Christos and Logos
-
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Christos and Logos
Original post: Shepard of Arcadia
In Gnosticism, are the Christos and the Logos the same entity?
In Gnosticism, are the Christos and the Logos the same entity?
-
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Christos and Logos
Original post: pmcv
Hmmm... depends.... how is that for an answer? :shock:
Seriously though, Shepard of Arcadia, let me take a couple of days to think about how to make this subject into a conversation so that it isn't just about stating historical usages. I think it has potential but I want to go into the cosmogeny for the group..... if that is ok with you?
PMCV
Hmmm... depends.... how is that for an answer? :shock:
Seriously though, Shepard of Arcadia, let me take a couple of days to think about how to make this subject into a conversation so that it isn't just about stating historical usages. I think it has potential but I want to go into the cosmogeny for the group..... if that is ok with you?
PMCV
-
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Christos and Logos
Original post: Shepard of Arcadia
Thats okay, take your time bro:)
Thats okay, take your time bro:)
-
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Christos and Logos
Original post: LucianAccendus
Umm...I don't post much in this section, though I do watch it... I will throw in my two cents and see how it helps, but it may lead to just more questions,for I had the same question, and I kinda came to the conclusion that the Logos was more of the spiritual essence, the force that evolves religion, and the christos as the incarnate being that is Logos made physical, in order to carry out the above task. but then again, this is just my interpretation, and I just use it for it's convience. I hoped I helped by giving you another perspective
Umm...I don't post much in this section, though I do watch it... I will throw in my two cents and see how it helps, but it may lead to just more questions,for I had the same question, and I kinda came to the conclusion that the Logos was more of the spiritual essence, the force that evolves religion, and the christos as the incarnate being that is Logos made physical, in order to carry out the above task. but then again, this is just my interpretation, and I just use it for it's convience. I hoped I helped by giving you another perspective
-
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Christos and Logos
Original post: pmcv
Hey Lucian, welcome to the conversation. Actually, your post helps a lot. You gave me some ideas as to some specific texts and passages that could be interesting to explore. I believe what you may be talking about is the mythological outline that we see in the Hypostasis of the Archons?
While this outline does not definitively outline a mythology that can be carried over into Gnosticism in general, it certainly does offer a destinction between the "Christ" and the "Logos", another version that could be interesting here is the one we see in the Tripartite Tractate.
One of these texts is influenced by Valentinian thought without actually being Valentinian, and the other is similarly close to Sethianism without actually being Sethian. These two texts do have some similarites, but they disagree with each other concerning some of the specific of who the Logos is and how it relates to the world and us. However, we can also question whether these two texts have maintained a status as categorically "Gnostic".
I think more often there is an agreement as to who the Logos and the Sophia is, as well as the "Christ", with the variation being more minor that the above examples.
Tomorrow I have to drive out to the rez for work, so you two keep talking and I'll jump back in the conversation day after tomorrow.
Talk to you then
PMCV
Hey Lucian, welcome to the conversation. Actually, your post helps a lot. You gave me some ideas as to some specific texts and passages that could be interesting to explore. I believe what you may be talking about is the mythological outline that we see in the Hypostasis of the Archons?
While this outline does not definitively outline a mythology that can be carried over into Gnosticism in general, it certainly does offer a destinction between the "Christ" and the "Logos", another version that could be interesting here is the one we see in the Tripartite Tractate.
One of these texts is influenced by Valentinian thought without actually being Valentinian, and the other is similarly close to Sethianism without actually being Sethian. These two texts do have some similarites, but they disagree with each other concerning some of the specific of who the Logos is and how it relates to the world and us. However, we can also question whether these two texts have maintained a status as categorically "Gnostic".
I think more often there is an agreement as to who the Logos and the Sophia is, as well as the "Christ", with the variation being more minor that the above examples.
Tomorrow I have to drive out to the rez for work, so you two keep talking and I'll jump back in the conversation day after tomorrow.
Talk to you then
PMCV
-
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Christos and Logos
Original post: Shepard of Arcadia
So in that vein, the Christos would be an extension of the Logos, but still the same entity/being.
So in that vein, the Christos would be an extension of the Logos, but still the same entity/being.
-
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Christos and Logos
Original post: Sub Rosa
The answer is: Yes, Christos is the Logos.
There is some confusion because Logos is not an "entity".
Christos is the entity of the Logos.
Logos is the Word.
Christos is the Deed, the Voice.
The answer is: Yes, Christos is the Logos.
There is some confusion because Logos is not an "entity".
Christos is the entity of the Logos.
Logos is the Word.
Christos is the Deed, the Voice.
-
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Christos and Logos
Original post: LucianAccendus
Yes, Shepard, the Logos is the spirit and it may work through man but must incarnate when there are very big things to be done. That's how I see it....That Christos is still entirely the Logos, but the Logos, I see it, as much larger spiritual entity. *This thread is getting really interesting, it is certainly helping me.
Yes, Shepard, the Logos is the spirit and it may work through man but must incarnate when there are very big things to be done. That's how I see it....That Christos is still entirely the Logos, but the Logos, I see it, as much larger spiritual entity. *This thread is getting really interesting, it is certainly helping me.
-
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Christos and Logos
Original post: pmcv
Ok, sorry I flaked on you all there. I'm back.
Sub Rosa, you state...
Well, for instance in the Triprtite Tractate this is not the case... which is why I brought it up. We simply can't say that all the systems agree with the notion. To add to this, sometimes it is the Logos that is seen as a lesser offspring of the Christ, as we see in the Gospel of the Egyptians. In the The Apocryphon of John the "Christ" comes directly from the Barbelo and is a primal aeon, so it would not be accurate in this case either to think of the Christ as the manifestation of the Logos.
I only point this out so that we should know that we cannot make an all encompasing statement as to exactly what the relationship is between the Logos and the Christ in all the sources.
BTW, when I previously said "Hypostasis of the Archons" in my other post, I actually meant "Origin of the World". In this account "Jesus Christ" is a being that is created by Sabaoth, and this obviously is very different from the general concept of the "Logos" (a word which is not specifically mentioned in this text).
It is often common to equate "Jesus" with the "Christ", and this is not only true in regular Christian texts but in some Gnostic texts as well (such as in the Apocryphon of John). However, it is not always true in Gnostic texts to make this equation. Still, it is a tendency in the Christian Gnostic texts. Philip is a good example of dealing with the "Christ" in very specific terms of manifestation (not only in Jesus, but in all who attain the highest initiations). So here is where we infer "Christ" as a manifestation... but again this is not always true.
On the other hand it is more common to see the "Logos" in terms that are more similar to what we see in Merkabah, which is to say it is a higher Aeon, sometimes the husband of the Sophia. This cosmological usage seems to contrast to the manifest usage of the other term, and yet we do see the Logos send some aspect into the world for it's salvation effect. This is closer to what we see in the Valentinian Exposition, where Jesus recieving the Christ is equated with Sophia getting her consort, and the Christ is projected by the Word and Life (Logos and Sophia).
Well, I hope I am not making it more confusing. I think the most popular conception for modern readers is that one that Sub Rosa offers, and there are textual examples of this version.
PMCV
Ok, sorry I flaked on you all there. I'm back.
Sub Rosa, you state...
The answer is: Yes, Christos is the Logos. There is some confusion because Logos is not an "entity".
Christos is the entity of the Logos.
Well, for instance in the Triprtite Tractate this is not the case... which is why I brought it up. We simply can't say that all the systems agree with the notion. To add to this, sometimes it is the Logos that is seen as a lesser offspring of the Christ, as we see in the Gospel of the Egyptians. In the The Apocryphon of John the "Christ" comes directly from the Barbelo and is a primal aeon, so it would not be accurate in this case either to think of the Christ as the manifestation of the Logos.
I only point this out so that we should know that we cannot make an all encompasing statement as to exactly what the relationship is between the Logos and the Christ in all the sources.
BTW, when I previously said "Hypostasis of the Archons" in my other post, I actually meant "Origin of the World". In this account "Jesus Christ" is a being that is created by Sabaoth, and this obviously is very different from the general concept of the "Logos" (a word which is not specifically mentioned in this text).
