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

Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: The Genesis Factor

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.