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

The Genesis Factor

Expand Messages
  • sahms2
    I ve been reading the Bible (Genesis,) with two deities in mind. Good experiment! Also, I ve been reading The Genesis Factor and have many questions, but I d
    Message 1 of 16 , Sep 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I've been reading the Bible (Genesis,) with two deities in mind. Good
      experiment!

      Also, I've been reading The Genesis Factor and have many questions,
      but I'd like to ask two for now. =)

      1) Do the Gnostics believe that the demiurge is evil? or good?
      2) I read that the demiurge came from Sofia. Who is she? I'm not
      sure I understand the origin of Sofia or the demiurge.


      Thanks!
      CS
    • pmcvflag
      Hey CS Well, I am not familiar with this book, but I can deal with your questions. You ask.... ... Both, neither.... there is more than one form of Gnosticism,
      Message 2 of 16 , Sep 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hey CS

        Well, I am not familiar with this book, but I can deal with your
        questions. You ask....

        >>>1) Do the Gnostics believe that the demiurge is evil? or good?

        Both, neither.... there is more than one form of Gnosticism, CS. For
        instance, Sethian texts talk about God as a "Fool" (Saklas) and place
        him in a very negative light. Valentinians, on the other hand, valued
        the Demiurge as something with an important purpose, good (or at
        least ambiguous) but not the true spiritual source.

        >>>>2) I read that the demiurge came from Sofia. Who is she? I'm not
        sure I understand the origin of Sofia or the demiurge.

        Sophia is one of the primary figures in Gnosticism, CS, and it is not
        a question that is easy to explain. I am guessing that this is the
        first book you have read that talks about Gnosticism? Sophia is
        impossible to avoid in any study of Gnosticism.

        Like the Demiurge, or the Christ, there are a few ways of dealing
        with Sophia. She is, in some sources, the one who turns towards a
        reflection and concieves the Demiurge by mistake. However, she is
        also a Christ figure as well... the wife of the Logos. She often has
        more than one aspect... the high unfallen Sophia as one of the first
        emanations, and the lower Sophia as the last.

        Actually, this conversation will be long, I suspect... so let me
        leave it here for some other people to jump in on.

        PMCV
      • Gerry
        ... I m pretty sure CS must be referring to Hoeller s article, if that gives a better idea of the context. Gerry
        Message 3 of 16 , Sep 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > Hey CS
          >
          > Well, I am not familiar with this book, but I can deal with your
          > questions. You ask....
          >



          I'm pretty sure CS must be referring to Hoeller's article, if that
          gives a better idea of the context.

          Gerry
        • sahms2
          ... PMCV, I was referring to the article, The Genesis Factor, by Hoeller. Thanks for answering my questions. ....Okay...now. I m really confused. In the
          Message 4 of 16 , Sep 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:

            > Well, I am not familiar with this book, but I can deal with your
            > questions. You ask....


            PMCV,

            I was referring to the article, The Genesis Factor, by Hoeller.

            Thanks for answering my questions. ....Okay...now. I'm really
            confused. In the article, Hoeller says the following about demiurge:

            "When discussing the story of Noah and the flood, author Karen
            Armstrong (A History of God, 1993), as a panelist on Moyers's
            program, asserted that God is "not some nice, cozy daddy in the sky,"
            but rather a being who decidedly behaves frequently "in an evil
            way.".........

            ............"With his actions in connection with the flood, Armstrong
            said, God originated the idea of justifiable genocide. Hitler and
            Stalin, one might deduce, acted on the instruction of such stories as
            that of the flood and of Sodom and Gomorrah when instituting the
            holocaust and the camps of the Gulag. Had the panelists called on
            Gnostic scriptures, they could have quoted many precedents for
            Armstrong's criticism of the vengeful God of the Old Testament."

            Question: If demiurge ( the God from the OT) is evil, why would he
            destroy evil?

            Also, I read the Bible with two deities in mind and have questions.

            In the Bible (KJV)....

            Genesis 1:26
            God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let
            them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
            air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
            creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

            Question: Why would a jealous God give man domain of all the earth?

            Question: If the God from the OT is evil and he created man like him
            doesn't that make man evil?

            ---------------------------------------------
            Genesis 2:9
            "And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is
            pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in
            the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

            Question: Why would the demiurge grow the tree of knowledge if he
            didn't want man to eat from it? Wouldn't it have been easier if the
            tree never existed, then man would have never acquired the knowledge
            that demiurge was trying to hide from man?

            I have lots more questions, but I'd appreciate your answers to these
            first. =)

            Thanks a bunch!
            CS
          • pmcvflag
            Gerry states.... ... gives a better idea of the context.
            Message 5 of 16 , Sep 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Gerry states....

              >>>"I'm pretty sure CS must be referring to Hoeller's article, if that
              gives a better idea of the context."<<<

              AH, ok.... that would make things more clear. I thought it was some
              book. Honestly, I am probably the last person here to know about the
              Hoeller articles in spite of the good work that has come out of his
              order. Sometimes I should probably catch up in that area since it is
              quite influential for many of our members here (and for so many
              people who are interested in Gnosticism in general), so I am glad
              when people correct me when I miss something there.

              PMCV
            • lady_caritas
              ... sky, ... Armstrong ... as ... let ... the ... him ... evil. ... knowledge ... these ... Hello, CS. Before PMCV has an opportunity to respond, perhaps it
              Message 6 of 16 , Sep 3, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "sahms2" <sahms2@y...> wrote:
                > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                >
                > > Well, I am not familiar with this book, but I can deal with your
                > > questions. You ask....
                >
                >
                > PMCV,
                >
                > I was referring to the article, The Genesis Factor, by Hoeller.
                >
                > Thanks for answering my questions. ....Okay...now. I'm really
                > confused. In the article, Hoeller says the following about
                demiurge:
                >
                > "When discussing the story of Noah and the flood, author Karen
                > Armstrong (A History of God, 1993), as a panelist on Moyers's
                > program, asserted that God is "not some nice, cozy daddy in the
                sky,"
                > but rather a being who decidedly behaves frequently "in an evil
                > way.".........
                >
                > ............"With his actions in connection with the flood,
                Armstrong
                > said, God originated the idea of justifiable genocide. Hitler and
                > Stalin, one might deduce, acted on the instruction of such stories
                as
                > that of the flood and of Sodom and Gomorrah when instituting the
                > holocaust and the camps of the Gulag. Had the panelists called on
                > Gnostic scriptures, they could have quoted many precedents for
                > Armstrong's criticism of the vengeful God of the Old Testament."
                >
                > Question: If demiurge ( the God from the OT) is evil, why would he
                > destroy evil?
                >
                > Also, I read the Bible with two deities in mind and have questions.
                >
                > In the Bible (KJV)....
                >
                > Genesis 1:26
                > God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
                let
                > them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
                the
                > air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
                > creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
                >
                > Question: Why would a jealous God give man domain of all the earth?
                >
                > Question: If the God from the OT is evil and he created man like
                him
                > doesn't that make man evil?
                >
                > ---------------------------------------------
                > Genesis 2:9
                > "And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is
                > pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in
                > the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and
                evil."
                >
                > Question: Why would the demiurge grow the tree of knowledge if he
                > didn't want man to eat from it? Wouldn't it have been easier if the
                > tree never existed, then man would have never acquired the
                knowledge
                > that demiurge was trying to hide from man?
                >
                > I have lots more questions, but I'd appreciate your answers to
                these
                > first. =)
                >
                > Thanks a bunch!
                > CS


                Hello, CS. Before PMCV has an opportunity to respond, perhaps it
                would be helpful to delve more into the mythology of the Gnostics.
                As PMCV previously noted, the Valentinian demiurge is different
                functionally than the demiurge seen in Sethian Gnosticism.

