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

11673Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: another newbie

Expand Messages
  • Hoomer
    Nov 11, 2005
      On 11/11/05, pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

      Hey Ben

      >>>OK we'll have to agree to disagree.....I was meaning more the word Gnosis....but I am getting a feeling for this group..its ok<<<<

      Well, it is certainly ok to disagree here. Who knows where conversation will lead?

      As for the term "Gnosis". I do understand that Many in the New Age movement use it to refer to devine union, but I can demonstrate that it is not how the traditional Gnostics used the word.  Not that there is anything wrong with the New Age movement, but they are not traditional Gnostics. Actually, the subject was just being discussed in another group so I can paste some of what I wrote here as well. Let me get back to the subject in a moment.

      >>>......I wont mention melchizedek...lol...<<<

      Well, there is the Melchezidek of Jewish legend.... and then there is the Nag Hammadi version.  
      >>>I need an academic approach as well.....shrug if thats your thing...this group's,,,so be it
      I know my girl friend would wince though....lol....but I am not her....<<<

      Good, I am glad you can enjoy it *lol*. It really isn't such a bad thing to have an historical understanding to add to ones spiritual understanding. I do find it unfortunate that many people are under the mistaken impression that Gnostics were against academic approach though. Though the New Age groups like the Nazorean Essenes are surely very nice people, their beliefs are not always really very similar to the original Essenes, Manichaeans, etc.

      So, let me take a moment and use passages from historical Gnostic texts to demonstrate what I mean. First, here are some passages that absolutely prove that union with the divine, or the mystical experience, was not exactly what the Gnostics were talking about with the concept of "Gnosis".....

      "Whoever comes to unde

      mmm new agers..I am a bit insulted by this....but nevermind...I realise all groups have their dynamic...so I wont mention this ....you have your aproach...myslef I prefer a less mercurial approach and more of a venusian (intelect vs intuition...hod vs netzach)..you have read every one of the 250,000 pages of their website I assume? ...
      unacademic? mmmm I am thinking you have a certain impression of me....already...beleive me I do not think Gnostics were unacademic!
      I am well aware of what Gnosis is.....divine union is but 1 way to look at it.....For me the Rosicrucian manifestos had a great affect on my outlook...really they just told me more of what I already beleived.....do you know of the rosicrucians? Or are they not Gnostic either?....
      I have experienced Gnosis...I am aware of what it is......
      Summa Sceintia Nihil Scire
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic