I’ve blogged about this recently over at my other blog, PaleoBabble. Part 1 was a sort of intro to the theory. Part 2 features a video of me searching the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts (in digital form) for the terms Lash says are in the Gnostic texts that describe archons as “neonates” or “fetal” — the way the Greys appear. Part 3 will likely be posted tonight, where I get to feature a Gnostic text that explicitly denies Lash’s theory. What a surprise.
John Lamb Lash’s “Gnostic Archons = the Greys” Theory
Mr Heiser. Perhaps I can save you some bother. You will find the Greek loan word drakon in NHC II, 1 : 10.5 “in the form of a lion-faced serpent.” So much for reptilians. The odd Coptic word houhe “aborted fetus” occurs in NHC II, 4 : 94.15 “a product in matter, like an aborted fetus.” The following phrase, “a plastic form molded out of shadow” is also suggestive of the Grey ET appearance.
Don’t wear yourself out on my account. There is no passage in the NHC that says literally and word for word what I reckon Gnostics may well have meant in their descriptions of the two types of archons. I infer and extrapolate based on the paltry and garbled textual evidence. So sue me.
Also, don’t bother about the text that denies my theory. The NHC is full of contradictions with conflicting elements often in the same document. Anyone reading the texts immediately catches these inconsistencies. Depending on how you select and spin, you can get several different arguments out of certain tractates. No need to get your panties in a twist over that matter.
May I ask, by the way, what satisfaction you would like to get out of taking me on? And who really cares?
with regards,
JLL
Nice way to cover your ass ahead of time. And that has a nice ring to it for the title of the eventual post.
So, what I read here is, “don’t bother to investigate what I say, since I can retreat to all sorts of inconsistencies in the data I want to use to persuade the uninformed.” Oh, I’ll get to it. It’s in the queue. I haven’t forgotten about it — just a pile of things far more significant to do ahead of it.
Don’t bother to investigate? What have I got to fear from you? Gimme a break here bro. How about reading my post this way: Investigate what I do and you will find these key words at the basis of my extrapolations from Gnostic materials that might apply to the ET/UFO phenomenon today. You wlll not find that the Coptic texts literally say, word for word, what I say about what ancient seers were likely to have known about alien intrusion. I interpret and extrapolate on the textual evidence. Whether I do so effectively and helpfully depends on what each reader gets from my work. I seek no payoff in dishonestly skewing the Gnostic materials and conning people.
I am not afraid of you investigating my work. Go ahead, have a go and I wish you luck. Perhaps you can unearth some insights that would be instructive to those who are contemplating the alien enigma. Bear in mind, though, that the Gnostic Coptic materials are fragmentary, blurred, chaotic, and riddled with ambiguities and contradictions. You can construct one argument from selected material, then another that contradicts it. There is no consistent argument about anything in these materials. I do not retreat behind these inconsistencies. I just try to make sense of what I can. You can stop insulting me by attribution of motives I don’t have. It’s a bore and a waste of time, not to mention an insult to your readers, whoever they may be.
you certainly sound unconcerned. I’ll eventually get back to this, but like you, I have more interesting things going. But it will be fun.
PS: “Persuade the uniformed”? Can you lay off the attack mode and present some helpful clarification? Or if you wish to attack me, why don’t you tell the readers what I might gain from persuading the uninformed, apart from the aggrandizement of my ego?
I am a free-lance, self-educated scholar of Gnosticism attempting to elucidate these difficult materials and show how they might be of value for enlightenment in our perception of the world today. If you can that in your own way, or do better, show it.
good for you. As readers know, I’m genuinely thrilled that anyone is interested in this stuff, and you’ve certainly shown a lot of industry. Unfortunately, the “I’m not an official scholar with official degrees so I must be on to something” rhetoric is a tedious non-sequitur (though I’d agree with you that real scholars can be stuffy and condescending toward anyone without the degrees). The issue isn’t degrees; it’s coherence.
JLL ,
In response to your snark ” And who really cares?” …I DO and have come to discover so do many others who deeply appreciate Dr. Heiser and his work.
BTW JLL, I’ve been down your road and found it littered with junk and trash and prone to pot holes, sink holes and dead ends.
By Grace I found Dr.Heiser and by Grace I was released.
Thanks Yeshua.
Right on, SW. Not to put it too bluntly, but JLL is full of shit. By his own admission, in my presence, he makes things up as he goes along. His main use for the Nag Hammadi is simply as a springboard for his imaginings, WHICH HE THEN SELLS TO PEOPLE AS DIVINE REVELATION. His main goal is to garner acclaim and followers for himself, and not to elucidate what the Nag Hammadi really says or even to lead people to the goddess.