                Here is a link to a discussion thereof, also beginning to address the
                role of Sophia in Valentinian mythology (important to note that this
                mythology is *metaphorical*):
                http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Demiurge.htm
                and some additional reading on Sophia:
                http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Sophia_Eve.htm

                Lastly, I'm a bit concerned about the direction of recent discussion
                regarding two deities prevalent in the orthodox Bible. Even though
                we see the *term* "god" used in Gnostic literature, the
                Gnostic "father" was not the loving, all-powerful, all-knowing
                godbeing, deity, of the traditional Christians. The Gnostic "father"
                was unknown (#10084),... and as PMCV wrote (#10101) "the non-
                anthropomorphic, unthinking, unfeeling, unbeing. The First Father....
                which is not a `God'." I suppose it doesn't matter what you call
                this unknown, but for instance, I wouldn't choose to use G-D, which
                implies to me something to be feared, and of course this is just my
                own irrational bias. But what happens to me if I add a vowel?

                Cari

                P. S. I thought that the OT god was "jealous" of *other* gods. Back
                in those days, most gods lived amicably together, but this new god
                wanted none of that. He wanted to be recognized as the one and only
                true god.
              • sahms2
                ... Cari, I appreciate the links, but before I read any further I d like to get a few points clear in my head. Unfortunately, I takes me awhile to digest the
                Message 7 of 16 , Sep 3, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
                  wrote:

                  >Hello, CS. Before PMCV has an opportunity to respond, perhaps it
                  >would be helpful to delve more into the mythology of the Gnostics.
                  >As PMCV previously noted, the Valentinian demiurge is different
                  >functionally than the demiurge seen in Sethian Gnosticism.

                  >Here is a link to a discussion thereof, also beginning to address the
                  >role of Sophia in Valentinian mythology (important to note that this
                  >mythology is *metaphorical*):
                  >http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Demiurge.htm
                  >and some additional reading on Sophia:
                  >http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Sophia_Eve.htm



                  Cari, I appreciate the links, but before I read any further I'd like
                  to get a few points clear in my head. Unfortunately, I takes me
                  awhile to digest the readings about Gnosticism. It would be helpful
                  if someone could answer these questions first. =)

                  I do realize that additional reading will clear up a lot for me, but
                  again...a quick response will help as well.

                  Thanks Again!
                  CS
                • annie
                  CS, I found On the origin of the world and The Hypostasis of the Archons both to be particularly enlightening in regard to the story of creation and the
                  Message 8 of 16 , Sep 3, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    CS,
                     
                    I found 'On the origin of the world' and 'The Hypostasis of the Archons' both to be particularly enlightening in regard to the story of creation and the underlying basis of the struggles of man.
                     
                    This is in answer to Cari's reflections about using G-d in my references:  I probably wrote more about this than you ever wanted to know in some other posts I send before I read this, but not really addressing the things you mentioned.  More than anything it is a long standing habit of convenience and my own attachments which I find comfort in. I've never thought of the force that you refer to as the Father (and I do as well, when speaking) as anything even in the same neighborhood as fear, and I didn't realize that way of spelling it might have that connotation.  I don't really understand the fear for the OT diety either, but not for the same reasons, I just never felt he had any jurisdiction for scaring me.  He wasn't anything I had a use for, either literal or symbolic.  I remember being small and hearing about the flood for one of the first times, when they got to the part where he was sorry he'd destroyed the world with the flood and gave us a rainbow, I remember thinking 'this god's not very good at being god' and that was the end of that.   The reason leave the vowel out of G-d is because it makes it a non word.  I need a new representation, easy to type.   I think maybe just The.   All this explaining has me less attached by the minute.  :o)
                     
                    love from annie
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 9:53 AM
                    Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: The Genesis Factor

