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

Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Gnostics and Templars

Expand Messages
  • carter stevens
    I am feeling a little under the weather, but I am ready to address some of the statements made in your response.First off, I would like to apologize for a
    Message 1 of 71 , Feb 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I am feeling a little under the weather, but I am ready to address some of the statements made in your response.First off, I would like to apologize for a mistatement of mine. The special to which I was referring was not actually shown on the History channel, but is being shown on National Geographic.
      On the question...What evidence could they even show to prove that he(Jesus) lived ... or that he had blood? I would say.. Why then even believe that George Washington exist? After all, all we have are some handwritten documents and a bunch of paintings... possibly some old relics collecting dust in a museum, but not much more evidence than we have of the life of Jesus. In fact, under this kind of scientific scrutiny, why should we even believe that there is a Divine creator(s), since we have even less evidence to prove the existance of a god. Some truths have to be accepted solely on faith. I can't prove that if we both ate a piece of chocolate from the same batch, that my piece tastes even remotely the same as yours, But I accept on faith that it probably does taste quite similar! So apples and oranges still have relevence.
      Then you state...
       
      Well, I also recently saw a documentary wherein one of the authors of
      that book was interviewed.  I forget who was conducting the
      interrogation (Elizabeth Vargas, maybe?), and I won't swear which of
      the authors she had with her, but he couldn't be pinned down for a
      definitive answer regarding the veracity of any of the
      allegedly "historical" facts presented in the book.  And she was
      doing her very best to make him sound like an utter whacko, but he
      absolutely maintained that what he was suggesting was mere
      possibility . . . and nothing more.  This is why I find it odd that
      many who like to launch their investigations into Gnosticism from
      such a shaky foundation will often take those claims as gospel, when
      evidently, even the authors of such a work may be reluctant to do the
      same.

      First,
      I would like to clarify that I never stated that I  accepted anything Dan Brown or anyone else has stated as being solid truth, I was simply making an inquiry... And if the special you saw was like the one that I saw, Then you might have heard the author state that all of his assertions were a hypothesis. A hypothesis is nothing more than an arbitrary conclusion drawn on inconclusive facts. If more evidence is found it then becomes a theory, much like the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity. I am hopothesizing when I consider whether there is any truth to D. Browns' books or anyone elses. I'm hypothesizing when I consider the authenticity of texts that are over 1500 years old or any information I take in that requires me to use the faculties of reason. You  might be hypothesizing if you were to suggest that all of my information on gnosticism comes from Dan Browns' book, or some special I saw on tv., and of course if you were to assert that,(and again I'm making a hypothesis) you would be sorely mistaken!
      AS for the statement made below... We are talking about texts that existed in the same time period are we not?
      Is there not mention of the biblical stories and texts in the Nag Hammadi scrolls? Why shouldn'y they be considered in contrast to other documents?
      lol. 
      You seem to be focusing on orthodox dogma and biblical references
      rather than Gnostic texts and concepts.  Apples and oranges, again. 
      I mean, we could also entertain ourselves by rationalizing vicarious
      atonement, but from a Gnostic POV, there's little point in it.

      Gerry <gerryhsp@...> wrote:



      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, carter stevens
      <cherrycreamon@y...> wrote:
      >> . . . The History Channel has already shown the bloodline although
      there is no evidence to support that it is the Saviors'. <<

      Well, what kind of evidence COULD they show?  Assuming you're talking
      about Jesus there (as "the Savior"), what evidence could they even
      show to prove that he lived . . . or that he had blood?  Remember
      what I said about apples and oranges.

      You also wrote:

      >> Why would Dan Brown draw this conclusion? <<

      Perhaps that's the conclusion he WANTED to find.  This is often how
      these speculative "historical" approaches work . . . a preconceived
      notion that the author attempts to "demonstrate" by hammering
      together bits of "evidence" (usually, just a string of
      unsubstantiated supposition).

      I think we must have seen some of the same documentaries.  I know
      there was a recent re-airing of many of these during the past several
      weeks.  I recall Dan Brown mentioning that some of his assertions
      were first raised by a professor of his.  He also relied on Holy
      Blood, Holy Grail as a starting point for much of his research. 
      Well, I also recently saw a documentary wherein one of the authors of
      that book was interviewed.  I forget who was conducting the
      interrogation (Elizabeth Vargas, maybe?), and I won't swear which of
      the authors she had with her, but he couldn't be pinned down for a
      definitive answer regarding the veracity of any of the
      allegedly "historical" facts presented in the book.  And she was
      doing her very best to make him sound like an utter whacko, but he
      absolutely maintained that what he was suggesting was mere
      possibility . . . and nothing more.  This is why I find it odd that
      many who like to launch their investigations into Gnosticism from
      such a shaky foundation will often take those claims as gospel, when
      evidently, even the authors of such a work may be reluctant to do the
      same.

      Then you said:

      >> According an interview with him, the fact that the bloodline
      starts with a fish is the evidence. Sounds fishy to me too when I
      think about it! <<

      As well it should.  The very thought that you were considering as
      corroborating evidence the "fact" that a supposed bloodline started
      with a fish!  Other than there being an interview that I can vouch
      for, I'm not sure how there is a "fact" to be found in any of the
      rest of that.

      You also wrote:

      >> In fact, if we entertain the notion of a "virgin birth" as
      mentioned in the new testament, Jesus then, would have no need for
      sexual intercourse either. Anyone wanna tackle the subject of the
      virgin birth and which Mary it is? <<

      You seem to be focusing on orthodox dogma and biblical references
      rather than Gnostic texts and concepts.  Apples and oranges, again. 
      I mean, we could also entertain ourselves by rationalizing vicarious
      atonement, but from a Gnostic POV, there's little point in it.

      Gerry







      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

    • nakedalchemy@aol.com
      In a message dated 2/9/2005 1:10:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes: Speaking of forgetting things.... what I hate the most is when
      Message 71 of 71 , Feb 9, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 2/9/2005 1:10:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
        Speaking of forgetting things.... what I hate the most is when I am
        at the store, or somewhere, and I forget where I live and......
        wait..... Do I know you, Gary?

        PMCV
        i have driven by my house, when i had one, a few times...
        what is worse when you feel in an alternative universe and everything looks only vaguely familiar..this happens to me alot...almost like an out of body experience only you are wide awake.
         
        mychael
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.