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

7509Re: Nag Hammadi codexes

Expand Messages
  • ernststrohregenmantelrad2000
    Apr 15, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, please bear with me because this is a long post.

      In post #7463

      >>>>Me: I see that this all got started from a post by New Age
      pseudo-
      gnostic wannabee again confusing his new age "evolution of
      conscieous" crap as a pale rendering of Gnosticism. And then
      that turned into bickering on the definition of "pistis" (BTW,
      looking back at posts, I felt like reading Irenaeus because the
      posts were erased yet some quotes were cited to refute.)<<

      Gerry:
      The only posts that were deleted had no purpose here. They
      were
      spam. There's actually another recent one I'm considering
      eliminating from the archives, but from now on, I'll be sure to
      forward all spam directly to your mailbox prior to deletion so you
      can lord over it as you please.<<<<

      I was just commenting on the how reading posts which were
      replies to the delated post reminded me of reading polmetical
      works of heresiologists. I was not commenting on the validity of
      erased posts or their relevence (as you see them) in this egroup.
      In fact if you are so concerned about spams why don't you erase
      #7361. (As of the time of this writing it is not erased.). This post
      is a spam as much as those that were posted by the delated ex-
      member Weyne. As for the posts in question they were Gerry's
      post #7304 which was a reply to #7298 and PMCV's post #7300
      which was reply to #7299. Now one post by Weyne was purely a
      post with just a link to a web site of a book (which he was so
      enthuse about or pushing everyone to buy it. It depeses on one's
      perspective) but IMO #7298 and #7299 included some
      information besides the link to the aforementioned web site.
      Granted that information might have been a rationalization to the
      web site but still it gave, as far as I can see from archives inspite
      of delated posts, some sort of discussion over the term
      "Gnosticism". But I really can not tell because the
      aforementioned posts were erased and judging from the replies
      on what really did Weyne post lead me to guessing because in
      replies his quotes are not in entirely and they may be quotted out
      of context. AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY I COMMENTED AS
      SUCH. JUST COMMENTING THAT THIS INTERACTION
      REMINDED ME OF IRENAEUS NOT I WANT TO READ SPAM AS
      YOU SARCASTICALLY STATED.

      Gerry #7463

      >>Thank you for your "clarification," but are you still somehow
      unaware
      that my conceptual distinction was never intended to be a
      technical
      definition, even after two people have pointed that out?<<<

      Is it right to make the distingtion between technical and non-
      technical term when you are discussing something historical
      and needs to be explained with definiton as you are doing with
      Incognito? This I find to be confusing. This is what you wrote in
      #7390 before your "sarcastic, non-technical" definition.

      > >>If sin isn't sin and faith isn't faith and creator isn't creator,
      than what is it?<<(Incognito)
      >
      >
      >
      > Guess I goofed again. By including "damnation" (which you
      seemed to notice was out of place) in that string of redundancy, I
      was trying to show that if the mainstream definitions were the
      only ones available, then those groups sheltered under the
      umbrella of Gnosticism would be no different from the
      conventional orthodoxy. Are these differences not what we've
      been pointing out during this discussion of "faith"?
      >

      From this you draw up the supposed "sarcastic, non-technical"
      i.e. caricature definitions to show Incognito that these terms
      were different between Gnostics and so called pistics. I have no
      problem with that and I also see your point; however, what I
      pointing out is that (and I think this was what Incognito also was
      asserting -tell me if I'm wrong) that the difference between
      Gnostics and so called pistics came NOT as the result of
      different differnition of terms that you discussed (faith, sin,
      creator and damnation(!)) but as consequence resulting from
      their respective cosmology. So if you mean definition those
      terms are same for both Gnostics and Orthodox but the
      consequese is different. I feel you are confusing those two.



      >> BTW, if we
      stick to your literalist interpretation of "sin," then the only valid
      context we can allow for its discussion is on the field while taking
      aim at a bull's-eye.<<

      Again the term "sin" is same for both Gnostics and Orthodox.
      And thank you for your sarcastic comment but you know full well
      what I'm aiming at here (a pun intended). For both groups "sin",
      no matter what, means "missing the target set by God". Humans
      fell grory of "God" (or Pleroma in case of Gnostics) no matter
      what. That is the sin. The difference comes when ones goes
      from there-what to do with "sin". What is the consequese of "sin",
      How "sin" came about" and What is the remedty. In fact besides
      Pagels, I heard the defintion of "sin" as "missing the target" from
      two people. One is Stephan Hoeller in one of his talk and
      another is a Luteran paster in a church I used to attend. Now as
      you say those two are typical resprentive of your "Gnostics" and
      so called "pistic" yet they used the same definition of "sin as
      missing the target" And to tie with your discussion with Incognito
      on other terms, faith, etc... is also same in definition.


      >>Furthermore, if you think I pulled the
      understanding of "sin" as "ignorance" out of a hat, you're again
      mistaken.<<

      No, I didn't. Did I say that? Look again. I specially stated that it
      might be floating around the general discussion and perhasp
      from the TV documentary "Gnostics" in the post.



      >>If you don't like the term, Ernst, you're free to leave anytime.
      There's really no point in you remaining to discuss Gnosticism if
      you
      truly see no difference between those groups and the rest of
      Christianity. On the other hand, if you can remove your head
      from
      your definitions long enough to realize that certain
      generalizations
      can indeed be recognized, then the whole point of having
      a "Gnosticism" category at Yahoo might just be validated.<<

      Why not liking the term "pistic" warrent my departure from the
      group? The term like Gnosticism is not really cleary concensus
      term. There are differences of opinion on the term and what it
      entails (for example like I said how about Marcion?) plus it was
      the term not by used by those in question. If one goes by what
      you saying then a person should also leave because one is not
      happy with the definition of "Gnosticism". You are putting words
      in my mouth if I think there are no difference between Gnosticism
      and what became of Orthodox. What I was saying there is that
      the term pistic is a misnormer and shouldn't used at all (that's
      why I don't used it) and my feeling is that it shouldn't be used at
      all because it will create the confusion of equating what became
      as Orthodox with 'pistic' as some group. That is not seeing
      orthodox and gnostics and the same entities.

      BTW, when I created the club there was no yahoo category
      "Gnosticism". So basing that as one one the rationalization is not
      good.
    • Show all 28 messages in this topic