Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10095Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: A question

Expand Messages
  • annie
    Aug 31 10:19 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I do understand what you are saying, and there's a middle ground I find between totally being psychic or going all the way in Jung's direction of the opposite (what is that?  I want to say intellectualize it, or is that not the right term?)
      I think the bible is most useful, if it's read as if it were 'a parable of parables'. Even the all the details of Jesus's life in the gospels can be used as a symbol, and the numerology and astrology in the bible are the keys to the 'real' bible code.  The OT is useful, too, if given that treatment.  I never got so much out of the bible, until I quit taking it seriously!!!
      David and Saul are an allegory of Jesus and Satan, with Jonathan perhaps representing YHVH.  David reigned 71/2 years, then 40 as king of All Isreal, was born in bethlehem and died in jerusalem, was a sheep herder, killed a giant with 5 stones, and played the harp.  Bethsheba and Uriah are more of the gnostic theme of Sophia and the Jewish, or orthodox faith being the husband david had killed to have her.  She was given the 'aura' of a whorish or unfaithful wife, even if not directly.
      I see the 'church' of the NT, the bride, as being first the virgin, then the unfaithful wife progressing to prostitute, who at last returns to wear the white garment of pure redemption which was heroically acquired by the bridegroom, which would be the christ spirit.  But the one last thing she gets to do before beginning anew her life as the queen of heaven is to 'clothe herself in witless' wrath and correct the defect which resulted in the creation of matter, and so what should have never come about is now like it has never been, justified karmic account balancing on a higher level!  Of course, I actually don't believe that all that we've been is all a tragic and extinct mistake, it goes one further for me as being necessary for chaos to rise from the shadow of the light in order to be conquered by that light, in an endless sequence, and it's conceivable that each vast time span, such as the solar systems' life time, from beginning to halfway, is G-d exhalation, and then the second half is the inhalation.
      I know that I was probably digressing.  But that's the way I read the bible for real benefit.
      So what conceptions are found for salvation within the truest types of gnosticism, with respect to what you posted below?
      love from annie
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: pmcvflag
      Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 9:42 PM
      Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: A question

      Hey IgnisApocryphon.

      In addition to Lady Cari's answer to you in post
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/10084 I wanted to
      bring tis together with the conversation between Mike and Annie.

      Mike states to Annie

      >>>"Thank-you Marcion (sorry, couldn't resist). :-) Good point,
      BTW."<<<

      Whether or not Mike intended this (I assume he is aware of it) it
      does seem to be relavant to the post that Annie writes on a few
      levels. Annie wrote...

      >>>"Just my opinion, however. If you read the bible, next time you
      do, for an experiment, read it with the frame of mind that the OT
      YHVH and the NT "Father" are two different dieties."<<<

      You see, IgnisApocryphon, Marcion proposed a cosmological system that
      is essentially identical to what we find in Gnosticism, with the
      Demiurge, etc.. In fact, it is common for people to come to the club
      here and assume Marcion WAS Gnostic, based simply on the fact that
      his cosmology was the same. Care to guess why Marcion would not be
      considered "Gnostic"?

      It works like this; Marcion, unlike Gnostics, believed that salvation
      was gained by faith in the actual literal validity of his system (at
      least that is how it looks in the things we read from the
      heresiologists). The Gnostic model is not dependant on a literal
      belief of the cosmology. SOme may have believed it literally, others
      may not have.... but the Gnostic writings themselves make fairly
      clear that what is important is the underlying MEANING of the texts.

      We know this from many sources. First, as you can see from the
      passages that Cari gave you, Gnostics understood the problem of
      language in communicating these kinds of ideas... and is many
      passages they even tell us more specifically that the meanings are
      hidden. Two, the heresiologists tell us this about the Gnostics. Of
      course, we can't always believe this source but in this case it is
      held up by the evidence. Three, the very structure of many Gnostic
      sects, in which we know that part of the initiatory process was to
      learn the hidden meanings of the texts that other Christians took to
      be literal, makes very clear that part of the very essence of gaining
      Gnosis was about comming to understand these meanings.

      Now, let me be specific about something here. There has been a lot of
      talk here lately that seems to place Gnosticism in some sort
      of "Spiritual Anarchist" camp of free interperatation without any
      church structure. Historically, this is simply not true. It DOES seem
      to be true that Gnostic sects sometimes participated in a sort of
      creative interperative session, but this was still done under
      guidance and was done with the intent of adding richness to the
      intended goal (maybe something like modern music teachers do with
      thier classes when trying to drive home a principle of a specific
      point in music theory... there is creativity but there is ALSO a
      point that is not so individual).

      Gnostics do have some specific beliefs that make the term "Gnostic"
      possible, and one set of those is the cosmology you mention, while
      the other is how that cosmology relates to an internal struggle.

      I hope that helps more than it confuses :)

      PMCV

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "ignisapocryphon" <jstatom@o...>
      wrote:
      > On the Demiurge...
      >
      > Is the demiurge a construct of the human mind as "Jehovah", or is it
      > a
      > real metaphysical transcendent being?
      >
      > Also...
      >
      > I'd like some feedback on archetypes and metaphysics... How is God
      > viewed? As a transcendent, metaphysical being? Or an archetype? Or
      > both? I've always thought that the metaphysical realm and the
      > archetypal (sp?) realm coincide with each other to produce mystic
      > experiences. (Can there be more than one "gnosis"?) Thoughts and
      > comments are greatly appreciated.
      >
      > I'm going for the Valentinian POV if anyone wants to know.
      >
      > I know that's a mouthfull, but still.
      >
      > Also, while I'm at it, I might as well say that the Gnostic
      community
      > is one I plan to stay with. I've seen that it is very, VERY
      friendly
      > and open to new-comers. I've also seen the oppression we face by
      > other
      > Christians and non-Christians. I'm very proud to say I'm a Gnostic
      > Christian and I hope to learn much and maybe have a mystic
      experience
      > myself soon. It's been a great joy of mine to understand just what
      > communication with and interaction with The Divine is all about...
      > The
      > Gnostics take it back to it's roots, when time with God was holy
      and
      > unadulterated, no sound or anything... Wow, it's just overwhelming
      to
      > even talk about. Anywho, I'm sure you guys are tired of me being a
      > postwhore...
      >
      > Comments are appreciated. :D
      >
      > Christ is holy,
      >      IgnisApocryphOn


    • Show all 11 messages in this topic