I'm going to reply in a roundabout way. Forgive me.

My father-in-law died recently. He was an militant atheist all his life who was
obsessed with death; he felt God had cheated him out explanations for his life
and eventual death. After slipping in and out of consciousness in the hospital
he told his daughter " I have fought with death my whole life and it's such a
little thing". I'll come back to this in a bit.

The Buddha is now considered an avatar of Vishnu by Hinduism, but way back he
was considered a heretic  because he did not believe that the personal soul, the
Atman, was identical with Brahman— God. He felt their was no Atman at all. By
extension this would mean we are Brahman. The Secret Book of John, I feel, is
about this. We are a discreet fragment of God, like a wave in the ocean.

Stephan A. Hoeller in one of his lectures talks about the Gnostic sacrament of
the Bridal Chamber which is now lost. Maybe this was the marriage of the
personal soul with the universal soul ending in the unifying realization that we
and God are the same.

Now getting back to my father-in-law. Maybe he saw that he was a figment in
God's imagination, a kind of character in a dream before he died. Maybe that is
why death was such a little thing to him then.

Maybe this world is a game with rules—rules of duality, diversity, and
adversity. But outside none of these apply. If this is true, the demiurge being
evil or God being good is inapplicable since these labels are dual in nature.
It's like a piece on a monopoly board (the game) thinking it can understand our
motives by studying the cards or the board, or by buying all the hotels, or
utilities. It can't get anywhere until it looks up and sees an utterly foreign
world outside its scope of understanding.

I feel getting overly caught up in what's good or what's evil, keeps us on the
game board, and I feel some Gnostics, Buddhists, Kabbalists, Neoplatonists have
fallen into those judgments. BUT I FEEL THERE WERE GREAT EXCEPTIONS LIKE
VALENTINUS. LIKE BUDDHA or JESUS of NAZARETH. I think they saw duality as a
trap.

One example of "anthropomorphic bent" is the idea that being good or righteous,
a Hassid in Kabbalah, will give you gnosis. I just don't think so. I you are
compassionate that might tear down the differences between you and your fellow
man, and might expedite gnosis. But if it is used to separate yourself from your
fellow man as it often is, it may delay it indefinitely. After all if you are
good then someone else must be bad. That is duality.

I just feel the "real" is like what is described in the Tao Te Jing – ephemeral,
indescribable, irrational, and utterly boundless. A place both scary and
incredible.

I apologize if I came off "preachy".

Thanks for the links. They're great.

--- On Wed, 4/15/09, lady_caritas <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Just a note to say that the e-mail
> format of my previous post came out fine, but for some
> reason, portions of my reply in the post showing up at the
> website came out in green, not only blue, and sometimes bold
> in a different font.  Very strange.  Sorry about
> that.  *lol*
>
> Cari

Hi Cari,
Yahoo is improving things again so expect strange things. Half of my groups
disappeared Tuesday. They are back today. This morning I couldn't access my
mail. Now it's back. Now I find the settings changed on one of my small groups
where I am the only moderator.

Ken

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Gnostic Ken <gnostic_ken@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Cari,
> Yahoo is improving things again so expect strange things. Half of my groups disappeared Tuesday. They are back today. This morning I couldn't access my mail. Now it's back. Now I find the settings changed on one of my small groups where I am the only moderator.
>
> Ken
>

I know you prefer the e-mail interface, Ken, but when I also noticed that most of my groups had recently disappeared from the "Groups" page, I found that they were still accessible from their respective home pages.  It's good to keep those web access links nearby if only for those occasions when Yahoo starts acting up.

Gerry

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gvasquezneo" <gvasquezneo@...> wrote:
>
> I'm going to reply in a roundabout way. Forgive me.
>
> My father-in-law died recently. He was an militant atheist all his life who was obsessed with death; he felt God had cheated him out explanations for his life and eventual death. After slipping in and out of consciousness in the hospital he told his daughter " I have fought with death my whole life and it's such a little thing". I'll come back to this in a bit.
>
> The Buddha is now considered an avatar of Vishnu by Hinduism, but way back he was considered a heretic because he did not believe that the personal soul, the Atman, was identical with Brahman— God. He felt their was no Atman at all. By extension this would mean we are Brahman. The Secret Book of John, I feel, is about this. We are a discreet fragment of God, like a wave in the ocean.
>
> Stephan A. Hoeller in one of his lectures talks about the Gnostic sacrament of the Bridal Chamber which is now lost. Maybe this was the marriage of the personal soul with the universal soul ending in the unifying realization that we and God are the same.
>
> Now getting back to my father-in-law. Maybe he saw that he was a figment in God's imagination, a kind of character in a dream before he died. Maybe that is why death was such a little thing to him then.
>
> Maybe this world is a game with rules—rules of duality, diversity, and adversity. But outside none of these apply. If this is true, the demiurge being evil or God being good is inapplicable since these labels are dual in nature. It's like a piece on a monopoly board (the game) thinking it can understand our motives by studying the cards or the board, or by buying all the hotels, or utilities. It can't get anywhere until it looks up and sees an utterly foreign world outside its scope of understanding.
>
> I feel getting overly caught up in what's good or what's evil, keeps us on the game board, and I feel some Gnostics, Buddhists, Kabbalists, Neoplatonists have fallen into those judgments. BUT I FEEL THERE WERE GREAT EXCEPTIONS LIKE VALENTINUS. LIKE BUDDHA or JESUS of NAZARETH. I think they saw duality as a trap.
>
> One example of "anthropomorphic bent" is the idea that being good or righteous, a Hassid in Kabbalah, will give you gnosis. I just don't think so. I you are compassionate that might tear down the differences between you and your fellow man, and might expedite gnosis. But if it is used to separate yourself from your fellow man as it often is, it may delay it indefinitely. After all if you are good then someone else must be bad. That is duality.
>
> I just feel the "real" is like what is described in the Tao Te Jing – ephemeral, indescribable, irrational, and utterly boundless. A place both scary and incredible.
>
> I apologize if I came off "preachy".
>

I don't think you came off "preachy" at all, George.  Your elaborations helped.  I'm fond of the quote Cari used to explain the use of Gnostic imagery, even in Valentinian writings.  Personally, I think that such symbolism can be misconstrued in virtually any religious system.  I'm also quite fond of the Tao Te Jing, and even used a verse from it in the holiday card I sent out last year.  It took me a while though to find one that really resonated with me, and with the message I was trying to convey.  There were many that I felt fell short of the Infinite and Indescribable that I have come to appreciate from both Eastern AND Western approaches.  I'm getting ready to head off for an extended weekend out of town, but I'll try to find some of my materials and take them along; maybe I can find you an example or two of what I'm talking about.

Gerry

Hey gvasquezneo, welcome to the group. You state;

>>Maybe this world is a game with rules—rules of duality, diversity, and
adversity. But outside none of these apply. If this is true, the demiurge being
evil or God being good is inapplicable since these labels are dual in nature.
It's like a piece on a monopoly board (the game) thinking it can understand our
motives by studying the cards or the board, or by buying all the hotels, or
utilities. It can't get anywhere until it looks up and sees an utterly foreign
world outside its scope of understanding.<<

It may be worth exploring the possibility that the Gnostics were intentionally
using a literary device. What I mean is, do you think it is possible that they
were well aware that the language and mythological structure they created was
not completely literally accurate? I think the quote that Cari posted for you
could certainly be read as a sort of warning to keep this in mind.

Also, to add to this speculation is the fact that some Gnostic texts speak of
the high "Father" in apophatic terms. That is to say they describe it as not
good or evil, dark or light, big or small and not part of our existance in the
Kenoma. If we then see the same father talked about as "good" it could simply be
that there is an attempt to explain something as best as language will allow.

Just a thought.
PMCV

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Gnostic Ken <gnostic_ken@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 4/15/09, lady_caritas <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> > Just a note to say that the e-mail
> > format of my previous post came out fine, but for some
> > reason, portions of my reply in the post showing up at the
> > website came out in green, not only blue, and sometimes bold
> > in a different font.  Very strange.  Sorry about
> > that.  *lol*
> >
> > Cari
>
> Hi Cari,
> Yahoo is improving things again so expect strange things. Half of my groups
disappeared Tuesday. They are back today. This morning I couldn't access my
mail. Now it's back. Now I find the settings changed on one of my small groups
where I am the only moderator.
>
> Ken
>


Eegads, Ken.  I do hope that all this "improving" ends up really improving
things.

Cari

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gvasquezneo" <gvasquezneo@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the links. They're great.
>



gvasquezneo, you're very welcome.

I've been considering your comments about duality of this world.  In regards to
this one:

"It can't get anywhere until it looks up and sees an utterly foreign
world outside its scope of understanding."

