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

10129Re: A question

Expand Messages
  • pneumen_borealis
    Sep 5, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Nice explanation, with a concrete example to boot.

      You really should archive posts like this under an "FAQ" that people
      can link to.


      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > 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
      > is essentially identical to what we find in Gnosticism, with the
      > Demiurge, etc.. In fact, it is common for people to come to the
      > 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
      > was gained by faith in the actual literal validity of his system
      > 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,
      > 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
      > be literal, makes very clear that part of the very essence of
      > Gnosis was about comming to understand these meanings.
      > Now, let me be specific about something here. There has been a lot
      > 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
      > 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"
      > wrote:
      > > On the Demiurge...
      > >
      > > Is the demiurge a construct of the human mind as "Jehovah", or is
      > > a
      > > real metaphysical transcendent being?
      > >
      > > Also...
      > >
      > > I'd like some feedback on archetypes and metaphysics... How is
      > > viewed? As a transcendent, metaphysical being? Or an archetype?
      > > 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
      > > 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
      > > 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
      > to
      > > even talk about. Anywho, I'm sure you guys are tired of me being
      > > postwhore...
      > >
      > > Comments are appreciated. :D
      > >
      > > Christ is holy,
      > > IgnisApocryphOn
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic