Gnostics accused of immanentizing the eschaton?!

[Guest guest]

Dear Jagbir and all,

 

In the article, appended, of " 10 Things Religious Pundits Need To Know About

Gnosticism " , the phrase " to immanentize the eschaton " was

used. Apparently it is a Catholic terminology and dogma devised with the aim of

making such people as the Gnostics into heretics in the eyes of the people and

yet there is no understandable truth in it. The Gnostics taught about both the

Divine Feminine and the Divine Masculine, however once the Gnostics were

suppressed through such dogma as being accused of " immanentizing the eschaton " ,

knowledge of the Divine Feminine was also suppressed - and thus, Her Message of

Universal Salvation or Apokatastasis:

 

> 5) Gnostics do not repudiate salvation through Grace

>

> The role of Grace, and of the Holy Spirit, is of

> paramount importance to the Gnostics. Where Gnosticism differs from

> Christianity is that Gnosticism says that " blind faith " does not

> grant salvation. To be saved from the forces of deception and

> ignorance (maya in Buddhist parlance) one must attain

> enlightenment: the direct experiential intimacy with God that is

> gnosis. This experience is the birthright of every aware human

> person.

>

>

> 6) Gnosticism is not elitist

>

> Do Christians distinguish between the saved and the unsaved? Is

> this elitism? Gnostic teachings frequently reinforce the idea that

> liberation via gnosis is available to everyone; that such

> distinction is a matter of reclaiming birthright, of intent,

> choice, and effort. In fact, Gnostic theology tends to support the

> idea of apokatastasis, of universal salvation.

 

http://egina.blogspot.com/2006/04/10-things-religious-pundits-need-to.html

 

 

So, what does to " immanentize the eschaton " mean?

 

The word 'immanent-ize' comes from the root word " immanent " . From my recall of

Christianity, the terms of immanent/immanence and transcendent/transcendence

were often used together, much like the Hindu words of " Saakar " and " Nirakar "

are often used together, when speaking of one or the other. From what i can

recall, i learned in Christianity that when Jesus was on the earth, he was

considered to be " immanent " , i.e. " God with us in the flesh " . (That is very

close to the Hindu meaning of Saakar.) From what i can recall about

transcendence, that was explained as when the Holy Spirit speaks through Jesus,

that that is his " transcendence " . (That is also very close to the Nirakar, i.e.

" Jesus being in the Nirakar state " .

 

But the term " to immanentize the eschaton " sounds like a lot of gobbledygook.

Even people asking questions as to what exactly it meant are not finding the

answer. It seems to be a special term of the dogma of the Catholic priesthood to

have such mysterious knowlege which they consider allows them to label such

well-balanced people as the Gnostics, as heretical:

 

Source of " Immanentize the Eschaton "

Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:35:46 -0400 (EDT)

Equilibrst

zee-list

Re: Source of " Immanentize the Eschaton "

 

In a message dated 97-10-05 17:04:46 EDT, you write:

 

" Immanentize the Eschaton "

 

Catholic term for the sin of most heretic groups who attempt to either create

heaven of hell in this world instead of waiting for it in the next. The Gnostics

are a prime example of people guilty of attempting to Immanetize the Eschaton.

Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea give a pretty good run down of the idea in

Illuminatus! where Goodman and his partner are having the phone conversation

with the priest. The priest runs through some of the Catholic Dogma on the

topic.

 

'Frater Equilibrist'.

 

 

 

 

Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:42:39 -0600 (MDT)

J B Bell (cipher)

zee-list

Re: Source of " Immanentize the Eschaton "

 

On Sun, 5 Oct 1997, Theta 8008 wrote:

 

Does anyone know what the original source of the phrase " Immanentize the

Eschaton " is? I've been able to track it back as far as the Principia Discordia,

but can't find any earlier sources. Is this it? Or is there an earlier source?

 

It is actually discussed in theology. In THE ILLUMINATI PAPERS, RAW talks about

articles in NATIONAL REVIEW (W.F. Buckley mag) in the 60's; that referred to

imanentization with regard to (I think) Neo-gnosticism); The book is at home, so

I'll look it up later and write back.

 

- Zero

 

 

 

 

I have seen the phrase used in an anti-heretical paper. My head about exploded

when I read it; I had been thinking it was original to RAW. Nothing new under

the sun, of course. I think the charge was levelled against Martin Buber where I

read it, but honestly my memory is faulty on this point, except that I am very

certain that it appears to be a theological term, specifically a heresy, that

predates RAW significantly.