… and these are questions for all members to consider commenting on…
What does happen then when one becomes aware of something, not a thing, etc.
beyond our capacity as humans to fully understand?  Once someone is resurrected
through gnosis in this lifetime, something that Gnostic texts talk about, how
does one deal with the fact that we still live in this world of dualities?  IOW,
how does gnosis affect us in a practical way?  Do Gnostic texts address this?

Cari

 ”One of the basic axioms of the Kabbalah is that nothing can be said about God Himself. It is for this reason that God is called Ain Sof, which means literally, the One without end or limit. God is infinite and therefore undefineable and uncharacterizable. He is limitless Being and Existence before the act of creation as well as subsequent to it. Even conceptually, there is no category in existence which can define God. This is what the Tikuney Zohar means when it says ‘Not thought can grasp Him.’

        On the level of Ain Sof, therefore, nothing else exists. Every concept and category associated with existence must be created from nothing…..

        Since no quality can be ascribed to Ain Sof, it follows that if God has or uses ‘Will,’ He must have created it. The Zohar explicitly states that God does not have ‘will’ in any anthropomorphic sense. Rather, to the extent that we can express it, in order to create the world, God had to will the concept of creation into existence. In order to do this, He had to create the concept of ‘will.’ This, of course, leads to an ultimate paradox, for if God is going to create ‘will,’ this in itself presupposes an act of will. This means that going back to Ain Sof, to God Himself, involves an infinite regression…..

        Ain-Nothingness…..This is not a nothingness which implies lack of existence. There is no deficiency in the Ain, only fullness beyond the capacity of any created being  to experience directly. Rather, it is nothingness because of the lack of a category in the mind in which to place it.  Ain is therefore only ‘nothingness’ relative to us. It is the nothingness of ineffability and hiddenness. It is no-thing because it is so much more rarified than the some-thing of creation. In this sense, like God Himself, it is ultimately unfathomable and beyond our ability to comprehend.

        On the other hand, God’s Will permeated the entire system of creation. The continued existence of creation, in fact, depends entirely on God’s willing it. Since only God exists in an absolute sense, everything else exists because God wills its existence continually. A human architect can design and construct a building and then forget about it. But God’s creation is more than that. Nothing can exist without God constantly willing it to exist. Without this, it would utterly cease to exist.”

then theres the thing about emanationism...

but there...

ask off or on list if you want more, preferably off, I dont pay a great deal to this list

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gvasquezneo" <gvasquezneo@...> wrote:
>
> In my previous post when I was referring to "God" being good or evil, I am of
course referring to the creator God, known to Kabbalists as YHWH-Elohim, or to
the gnostics as Ialdabaoth. I was not referring to the hidden one (known to
Kabbalists as the Ain Soph)—the one above the pleroma.
>
> "According to Jung, [just like the Ain soph] pleroma is both 'nothing and
everything. It is quite fruitless to think about pleroma. Therein both thinking
and being cease, since the eternal and infinite possess no qualities.' "
(Pleroma, Wikipedia definition).
>
> I didn't want anyone to think I misunderstood this.
>
it appears my previous post has not appeared yet
moderated or just plain eaten up, who knows...

besides recommending looking at heckhalot and merkavah writings, I'd recommend
reading some sholem... major trends in jewish mysticism etc

--- On Thu, 4/16/09, lady_caritas <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> > Hi Cari,
> > Yahoo is improving things again so expect strange
> things. Half of my groups disappeared Tuesday. They are back
> today. This morning I couldn't access my mail. Now it's
> back. Now I find the settings changed on one of my small
> groups where I am the only moderator.
> >
> > Ken
> >
>
>
> Eegads, Ken.  I do hope that all this "improving" ends
> up really improving things.
>
> Cari

Hi Cari,
Me too ;-)

As much as I like to complain I gotta admit that over all yahoogroups has gotten
better over the years.

Ken

here's a brief list...

I have another one someewhere... I'll drag it up

but here:

"On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism" by Gershom Scholem

"On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah" by
Gershom Scholem

"Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah" by Gershom Scholem

"The Messianic Idea in Judaism, and other Essays on Jewish Spirituality" by
Gershom Scholem

"Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition" by Gershom
Scholem

"The Ancient Jewish Mysticism" by Joseph Dan

"Beholders of Divine Secrets: Mysticism and Myth in the Hekhalot and Merkavah
Literature" by Vita Daphna Arbel

"Kabbalah: New Perspectives" by Moshe Idel

"The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia" by Moshe Idel

"Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah" by Moshe Idel

"Messianic Mystics" by Moshe Idel

http://magdelene.wordpress.com/kabbalah-literature/

Fashioned of Fire and Water,
Strong Ones of the lofty city –
they stand like walls.
With trembling and dread,
repeatedly they celebrate the power
of God, founder of the earth.
And I, chosen of all people,
His high praises are in my throat.