                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "sahms2" <sahms2@y...> wrote:
                    > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                    >
                    > > Well, I am not familiar with this book, but I can deal with your
                    > > questions. You ask....
                    >
                    >
                    > PMCV,
                    >
                    > I was referring to the article, The Genesis Factor, by Hoeller.
                    >
                    > Thanks for answering my questions. ....Okay...now. I'm really
                    > confused. In the article, Hoeller says the following about
                    demiurge:
                    >
                    > "When discussing the story of Noah and the flood, author Karen
                    > Armstrong (A History of God, 1993), as a panelist on Moyers's
                    > program, asserted that God is "not some nice, cozy daddy in the
                    sky,"
                    > but rather a being who decidedly behaves frequently "in an evil
                    > way.".........
                    >
                    > ............"With his actions in connection with the flood,
                    Armstrong
                    > said, God originated the idea of justifiable genocide. Hitler and
                    > Stalin, one might deduce, acted on the instruction of such stories
                    as
                    > that of the flood and of Sodom and Gomorrah when instituting the
                    > holocaust and the camps of the Gulag. Had the panelists called on
                    > Gnostic scriptures, they could have quoted many precedents for
                    > Armstrong's criticism of the vengeful God of the Old Testament."
                    >
                    > Question: If demiurge ( the God from the OT) is evil, why would he
                    > destroy evil?
                    >
                    > Also, I read the Bible with two deities in mind and have questions.
                    >
                    > In the Bible (KJV)....
                    >
                    > Genesis 1:26
                    > God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
                    let
                    > them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
                    the
                    > air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
                    > creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
                    >
                    > Question: Why would a jealous God give man domain of all the earth?
                    >
                    > Question: If the God from the OT is evil and he created man like
                    him
                    > doesn't that make man evil?
                    >
                    > ---------------------------------------------
                    > Genesis 2:9 
                    > "And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is
                    > pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in
                    > the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and
                    evil."
                    >
                    > Question: Why would the demiurge grow the tree of knowledge if he
                    > didn't want man to eat from it? Wouldn't it have been easier if the
                    > tree never existed, then man would have never acquired the
                    knowledge
                    > that demiurge was trying to hide from man?
                    >
                    > I have lots more questions, but I'd appreciate your answers to
                    these
                    > first. =)
                    >
                    > Thanks a bunch!
                    > CS


                    Hello, CS.  Before PMCV has an opportunity to respond, perhaps it
                    would be helpful to delve more into the mythology of the Gnostics. 
                    As PMCV previously noted, the Valentinian demiurge is different
                    functionally than the demiurge seen in Sethian Gnosticism. 

                    Here is a link to a discussion thereof, also beginning to address the
                    role of Sophia in Valentinian mythology (important to note that this
                    mythology is *metaphorical*):
                    http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Demiurge.htm
                    and some additional reading on Sophia:
                    http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Sophia_Eve.htm

                    Lastly, I'm a bit concerned about the direction of recent discussion
                    regarding two deities prevalent in the orthodox Bible.  Even though
                    we see the *term* "god" used in Gnostic literature, the
                    Gnostic "father" was not the loving, all-powerful, all-knowing
                    godbeing, deity, of the traditional Christians.  The Gnostic "father"
                    was unknown (#10084),... and as PMCV wrote (#10101) "the non-
                    anthropomorphic, unthinking, unfeeling, unbeing. The First Father....
                    which is not a `God'."  I suppose it doesn't matter what you call
                    this unknown, but for instance, I wouldn't choose to use G-D, which
                    implies to me something to be feared, and of course this is just my
                    own irrational bias.  But what happens to me if I add a vowel?

                    Cari

                    P. S.  I thought that the OT god was "jealous" of *other* gods.  Back
                    in those days, most gods lived amicably together, but this new god
                    wanted none of that.  He wanted to be recognized as the one and only
                    true god.



                  • annie
                    CS, I meant to send the links for the reading I recommended, but got all caught up in my nomenclature issue. lol http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/origin.html
                    Message 9 of 16 , Sep 3, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      CS,
                       
                       
                      I meant to send the links for the reading I recommended, but got all caught up in my nomenclature issue. lol
                       
                       
                      this one is one I really like, it's a expansion of all things perfect and female, even that which is not perfect is perfect, it's beautiful, IMO
                      It is about Sophia and I also find in it that which I always believed was the truth behind Mary Magdalene.
                       
                      love from annie
                       
                       
                    • annie
                      Hi--here s my answers that I discovered when I was looking into these matters, hope it helps. Question: If demiurge ( the God from the OT) is evil, why would
                      Message 10 of 16 , Sep 3, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi--here's my answers that I discovered when I was looking into these matters, hope it helps.
                         
                        Question: If demiurge ( the God from the OT) is evil, why would he
                        destroy evil?
                         