 

A little note on this oft-misunderstood phrase: many people confuse it with the

idea of " imminentizing " the eschaton. Imminent means " real soon " . Immanent means

" everywhere " or " all-permeating " , perhaps. The eschaton, as every good Chaote

knows, is the End of Everything. " Immanentizing the eschaton " refers to the

heretical idea that the eschaton is in fact a state of being, accessible at any

time, rather than some chronological event. Of course, in the theological usage,

it doesn't normally refer to magickal efforts to make apocalypse happen, as the

Chaote's looser usage usually means.

 

Hope this helps, as they say.

 

--JB

 

http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/ite.html

 

 

 

 

When it comes to " immanentizing the eschaton " and other such theological and

dogmatic concepts, i believe J.N. Darby says it very well in his 'Letters,

Volume 1, number 292', where it says that: " People like to speak of mysterious

things about which we know nothing: we can dogmatise ecclesiastically or

hereticise conveniently " ----------------------- (But lets face it, folks, they

don't answer the hard questions, satisfactorily. People today are intelligent

and they expect honest answers to honest questions):

 

" p492 [R T Grant] BELOVED BROTHER, - As regards your hard questions, I am not

disposed to be wise above what is written. It was the old patristic doctrine,

but with every imaginable notion tacked to it. It issued in the limbo patrum, or

as now expressed, the opening of the kingdom of heaven to all believers, but I

humbly think they (nor our friends who speak of it) know nothing about it - at

any rate, I do not. People like to speak of mysterious things about which we

know nothing: we can dogmatise ecclesiastically or hereticise conveniently. "

 

STEM Publishing: The writings of J.N. Darby: Letters: Volume 1, number 292

 

http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/letters/51292E.html

 

However due to the immanence and transcendence of the Christian Comforter, we

are well on the way to answering the hard questions, since She has enlightened

what Christ taught.

 

regards to all,

 

violet

 

 

 

 

 

, " Violet " <violetubb

wrote:

>

> 10 Things Religious Pundits Need To Know About Gnosticism

>

> - Saturday, April 22, 2006

>

>

> " We don't need to take the Gospel of Judas / Thomas / Mary

seriously, because unlike Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it wasn't

written in the first century, wasn't written by eyewitnesses and is

not historically true. It was written by an elitist world-hating sect

called the Gnostics who were rejected by early Christians as heretics.

Gnostics preached that the flesh was evil, and salvation was only

available to a select few who had secret magical knowledge, or gnosis. "

>

> - Every bible " expert " in the western world in the last three weeks.

>

> I've read variations on this spiel at least twenty times this month.

The problem is that this summation of Gnosticism is entirely false,

and in many cases known by its proponents as false; this is bearing

false witness.

>

>

> 1) Gnosticism is not a heretical sect of Christianity

>

> Gnosticism is a distinct, pre-Christian religion. Its roots are in

Alexandria in Egypt, about 2200 years ago, where a " cafe-society " of

Greek-speaking and-educated Jews were syncretizing the myths of the

ancient world with Judaism and classical Greek philosophy.

>

> These communities and their ideas greatly influenced Christianity as

it later emerged. As Christianity struggled in its first four

centuries to distinguish itself from the pagan world, it slowly began

to reject some of these Gnostic influences. But most of the people who

still favoured these ideas considered themselves devout Christians,

not heretics.

>

> Let us not forget that the most common topic in the New Testament -

more common than the power of love or redemption or the sacrifice of

the cross or even the divinity of Jesus - is that " other Christians

are getting it wrong " . Paul condemns James as a heretic. Jesus refers

to Peter as " Satan " .

>

>

> 2) Gnosticism is a lot like Buddhism

>

> Because of Gnosticism's insistence on personal responsibility and

ethics, its emphasis on singular prayer, the practice of compassion,

detachment from materialism and the striving for enlightenment, it has

been called " the Buddhism of the West " . The similarities between

Gnosticism and Mahayana Buddhism are so strong it has been speculated

that there may have been ongoing contact between the two religions.

