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

Re: The Genesis Factor

Expand Messages
  • Gerry
    ... I m pretty sure CS must be referring to Hoeller s article, if that gives a better idea of the context. Gerry
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.