                         
                        The evil is not quite the dogmatic idea of sinister and foul demonic evil--more like the evil which comes from being a 'good' thing--a spark of divine light--imprisoned within a fleshly enclosure.  In the symbolism of duality and good and evil, evil is the fact of being made of matter, which is subject to death, and which is the opposite of life, which is good, and in not composed of matter. 
                        All that boils down to is an illustrated warning for us, that we must not become attached to the physical reality of the world we live in, to a larger degree than we aspire to our real reality, which is of a spiritual and eternal nature.  If we attach ourselves to this world, it will destroy us from our own enslavement to it's false riches, which will all pass away.
                         
                        And so the OT god, besides just being doomed to lose in this comparison, up against Christ, is by default, evil, and he born of this world and cannot ever become 'good', because good cannot become from evil.
                         
                        That's how I see salvation, also, that eternal life as it is found in our spirit form, is not a gift given by the bloodshed of a violent death of a peaceful savior, but it comes from the savior rising again which is the real key, he is showing us that our flesh is a outer garment, that is guaranteed to death, but if we trust and understand that we can take this outer cloak off, the eternal part of us will be revealed.  The gift of his blood would be more in the sense that he took on the dangers inherent in putting on the fleshly garment of death, to become human so that we could know that what He did, we can also do.  And thus we are saved by his revelation that we are spirit trapped within physical enclosures, not by a murderous sacrifice of blood.  That's ugly and doesn't hold up in the final analysis

                        Also, I read the Bible with two deities in mind and have questions.
                        In the Bible (KJV)....

                        Genesis 1:26
                        God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let
                        them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
                        air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
                        creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

                        Question: Why would a jealous God give man domain of all the earth?
                         
                        I never thought about it too much, I just figured it was bribery, payments put up against the possibility of being all alone and unloved by anyone.  That is the biggest fear behind the jealousy of the ot god.  He's just basically lonely, he knows he won't get to live for eternity like even those he pretends to be mightier than, if they realize the truth.  He can't stand it if they realize too soon and reject him.

                        Question: If the God from the OT is evil and he created man like him
                        doesn't that make man evil?
                         
                        The 'image' is the 'modeled form' of the authorities, which are the archons of the world, and that refers to our physical parts.  The 'likeness' is actually the likeness of the divine light of the Christ of which the archons caught a glimpse of, and became infatuated, which brought about eros, and sexual love, and flowers and all sorts of 'lovely ' things.  Anyway we are in the bodies of 'beasts',  as in physical (think how coarse we truly must seem to another who'd never been in a heavy thick body of flesh, living like beasts, it's just a perspective thing, really), but our likeness is that of Christ (which is our spirit.)
                         
                        As far as the realms of earth and the 7 heavens which are physical creation and by default, evil, the OT god is actually the best one they've got.   And so he's in charge and not in bad favor, really, of any sort that's preventable.   His destiny is to be destroyed, though, and there's nothing that can be done.  That's why we should be glad we have free will. 
                        Anyway, IMO, I think he tries his best to be good and kind, and above all fair according to the laws he's given.  But he seems not more more than human himself, and at times you might almost feel sorry for the guy.
                         
                        In this whole story, my personal take on it, when it gets to the part of Christ coming, I think initially the OT god welcomes him to heaven, and it takes a little bit before it dawns on him that he is automatically usurped by Christ, again the bad luck of a will that's not free, and then the jealousy really kicks in, because he knows his days are numbered.  Then things get a little ugly and he thinks killing Christ will fix things but these archons are short sighted and act in haste without too much forethought (no will, no planning, either , I guess) and if you carry it this far you might as well extend his role to the end and cast him as the false prophet who makes everyone worship the beast who is the devil, by falsifying religion based on an hasty decision to kill Christ, which fails miserably, but they attempt to regroup by setting up the myth of a blind belief in a blood sacrifice saving everyone who goes to church, but in the end, this fails, too, for the truth will be revealed  and all that is hidden will come to the light. 


                        The last part is my own understanding but the first parts are my understandings which I found in the Nag Hammadi texts I linked to earlier today.