>

>

> 3) The Gnostic Scriptures are, for the most part, contemporary with

> Christian canon

>

> None of the four canonical Gospels were written in the first

century. Mark was not written by Mark, nor Luke written by Luke. John

was written in two distinct phases, the first of which showed

significant Gnostic elements, and the latter a retraction and

condemnation of those elements. These were based on first century oral

traditions which varied greatly from region to region, but did not

exist in written form until at least 100 years after the events they

describe. Paul is the only first century Christian writer we have, and

much of his writings were edited centuries later into the form we have

today.

>

> The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is contemporary with the later

half of John, and there is some evidence to support that John's later

editors were familiar with Thomas. The scriptural authors of the

second century were reaching for meaning, using their interpretation

of what they had heard, their intuition, their creativity, and their

yearning for God.

>

>

> 4) Gnostics do not hate the physical world

>

> Gnostic scripture frequently invokes favourably the beauty and power

of the natural world; the symbolism of pregnancy, midwifery,

childbirth, newborns, storms and ripe crops are frequently employed by

Gnostic authors. Gnostics do not view the flesh as evil, but rather as

temporary when contrasted with the immortality of the soul - a view

shared by most if not all Christians.

>

> What Gnostics reject is not the earth, but they system: the

artificial world of injustice, prejudice, institutionalization and

materialism.

>

>

> 5) Gnostics do not repudiate salvation through Grace

>

> The role of Grace, and of the Holy Spirit, is of paramount

importance to the Gnostics. Where Gnosticism differs from Christianity

is that Gnosticism says that " blind faith " does not grant salvation.

To be saved from the forces of deception and ignorance (maya in

Buddhist parlance) one must attain enlightenment: the direct

experiential intimacy with God that is gnosis. This experience is the

birthright of every aware human person.

>

>

> 6) Gnosticism is not elitist

>

> Do Christians distinguish between the saved and the unsaved? Is this

elitism? Gnostic teachings frequently reinforce the idea that

liberation via gnosis is available to everyone; that such distinction

is a matter of reclaiming birthright, of intent, choice, and effort.

In fact, Gnostic theology tends to support the idea of apokatastasis,

of universal salvation.

>

>

> 7) Gnosticism is not Utopian.

>

> There is nothing in Gnostic scripture to support the idea that

Gnostics wish to make " heaven on earth " from human efforts, and no

connection whatsoever between Gnosticism and the reshaping of society;

neither from fascism nor socialism. There is no " immanentizing the

eschaton " in Gnosticism: Rather, this idea is the hallmark of

millennialist Christianity.

>

>

> 8) Most basic tenets of Gnosticism are supported by Christian scripture

>

> In fact there is a litany of Christian saints who are blatantly

Gnostic; St. Francis of Assisi, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the

Cross, St. Hildegard of Bingen and St. Joan of Arc all described in

detail the integrity of their experience of gnosis.

>

> Paul says " The Kingdom of God is within you " which is probably the

best single summation of Gnostic theology. Jesus says " My kingdom is

not of this world " (Jn 18:36).

>

>

> 9) Gnosticism serves as a bridge between world religions

>

> Gnosticism stands at the crossroads of Judaism, Christianity, and

Islam, representing a common ground. Historically Gnosticism

influenced Judaism in the development of Kabala, and Islam in the

development of Sufism; it both encouraged and challenged Christianity

through its early centuries and contributed profoundly to Christian

theology and identity.

>

>

> 10) Gnostic churches are thriving

>

> Gnostics across North America and Europe gather weekly for prayer

and Eucharist in forms very similar to orthodox liturgy. We derive

inspiration from the Old and New Testaments, and also from Nag Hammadi

scripture such as The Gospel of Thomas and The Thunder: Perfect Mind.

A vital and growing Gnostic ekklesia is serving in charities, missions

and hospitals; writing, crafting, debating and working in coffeehouses

and dozens of parishes around the world. Most Gnostics consider

themselves Christian, their churches constituting the Body of Christ.

Other Gnostics gravitate to the symbolism and traditions of the Divine

Feminine in her aspect as Sophia ( " wisdom " ), the Shekhina

( " presence " ), and the Holy Spirit.

>

> Despite book-burnings, despite the Albigensian Crusade and the

Inquisition, despite schlock-populism, and despite inane castigations

from self-appointed pundits, we are still here; still praying,

celebrating, exploring, and asking. Still Knowing.

>

>

http://egina.blogspot.com/2006/04/10-things-religious-pundits-need-to.html

>