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

Re: Gnostics and Templars

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Say Carter, I know you were talking to Gerry here but I thought I could jump in also. You state.... ... that he(Jesus) lived ... or that he had blood? I would
    Message 1 of 71 , Feb 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Say Carter, I know you were talking to Gerry here but I thought I
      could jump in also. You state....

      >>>"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."<<<

      Actually, this is a lot more than we have concerning whether Jesus
      existed since we don't even have any first hand accounts. However, I
      do see your point. The thing is, though, there are people who have
      theorized that the whole story of "Jesus" is in fact a myth taken
      from other Mystery religions like that of Mithras. Now I am not
      saying this is any more correct, because I think the reality is a
      bit more in the middle of these two extremes. I do think it
      important to point out though that part of Gerry's point deals with
      the more general Gnostic belief known as "docetism" in which Jesus
      did indeed not have blood or semen or a physical body at all....
      because in the more common Gnostic outline Jesus is a spiritual
      principle that represents one (us) withing whom the Christ can
      become manifest... Jesus in this case is an "image" not a "person".
      This means at the very least Dan Brown's claim is not Gnostic
      whether or not we find it to be accurate outside of this.

      >>>"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."<<<

      Which may be part of the reason that Gnostics have little respect
      (and sometimes even derision) for the notion of that divine creator.
      Gnostics didn't believe that this "God" you are talking about is a
      real 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."<<<

      The word for faith used in these traditional sources is "pistis",
      and it is in contrast to "gnosis". Gnostics are called "Gnostics"
      for the very reason that they held this gnosis above that pistis.
      There is a difference between the kind of belief that comes from
      empirical or at least experiencial sources.... like the fact that my
      foot is likely to stop when it hits the ground.... and the kind that
      has no evidence of any nature to back it. It is not only "faith"
      that makes you assume two bites from the same candy may taste the
      same (an assumption I would not make, BTW, having experience to the
      contrary ;) *lol*), but a number of evidences that may or may not be
      valid. For instance, your knowledge that all the candies are
      supposed to be the same flavor vs the veriety pack may inform you
      assumption.... but there is also a chance that a different candy was
      mistakenly put in the box at the factory which could make this
      belief wrong.

      In any event, the function of "faith" is something that draws a line
      between Gnosticism and common religiousity.

      >>>"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."<<<

      Sure, we should consider them in contrast. We just like to make
      clear the differences between the Biblical and the Gnostic
      understanding of these things ;) You may have other sources for your
      understanding of these texts, but there are many beginners here and
      we don't want them to become confused by not knowing when this club
      is dealing with a Gnostic understanding vs one we are contrasting.
      For this reason we can't simply say "according to the Bible, God
      says ______" without pointing out that the Gnostics didn't always
      agree with this "Bible".

      PMCV
    • 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.