                         
                        love from annie
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: sahms2
                        Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 12:44 AM
                        Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: The Genesis Factor

                        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:

                        > Well, I am not familiar with this book, but I can deal with your
                        > questions. You ask....


                        PMCV,

                        I was referring to the article, The Genesis Factor, by Hoeller.

                        Thanks for answering my questions. ....Okay...now. I'm really
                        confused. In the article, Hoeller says the following about demiurge:

                        "When discussing the story of Noah and the flood, author Karen
                        Armstrong (A History of God, 1993), as a panelist on Moyers's
                        program, asserted that God is "not some nice, cozy daddy in the sky,"
                        but rather a being who decidedly behaves frequently "in an evil
                        way.".........

                        ............"With his actions in connection with the flood, Armstrong
                        said, God originated the idea of justifiable genocide. Hitler and
                        Stalin, one might deduce, acted on the instruction of such stories as
                        that of the flood and of Sodom and Gomorrah when instituting the
                        holocaust and the camps of the Gulag. Had the panelists called on
                        Gnostic scriptures, they could have quoted many precedents for
                        Armstrong's criticism of the vengeful God of the Old Testament."

                        Question: If demiurge ( the God from the OT) is evil, why would he
                        destroy evil?

                        Also, I read the Bible with two deities in mind and have questions.

                        In the Bible (KJV)....

                        Genesis 1:26
                        God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let
                        them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
                        air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
                        creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

                        Question: Why would a jealous God give man domain of all the earth?

                        Question: If the God from the OT is evil and he created man like him
                        doesn't that make man evil?

                        ---------------------------------------------
                        Genesis 2:9 
                        "And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is
                        pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in
                        the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

                        Question: Why would the demiurge grow the tree of knowledge if he
                        didn't want man to eat from it? Wouldn't it have been easier if the
                        tree never existed, then man would have never acquired the knowledge
                        that demiurge was trying to hide from man?

                        I have lots more questions, but I'd appreciate your answers to these
                        first. =)

                        Thanks a bunch!
                        CS






                      • sahms2
                        ... these matters, hope it helps. ... him ... archons of the world, and that refers to our physical parts. The likeness is actually the likeness of the
                        Message 11 of 16 , Sep 7, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "annie" <annielu38@z...> wrote:

                          > Hi--here's my answers that I discovered when I was looking into
                          these matters, hope it helps.

                          > Question: If the God from the OT is evil and he created man like
                          him
                          > doesn't that make man evil?
                          >
                          > The 'image' is the 'modeled form' of the authorities, which are the
                          archons of the world, and that refers to our physical parts.
                          The 'likeness' is actually the likeness of the divine light of the
                          Christ of which the archons caught a glimpse of, and became
                          infatuated, which brought about eros, and sexual love, and flowers
                          and all sorts of 'lovely ' things. Anyway we are in the bodies
                          of 'beasts', as in physical (think how coarse we truly must seem to
                          another who'd never been in a heavy thick body of flesh, living like
                          beasts, it's just a perspective thing, really), but our likeness is
                          that of Christ (which is our spirit.)
                          >


                          Annie,

                          Thanks for your response! I've been away for a number of reasons...
                          one being I've been doing additional reading, hoping to learn
                          something each day. As I said in my earlier post, I'm really new at
                          gnosticism, so it takes me awhile to digest what I read.

                          Your comment (above) is confusing to me... IMO, John 1:1-1:5 (KJV)
                          (below) contradicts what you're saying. If "all things were made by
                          God and the word was with God"... doesn't this mean the creator
                          (not creators) is the one and only God. Also, according to this
                          statement John doesn't think we are "in the body of beasts".
                          Could you clarify? =)

                          [John 1:1-1:5(KJV)]
                          In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
                          Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were
                          made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In
                          him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light
                          shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

                          Connie(newbie)
                        • annie
                          Hi Connie, I m new to gnosticism, too, but not the bible, and so the answers I know are Annie answers only. But I do love logic more than confusion! You said
                          Message 12 of 16 , Sep 8, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Connie,
                             
                            I'm new to gnosticism, too, but not the bible, and so the answers I know are Annie answers only. But I do love logic more than confusion!
                             
