Thread 24468417

Böhme foresaw the day the world would one day profane the Gospel’s and mission of Christ, through sects driven by either political power or dialectical drivel with dogmatism, as his reaction to the wars provoked by Reformation, I don’t think he is very critical on the Church with this question besides the critique of fact hierarchy are not immune to corruption, however for a Catholic a focal point to return to Mystics, since his style is more oriented in that direction not limited by his time period, and many mystics were misunderstood, he was Lutheran by contingency of being raised as one, but he could sense how moderns would subvert Christianity as umbrella term of cultural label, becoming more like a brand of Babel

Christians, however, have no sect. They can dwell in the midst of the sects, even appear in their worship services and yet cling to no sect. They have only a single knowledge, which is Christ within. They seek only one path, which is the desire that they always want to act and to live rightly. They place all knowing and willing in the life of Christ. They sigh and wish always that only God’s will be done within themselves, and that God’s realm may become revealed within. Daily and hourly they kill the sins in the flesh. For the seed of the woman, as the inner person in Christ, constantly tramples the head of the devil in vanity (Gen. 3:15).

Jakob Böhme

>>24468417 (OP)
bump

Christians can suck my ass

>>24469968
thread was literally about to be archived and you saved.

>>24468417 (OP)
Based Behmen enjoyer.

I've read Three Principles and the Clavis, and am reading Aurora for the first time now.

I agree with your analysis on how he viewed mass/normie religion. For Boehme, what goes on in "stone churches" isn't the key point of religion. He takes pains to stress that Salvation® isn't something you get by default because you believe the gospel, it's a gradual internal change in yourself.

I can see why the early Quakers liked him so much, in many ways his ideas fit more neatly with them than Lutheranism

>>24468417 (OP)
Which of Boehme's works enlarge on what is said in the second paragraph?

While this thread survives, what are the best editions of Boehme to get?

Everything online claims to be from the Sparrow translations but I can't verify if any of them are complete.

There also don't seem to be any modern editions of William Law's translation either

>>24471160
Boehme's works kind of all restate the same thing

I'm pretty sure he discusses that in Three Principles somewhere but that thing is a braindump, it's hard to parse through

He may discuss it in Mysterium Magnum but I haven't got around to reading it yet

>>24468417 (OP)
>for a Catholic

It should be noted that that Behmen takes great pains to shit on Catholicism on many occasions

There's this idea online that he was such an early Lutheran that he was basically Catholic but his ideas are pretty incompatible with it. For example his mariology is kind of more restrained and more out-there than Catholicism at the same time, but in a way that would basically be heretical (in which Virgin Sophia sort of dwelled in Mary without possessing her or Mary being Sophia incarnate or something)

He also rejects purgatory (it doesn't really fit within his system) in Three Principles, but then allows for the possibility of God having mercy on the damned (I think?)

He also rejects indulgences pretty strongly. I think praying to saints as well but I can't remember clearly

>>24471176
Ok, thank you for these recommendations.

>>24468417 (OP)
Pic is an excerpt from Jane Lead's Revelation of Revelations, from the 1683 first edition.
Extracted from pages 71 and 72 of https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_the-revelation-of-revela_lead-jane_1683/page/n69/mode/2up
This excerpt was my first introduction to christian mysticism. Jane Lead's teacher, John Pordage, was a dedicated reader and commentator of Boehme.

>>24471225
I read somewhere that Lead was a key source for Mormonism because Joseph Smith's family used to read her works regularly

I'd be interested to see if anyone studied her influence on it

>>24471228
I've heard the same rumor but have yet to see any evidence of it.

Is this a true /lit/ embracing of the God-Taught Philosopher or is this just /ceg/ on vacation?

Böhme criticizes sectarianism, but I don't think that he isn’t critical of the Church itself; he does address institutional flaws albeit more subtly than his critique of political power.

One thing I'm noticing in Aurora is that Boehme seems initially to be teaching pantheism (or maybe panentheism) but in some places kind of walks it back, implying the material universe is different to God (but elsewhere saying everything is part of God)

Does he expand on this elsewhere?

i once read a good portion of an old translation of aurora that i liked a lot but i lost track of the pdf. any idea which one it might have been? i tried a newer translation later on and it seemed like shit compared

>>24472482
Try the ones here, I believe they're mostly Sparrow's translations

https://jacobboehmeonline.com/

If you use the wayback machine he also had a William Law page but I don't see the Law translations linked there:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210728025730/https://jacobboehmeonline.com/william_law

>>24469972
very mature!

>>24471147
ugh, the fucking Quakers liked him? gross.

>>24473147
Early Quakers were minimalist mystics, not the same as modern liberal quakers.

William Blake was also a big Boehme fanboy

>>24473147
George Fox was awesome

Franz Hartmann's book summarizing Boehme's work is pretty decent