5890Re: [Gnosticism] Re: Thomasine Metaphor or universal microcosm?
- May 18, 2002> Hmmm, two different beings? Play, I'd be careful how these quotes
> are interpreted. For instance, the bookof John can be seen through
> Gnostic as well as Christian (orthodox)exegesis. As far as a
> Christian interpretation, "God" might havedifferent aspects, but
> according to Christians, there is but one God,who is also the
> creator of our world. The idea of a mythologicalcreator deity, such
> as a Gnostic demiurge, separate from the "one God"is a heretical
> concept according to Christianorthodoxy.I said different not separate. We are all different but not separate. We are connected. Jesus was different than God but not separate. The prophets were different but not separate. Etc..etc... Our hands are different than our eyes but not separate from our physical being. Do you see the metaphor?
> " `Jesus said, `Whoever has become acquainted with the world haswas
> found a corpse.'" (GTh, #56) I don't think the world Jesus
> referring to had anything to do with the natural world."(Play)
>humanness has context
> But we humans do not live in a vacuum. Our
> within a physical world and within physicalbodies.Agreed. But to whom is our humanness given to if not to ourselves.
into the metaphors, but> Yes, it's true
> that one can read different levels of meaning
> spiritually transcending our physical existenceis certainly one
> prevailing Gnostic theme. This does not meanthat we should hate our
> bodies. Our experiential paths do involveearthly experiences after
> all.Agreed but what does this have to do with loving nature? It is ok to hug trees and want to see that our Mother Earth isn't abused, isn't it?
>fear it, it will dominate
> "Do not fear the flesh or love it. If you
> you; if you love it, it will swallow you upand strangle you."
> (Gospel of Philip)Agreed. But I wasn't talking about the flesh although the body houses the soul however temporarily. That is why it was also written that it should be treated as a temple. But I was talking about nature and what is natural about the laws that govern it. How it seeks balance and harmony. These are also important to learn and to love for they are representatives of God's Word which is what made them. When we can't find God in ourselves, a good place to look is towards what is natural, other than ourselves. Because it is there too.> The Gnostic ascension is an inner, spiritual one.Agreed. But not without the help of outer experience and knowledge as input for processing. At least in these bodies. It has some value in this context too. No?
> _Treatise on Resurrection_ discusses the nature of resurrection.~
> "It is what stands at rest:
> And the revealing of what
> And it is what one receives in exchange for thecircumstances of this
> And a migration into
> For incorruptibility [is streaming] down upon darkness,swallowing it.
> And fullness is filling up its lackthese are the symbols and the likenesses of resurrection:
> This is whatbrings about goodness."Interesting.
> This brings me to your mention of the Essenes, Play. TheEssenes
> were a sect that followed rigorous asceticism and had faith inthe
> God of Israel. They maintained strong apocalyptic views(which would
> be at variance with a Gnostic worldview). Whether ornot an
> historical Jesus had any dealings with the Essenes is a matterof
> debate.Jesus even existed is generally
> In fact, whether or not an historical
> not so important to many Gnostics as isthe salvific meaning of the
> Christ consciousness.Agreed but Christ consciousness is not separate from the Christ who could be you or anyone once that kind of consciousness becomes fully manifest in your being. I think that if there is a Jesus and he heard you say what you just said above, he would be very pleased. To him, to believe in the message is no different than believing in him. His message was who he was and who we can be.
> "However if that perspective can betranscended, if we can somehow
> raise that veil, split the fog or nolonger use the filter that sees
> error in things, I think we would seethe perfection in it all. I
> imagine that the Ineffable Infinite sees itthat way." (Play)
>Infinite is perfection, and
> Actually, Play, I imagine the Ineffable
> that once the veil is rent, we humanstranscend the error, the lack,
> of the material world ofimperfection. The veil or fog was what
> blinded us to what trulyexists. Our shift of sense of self while
> still in our physicalstate, not waiting for violent "end times,"
> then allows spiritual"fullness" to fill up the "lack," of our world.I noticed that Jesus, after he was risen from the dead, didn't stick around too much longer before he "ascended" to heaven. **Grin** . But I also imagine that we, even in this present flawed form, are pieces and parts of this "Ineffable Infinite" which is perfect for nothing that is or isn't doesn't belong to it. What does that make us then in the eyes of what is infinite? Who thinks we are flawed and with error? Us or God?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>