                            You said 'If "all things were made by
                            God and the word was with God"... doesn't this mean the creator
                            (not creators) is the one and only God. Also, according to this
                            statement John doesn't think we are "in the body of beasts".
                            Could you clarify? =)'
                             
                            The creator had to come from somewhere, just as the rest of us.  There is only One that's always been.  Also--if  you have a name, you were created.  Good rule of thumb.  So, if you trace back anything, you always come to The Father in the end.  That's the source of all creation, ultimately.
                             
                            As for John, well, he was in the body of a beast, too, so it's all fine and good to him, just like it is for us!
                             
                            Be sure and read the posts from the last few days.  I have learned a lot about some confusing matters within this subject, and you probably will, too.  Very enlightening.
                             
                            love from annie
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: sahms2
                            Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 11:30 PM
                            Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: The Genesis Factor

                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "annie" <annielu38@z...> wrote:

                            > Hi--here's my answers that I discovered when I was looking into
                            these matters, hope it helps.

                            > Question: If the God from the OT is evil and he created man like
                            him
                            > doesn't that make man evil?
                            >
                            > The 'image' is the 'modeled form' of the authorities, which are the
                            archons of the world, and that refers to our physical parts. 
                            The 'likeness' is actually the likeness of the divine light of the
                            Christ of which the archons caught a glimpse of, and became
                            infatuated, which brought about eros, and sexual love, and flowers
                            and all sorts of 'lovely ' things.  Anyway we are in the bodies
                            of 'beasts',  as in physical (think how coarse we truly must seem to
                            another who'd never been in a heavy thick body of flesh, living like
                            beasts, it's just a perspective thing, really), but our likeness is
                            that of Christ (which is our spirit.)
                            >


                            Annie,

                            Thanks for your response! I've been away for a number of reasons...
                            one being I've been doing additional reading, hoping to learn
                            something each day. As I said in my earlier post, I'm really new at
                            gnosticism, so it takes me awhile to digest what I read.

                            Your comment (above) is confusing to me... IMO, John 1:1-1:5 (KJV)
                            (below) contradicts what you're saying. [John 1:1-1:5(KJV)]
                            In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
                            Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were
                            made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In
                            him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light
                            shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

                            Connie(newbie)



                          • pmcvflag
                            Hey Connie, I just wanted to offer another translation of John. You may be surprized by how different it is.... starting with 1:1... In the beginning was the
                            Message 13 of 16 , Sep 9, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hey Connie, I just wanted to offer another translation of John. You
                              may be surprized by how different it is.... starting with 1:1...

                              "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the
                              Logos was divine. This one was with God in the beginning. All things
                              came to be through it, and apart from it not one thing came to be.
                              That which came to be in it was life, and the life was the light of
                              human beings; and the light shines in the darkness and the darkness
                              did not overpower it."

                              Well, the passage goes on in a way that is quite different from what
                              you will normally see in most English translations. BTW, this
                              translation is by Dr Jason BeDuhn. It goes on to say things like....

                              "No one has seen a god at any time, but a unique type of god -- the
                              one existing in the bosom of the Father".

                              As you can see, this really can be taken to have Gnostic lingo, and
                              it is even full of terms like "pleroma" etc.. Some of these passages
                              can even be seen as having a notion of a Demiurge (like the last one
                              I posted up there), however it appears more like the Demiurge of
                              Merkabah rather than that of Gnosticism (many people don't know this,
                              but there was a notion of a demiurge that was fairly widely accepted
                              in Judism of the era of Jesus, and even in mystical Judism today.)

                              Besides the fact that the KJV is one of the worst translations
                              available, I feel that this conversation has had a bit overly much
                              concerned about what Jesus is supposed to have said. I am a little
                              confused by your point.... we are not here to study the Bible, we are
                              here to study Gnosticism.

