Original post: Metanoia
Discovered and Reposted by Metanoia
There were no further comments to this discussion, just the question.
First Posed on 06-27-2004, 10:47 PM by PMCV
Tell us..... What do you think about the personages in the traditional Gnostic texts, and how they were intended to be seen by the original authors? Do you believe that they were thought to be literal beings? Do you think they were allegories? Why? What in the texts makes you interperate them in the specific way that you do?
PMCV
MEaning in Gnostic Texts
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
MEaning in Gnostic Texts
Original post: Metanoia
dammit... lost my response...
I believe they are allegorical and were never meant to be seen as literal. Other religions have similar myths that have continued to be seen as myths for thousands of years.
The reason I see them as myths is because they often include fantastical tales and seemingly irrelevant facts, however if you take these and see them as allegory or symolically then it is possible to see the relations between them, the other stories and the world around us.
Quite often a mythographer used actual people or events to better convey his allegory in a way that people will relate to and better understand.
A very clever mythographer will always be able to create a story that could be taken literally by some which is generally meant for those younger, or uninitiated. And also be taken allegorically by those who can see the patterns, links and symbols, or by those initiated.
dammit... lost my response...
I believe they are allegorical and were never meant to be seen as literal. Other religions have similar myths that have continued to be seen as myths for thousands of years.
The reason I see them as myths is because they often include fantastical tales and seemingly irrelevant facts, however if you take these and see them as allegory or symolically then it is possible to see the relations between them, the other stories and the world around us.
Quite often a mythographer used actual people or events to better convey his allegory in a way that people will relate to and better understand.
A very clever mythographer will always be able to create a story that could be taken literally by some which is generally meant for those younger, or uninitiated. And also be taken allegorically by those who can see the patterns, links and symbols, or by those initiated.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
MEaning in Gnostic Texts
Original post: Ceeairya
In the book, the Pagan Christ...Tom Harper discusses this quite a bit and like Metanoia, states that even though the people knew these myths were allegorical, it was the idea or lesson that was eternal...and they understood this and adapted it to their lives....he also states that biggest mistake we could have made as a modern culture is to take them literally...
Regardless of time and place the allegorical lessons are eternal, and still hold truth and value for every person in the physical world today...and will do for all time..
In the book, the Pagan Christ...Tom Harper discusses this quite a bit and like Metanoia, states that even though the people knew these myths were allegorical, it was the idea or lesson that was eternal...and they understood this and adapted it to their lives....he also states that biggest mistake we could have made as a modern culture is to take them literally...
Regardless of time and place the allegorical lessons are eternal, and still hold truth and value for every person in the physical world today...and will do for all time..
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
MEaning in Gnostic Texts
Original post: pmcv
Hey Metanoia, interesting response, and one I largely agree with. However, I'm going to present an alternative view, partly because it is my job to keep conversations going, and partly because it does happen and I know it from personal experience.... as you will see.
I know a person just up the road from me who has created his own mythology for a religious belief that he has created out of his extensive martial arts training. It is obviously largely Eastern, but in fact it is eastern through a western lense... and in so doing it is niether.
Now, you may think that when a person makes thier own religion they surely must be trying to pass on an allegory, but no!!! in this case the person really DOES mean this mythology to be absolutely literal. He has started selling books, and seems to have a bit of a following.
Just because the mythology is newly created by an individual does not mean that this individual does not believe it literally. The person I just mentioned is largely what most of us would call "sane" but two houses away from where I lived a few months ago was another fellow who also believed himself to have "discovered" a mythology which he also believed quite literally.... and he has been in trouble with the law a number of times for rather lessor offences... and I know yet a third party who was much like the others, but he was in trouble for much greater transgressions against societal norms (pedephilia which he thought was justified by his spiritual discoveries)
My point is this; there certainly are mythographers who are very well aware of the notion of allegory, and use it conciously, but there are very many people out there who really do create mythological structures an intend it quite literally.
SO, Metanoia and Ceeairya, what in Gnostic liturature makes you so sure that you are reading something from an intentional allegoricist vs people who genuinely believe there is a literal Demiurge who wrote the Bible and is trying to prevent humans from leaving him? Can you point to something more specific?
PMCV
Hey Metanoia, interesting response, and one I largely agree with. However, I'm going to present an alternative view, partly because it is my job to keep conversations going, and partly because it does happen and I know it from personal experience.... as you will see.
I know a person just up the road from me who has created his own mythology for a religious belief that he has created out of his extensive martial arts training. It is obviously largely Eastern, but in fact it is eastern through a western lense... and in so doing it is niether.
Now, you may think that when a person makes thier own religion they surely must be trying to pass on an allegory, but no!!! in this case the person really DOES mean this mythology to be absolutely literal. He has started selling books, and seems to have a bit of a following.
Just because the mythology is newly created by an individual does not mean that this individual does not believe it literally. The person I just mentioned is largely what most of us would call "sane" but two houses away from where I lived a few months ago was another fellow who also believed himself to have "discovered" a mythology which he also believed quite literally.... and he has been in trouble with the law a number of times for rather lessor offences... and I know yet a third party who was much like the others, but he was in trouble for much greater transgressions against societal norms (pedephilia which he thought was justified by his spiritual discoveries)
My point is this; there certainly are mythographers who are very well aware of the notion of allegory, and use it conciously, but there are very many people out there who really do create mythological structures an intend it quite literally.
SO, Metanoia and Ceeairya, what in Gnostic liturature makes you so sure that you are reading something from an intentional allegoricist vs people who genuinely believe there is a literal Demiurge who wrote the Bible and is trying to prevent humans from leaving him? Can you point to something more specific?
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
MEaning in Gnostic Texts
Original post: Asimis
I think we can't know for sure if they were meant to be taken literally or alegorically without learning about the background of the religion/text in question and how it came to be in the first place.
There are many factors that should be taken into account like for example archeological evidence of the events described in the text. Take the Exodus for example, there is no evidence for such an event, some people like to jump over and claim that because there is no archeological evidence for the events described in the text then the text itsel if a hoax and a lie without considering the posibility of it being a myth which uses natural things, people, locations, etc to convey a deeper message or eternal spiritual truth.
The same manner that other people claim that the events described in the texts are naturally impossible, like people raising from the dead or turning water into wine and also proced to discard the text as a lie without considering the possibility of a myth.
As for the Gnostic text, as far as I have learned in my search for the origins of Christianity and its development I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is a mystery religion that was the result of the blending of both Jewish and Hellenic culture during the exile at the time of Cyrus and The Diaspora that occured after the Greek translation of the Torah.
Like in the mystery religions, in Christianity there are two ways of reading the scripture (or interpreting the myths because the mysteries didn't have a body of scripture) and in some cases this blend. One is the literal, that has a good value for people who are still on faith like for example that Jesus actually rose from the dead and another is the allegorical which reveals that the same scripture is a myth that conveys a higher spiritual truth that is eternal and applies at all times which is for those who are ready for gnosis.
After all truth did not come into the world naked so it had to come in images, other wise the world would not accept it
Both methods work and are valid because one leads to the other from faith to gnosis. What happened to Christianity as I see it was the supression of the allegorical interpretation of scripture or its gnsotic aspect for the sake of a literal interpretation and hellfire tactics that were no longer a promotion of truth but of social control.
I think we can't know for sure if they were meant to be taken literally or alegorically without learning about the background of the religion/text in question and how it came to be in the first place.
There are many factors that should be taken into account like for example archeological evidence of the events described in the text. Take the Exodus for example, there is no evidence for such an event, some people like to jump over and claim that because there is no archeological evidence for the events described in the text then the text itsel if a hoax and a lie without considering the posibility of it being a myth which uses natural things, people, locations, etc to convey a deeper message or eternal spiritual truth.
The same manner that other people claim that the events described in the texts are naturally impossible, like people raising from the dead or turning water into wine and also proced to discard the text as a lie without considering the possibility of a myth.
As for the Gnostic text, as far as I have learned in my search for the origins of Christianity and its development I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is a mystery religion that was the result of the blending of both Jewish and Hellenic culture during the exile at the time of Cyrus and The Diaspora that occured after the Greek translation of the Torah.
Like in the mystery religions, in Christianity there are two ways of reading the scripture (or interpreting the myths because the mysteries didn't have a body of scripture) and in some cases this blend. One is the literal, that has a good value for people who are still on faith like for example that Jesus actually rose from the dead and another is the allegorical which reveals that the same scripture is a myth that conveys a higher spiritual truth that is eternal and applies at all times which is for those who are ready for gnosis.
After all truth did not come into the world naked so it had to come in images, other wise the world would not accept it
Both methods work and are valid because one leads to the other from faith to gnosis. What happened to Christianity as I see it was the supression of the allegorical interpretation of scripture or its gnsotic aspect for the sake of a literal interpretation and hellfire tactics that were no longer a promotion of truth but of social control.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
MEaning in Gnostic Texts
Original post: pmcv
Hey Asimis....
EXACTLY the reason for the emphasis on "Traditional" Gnosticism here. I want to make no assumptions, but to instead try to understand what "Gnosticism" was historically and then understand how modern people and groups may be similar or different. To me, it seems important to work on this problem as it's definition comes into being.
Once again, I am in agreement... though I think that the equation of Hellenic culture with the Persian excile is a bit early (especially considering the Greek translation of the Torah, and the Tanakh, happens after the return the Cyrus allowed...ino et... post diaspora). It is my view that the true connection happens a bit later, but still I am in agrement with your basic point. However, I sort of hope that you would be willing to give us more detail concerning just how you see this "Gnostic" theology coming about in the
And, in fact some of the descriptions we have of Valentinian thought really express quite directly what you are saying. There is the "Church" for the hylics and psychics, and there is the secret teaching for the pneumatics just as your excelent quote form a Valentinian text demonstrates...... "After all truth did not come into the world naked so it had to come in images, other wise the world would not accept it" . Oddly though, what we have of the Sethian text is a bit more enigmatic. I am not aware of any explicit evidence of this in the Sethian sects, though I personally believe it is true of them also. Perhaps you could outline your own views as well.
And again, I agree though I have my own theories. I don't want to promote some Gnostic version of the "burning times", but in contrast we have some genuine historical evidence here.... however, I would be interested to see your own outline.
PMCV
Hey Asimis....
I think we can't know for sure if they were meant to be taken literally or alegorically without learning about the background of the religion/text in question and how it came to be in the first place.
EXACTLY the reason for the emphasis on "Traditional" Gnosticism here. I want to make no assumptions, but to instead try to understand what "Gnosticism" was historically and then understand how modern people and groups may be similar or different. To me, it seems important to work on this problem as it's definition comes into being.
As for the Gnostic text, as far as I have learned in my search for the origins of Christianity and its development I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is a mystery religion that was the result of the blending of both Jewish and Hellenic culture during the exile at the time of Cyrus and The Diaspora that occured after the Greek translation of the Torah.
Once again, I am in agreement... though I think that the equation of Hellenic culture with the Persian excile is a bit early (especially considering the Greek translation of the Torah, and the Tanakh, happens after the return the Cyrus allowed...ino et... post diaspora). It is my view that the true connection happens a bit later, but still I am in agrement with your basic point. However, I sort of hope that you would be willing to give us more detail concerning just how you see this "Gnostic" theology coming about in the
Like in the mystery religions, in Christianity there are two ways of reading the scripture (or interpreting the myths because the mysteries didn't have a body of scripture) and in some cases this blend. One is the literal, that has a good value for people who are still on faith like for example that Jesus actually rose from the dead and another is the allegorical which reveals that the same scripture is a myth that conveys a higher spiritual truth that is eternal and applies at all times which is for those who are ready for gnosis.
And, in fact some of the descriptions we have of Valentinian thought really express quite directly what you are saying. There is the "Church" for the hylics and psychics, and there is the secret teaching for the pneumatics just as your excelent quote form a Valentinian text demonstrates...... "After all truth did not come into the world naked so it had to come in images, other wise the world would not accept it" . Oddly though, what we have of the Sethian text is a bit more enigmatic. I am not aware of any explicit evidence of this in the Sethian sects, though I personally believe it is true of them also. Perhaps you could outline your own views as well.
Both methods work and are valid because one leads to the other from faith to gnosis. What happened to Christianity as I see it was the supression of the allegorical interpretation of scripture or its gnsotic aspect for the sake of a literal interpretation and hellfire tactics that were no longer a promotion of truth but of social control.
And again, I agree though I have my own theories. I don't want to promote some Gnostic version of the "burning times", but in contrast we have some genuine historical evidence here.... however, I would be interested to see your own outline.
PMCV