PMCV,

Thank you for your patience. I think we may be talking at cross purposes

though, let's see if we can resolve this...

> If a man in Germany discovered a text claiming to be written by

> Newton about Calculus.... is the question of the validity of the

> author going to be the same as the question as to whether the author

> understood the math?

Well, I'm no mathematician, but I believe that all mathematical statements

are either true or false, with no room for disagreement. For instance,

2+2=5 is just plain wrong, no matter what spin one puts on it. Can the same

be said of Gnosis? If so, then what is the "formula" for working it out?

If I knew that, my question would be answered.

> Gnosis may be truth, but that does not mean that truth is Gnosis.

Oh yeah, agreed. Absolutey. 2+2=4 is a true statement, but 2+2=4 is not

synonymous with truth in general.

> ... you say that some [Gnostic texts]

> that fit the definition contain truth while others do not. I mean....

> which texts specifically are "Gnostic" but are utterly void of any

> truth in your book?

No, not exactly, I say that I do not assume all texts classed as "Gnostic"

are all _necessarily_ equally valid expressions of Gnosis. Note that I'm

not saying specifically that some are and some arn't, as that's precisely

what I'm trying to find out. However, you said 'The question of whether a

text has "Gnosis" or not cannot be answered unless the reader has a good

understanding of what "Gnosis" actually is.' I suppose that answers my

question, then, in a way - though it does put me in a sort of catch 22

position. Maybe this is just something I'll have to work out myself.

Gavin Riggott