                              PMCV

                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "sahms2" <sahms2@y...> wrote:
                              > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "annie" <annielu38@z...> wrote:
                              >
                              > > Hi--here's my answers that I discovered when I was looking into
                              > these matters, hope it helps.
                              >
                              > > Question: If the God from the OT is evil and he created man like
                              > him
                              > > doesn't that make man evil?
                              > >
                              > > The 'image' is the 'modeled form' of the authorities, which are
                              the
                              > archons of the world, and that refers to our physical parts.
                              > The 'likeness' is actually the likeness of the divine light of the
                              > Christ of which the archons caught a glimpse of, and became
                              > infatuated, which brought about eros, and sexual love, and flowers
                              > and all sorts of 'lovely ' things. Anyway we are in the bodies
                              > of 'beasts', as in physical (think how coarse we truly must seem
                              to
                              > another who'd never been in a heavy thick body of flesh, living
                              like
                              > beasts, it's just a perspective thing, really), but our likeness is
                              > that of Christ (which is our spirit.)
                              > >
                              >
                              >
                              > Annie,
                              >
                              > Thanks for your response! I've been away for a number of reasons...
                              > one being I've been doing additional reading, hoping to learn
                              > something each day. As I said in my earlier post, I'm really new at
                              > gnosticism, so it takes me awhile to digest what I read.
                              >
                              > Your comment (above) is confusing to me... IMO, John 1:1-1:5 (KJV)
                              > (below) contradicts what you're saying. If "all things were made by
                              > God and the word was with God"... doesn't this mean the creator
                              > (not creators) is the one and only God. Also, according to this
                              > statement John doesn't think we are "in the body of beasts".
                              > Could you clarify? =)
                              >
                              > [John 1:1-1:5(KJV)]
                              > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
                              > Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things
                              were
                              > made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
                              In
                              > him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light
                              > shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
                              >
                              > Connie(newbie)
                            • sahms2
                              Annie, Cari, Mike, Gerry and PMCV, Just a quick note...I appreciate your openness and willingness to share. I want to comment on many of the points you ve
                              Message 14 of 16 , Sep 9, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Annie, Cari, Mike, Gerry and PMCV,

                                Just a quick note...I appreciate your openness and willingness to
                                share. I want to comment on many of the points you've made, but I'll
                                do that tomorrow. You've given me so much to read....I'm not
                                complaining or anything. As a matter of fact, all of you have been a
                                big help. I just want to take my time and read your posts and links
                                before I respond.

                                <snip>
                                > Besides the fact that the KJV is one of the worst translations
                                > available, I feel that this conversation has had a bit overly much
                                > concerned about what Jesus is supposed to have said. I am a little
                                > confused by your point.... we are not here to study the Bible, we
                                are
                                > here to study Gnosticism.
                                >
                                > PMCV


                                BTW, PMCV I wasn't trying to make a point when I asked about the
                                Bible, it's just that I have soooo many questions, thanks to Annie.
                                She had suggested I read the Bible w/2 deities in mind. =)

                                Anyway, I'll talk to everyone tomorrow.

                                Thanks Again!
                                Connie
                              • Gerry
                                ... Was that from published material of his, or from classroom or personal correspondence? I m just curious whether I might find more. Gerry
                                Message 15 of 16 , Sep 15, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ...Well, the passage goes on in a way that is quite different from
                                  > what you will normally see in most English translations. BTW, this
                                  > translation is by Dr Jason BeDuhn....




                                  Was that from published material of his, or from classroom or
                                  personal correspondence? I'm just curious whether I might find more.

                                  Gerry
                                • pmcvflag
                                  Hey Gerry Well, That was actually from personal and academic sources. I have just orderd the latest book he published on New Testement translation (Called
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Sep 16, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hey Gerry

                                    Well, That was actually from personal and academic sources. I have
                                    just orderd the latest book he published on New Testement translation
                                    (Called "Truth In Translation"), and if it is not contained in this
                                    book I will post it if you all wish (I will of course ask first if
                                    that is ok with Dr BeDuhn). However, it is pretty long.

                                    PMCV

                                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
                                    > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > ...Well, the passage goes on in a way that is quite different
                                    from
                                    > > what you will normally see in most English translations. BTW,
                                    this
                                    > > translation is by Dr Jason BeDuhn....
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Was that from published material of his, or from classroom or
                                    > personal correspondence? I'm just curious whether I might find
                                    more.
                                    >
                                    > Gerry
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.