Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-08-2005, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Doesn't Pagels contradict this? I thought it was accepted Paul is very Gnostic.

It is not accepted - it is controversial.

I read Pagels' book expecting to find a discussion of Paul as a Gnostic, but she deliberately avoids the question of whether Paul was a Gnostic or proto-Gnostic; she only discusses how the later Gnostics used Paul or claimed to derive their theology from Paul.

More orthodox Christian scholars claim that Paul only used gnostic-sounding language to appeal to Gnostics, just as he said that he was a Jew to the Jews, a gentile to the gentiles, etc. Paul seems to have known nothing about certain doctrines that are identified with Gnosticism - the evil Demiurge versus the Good God, etc.

Clivedurdle · 02-08-2005, 12:55 PM

Wrong Pagels!

The Gnostic Paul

Toto · 02-08-2005, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Wrong Pagels!

The Gnostic Paul

That's the book I'm talking about. You can read some of the Introduction on line - the book is about the Gnostics who used Paul, but not about Paul himself.

Clivedurdle · 02-08-2005, 01:24 PM

Quote:

controversial.

As it was to the early orthodox (catholic) church!

I know you are not meant to work on gut feelings, but the interesting conjunctions between gnosticism and calvinism over predetemination, and thinking back about the many preachers I have heard, and the bits I liked myself, makes me agree very strongly that Paul was fully gnostic, and he appears not to be because of heavy editing and propaganda.

I think it is only controversial because orthodoxy has called it heretical! As far as I am concerned, this mystical stuff is a very important part of xianity, and it has probably reappeared in a very warped way nowadays in the Pentecostal movements.

This is a religion that is heavily into magic, myth, ritual, smells and bells. It has has added on some funny doctrines that you have to assent to to be saved, but it really is not anything intellectual!

Peter Kirby · 02-08-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

...This practice had some sensational effects which were readily seized upon by the Hellenic Jews who then spread the practice of sensory deprivation resulting in visions/psychosis into the diaspora. (notably Antioch, Corinth and Rome) The interpretation of these visions (and visions naturally occuring through what today we call the manic-depressive cycle) then resulted in different 'gnostic' teachings. The Hellenic-Jewish gnostic schemes were reworked by Paul (a natural manic-depressive) who re-interpreted Jesus as a cosmic pre-existent being and invested his death with a complex paradoxical meaning. Pauline Christianity spread among Gentiles and soon made some significant inroads into the Jewish following of the Jesus magic which basically accepted the psychic happenings as God's messages channeled through the agency of Spirit. The idea that these 'peak experiences' were the risen 'Lord' Jesus stabilized around the break of the first century.....

At the risk of derailing the thread, I would like to point out that the criteria for a "manic-depressive" diagnosis do not include visions or psychosis; it is defined as a mood disorder (at least in the DSM IV text). The closest thing to what is described above would be schizoaffective disorder (related to schizophrenia). [Not that I think we can do such diagnoses on the long dead.]

best,
Peter Kirby

DramaQ · 02-09-2005, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

In my own mind, at least, the basic common feature of all the groups is Jesus;

What about the incorporation of the Logos? Wasn't that around for a while already and simply anthropomorphized with "Jesus" as part of making it Christian?

Vivisector · 02-09-2005, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DramaQ

What about the incorporation of the Logos? Wasn't that around for a while already and simply anthropomorphized with "Jesus" as part of making it Christian?

Assuming I understand you correctly and that my memory isn't failing me, then yes, it was. This "community" would then have been similar to several others that didn't adopt Christianity from a previous state of nothingness where religion is concerned; rather, they assimilated something about Jesus into their previous beliefs/practices and marched forward from that point.

Cheers,

V.

DramaQ · 02-09-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

rather, they assimilated something about Jesus into their previous beliefs/practices and marched forward from that point.

Yes, that's how I understand it.

I think where I got confused was in the original question you responded to, posted by Clivedurdle, which was “Is there a common ancestor here?�?

If the Logos assimilated Jesus, then Jesus can’t be seen as an “ancestor�?. He would have been adopted. (No pun intended.)

So just because subsequent brands of Christianity have Jesus in common, that doesn’t really tell us anything about the nature of the individual groups BEFORE that.

I’m inclined to agree that it looks more like diverse (and not necessarily Christian) groups converged over time.

DQ

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-08-2005, 12:55 PM	#32
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Wrong Pagels! The Gnostic Paul

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.