Michael roars
and Gabriel clamours.
Auriel shouts
and Raphael bellows.
Hadarniel extols
and Achtriel acclaims God's majesty.
And I, the assembly of Israel,
declare: 'there is none like God!'

Quivering hosts
of firebrand streak
like lightning,
flaming torches dart
like rays of light,
uttering songs of praise.
And I, the lily of the valley,
devote myself to His precepts and statutes.

Thousands and myriads of angels,
chariots of fire and bolts of fire
circle and whirl around the throne,
raised upon the seventh heaven.
Three times they say `Holy!'
and they listen to the murmuring sound.
And I, daughter of the three fathers,
my prayers always please Him.

The sweat of the four Heavenly
Beasts swells the rushing river of fire,
and above them stands a fifth
gigantic Beast. He begins to
chant God's glory
and all attendants join in.
And I, in the house of prayer,
my lips pour forth your praise.

— Benjamin ben Zerah (A Merkavah Ofan
by an 11th century Ba'al ha-Shem)

……………………….

In "The Emergence of the Mystical Traditions of the Merkavah" by Rachel Elior
she writes:

"...The sages constrained and prohibited "expounding on the deeds of the
chariot" (m. Hag. 2:1; b. Hag. 13bâ€"14b) without explaining the background of
this ruling and its connection to ancient priestly perceptions of holy time and
holy place, angelic liturgy, priestly ritual, and heavenly chariots..."

Why was this area of study forbidden?

"...Notably, the priestly calendrical traditions written B.C.E. were forbidden
for study by the leader of the sages, R. Akiva, who labeled them "external
books" (m. Sanh. 10:1). R. Akiva took a central part in shaping the alternative
rabbinical order based on new perception of lunar time and human observation (m.
Roš. Haš. 2:9). The new hegemony further replaced the narrative of heavenly
ascent and angelic knowledge that were associated with the priestly solar
calendar with stories relating to Enoch's humiliation, punishment, and death (b.
Hag. 15a; Tg. Onq. on Gen 5:21â€"24; Ber. Rab. 25). These supporters of the
lunar calendar also replaced the priestly orientation of the stories relating to
the origin of the solar calendar with alternative story connecting Enoch with
the greatest calendric prohibition, changing the number of days in a year (Jub.
6:30â€"38) required by sod haIbur (the secret of the leap year required by lunar
calendar; Pirqe R. El. 8)..."

…………………….

It is acknowledged that Judaism of the Second Temple period (i.e. up to 70CE)
consisted of several groups all vying for precedence in regard to
religious/cultural/ political ideology. There is a body of evidence and
scholarship suggesting that one such movement favoured the patriarch Enoch as
revelator (in precedence, particularly, over Moses). The so-called 'Enoch
literature' promotes a solar 364 day calendar as a major part of its revision,
with Jubilees tying this in to the preordained harmonic structure of the cosmos
which has since become corrupt. The group behind these texts, who appear to have
some relationship to the Qumran sect, seem to have believed that only by
following the divine solar calendar could festivals and sabbaths be accurately
timed so as to concur with the heavenly ordinations; merely observing the
movements of the planets would lead to error as the material world had fallen
from grace. This Enochic tradition thus pulled away from much of the orthodoxy
of the Temple practice, feeding into alternative currents such as Essenism,
Qumran and, eventually, Christianity (the Enoch literature in particular was
much used by the early Church, and much of their mystical/speculativ
e/revisionist/ anti-law thought also fell on glad ears with early Christians,
many of whom were Jewish). After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70CE
and the emergence of Christianity as a religion in its own right, the Rabbis
(emerging from the Pharisees) began restructuring the faith, emphasising what
they believed were the correct and original principles. This included a definite
movement away from the heterodox and apocalyptic ideas which had caused so much
strife in recent history: the Enochic being one example. Due to the lack of
central Temple, the faith had to find a new central focus which became the
Torah, i.e. the Mosaic law. Clearly the challenge presented by Enoch could have
little place in this.

As regards heavenly ascension/Merkavah Mysticism, Alan Segal in his book 'Two
Powers In Heaven' makes a good case for this tradition also relating to the
ascension of patriarchs and prophets (including Enoch, Jacob, Moses et al),
something which the rabbinic normalisers saw as particularly dangerous for
general consumption, although not ineffective in the correct hands.

I hope this is an adequate summary. There is much current scholarship on the
Enochic tradition: Andrei Orlov's 2004 book 'The Enoch-Metatron Tradition' is
very good (but very expensive); in relation to the calendar, David Jackson's
'Enochic Judaism: Three Defining Paradigm Exemplars' provides much interesting
information.

--Michael Miller


''Enochic Judaism: Three Defining Paradigm Exemplars" by David Jackson.

Summary:

Jackson analyses the Enochic tradition according to three separate 'exemplars'
which he feels are defining features and shed light on a prime motive in the
writings. These are:

• Shemikhazah, the Watcher (fallen angel) who led his followers into sexual
liaison with human women, siring a race of Giants. This is an example of
deviation from the separation of human-angelic.
• Aza'el, the Watcher who taught humans technologies of war and beautification
which brought great suffering and wickedness; this is breaking the rules by
bringing heavenly secrets to earth, and humans going astray from what is good
and proper.
• Finally, the cosmos falling out of sync with the divine plan due to the
disobedience/laxity of the spirits responsible for the movement of stars and
planets. This is calendrical deviation.
So, all three examples relate to straying from the prescribed divine course. As
such, jackson argues that the Enochic tradition is largely concerned with
returning the people of Israel to the true course, i.e. back to proper
observation of the divine commandments and away from hellenism. It has often
been noted that there is an overarching emphasis in the Enoch literature on
regularity: it presents a minutely ordered, clockwork universe where any
deviation is seen as sinful. The 364 day calendar is understood to be so perfect
that it must  be the way God ordered the universe; the irregularity of either
the lunar, or even a 365.25 day calendar can only be the result of the natural
world going astray from God's plan. Of course, this all relates very clearly to
the transmission of this knowledge in these writings, from the most righteous
patriarch Enoch, from before the destruction of the flood. Jackson of course
goes into the specifics in very great detail which I won't recount here (it's
really not that interesting to be frank)...the book's available on Amazon and
not too pricey, though I'd warn anyone considering it that it is written by an
academic for academics and I don't doubt that it would be almost impenetrable to
anyone not already aware of the fundamentals of the Enochic literature (he
provides zero background).

…

Has God given up the right to punish through giving free will? If so, there is
no hell.

It is said that God gave man free will.
This to me, means that God gave man dominion over himself and over the earth.
Without any restrictions or coercion from Him.

The idea then that He would mean that we must do as He says or go to hell cannot
be a true concept if the term free will is to mean anything.

If we as parents give or  allow our children to have freedom when they leave our
homes, then that means that we give up any right or responsibility to punish
them.

To keep things simple, let us say that the rules of my home includes making the
bed.
I notice when visiting my children in their home, that they have chosen not to
make their beds.
I then would be out of line to reprimand or punish them for not making their
beds. They are free to do so or not if they have free will.

This seems right. It is no longer my place as a father to punish them. They are
free and have dominion over themselves.

God then should not and would not hold a hell over our heads to demand
compliance to His rules.

Is free will with consequences from God, hell  for non compliance, free will at
all?
Is being free to only follow His rules free will?
Has God given up the right to punish free men?
Do we truly have dominion on earth?

Regards
DL

Hello Everyone

My name is Samuel Robinson aka Frater Maui

My scholastic knowledge of Gnosticism is quite poor so I thought perhaps this
list was the perfect place to ask..

Could anyone please tell me if there exist a definative list of all the miracles
or magical happenings attributed to the Gnostic scriptures?

I recently read 'Hermetic Magic' which compared for example one of the Egyptian
Magical Papyri discussing a particular ritual, in it for example a hawk descends
to 'initiate' the theurgist. It was supposed to drop a stone to be later used as
a talisman. This was compared with the descending dove of Christ at the baptism.
Another example of what I am looking for was another Gnostic miracle (the name
escapes me now, I think it was about Simon) who saw fire descend into the waters
during his baptism.. Does anyone know of such a list?

Im referencing this in relation to the Generation of Wonders (initiatory
confirmations) used by older Rosicrucian currents, such as how Elu Cohens
utilised the 'passes' or miraculous occurances as signs of spiritual progression
through the Kabbalistic grades..

But like I said, Im a poor scholar when it comes to references.

