting at the processes you have described here. I suppose "widespread" would be in the eye of the beholder--there was an audience wide enough to justify the economics of scribal work. Valentinus was regarded as enough of a threat that he is directly addressed by church fathers.

    I do not want to give the impression that I think the Gnostics were as widespread as orthodox Christians.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by guacamole View Post
    Historians try to formulate explanations as to why a fairly diverse set of texts ended up together, because they don't necessarily represent a singular world view.
    From what I recall, the best guess is that the collector simply found them interesting to read, and got buried instead of destroyed during Theophilus patriarch of Alexandria's crackdown on Origenism c. 400.
    Wholly unrelated? I agree that they don't represent orthodox Christianity, but surely they give some light on the formation of early Christian belief.
    They shed some light on beliefs which were rejected early on as not normative and did not survive such rejection. There is no indication that any of those beliefs were widespread. There is no indication, other than unsupported assertions here and there of it being material handed down in secret, that the material can be linked to the apostolic kerygma. The most celebrated work found in the collection, the Gospel of Thomas, is arguably dependent on the Diatesseron of Tatian, which would mark it firmly as pseudepigraphic.

    Leave a comment:


  • guacamole
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Not sure what historians have to do with it.
    Historians try to formulate explanations as to why a fairly diverse set of texts ended up together, because they don't necessarily represent a singular world view.

    The archons of the Nag Hammadi are generally wholly spiritual beings uncontaminated by interaction with matter, which is the creation of a confused offspring of Sophia. Djinni are known because of their interaction with the created world, so... totally different concept.
    A useful distinction. I was of the impression that "djin" do not appear in the library, by word or description.

    A quick perusal of the Nag Hammadi texts would show that they're wholly unrelated to mainstream Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and have a tenuous connection at best to kabala/sufiism. There may be a slight link to Islam, if only because Mohammed's ideas of Judaism and Christianity tended to come from unorthodox sources.
    Wholly unrelated? I agree that they don't represent orthodox Christianity, but surely they give some light on the formation of early Christian belief.

    fwiw,
    guacamole
    Last edited by guacamole; 03-08-2019, 11:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by guacamole View Post
    I agree, but it might be worth offering an explanation as to why historians have come to this conclusion?
    Not sure what historians have to do with it. The archons of the Nag Hammadi are generally wholly spiritual beings uncontaminated by interaction with matter, which is the creation of a confused offspring of Sophia. Djinni are known because of their interaction with the created world, so... totally different concept. A quick perusal of the Nag Hammadi texts would show that they're wholly unrelated to mainstream Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and have a tenuous connection at best to kabala/sufiism. There may be a slight link to Islam, if only because Mohammed's ideas of Judaism and Christianity tended to come from unorthodox sources.

    Leave a comment:


  • DesertBerean
    replied
    Originally posted by guacamole View Post
    Did... did you just call OBP long winded?
    Yeah...sorry...wrong thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • guacamole
    replied
    Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
    I agree with this....but please remember we DO have rules about post lengths on this forum. Not only is it bad manners, it makes it very very difficult to discuss key points.
    Did... did you just call OBP long winded?

    Leave a comment:


  • DesertBerean
    replied
    Sorry....wrong thread.
    Last edited by DesertBerean; 03-08-2019, 08:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • guacamole
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Djinni are not remotely equivalent to the archons of the Nag Hammadi. Neither do the "Abrahamic Religions" remotely follow the Nag Hammadi; that they follow a disparate collection of texts buried for 1500 years or so, many of which are uniquely attested in such collection, is beyond ridiculous.
    I agree, but it might be worth offering an explanation as to why historians have come to this conclusion?

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by JohnHermes View Post
    Good idea. I might continuously add texts and we can discuss the matters. Yes, but Islam has its own of esoteric aspects to it but doesn't have that gnostic info like the Nag Hammadi does. But to me the Abrahamic Religions all follow the Nag Hammadi including Islams. Djinns would be equivalent to the archons of the Nag hammadi. We're just giving different names for the same thing. For example the "shamans" don't call archons, archons. They call them 'fliers".

    It's not necessary, but more organized? I'll maybe take whole sections of the Nag Hammadi and leave them up for discussion. We'll see how this thread does.
    Djinni are not remotely equivalent to the archons of the Nag Hammadi. Neither do the "Abrahamic Religions" remotely follow the Nag Hammadi; that they follow a disparate collection of texts buried for 1500 years or so, many of which are uniquely attested in such collection, is beyond ridiculous.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnHermes
    replied
    Good idea. I might continuously add texts and we can discuss the matters. Yes, but Islam has its own of esoteric aspects to it but doesn't have that gnostic info like the Nag Hammadi does. But to me the Abrahamic Religions all follow the Nag Hammadi including Islams. Djinns would be equivalent to the archons of the Nag hammadi. We're just giving different names for the same thing. For example the "shamans" don't call archons, archons. They call them 'fliers".

    It's not necessary, but more organized? I'll maybe take whole sections of the Nag Hammadi and leave them up for discussion. We'll see how this thread does.
    Last edited by JohnHermes; 03-07-2019, 06:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ke7ejx
    replied
    Originally posted by guacamole View Post
    JohnHermes, you might want to split this discussion up by individual texts in different threads to facilitate discussion.
    I don't think that will be necessary.

    Leave a comment:


  • guacamole
    replied
    JohnHermes, you might want to split this discussion up by individual texts in different threads to facilitate discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    I've read the Nag Hammadi texts. They're a mishmash of incompatible systems; applying one's own fanciful post-modern interpretation isn't helpful. They have nothing whatever to do with Islam, for example.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X