Re: [GnosticThought] Re: Pearls Before Swine
- I am aware that there is a strong stream of math running through, or
perhaps underlying, many of the spiritual traditions. I understand it's value.
I wish math concepts didn't boggle my mind as they do.
In a message dated 7/3/2009 6:53:47 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> I think this may be an intensive study of its own. It did seem reallyodd
> to me that a mathematical system should be suppressed, and it seems itTo the Pythagoreans, math was the ultimate magic,
> would only be the case if the system had more than surface meaning.
the pattern from which everything exists,
thus to know the pattern is to see beyond the appearances
into the underlying essence. This was incorporated in
architecture (think the Greek parthenon like buildings and
Gothic cathedrals) and art (statues and paintings), and
music (the Pythagoreans created stringed instruments and
worked with scales of notes based on math), and symbols
like the pentagram and cross and vesica piscis. To know
the math was to unlock the potential in everything.
Now who was it that supressed all of this ancient knowledge?
The bringers on of the dark ages, the control freak
anti-Gnostic church organization starting in the second century
and gaining so much power by the third century that stuff like
the Nag Hammadi Library had to be hidden from the bonfires.
Me thinks it is easier to control mindless sheep, give them what
to think, what rituals to perform, fleece them of their spare
change, and never let them out of that box. Not only were
the dark ages "Christians" not allowed to study math, they
were not taught to read.
No God will send you to Hell for what you do or don't do.
To unsubscribe from this list send a message to:
Yahoo! Groups Links
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Brian wrote:
> Have you ever heard of the quelle or "q" document. Some speculatethat it could be an earlier version used to create the more literal
synoptic versions,but that john was written to return this "q" document
back to its more origanal"less literal form".
I was just reading I Q a Juggernaut? by Michael Goulder
I agree with him and have had some of the same conclusions over the past
There never was a "Q". Matthew added the material that is "Q" and Luke
used Matthew as a source, writing for a different audience and later decade.
That is my current take on it, anyways.