Hope someone can help me out. Sincerely, in LVX Samuel

Not completely sure I am following your reasoning there, DL, but since you are
talking about the Demiurge I am guessing that most of the people on this list
would agree that he has no right to punish.

PMCV

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "justafools" <justafools@...> wrote:
>
> Has God given up the right to punish through giving free will? If so, there is
no hell.
>
> It is said that God gave man free will.
> This to me, means that God gave man dominion over himself and over the earth.
Without any restrictions or coercion from Him.
>
> The idea then that He would mean that we must do as He says or go to hell
cannot be a true concept if the term free will is to mean anything.
>
> If we as parents give or  allow our children to have freedom when they leave
our homes, then that means that we give up any right or responsibility to punish
them.
>
> To keep things simple, let us say that the rules of my home includes making
the bed.
> I notice when visiting my children in their home, that they have chosen not to
make their beds.
> I then would be out of line to reprimand or punish them for not making their
beds. They are free to do so or not if they have free will.
>
> This seems right. It is no longer my place as a father to punish them. They
are free and have dominion over themselves.
>
> God then should not and would not hold a hell over our heads to demand
compliance to His rules.
>
> Is free will with consequences from God, hell  for non compliance, free will
at all?
> Is being free to only follow His rules free will?
> Has God given up the right to punish free men?
> Do we truly have dominion on earth?
>
> Regards
> DL
>

Hey Samuel.

Im not aware of any list, and Gnostic texts don't seem to focus so much on the
kinds of material "miracles" that one finds in the Gospels. As for the more
ritual magical events like the ones you talk about, the Gnostic texts tend to
deal with ritual in vague ways. They tell us just enough to know there the
ritual existed, but usually not enough to know what happened in the ritual. To
this day scholars disagree concerning what happens in the Bridal Chamber, for
instance.

PMCV

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "fratermaui" <fratermaui@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone
>
> My name is Samuel Robinson aka Frater Maui
>
> My scholastic knowledge of Gnosticism is quite poor so I thought perhaps this
list was the perfect place to ask..
>
> Could anyone please tell me if there exist a definative list of all the
miracles or magical happenings attributed to the Gnostic scriptures?
>
> I recently read 'Hermetic Magic' which compared for example one of the
Egyptian Magical Papyri discussing a particular ritual, in it for example a hawk
descends to 'initiate' the theurgist. It was supposed to drop a stone to be
later used as a talisman. This was compared with the descending dove of Christ
at the baptism. Another example of what I am looking for was another Gnostic
miracle (the name escapes me now, I think it was about Simon) who saw fire
descend into the waters during his baptism.. Does anyone know of such a list?
>
> Im referencing this in relation to the Generation of Wonders (initiatory
confirmations) used by older Rosicrucian currents, such as how Elu Cohens
utilised the 'passes' or miraculous occurances as signs of spiritual progression
through the Kabbalistic grades..
>
> But like I said, Im a poor scholar when it comes to references.
>
> Hope someone can help me out. Sincerely, in LVX Samuel
>

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Not completely sure I am following your reasoning there, DL, but since you are
talking about the Demiurge I am guessing that most of the people on this list
would agree that he has no right to punish.
>
> PMCV
>
God, by whatever name is still God.
I have no right to name the God I found.

Right on.

Regards
DL

Hey DL

>>God, by whatever name is still God.
I have no right to name the God I found.<<

That may be true for most religions, but in Gnosticism the term "God" could be
used to describe a few different things so simetimes disambiguation is in order.
What I mean is, the term "God" could be used to talk about the first Father, or
maybe the second Father, or as in the case you seem to be talking about it is
the Demiurge. It may not always be completely clear which one a person is
talking about without context.

PMCV

Hey Samuel

>>>Could you please share more about this?

What are the speculations and perhaps some references to it in Gnostic text??<<<

The Bridal Chamber is a Valentinian Rite, and it can be found mentioned in
passing in a number of Valentinian texts of the Nag Hammadi library. Part of the
imagery seems to be about the rejoining of the Sophia and the Logos, and the
integration of the two into the individual. Some sources suggest that there was
a sort of spiritual marriage invloved between two people as well, and that this
was meant to be an ascetic partnership (with the heresiologists stating that the
ideal was often not lived up to). Most historians that I have read agree that
perhaps there was a sort of "wedding" that was celibate, but there are a few
(like April DeConick) who suggest a sort of erotic initiation/sacred sex was
practiced.

PMCV

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hey DL
>
> >>God, by whatever name is still God.
> I have no right to name the God I found.<<
>
> That may be true for most religions, but in Gnosticism the term "God" could be
used to describe a few different things so simetimes disambiguation is in order.
What I mean is, the term "God" could be used to talk about the first Father, or
maybe the second Father, or as in the case you seem to be talking about it is
the Demiurge. It may not always be completely clear which one a person is
talking about without context.
>
> PMCV
>
True. I use the term God to just show the ultimate one.

The God I found is a cosmic consciousness. Not a creator miracle working super
God. That one is myth only with no reality as far as we can tell.

The cosmic consciousness was born of the first true man and is our next
evolution.

I agree that God, the word means many things to many people. Some good some
evil.

Regards
DL

anne... in trying to put together my notes at http://concepts8.blogspot.com/ , i
came across mention of INTENSE cathar activity in cologne ... in rhineland area.
What do we know of this phenomenon ?

any overlap between this scearnio and johannite foray ?  Hard by cologne's st
gereon church, we've got that HUGE saint's head lolling aroudn the grounds of
the church... rather like an advertisement .... 'hey, world, look here if you're
interested in beheaded saints... like the baptist and st gereon.'   I keep
wondering if, in this particular cologne context, st gereon is a 'stand--in' for
john the baptist.

Is God and His works perfect?

I was a non believer at one time and enjoyed winning debates with believers
using the K J Bible against them. Paradoxically, it was by knowing this Bible
and interpreting it my way that lead me to find God.

I had determined that if there was a God at all, then whatever he had created
had to be perfect and that that
This perfection would maintain itself over time. Never backsliding to
imperfection.

God could never look down on earth and say, oops what the hell happened to my
perfect world, it was good and now look at it, imperfect.
His will is supreme and not even a world of humans could collectively thwart His
will with theirs.

I began to see this perfection that had to be here even with evils and sins and
woes and that is when I found God. I went into the spirit, as the ancients used
to say and God showed me the pain and pleasure of knowing that He was actually
there.

I am not sure yet if it is the Christian God or not because I see the Bible as a
consolidation of the then known religions. A bit from one and a bit from
another.

The God I found is one of infinite love for humanity. He does not kill us or
otherwise interfere but is there for those who seek.

He does not match the God that literal readers of scripture know.
That literal God, if the old testament is believed as the WORD does not have
infinite love for man because He tends to kill them quite often. Sodom, Noah's
flood and many other times and places.

I find it strange that literal readers do not take this scripture literally.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God
who does no wrong, upright and just is he.

They see babies being born as already stained with sin.
If perfect and having a sin nature is part of perfection, and I think it is then
well and good. If not then you would have to explain why God would create
imperfect souls and natures for us.

Most literal reader though do not see this world as good even though, in Eden,
God looked down and saw that the earth was good even with Satan there as the
talking serpent.
Why God allowed Satan there is debatable but regardless of this, he was there
for literal readers.

Imperfection cannot flow out of perfection. A perfect stream will not give
poison water.
Perfection flows from perfection and imperfection flows from imperfection.

I see God's universe as perfect.
I should give you my definition of perfect now to save some time.
Some people see or use that word to denote a finish and complete product.
I do not and if I may, God does not.
In the beginning God was alone and perfect. He then began to add to His
universe. Evolution is change so since the changes He began with, did not cause
a lose of perfection, but moved it to a new level, I say that perfection is now
perfection in evolution. Always perfect but like the U S constitution uses the
term, moving to a more perfect state. I also do not see a schism between
Darwin's evolution and God. God began it and Darwin named it. This shows my
thoughts on a six day creation but that too is a different issue.

My question then is,
Do you see God's universe as perfection in evolution, or,
Do you see God's initial perfection gone and replaced by imperfection?

Is God still looking down with a smile as His perfection continues to evolve
over never ending time as befits a God of perfect works, or
Is God looking down and saying, oops, what happened to my perfect universe and
world. It backslid.

You should know that I do not ever expect God to return at some end time because
I see His judgment at the beginning of our birth in Genesis as the only judgment
that he need render. To have Him return, red faced, to fix a perfect world is
beyond my definition of God. He gets things right the first time, every time.

I do not include this for debate here but only to show how strongly I believe
that when we left the garden we did so with God being proud of His perfect works
and not ashamed that He had started us off on the wrong foot, so to speak, from
the beginning of our journey.

Regards
DL

It is the only extant Gnostic Scripture we have with a woman's name on it and
giving her a true centerpiece. The Gospel of Mary gives us insights into the
importance of Mary Magdalene as the main Apostle, the consort of the Logos, and
a Marian movement in the early days of Christianity that revered women's
importance.  In addition, our guest grants us her views on other Gnostic works
like the Gospel of Judas and The Secret Book of John.  And she explains why
Gnosticism is an outdated term that serves no purpose in our modern idiom.

Astral Guest—Karen King, author of `The Gospel of Mary Magdala: Jesus and the
First Woman Disciple', `What is Gnosticism' & `Reading Judas: The Gospel of
Judas and the Shaping of Christianity'.

Topics Discussed:

--The history of how this important document was discovered.
--Understanding the inner and outer message of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.
--How this Scripture represented an early Christian schism as well as a Marian
cult following.
--Gnosticism: Outdated term about a bunch of dead weird Christians that should
be replaced with the more politically correct `Alternative Christianity'?
--How the view that the Gnostics didn't believe in a fleshy Jesus is mostly a
fable (whatever).  Yet the radical way they interpreted the crucifixion of the
Christ.
--Karen King discusses her research on `The Secret Book of John' and `The Gospel
of Judas' including allegations her scholarship was erroneous along with
National Geographic.

And much more!  There's just something about Mary.

Just go to http://www.thegodabovegod.com/.  The program is broadcast all weekend
long.  Listen to it at your convenience.

All past shows of Aeon Byte are available at
http://www.thegodabovegod.com/shop/.  Digital or CD copies in bulk can also be
purchased through our homepage.

Abraxas

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "justafools" <justafools@...> wrote:
>
> Is God and His works perfect?
>
> [ . . . ] 
>
> I see God's universe as perfect.
> I should give you my definition of perfect now to save some time.
> Some people see or use that word to denote a finish and complete product.
> I do not and if I may, God does not. [emphasis added]
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> My question then is,
> Do you see God's universe as perfection in evolution, or,
> Do you see God's initial perfection gone and replaced by imperfection?
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> I do not include this for debate here [emphasis added] but only to show how strongly I believe that when we left the garden we did so with God being proud of His perfect works and not ashamed that He had started us off on the wrong foot, so to speak, from the beginning of our journey.
>
>

Hi DL.  Perhaps I'm simply not familiar enough with your writing style, but I feel a need to ask for some clarification here on a few points.  I hope you can see by the portions of your post I selected above why there might be some concerns.

You ask some questions in that post, yet it's not at all clear whether you actually wish anyone to respond.  You open with a question, offer various opinions and interpretations of your experiences, and appear to speak on God's behalf, but then even after asking questions again, it seems as if you are clearly not interested in seeing any discussion here regarding your conclusions.  When you state that you're merely attempting to show how strong your beliefs are, I have to wonder:  Are you really trying to convince us, or yourself?

Gerry

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "justafools" <justafools@> wrote:
> >
> > Is God and His works perfect?
> >
> > [ . . . ]
> >
> > I see God's universe as perfect.
> > I should give you my definition of perfect now to save some time.
> > Some people see or use that word to denote a finish and complete
> product.
> > I do not and if I may, God does not. [emphasis added]
> >
> > [ . . . ]
> >
> > My question then is,
> > Do you see God's universe as perfection in evolution, or,
> > Do you see God's initial perfection gone and replaced by imperfection?
> >
> > [ . . . ]
> >
> > I do not include this for debate here [emphasis added] but only to
> show how strongly I believe that when we left the garden we did so with
> God being proud of His perfect works and not ashamed that He had started
> us off on the wrong foot, so to speak, from the beginning of our
> journey.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi DL.  Perhaps I'm simply not familiar enough with your writing style,
> but I feel a need to ask for some clarification here on a few points.  I
> hope you can see by the portions of your post I selected above why there
> might be some concerns.
>
> You ask some questions in that post, yet it's not at all clear whether
> you actually wish anyone to respond.  You open with a question, offer
> various opinions and interpretations of your experiences, and appear to
> speak on God's behalf, but then even after asking questions again, it
> seems as if you are clearly not interested in seeing any discussion here
> regarding your conclusions.  When you state that you're merely
> attempting to show how strong your beliefs are, I have to wonder:  Are
> you really trying to convince us, or yourself?
>
> Gerry
>
I screwed up.

The statement for non debate was intended to point to just the last part of my
post, the part speaking to God's judgment, and I guess that I should have
accentuated that fact better.

Please disregard that completely and ask away or comment away on whatever you
like.

Regards
DL
The