It is often common to equate "Jesus" with the "Christ", and this is not only true in regular Christian texts but in some Gnostic texts as well (such as in the Apocryphon of John). However, it is not always true in Gnostic texts to make this equation. Still, it is a tendency in the Christian Gnostic texts. Philip is a good example of dealing with the "Christ" in very specific terms of manifestation (not only in Jesus, but in all who attain the highest initiations). So here is where we infer "Christ" as a manifestation... but again this is not always true.
On the other hand it is more common to see the "Logos" in terms that are more similar to what we see in Merkabah, which is to say it is a higher Aeon, sometimes the husband of the Sophia. This cosmological usage seems to contrast to the manifest usage of the other term, and yet we do see the Logos send some aspect into the world for it's salvation effect. This is closer to what we see in the Valentinian Exposition, where Jesus recieving the Christ is equated with Sophia getting her consort, and the Christ is projected by the Word and Life (Logos and Sophia).
Well, I hope I am not making it more confusing. I think the most popular conception for modern readers is that one that Sub Rosa offers, and there are textual examples of this version.
PMCV
-
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Christos and Logos
Original post: Shepard of Arcadia
It seems that the Gnostics were not unanimous on the subject, but in general they are seen as the same being.
It seems that the Gnostics were not unanimous on the subject, but in general they are seen as the same being.
-
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Christos and Logos
Original post: Sub Rosa
Another way to say it is Christ is the Magus of the Law.
Like I said, the Voice of the Word.
pmcv has good info.
And shepard, yes gnostics disagree on all kinds of stuff, some even equate christ with lucifer.
Another way to say it is Christ is the Magus of the Law.
Like I said, the Voice of the Word.
pmcv has good info.
And shepard, yes gnostics disagree on all kinds of stuff, some even equate christ with lucifer.
-
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Christos and Logos
Original post: pmcv
Shepard of Arcadia
Yeah.... but let me now counteract my own point for a second. If you removed names, like "Logos" and "Christ", and simply gave the outlines without those names, much of this seeming difference disappears. The outlines are the same, the differences are largely simply a matter of which name the author wanted to use for this aeon or that one.
So, I did not mean to say that the Gnostic sects "disagree" with each other, only that they don't all use exactly the same means of describing the the things the do agree on. The Gnostics were actually very concious of this, and we even have examples like in the "Valentinian Exposition" where the author says that he understands some people talk about something one way, be he, for his own part, likes to talk about it using different terms. It is not that he disagrees with the other way of talking about it, just that he thinks this way does a better job of making the meaning more clear.
Where we get into trouble is not in dealing with Gnostic thought, but in assuming that specific words have the same meanings in all examples of that thought.
PMCV
Shepard of Arcadia
It seems that the Gnostics were not unanimous on the subject, but in general they are seen as the same being.
Yeah.... but let me now counteract my own point for a second. If you removed names, like "Logos" and "Christ", and simply gave the outlines without those names, much of this seeming difference disappears. The outlines are the same, the differences are largely simply a matter of which name the author wanted to use for this aeon or that one.
So, I did not mean to say that the Gnostic sects "disagree" with each other, only that they don't all use exactly the same means of describing the the things the do agree on. The Gnostics were actually very concious of this, and we even have examples like in the "Valentinian Exposition" where the author says that he understands some people talk about something one way, be he, for his own part, likes to talk about it using different terms. It is not that he disagrees with the other way of talking about it, just that he thinks this way does a better job of making the meaning more clear.
Where we get into trouble is not in dealing with Gnostic thought, but in assuming that specific words have the same meanings in all examples of that thought.
PMCV
-
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Christos and Logos
Original post: Shepard of Arcadia
So the Gnostics put the greatest importance on the actual concept and the name was just secondary or personal preference.Yeah.... but let me now counteract my own point for a second. If you removed names, like "Logos" and "Christ", and simply gave the outlines without those names, much of this seeming difference disappears. The outlines are the same, the differences are largely simply a matter of which name the author wanted to use for this aeon or that one.