Finally, a video about Gnosticism that is true and Thank God he references Irenaeus all these other RU-vid videos keep spreading personal opinions and lies about Gnostics not referencing early church. thank you 🙌
Yes, the Christian theologians effectively demolished Gnosticism. But the Gnostics couldn't even get Plato correct. The 3rd century neo-Platonist, Ptolemaeus ... wrote against them in "Against the Gnostics." He complained about how the Gnostics warped and twisted Plato's teaching on the Demiurge.
People are so easily swayed from the truth.. specially if it fits their frame of thinking God is not a coddler the Son didn't do his Father's will for us just to think or be however we feel.. it's his way or no way at all. He is the creator we are the created who has took on the traits of the enemy who is the devil. Therefore why Christ was sent to SAVE us. Christ is the Father's heart the very image of God who we was meant to be. But that didn't go so well in the garden
Gnosticism is either deliriously ridiculous or just straight out of the darkest reaches of the human sub conscious, hellish in most accounts . ....the gospel of Peter though made me chuckle because you get to see the resurrection but when Jesus comes out of the tomb he's um definitely not the same Jesus we love 💕 , but a giant Jesus like his heads in the clouds jolly giant Jesus but he doesn't speak bc behind him is the cross it doesn't say how or what it's mode of transportation is but then it starts talking or prophesizing ....so do with that what you will 😅
If I stand corrected, there is NO evidence Polycarp (and Papias his contemporary pal who was roughly 10 years older), mention any lineage back to the Apostle John in their OWN surviving writings. The MUCH LATER source claiming lineage back to the Apostle John comes directly from Irenaeus himself in his own writings, thus there is NO evidence of a lineage, so your argument holds shaky substance here. Whilst Clement of Alexandria in his own surviving writings (who was half-Gnostic himself and thus a more objectively trustworthy source) mentions a lineage from Valentinus going back to St Paul via someone called Theudas. Perhaps Valentinus mentioned this direct lineage in his own lost writings? But unless new evidence comes to light from the desert sands one day, we just don't know, due to the CANCEL CULTURE attacks of Irenaeus and his Gang. Same with Marcion, who is accused of being outright hostile to the Jewish Old Testament without any evidence to back this up, yet alternatively he might innocently be one of the first sincere OT textual biblical critics and nothing else than that in his motives? Who knows maybe Marcion was sinister and hostile to the OT, we just don't know as none of Marcion's writings survive due yet again to the CANCEL CULTURE of the proto-orthodox church sects?; Irenaeus and his archetypal ilk are intellectual cowards.
It’s true; we know very little about all of this due not only to suppression of writers deemed heretical but also because the majority of all texts from that period have been lost. For that reason I find it hard to assess the credibility of various claims.
You can do better than to hurl opinionated insults at "St. Irenaeus and his gang." Fact is, St. Irenaeus proved by logical arguement that the theology of the Gnostic system doesn't work.
Professor, thank you for this brief yet concise video regarding Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses. A query if I may. Am I justified in interpreting Irenaeus’ statement regarding Jesus “aged 50 years” as more of a cultural observation of his station rather than actual age? A master or teacher in that time would not be merely 30 years old as the Gnostics suggested (to fit 30 Aeons). Culturally 40 or 50 would be the expectation as in Pirkei Avot 5:21 (Judah Ben Tema). Irenaeus also seems to settle Jesus’ actual age (33) by reckoning the Passovers after his Baptism. This is right before the “50 year old” statement in Book II chapter 22. It seems to me all this simply goes to say Jesus was not merely 30. Not at all to claim he was actually 50. Your interpretation would be appreciated. Ο Θεός να ευλογεί.
I've always loved your videos on different literary subjects and your insight are just fantastic, I just have one request from you, and I hope you consider it. I'm writing my thesis about Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood analyzing it through ecocriticism and speculative fiction, and I sincerely need your ideas and your take on the work. Please consider my request. Thank you very much.
Thank you for sharing this information freely! Would you mind recommending sources for understanding the first century Roman’s conception of Logos and perhaps it’s emergence in the (I suppose) Greek culture prior to that; also it’s development across the first few centuries. Any sources they touch on that or even, if you have an idea that would better suit me than what I’m asking for, please recommend!! Thank you again! Have a blessed day!
I have to admit the argument about depth "needing a container" really confused me. What "container" is being talked about and why? Is it prime matter? Because if so, that doesn't even arise as a factor until Sophia's fall. What is the variability argument directed against? Is it against the inconsistency between different Valentinian systems or different gnostic systems more generally? Because, truth be told, I don't think the difference between Western and Eastern Valentinian systems is that great. Really, the former just seem to be a more worked out version of the latter which are left with an unspecified multiplicity of aeons. If it's gnosticism more generally, I don't think that's much of a problem either. For one, there's no purported unity; there's no reason to think that, for example, Sethians would've seen themselves as being on the same side as Valentinians, rather than just being two different Christians groups who hold on to a lot of the same metaphysical tropes. Additionally, because there's no purported unity, the argument isn't anything different from what one could object to early Christianity in general or even religion in general. I think there's another point about how there's, even between Sethian and Valentinian systems, a lot of affinity. The primary triad seems to pretty much coincide: we start with the first principle, the ineffable One, then have the principle of Intellection (Nous, called Barbelo/forethought in Sethian systems), followed by the Word/Logos, the formative principle for the rest of the Fullness, also called Autogenes by Sethians. And these are, along Sophia (who also is a consistent element), arguably the most important element of the Fullness. It's hard to see what the metaphysical content of the lower aeons is supposed to be, but we basically don't have any surviving lists that do anything but mention them. Which is to say that maybe there's affinity for the lower aeons just as there is for the higher ones, but that it's been lost to time along with the "gnostics" that had knowledge of every detail regarding these accounts. With regards to the confirmation problem: I imagine that personal revelation would've been relevant. Sure, sense experience can't confirm or deny anything about the Fullness, but why should it come down to sense experience alone? With regards to emanation: I don't know how fleshed out that was in Middle Platonism, but emanation is a pretty well established concept in Neoplatonism, and I would say anticipated by Plato himself when he talks about the Form of the Good in the Republic. So, maybe Iraneus lacked resources that went deeper into it, but I think it stands on a pretty firm metaphysical basis. Besides, insofar as it is mysterious, I don't see how its any more so than creation. With regards to no aeon being God, I think that's most certainly false: pick some Valentinian text like the Gospel of Truth or the Tripartite Tractate, take a shot every time "Father" or "Son" is mentioned, and you'll be dead drunk in an hour. Now, there's some possible contention with regards to whether the Father-Son pair is to be found in the One-Intellect or the Intellect-Word, but that has no effect on the fact that they thought this Father guy was pretty important. And it's not like they're just aloof and uncaring neoplatonic principles either. When you read these narratives, the care the Father has to save us, and the act of sending out the Son as his revelation, is pretty evident. The Son is even so involved in our salvation that he puppeteers actors like artisan into setting the right conditions for the salvation of the called. Even in Sethian systems Barbelo tends to be pretty involved with the whole saving Sophia and mankind business. So either Iraneus' sources were very lacking or he just had no idea what he was talking about.
@@theeternalslayer 1. The disagreements are overstated. Mainly for the reasons that there is a lot of affinity between different systems (perhaps because they're all working with the same broadly Middle Platonic cloth). 2. the aeons are definitely not all just some parts of an aloof metaphysical schema unimportant to a person with actual religious reverence. They are involved with salvation in important ways and the texts generally show clear reverence and sense of awe towards them. The hymns alone should make this clear. The other parts are pretty short as is so I don't think there's much to summarize.
Remember that Heracleon claimed that they (the school of Valentinus) received their knowledge by St. Paul who as they say received it by revelation as epignosis. Now if that is true then why do they all construct a different set of systems? Gnostics don't "work out" their theories as spiritual gnosis comes by revelation. Yet the systems of Ptolemaeus, Valentinus, Heracleon, Marcus, etc, do not agree. Yet they all got it from Paul? St. Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" clearly shows how Gnosticism is illogical. The theology itself doesn't work. For instance, they cannot have an eternal Pleroma when their Pleroma exists below the upper limit and is enclosed by a boundary (horus). Allowing for an infinite series of emenations back to the Propator (Bythos or Plato's "Monad") does not solve the problem either. But if they are not eternal then neither are they divine Aeons. Read "Against Heresies" for a detailed explanation because it's really to much to get into here on YT. God bless.
@@LloydDeJongh Well, I mean, what would you even expect archeological evidence of gnosticism to look like? What thing regarding gnosticism do you expect to get evidence of exactly?
