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

12476Re: It's in our DNA

Expand Messages
  • bkimbell98
    Jun 13, 2006
      "So you don't believe in the notion of the "Logos"? Does that mean
      you don't think the Sophia ever "fell"?"

      I do believe in Logos and I do believe in the myth of Sophia. If
      that were not true, we'd not be searching for meaning in life,
      knowing that this physical world is not our true home. The problem
      is how to get back to paradise. Another problem is that 90% or
      greater of earth's population doesn't even question this human

      I have often contemplated whether some of these 2000 year old
      writings are descriptions of personal mystical experience, which
      these individuals interpreted (rightly or wrongly, just as we do)
      based upon their own personal experience in a world of Roman
      occupation, Jewish law, poverty, etc. One also has to think about
      the fact that Jesus, if he was actually one person (as you point
      out), and his initial followers may have been illiterate - and all
      that is written is oral tradition changed a thousand times and
      passed through several generations before it was written by persons
      who never had 'gnosis'. And it certainly was used by the Roman
      empire for control of its population - it was then that it seemed to
      take on more and more pagan/mystery religion ideas and ritual - so
      it was more easily incorporated into Roman society. And gnosis got
      forgotten in the process . Sophia seems forever doomed!

      Although this type of forum is great to discuss ideas, it also is
      difficult to get ideas across!

      Thanks for your comments.


      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
      > Hey Barbara
      > >>>I agree that it is facinating to try to understand what the
      > Gnostics of old thought - but understanding at the same time, that
      > this was not a homgeneous group, by any stretch.<<<
      > Very true, and VERY good point. There are important differences we
      > really need to try and keep in mind. However, there are also
      > that tie these groups together. When I attempt to outline systems
      > Gnosticism I try to do my best and say things like "this is a
      > Sethian version" or "this is Valentinian" when they do differ. On
      > the other hand, there are important things that draw these groups
      > into a single category, and I think we should not foget that
      > >>>I do think it's very curious that there were so many different
      > groups of Christian communities in the first few hundred years
      > so many disparate views. There was much controversy.<<<
      > I agree absolutely! In fact, it is the study of Gnosticism that
      > really brought this realization to the academic community at
      > However, it doesn't only apply to Gnostic groups. There were many
      > non-Gnostic Christian groups as well. I don't find it curious in
      > that I don't think there was as much of a genuine "system" from
      > very beginning. There is something called the "Eusebian Paradigm"
      > that says there was one original church. Scholars today generally
      > reject this "Eusebian Paradigm" because it just doesn't work with
      > the historical info we have right now.
      > >>>How could it be that Jesus left so many different impressions
      > among his followers? Surely what he was teaching had a hidden
      > meaning - some 'got it' or thought they did and others took his
      > teachings literally, interpreting it as best they could... on and
      > throughout the millennia.<<<
      > Well, outside the question of whether Jesus ever actually
      > historically existed, I think it actually makes sense. The info we
      > have shows even the very first generation of Christians looking at
      > this message in many different ways. This is common for purely
      > teaching.
      > >>>My whole point is this - it can only be informed speculation on
      > our part.<<<
      > True. However, isn't informed speculation at least a little better
      > than uninformed speculation? What I find so common today is that
      > many people talking about "Gnosticism" do so in an uninformed way.
      > It is not about whether I am right or wrong, I have learned from
      > people less technically educated on the subject and I admit it up
      > front. But, instead it is about whether somebody has simply really
      > taken the time to stop and think about it critically rather than
      > just trying to make the "Gnostics" fit thier own preconcieved idea.
      > >>>>Somewhere else in this website, someone made the comment that
      > personal experience is also necessary - not just special knoweldge
      > or understanding.<<<
      > I have made that point myself. HOWEVER, I have also found myself
      > having to make the point that it is NOT JUST personal experience
      > either. BOTH must be there. Failure on EITHER side is failure to
      > gain Gnosis (at least according to the historical meaning we see
      > the texts). There had been a common attempt today to
      equate "Gnosis"
      > with personal experience, and that simply is not what the word
      > in the Gnostic texts.
      > >>>That is the point I am trying to make (although not clearly, as
      > you point out). The only thing about which we can be sure is our
      > personal experience. We can then interpret the books in that
      > light.<<<
      > So you don't believe in the notion of the "Logos"? Does that mean
      > you don't think the Sophia ever "fell"?
      > PMCV
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic