My New Article Apostolic Gnosis in Pistis Sophia/ Bks of Jeu

[_ClarkGoble]

That Joseph Smith comes up with it does not necessarily signal a specific restoration of "Christian doctrine," because, as I maintain, there is no single Christian entity back then. Elaine Pagels' interview with Bill Moyers said it best. There were as many Christianities in Jesus' day as there are now. Rather, to be more accurate, as many Judaisms.

I certainly agree. Converts tend to bring much of their beliefs with them. That's as true in early Christianity as it was in early Mormonism. And for whatever reason Jesus didn't write anything down that we know of. Further, I think there's fairly compelling reasons to think he did communicate inner teachings to a select few. Perhaps somewhat analogous to how the Mormonism of the Nauvoo inner circle differed from the average Mormon at the time.

There was then flow of doctrines, debates and such moving back and forth. Just on the pages of the New Testament you see that. There's often tension between Paul and Jerusalem. Paul is warning churches he writes to of false prophets and syncretic tendencies. Paul clearly still has a lot of his style of Phariseeism in him. He also pushes a quasi-mystic take much more than others like James. And so forth.

I'd love to have some accurate records of what the group back in Jerusalem thought at this time and just what the roles of Peter, James Jesus' brother, and John all were and what they though.

[_Philo Sofee]

That Joseph Smith comes up with it does not necessarily signal a specific restoration of "Christian doctrine," because, as I maintain, there is no single Christian entity back then. Elaine Pagels' interview with Bill Moyers said it best. There were as many Christianities in Jesus' day as there are now. Rather, to be more accurate, as many Judaisms.

I certainly agree. Converts tend to bring much of their beliefs with them. That's as true in early Christianity as it was in early Mormonism. And for whatever reason Jesus didn't write anything down that we know of. Further, I think there's fairly compelling reasons to think he did communicate inner teachings to a select few. Perhaps somewhat analogous to how the Mormonism of the Nauvoo inner circle differed from the average Mormon at the time.

There was then flow of doctrines, debates and such moving back and forth. Just on the pages of the New Testament you see that. There's often tension between Paul and Jerusalem. Paul is warning churches he writes to of false prophets and syncretic tendencies. Paul clearly still has a lot of his style of Phariseeism in him. He also pushes a quasi-mystic take much more than others like James. And so forth.

I'd love to have some accurate records of what the group back in Jerusalem thought at this time and just what the roles of Peter, James Jesus' brother, and John all were and what they though.

I've often said if I could actually and truly time travel, I would go back to Jesus' day among other times. Or Paul's time. The other time, although it would take a while to actually "get it" would be when Stonehenge was built. Of course, that would be several hundred if not 1500 years of waiting to see how they "did it." GRIN! Same with the pyramid.

[_Kishkumen]

My guess is that seeing the actual Jesus would be a big disappointment. Stripped of the myth and theology, he might look fairly unremarkable.

[_Kishkumen]

I have long thought that some of Joseph's ideas about spirits were more likely filtered through magic. Say, Sibley. Agrippa von Nettesheim brought a lot of the Neoplatonism of his day into his writings on magic. Such teachings undoubtedly passed into his successors in that tradition.

[_Philo Sofee]

My guess is that seeing the actual Jesus would be a big disappointment. Stripped of the myth and theology, he might look fairly unremarkable.

Yes, I have mused over that as well. I would stick around just to see what he actually did and what he really said..... imagining first, however, that I could understand him. Perhaps I would go a few years before he was born so I could learn the language - GRIN!

[_ClarkGoble]

I have long thought that some of Joseph's ideas about spirits were more likely filtered through magic. Say, Sibley. Agrippa von Nettesheim brought a lot of the Neoplatonism of his day into his writings on magic. Such teachings undoubtedly passed into his successors in that tradition.

I think that's true, but remember that that means not just remnants of neoplatonism nor the rediscovery of formal theurgical neoplatonist-like texts (including gnostic, Islamic, hermetic and formal philosophy texts). And of course even after the influence of Aristotle starting around the 12th century, most of the intellectual class still had a basic platonic conception even before the renaissance got going with it's backlash to Aristotle. But around the same time you have the remnant of the earlier religious traditions including druidism and the like as well as remnants of hellenistic/roman paganism. Throw into that the folk traditions of spirits outside of more organized or formal religious traditions and there was a lot going on under the rubric of "magic."

As I said, I think the natural view of spirits in the west was basically that they were material and gaseous. You still find a surprising number of people who push that phenomenology even when they push a different metaphysics.

An aside: I remember a book by I believe William Craig arguing for cartesian dualism of soul. The argument appeals to NDE with people wandering around hospitals while out of body. What was hilarious to me is that when pushes these folk tales (in the non-pejorative sense of the term) he completely overlooks how un-cartesian they were. The accounts describe place and many NDE accounts even describe gaseous like bodies with extension when other spirits are encounted.

I think that folk tradition, which is extremely strong and often so at odds with the more established platonic, Thomist, or cartesian metaphysics is the strongest influence. That said, I'm coming around to thinking theurgical platonism in broad strokes is influential on him as well. But the problem is that what that means vis a vis spirits isn't necessarily too helpful for understanding Joseph Smith's views beyond places like potentially Abraham 3.

[_Maksutov]

Interesting work, Kerry.

Great posts by Clark and Kish.

[_Philo Sofee]

Interesting work, Kerry.

Great posts by Clark and Kish.

Thanks Mak. Yeah its always good reading when these two gents chime in. I can't help but think there is something to the ancient idea that the gods are ratios. All the mystery descriptions I have read in Plato, Iamblichus and the Gnostic materials match this theme. It is fascinating because it means the gods are still existing.... if they are the eternal ratios, they have always existed and always will, exactly as is being described in the mystery writings.