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

8368Re: definition

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Oct 1, 2003
      I don't understand how you came by the notion of "potential heretics"
      from what I said Mangum.... but Lady Cari is right, I think you have
      misunderstood my meaning. You asked what our definition
      of "Gnosticism" was. Maybe I can boil it down a little to remove the

      We essentially use the general academic definition of the word, the
      one scholors use.


      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mangum Murdock
      <mangummurdock@y...> wrote:
      > If I understand you correctly this 'club' has established certain
      definitions of gnosticism and corresponding historical sects for
      discussion. In otherwords there are heretics among potential
      subscribers. I understand. Please accept my apologies for seeking
      information from the wrong group.
      > Mangum
      > pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      > Hello Magnum... let me jump in on this one.
      > As a scientific minded person, I am betting you will find the
      > definition of the term "Gnosticism" to be quite concice. It is true
      > that there are a lot of definitions floating around out there, but
      > few of them have much to do with academic usages.... this club uses
      > slightly softened version of the Messina colloquium's springboard.
      > Gnosticism being one of a number of late antiquities groups who's
      > cosmogeny (emanationist/biblical demiurgy), anthropogeny (with the
      > entrapment of the spirit), and soteriology (internal recognition of
      > the connection to the "Bythos" or apophatic source) are related, as
      > well as thier cultural/philosophical backdrop (neoplatonism in the
      > semitic or biblical syncratic venue)
      > In this club then, when we say "Gnosticism" we are talking about a
      > number of historical sects from the late antiquities, but we do
      > extend that also (for the sake of the club's purpose) to the modern
      > Neognostics who feel themselves drawn by these
      traditional "Gnostics".
      > I would point out that it is generally scholastic concensus that
      > Cathars are not Gnostic because thier soteriology is divergent
      > is the same reason many academicians also now exclude Manichaeans
      > Marcionism, etc..). I know there are modern writers who repeat the
      > equation still with the Cathars (such as T. Churton recently in his
      > companion to the BPS series on Gnosticism, and the medievalist that
      > magusadeptus recently mentioned, William Eamon, niether of which
      > specialists in the field), but most of them are simply not up to
      > on the critical evaluation of the movement.
      > PMCV
      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mangum Murdock
      > <mangummurdock@y...> wrote:
      > > Hi all,
      > > It appears that we have a slightly different opinion on the
      > definition of Gnosticism probably based on the multitude of
      > historians/writers who define these various religious sects. I am a
      > science oriented person so in order to gain information from you
      > folks I need to know the most simplist definition of Gnosticism you
      > have. The following is mine subject to change....
      > >
      > > "the personal revelation that leads the soul to perfection
      > the knowledge of God"
      > >
      > > Mangum
      > >
      > >
      > > ---------------------------------
      > > Do you Yahoo!?
      > > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
      > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      > ---------------------------------
      > Do you Yahoo!?
      > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic