(no subject)
Dec. 17th, 2003 06:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaA response I just posted to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
novapsyche's response to yahvah's comment in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
challenging_god
God is YHVH insomuch as God is self-existent. God is being. God is the source of everything that ever was, is and will be.
This is the understanding of God we find in the Nag Hammadi.
There is nothing that's outside of God's control.
This is where the Gnostic view diverges. It does not seem that things are outside of the control of the Root of All -- but things do not operate the same outside of the Pleroma as they do inside the realm of divine perfection. The Root is not seen as a "controlling" entity but one who creates -- as someone else inchallenging_god wrote recently -- by withdrawing.
Instead this is the operation of the Demiurgos -- the one who creates. If you notice in the Valentinian literature, the Aions are shown generating organically; the language and metaphors used all refer to plant life. The Archons, however, create mechanically, by force of will; the language and metaphors used are of craftsmanship.
Satan will never be able to sit on God's throne because Satan is a being created for the purpose of doing God's will. The Adversary (haSatan), as seen in Job, is only able to do whatever God allows Satan to do.
As you know, not all versions of the Gnostic myth describe an Adversary, though the Valentinian myth does, since the Demiurge is described as a god who seeks justice. In the Valentinian view, the struggle between Demiurge and Adversary is a real one, and Christians are firmly opposed to the actions of the Adversary, the sower of discord.
However, there is no "firm" dualism or distinction between Adversary and Demiurge; all shall be reconciled, eventually, into the Pleroma by way of Christ. cf. I Corinthians 15:28
This is similar to the doctrine described as apokatastasis, which presents the drama of dialectic duality not as a tragedy (the "fall of humankind from grace") but as an odyssey -- a journey from the Source, to the land where the Pearl is kept, and then back to the Source.
novapsyche's response to yahvah's comment in challenging_godGod is YHVH insomuch as God is self-existent. God is being. God is the source of everything that ever was, is and will be.
This is the understanding of God we find in the Nag Hammadi.
There is nothing that's outside of God's control.
This is where the Gnostic view diverges. It does not seem that things are outside of the control of the Root of All -- but things do not operate the same outside of the Pleroma as they do inside the realm of divine perfection. The Root is not seen as a "controlling" entity but one who creates -- as someone else in
challenging_god wrote recently -- by withdrawing.Instead this is the operation of the Demiurgos -- the one who creates. If you notice in the Valentinian literature, the Aions are shown generating organically; the language and metaphors used all refer to plant life. The Archons, however, create mechanically, by force of will; the language and metaphors used are of craftsmanship.
Satan will never be able to sit on God's throne because Satan is a being created for the purpose of doing God's will. The Adversary (haSatan), as seen in Job, is only able to do whatever God allows Satan to do.
As you know, not all versions of the Gnostic myth describe an Adversary, though the Valentinian myth does, since the Demiurge is described as a god who seeks justice. In the Valentinian view, the struggle between Demiurge and Adversary is a real one, and Christians are firmly opposed to the actions of the Adversary, the sower of discord.
However, there is no "firm" dualism or distinction between Adversary and Demiurge; all shall be reconciled, eventually, into the Pleroma by way of Christ. cf. I Corinthians 15:28
This is similar to the doctrine described as apokatastasis, which presents the drama of dialectic duality not as a tragedy (the "fall of humankind from grace") but as an odyssey -- a journey from the Source, to the land where the Pearl is kept, and then back to the Source.
