Re: Hi everyone
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
> > >>What is meant by: "A gnostic no longer relies on
> --- In email@example.com, "ignisapocryphon"<jstatom@o...>
> > In response to question number 2... I think a lot of that phrase
> > to do with the recently discovered Naj Hammadi library. Gnostics
> > longer have to rely on word-of-mouth to get their ideas passedfrom
> > generation to generation, which has already proved devastatingto
> > someCould it not go deeper and further?
> > cultures and religions.
When you think about it, the natural sciences and the humanities
(including history) rely on testimony. In other words, with gnosis,
scripture and documentation become redundant since you've tapped in
to the source of Truth and fully appreciate the structure of
perception (among other things, of course).
> The above passage cited by Pneumen resembles something attributed
> Fragment 39, on John 4:42
> . . . At first people believe in the Savior because they are lead
> that point by others, but when they encounter his words they nothe
> longer believe because of human testimony alone, but because of
> Truth itself.That is what I thought. I was sort of hoping to provoke a longer
> In a nutshell, this captures the value of gnosis for Gnostics,What about Grace? Is this similar to what the Gnostics meant by
> demonstrating its role in the redemption of pneumatics, while
> psychics depend on faith and works for their salvation.
gnosis? Or is it a variant of faith? Certainly, Orthodox theologians
distinguish between Grace and Faith. Any evidence that the
Valentinians made a distinction between Grace and Gnosis?
> If you care to further explore these perspectives in theValentinian
> system, Cari began an interesting discussion last winterconcerning
> Heracleon's Gnostic interpretation of the Gospel of John:Thanks for the link, Gerry. I was rereading John just yesterday and
this is very helpful.