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

5890Re: [Gnosticism] Re: Thomasine Metaphor or universal microcosm?

Expand Messages
  • Al Pinto
    May 18, 2002
      > Hmmm, two different beings?  Play, I'd be careful how these quotes
      > are interpreted.  For instance, the book
      of John can be seen through
      > Gnostic as well as Christian (orthodox)
      exegesis.  As far as a
      > Christian interpretation, "God" might have
      different aspects, but
      > according to Christians, there is but one God,
      who is also the
      > creator of our world.  The idea of a mythological
      creator deity, such
      > as a Gnostic demiurge, separate from the "one God"
      is a heretical
      > concept according to Christian
      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 has
      > found a corpse.'" (GTh, #56)   I don't think the world Jesus
      > referring to had anything to do with the natural world."
      > But we humans do not live in a vacuum.  Our
      humanness has context
      > within a physical world and within physical
      Agreed. But to whom is our humanness given to if not to ourselves.
      > Yes, it's true
      > that one can read different levels of meaning
      into the metaphors, but
      > spiritually transcending our physical existence
      is certainly one
      > prevailing Gnostic theme.  This does not mean
      that we should hate our
      > bodies.  Our experiential paths do involve
      earthly 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?
      > "Do not fear the flesh or love it.  If you
      fear it, it will dominate
      > you; if you love it, it will swallow you up
      and 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
      truly exists.
      > And it is what one receives in exchange for the
      circumstances of this
      > world:
      > And a migration into
      > For incorruptibility [is streaming] down upon darkness,
      swallowing it.
      > And fullness is filling up its lack
      > -
      these are the symbols and the likenesses of resurrection:
      > This is what
      brings about goodness."

      > This brings me to your mention of the Essenes, Play.  The
      > were a sect that followed rigorous asceticism and had faith in
      > God of Israel.  They maintained strong apocalyptic views
      (which would
      > be at variance with a Gnostic worldview).  Whether or
      not an
      > historical Jesus had any dealings with the Essenes is a matter
      > debate.
      > In fact, whether or not an historical
      Jesus even existed is generally
      > not so important to many Gnostics as is
      the 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 be
      transcended, if we can somehow
      > raise that veil, split the fog or no
      longer use the filter that sees
      > error in things, I think we would see
      the perfection in it all. I
      > imagine that the Ineffable Infinite sees it
      that way." (Play)
      > Actually, Play, I imagine the Ineffable
      Infinite is perfection, and
      > that once the veil is rent, we humans
      transcend the error, the lack,
      > of the material world of
      imperfection.  The veil or fog was what
      > blinded us to what truly
      exists.  Our shift of sense of self while
      > still in our physical
      state, 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?
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic