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

Re: Pursuit of gnosis (GNOSIS and Salvation)

Expand Messages
  • Mike Leavitt
    Hello pmcvflag ... Vector, vector, where for art thou vector? Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
    Message 1 of 26 , Apr 10, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello pmcvflag

      On 04/10/05, you wrote:

      >
      >
      > MOMENT OF A VECTOR
      >
      >>>> "I assume you know what a Cartesian coordinate system is; if not
      > I can define it later. Consider a Cartesian coordinate system with
      > origin O."<<<<
      >
      > But what if we were talking about longitude and lattitude instead?
      > And what if we didn't start from "0" on that system?
      >
      >>>> "Consider a point P in this system with position vector [r] =
      > (r1,r2,r3) together with a general vector [f] =(f1,f2,f3) located at
      > P. The items r1, r2, r3; f1, f2, f3 are just ordinary numbers."<<<
      >
      > So the number can't be a ratio? Something like 1.61803.... ?
      >
      >>>> "EXAMPLE. Suppose you weigh 150 pounds and are standing on the
      > end of a diving board 10 feet long. Let us locate the origin of the
      > Cartesian coordinate system at the base of the diving board with the
      > x-axis along the length of the diving board and the z-axis pointing
      > vertically upwards. The y-axis will then be along the bank of the
      > swimming pool. In this case the numbers r1, r2, r3; f1, f2, f3 will
      > be: r1=10, r2=0, r3=0; f1=0, f2=0, f3=-150."<<<
      >
      > But this does not make sense, I don't weigh 150 lbs. And is it the
      > diving baord that I spin towards the right or is it my wrist?
      >
      >>>> "Then using equation (1) we get: [M] = (0*-150-0*0,0*0-10*-
      > 150,10*0-0*0) =(0, 1500, 0)
      >
      > This is a vector of magnitude 1500 foot-pounds directed along the
      > positive y-axis of the coordinate system; i.e. directed along the
      > bank of the pool. The magnitude of this vector is 1500 foot-
      > pounds."<<<
      >
      > But what is the "moment of a vector"? I wasn't asking for foot
      > pounds.
      >
      > PMCV

      Vector, vector, where for art thou vector?

      Regards
      --
      Mike Leavitt ac998@...
    • pmcvflag
      Hey Gich... ... into vector algebra will help us, because, unlike the philosophical system we ve been discussing, there are NO ASSUMPTIONS in mathematics
      Message 2 of 26 , Apr 10, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hey Gich...

        >>>"Exactly my point to PMCV when I wrote "I don't think me going
        into vector algebra will help us, because, unlike the philosophical
        system we've been discussing, there are NO ASSUMPTIONS in
        mathematics""<<

        So since there are no assumptions in mathematics then the meaning
        of "vector" is actually completely ralative? So, by "diving board"
        in your previous example you may have actually meant "dragon"? And
        the dragon and the vector are actually the same thing? What you are
        saying then is that percpetion creates reality?

        >>>""Moment of a vector" is not a concept that crops up
        regarding "longitude and lattitude"."<<<

        But I thought there were no assumptions in mathematics? So why could
        it not be about longitude and lattitude?

        >>>"The term "moment of a vector" is meaningless on its own; we can
        only talk about "moment of a vector about a particular point". I've
        started my introduction by DEFINING the "moment of a vector about
        the origin" of the coordinate system as in equation (1)."<<<

        Why is it meaningless on its own? Meaning would seem to be
        an "assumption". How did you define "moment of a vector"? I mean,
        does it include any set of numbers? But then you said a "particular
        point" so that could not be "any number", right? Or by point then
        you mean the direction? Are you saying it is "foot pounds"? I don't
        understand why it has something to do with the twist of my wrist to
        the right.

        >>>"Yes it can. Any number you can express as a decimal is OK."<<<

        Ok, but I wasn't trying to make a decimal... I just don't know how
        to put the dot in the middle for a ratio. What if I express it this
        way.... 1:.61803..... and the ratio is an irrational number. So if
        the number can be a ratio, then we could also have four coordinates
        if there is an axis on a graph? But what would be the point of that?

        You seem to be making this so complicated, can you just explain it
        to me directly?

        ....................................................

        Do you see where I am going with this? I know, it is not kind of me
        to be so facetious. I am not trying to poke fun. But as you can see
        it is me and not you that is complicating the subject here. I am
        throwing in a mix of my own observations which are often simply not
        to the point that you are actually speaking to. Somewhere I have
        gotton some notion of twisting my wrist and feel it is core. If you
        look at this conversation, you will see that it will literally go on
        forever because I have some notions that I just cant let go of, and
        they really don't belong in the conversation... but try explaining
        that to me and it is never going to get anywhere. Imagine I then
        started incorrectly quoting some authority on the matter with the
        assumption that I understood him and contrasted this with my
        twisting of your points.... how long would THAT go on?

        You asked me for the easy version of "Gnosticism" and I gave it. You
        then started asking questions that deal with more complex aspects of
        Gnosticism which brings us back outside the easy version. You need
        to decide which one you want, easy or full, and either be happy with
        the easy or deal with the full on it's own ground. Ok, Gich? I am
        patient, and have no problem dealing with minute detail, but I don't
        want this conversation to simply go around in circles.

        You are going to have to decide whether you want this explination to
        fit your conception, or whether you want to understand what I am
        saying. Forget Harris, forget "God", take it one step at a time and
        understand the specific points I am making. Compare them to what you
        see in the Gnostic texts if you wish, but let go of the monkey
        puzzle for a moment. If you think you can do this, then lets forget
        the "moment of a vector" and I will try to get back to your
        questions concerning "Gnosticism".

        PMCV
      • Gerry
        ... Well, I think the wrist twist was a smashing addition to your routine. On artistic merit alone, it could have gotten you a gold. Gerry
        Message 3 of 26 , Apr 10, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          >
          > [...]
          > Somewhere I have gotton some notion of twisting my wrist and feel
          > it is core. If you look at this conversation, you will see that it
          > will literally go on forever because I have some notions that I
          > just cant let go of, and they really don't belong in the
          > conversation....




          Well, I think the wrist twist was a smashing addition to your routine.
          On artistic merit alone, it could have gotten you a gold.

          Gerry
        • Mike Leavitt
          Hello gich ... What about the theorems of geometry? Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
          Message 4 of 26 , Apr 10, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello gich

            On 04/10/05, you wrote:

            >
            >
            > Hey Mike!
            >>>> Now where?<<<
            > Exactly my point to PMCV when I wrote "I don't think me going into
            > vector algebra will help us, because, unlike the philosophical
            > system we've been discussing, there are NO ASSUMPTIONS in
            > mathematics" Gich

            What about the "theorems" of geometry?

            Regards
            --
            Mike Leavitt ac998@...
          • Serenity
            I am new here but have met several of you on other boards. I hope that you don t mind my jumping in here with my two cents worth.:-) I hope too, that it will
            Message 5 of 26 , Apr 11, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              I am new here but have met several of you on other boards. I hope
              that you don't mind my jumping in here with my two cents worth.:-) I
              hope too, that it will serve as an introduction to my sense of Gnosis.

              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gich morgan" <gich2@b...> wrote:
              > (1) Is there any divine input into receipt of this "Gnosis"?

              What I have noticed from the Concept of Gnosis, which is new to me
              terminologically but spiritually started in my teens, is that it is
              something that you need to strive for. It doesn't come to one who
              does not seek it out.

              In Luria, there is the concept of the four levels: the personality
              plane is divided into three bodies in chakra energy patterns. These,
              we can correlate with the Assiah. The personality bodies are the
              physical, emotional and mental bodies. The Intuitional, will and soul
              are in the Yetzirah. The divine bodies are on the Beriah. Though
              practiced throughout the Hindu world to this day, kundalini and the
              chakras still have a place in mystical kaballah. The only difference
              that I have seen is the Middle Pillars of Kaballah are top down (from
              the Divine to the Kingdom) and the Chakras are top up (from the root
              to the crown and out to the selves).

              To be able to see all of your bodies, it takes training. Usually,
              because you see matter, it is only the physical body that you can see
              with your eyes. Your physical body reacts to the energy bodies which
              surrounds it. It is made up of cells which are controlled by the same
              nervous system that holds the energy centers that we call the
              chakras. We can also affect the energy bodies through proper
              maintenance of the physical body though diet and exercise. We can
              touch each level by touching a different chakra on the physical body.
              The chakra that controls the physical body are the heals of the feet
              and hands.

              When you are sensitive, you can feel your emotional body. You can
              change your emotions by changing the vibrations of your emotional
              body. Your physical chakra that controls the rate of the vibration of
              emotional body is the navel chakra. By massaging this chakra and
              controling the breathing patterns that massage this chakra from the
              inside, you can learn to control and be more aware of your emotional
              body. eventually, you can learn to not only feel but see your
              emotional body.

              Your mental body vibrates at a rate that can intune you with the
              creative forces of the universe. It is with this body that we think
              and create. Reason and logic are the tools that this body uses to
              make knowledge work of us. The chakra that affects this body is what
              is called the third eye. It is in the center of the forhead. If you
              massage this area when you are exhausted mentally, you will cleanse
              the energy and refresh your thought processes. These three levels are
              the personality level of our body. They are perhaps the most visible
              bodies within our personal universes.

              The intuitive body is connected to your compassion for others. This
              first spiritual body is the source of our abstract thinking. It is
              our basis for intuition and understanding both of others and
              ourselves. This is the body of the compassionate Buddha. This is the
              body that helps us to determine what to do with the information that
              the mental body aquires. Here, too, we begin the absolute knowlege of
              temporariness. This is just a moment in time. It is what we do with
              it that matters. The heart chakra is our physical connection to this
              body. This is the body where forgiveness begins.

              Next is the will or spirit body. This is the body that we use when
              dealing with the outside world. This is a difficult body to control.
              Karma is usually initiated here. This is a very powerful energy body.
              As this energy body is accessed and utilized, personality changes may
              occur. A mild mannered person can become very steadfast and willfull
              in their positions and actions. If not properly cleansed, this body
              can entice the physical body into actions that would have been
              unthinkable before. This is where Karma fits in. This energy,
              however, helps the individual respond to the external society with
              confidence. This is a polarized body because its physical connection
              is the sex chakra. Our sexual energy is strongest in this body and
              can be utilized as power through our will or spirit.

              Our Soul body is our sense of I AM. As you step up the levels of the
              soul body, the physical performs the actions of I AM; the emotional
              level holds our feelings about I AM; the mental level explores new
              ways of being; The intuitive or compationate level helps us to
              understand and relate to our polarity as male or female; our will or
              spirit level concerns our breath and the choice or will to exist; the
              soul level relates to pride in self - not vanity but acceptance of I
              AM; the divine level places us as one with Godde's energy. Here we
              bring together our individual karmatic energy. When fully developed,
              the I Am combines with the Divine I Am and becomes one with the
              universe. The Soul really makes us one with the creation and with
              ourselves. The chakra for the soul body is the side of the neck as it
              joins the body.

              The Divine body is where we feel one with Godde and the universe.
              This is where we channel out energy that can be harmful. Here is
              where we are grateful for our life which is essential for physical
              health. This is where in life we know where we should be more in
              control and take appropriate action. This is where our will bends to
              the Divine Will. This is where we find our oneness with others and
              the Divine Oneness of Energy. This is where we connect ourselves to
              the higher bodies. Here we are aware of our energy changes, insights
              and spiritual experiences. Here we bring together our collective
              karmatic energy. Here we develop our personal idea of Godde. The
              Chakra of the Divine Body is the crown of the head.

              I know that I am blending philosophies, but I am a rather wholistic
              individual and believe in all forms of worship being equally
              respected by the Creator. That said, Divine Input comes from the
              mingling of the Divine Self with Cosmic Divinity. Gnosis comes from
              the combined experience of your other selves contemplating and
              experiencing the eternal of Cosmic Self which comes through
              meditation. That is my definition of the process of Gnosis. It may
              not be anybody else's but I believe that all Gnosis is personal and
              individual.
              >
              > (2) Is this "Gnosis" a divine gift?

              Life is a Divine Gift. The selves are a Divine Gift. Creation is a
              Divine Gift. So, yes, Gnosis would be a Divine Gift as well. But all
              gifts must be sought to be found. I have read that there are levels
              of ability to reach Gnosis. I do not believe that they are more than
              convenient tools to distinguish possible personal journeys if one
              makes the effort.


              > (3) Does "God" have a prerogative with regard to who receives
              this
              > "Gnosis"?

              That depends on where you seek Godde. (I use this spelling to respect
              the male and femaleness more completely in my own psyche. I was
              raised the the God spelling is exclusively male so please forgive my
              selfindulgence here.) In the Gospel of Thomas, it is
              written, "Recognize what is in front of you, and what is hidden from
              you will be revealed. There is nothing hidden that will not be
              revealed." If you seek answered from Godde too high up and too far
              away, you will never see the Deity right in front of your very nose.
              If you see Godde within your very nature, then it is in deed Godde's
              perogative with regard to who receives Gnosis. If you are separated
              from Godde through blindness or ego, then no, you will not find what
              is lost aka Gnosis.

              The other questions speak more to the language of Gnostics and to
              that I am an undernovice. I have found my path and am comfortable
              with it but it fits in no category that I can find. Gnosis is the
              best term that I have found to describe my inner light.

              I have a question for you. What is it that you want to be saved from?

              In most cases, the salvation that has been granted is from our
              own "habits" for lack of a better term. Our own need to justify our
              own existances and failures at "perfection" again for lack of a
              better term. When I sought salvation it was from my responses that
              reflected the way that I was raised and the voices of my family which
              blocked out my own and Godde's inside my head. I find the longer I am
              free of those bonds the more I can feel my oneness with Creation and
              with the Divine. So, perhaps I would have to say that Gnosis is the
              Salvation from the demeaning Freudian Superego.

              Blessed be,
              Serenity
            • pmcvflag
              Hello Serenity, welcome to the group. You state.... ... individual and believe in all forms of worship being equally respected by the Creator.
              Message 6 of 26 , Apr 11, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello Serenity, welcome to the group. You state....

                >>>"I know that I am blending philosophies, but I am a rather wholistic
                individual and believe in all forms of worship being equally
                respected by the Creator."<<<

                Of course, if ecclecticism works for you then run with it. However, I
                do need to point something out to you. This group is not like other
                groups that have a more open focus. It is not that those open focuses
                are not good for what they do, but sometimes there needs to be a place
                to deal with much more specific and detailed topics. For that reason,
                we only deal with traditional Gnosticism here. I am personally very
                interested in Kundalini myself, but I don't really talk about it here
                since it isn't the topic.

                By the same token, in this group we define "Gnosis" in a different way
                from what has become popular for the general reader. In this group we
                try to stick to traditional Gnostic meanings for words like this.

                Lastly, I would point out that traditional Gnostics don't respect
                the "creator" much, and sometimes call him by names like "Fool"
                or "Blind God". So, what the "Creator" respects is not something that
                the historical Gnostics much cared to consider.

                However, there are not many places on the net where you can get as
                much accurate info concerning historical Gnosticism as you can here.
                If you find that subject interesting, then this is the place to
                discuss it for sure.

                PMCV
              • pmcvflag
                Hey Gich ... mathematics in this group?
                Message 7 of 26 , Apr 11, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hey Gich

                  >>"Theorems follow from definitions; but do we really want to discuss
                  mathematics in this group?"<<<

                  No, you are right, generally not. BTW, I don't mean to offend you with
                  my previous post... I just felt the point needed to be made if we were
                  to move on. Since you didn't answer my post I was not sure whether to
                  procede.

                  BTW, there is some evidence that some Gnostics may have been involved
                  with the mathmatical schools of the time... such as the Pythagorians
                  (and obviously the Platonic Academies), so the subject need not be
                  entirely off topic either.

                  PMCV
                • Serenity
                  ... I have spent the past few months researching Gnosticism and have found that there are as many variations on the idea of Gnosis as there are about Christ in
                  Message 8 of 26 , Apr 12, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                    >
                    > However, there are not many places on the net where you can get as
                    > much accurate info concerning historical Gnosticism as you can here.
                    > If you find that subject interesting, then this is the place to
                    > discuss it for sure.

                    I have spent the past few months researching Gnosticism and have found
                    that there are as many variations on the idea of Gnosis as there are
                    about Christ in Christianity decended from the Roman tradition. I hear
                    that the Valintinian tradition is quite popular these days but the
                    Sophian tradition is on the rise. What sort of label to you put on
                    your Gnosis?

                    Blessed be,
                    Serenity
                  • Nick Lawrance
                    From Serenity I hear that the Valintinian tradition is quite popular these days but the Sophian tradition is on the rise. ................ What is the
                    Message 9 of 26 , Apr 12, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                       
                      From Serenity
                       
                      I hear that the Valintinian tradition is quite popular these days but the
                      Sophian tradition is on the rise.
                      ................
                       
                      What is the difference between the Valentinian tradition and the Sophian tradition. I believe Sophia plays a big role in the school of Valentinius?
                       
                      Nick
                       
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Serenity
                      Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:44 PM
                      Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Pursuit of gnosis (GNOSIS and Salvation)



                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                      >
                      > However, there are not many places on the net where you can get as
                      > much accurate info concerning historical Gnosticism as you can here.
                      > If you find that subject interesting, then this is the place to
                      > discuss it for sure.

                      I have spent the past few months researching Gnosticism and have found
                      that there are as many variations on the idea of Gnosis as there are
                      about Christ in Christianity decended from the Roman tradition. I hear
                      that the Valintinian tradition is quite popular these days but the
                      Sophian tradition is on the rise. What sort of label to you put on
                      your Gnosis?

                      Blessed be,
                      Serenity







                    • lady_caritas
                      Gich, could you please explain which Sophian gnosticism is not part of a Christological gnosticism ? Thanks, Cari ... Salvation) ... days but the ... the
                      Message 10 of 26 , Apr 13, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Gich, could you please explain which "Sophian gnosticism" is not part
                        of a "Christological gnosticism"?

                        Thanks,

                        Cari

                        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gich morgan" <gich2@b...> wrote:
                        > Valintinian gnosticism == Christological gnosticism
                        > Sophian gnosticism == Non-Christological gnosticism
                        > Gich
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: Nick Lawrance
                        > To: gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 7:40 PM
                        > Subject: Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Pursuit of gnosis (GNOSIS and
                        Salvation)
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > From Serenity
                        >
                        > I hear that the Valintinian tradition is quite popular these
                        days but the
                        > Sophian tradition is on the rise.
                        > ................
                        >
                        > What is the difference between the Valentinian tradition and
                        the Sophian tradition. I believe Sophia plays a big role in the
                        school of Valentinius?
                        >
                        > Nick
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: Serenity
                        > To: gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:44 PM
                        > Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Pursuit of gnosis (GNOSIS and
                        Salvation)
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
                        wrote:
                        > >
                        > > However, there are not many places on the net where you can
                        get as
                        > > much accurate info concerning historical Gnosticism as you
                        can here.
                        > > If you find that subject interesting, then this is the place
                        to
                        > > discuss it for sure.
                        >
                        > I have spent the past few months researching Gnosticism and
                        have found
                        > that there are as many variations on the idea of Gnosis as
                        there are
                        > about Christ in Christianity decended from the Roman tradition.
                        I hear
                        > that the Valintinian tradition is quite popular these days but
                        the
                        > Sophian tradition is on the rise. What sort of label to you put
                        on
                        > your Gnosis?
                        >
                        > Blessed be,
                        > Serenity
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        > ADVERTISEMENT
                        > Children International
                        > Would you give Hope to a Child in need?
                        >
                        > · Click Here to meet a Girl
                        > And Give Her Hope
                        >
                        > · Click Here to meet a Boy
                        > And Change His Life
                        >
                        > Learn More
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                        --------
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/
                        >
                        > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
                        of Service.
                      • Serenity
                        ... Sophian tradition. I believe Sophia plays a big role in the school of Valentinius? Namate Nick, I haven t much time today and would probably mess up the
                        Message 11 of 26 , Apr 13, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Nick Lawrance"
                          <nicholson2000r@c...> wrote:
                          > What is the difference between the Valentinian tradition and the
                          Sophian tradition. I believe Sophia plays a big role in the school of
                          Valentinius?

                          Namate Nick,
                          I haven't much time today and would probably mess up the explanation
                          anyway, so I will give you a site that will explain everything. I hope
                          that you enjoy it.

                          http://www.sophian.org/

                          Blessed be,
                          Serenity
                        • Nick Lawrance
                          From Gich Valintinian gnosticism == Christological gnosticism Sophian gnosticism == Non-Christological gnosticism ...........................................
                          Message 12 of 26 , Apr 13, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            From Gich
                            Valintinian gnosticism == Christological gnosticism
                            Sophian gnosticism == Non-Christological gnosticism
                            ...........................................
                            Thanks but Sophia and her relationship to Christ still seems to play a large part in the teachings of Valentinius.
                             
                            Nick
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 8:52 AM
                            Subject: Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Pursuit of gnosis (GNOSIS and Salvation)

                            Valintinian gnosticism == Christological gnosticism
                            Sophian gnosticism == Non-Christological gnosticism
                            Gich
                             
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 7:40 PM
                            Subject: Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Pursuit of gnosis (GNOSIS and Salvation)

                             
                            From Serenity
                             
                            I hear that the Valintinian tradition is quite popular these days but the
                            Sophian tradition is on the rise.
                            ................
                             
                            What is the difference between the Valentinian tradition and the Sophian tradition. I believe Sophia plays a big role in the school of Valentinius?
                             
                            Nick
                             
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Serenity
                            Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:44 PM
                            Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Pursuit of gnosis (GNOSIS and Salvation)



                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                            >
                            > However, there are not many places on the net where you can get as
                            > much accurate info concerning historical Gnosticism as you can here.
                            > If you find that subject interesting, then this is the place to
                            > discuss it for sure.

                            I have spent the past few months researching Gnosticism and have found
                            that there are as many variations on the idea of Gnosis as there are
                            about Christ in Christianity decended from the Roman tradition. I hear
                            that the Valintinian tradition is quite popular these days but the
                            Sophian tradition is on the rise. What sort of label to you put on
                            your Gnosis?

                            Blessed be,
                            Serenity









                          • Serenity
                            ... Namste Gich, I think that you are confused. Non Christological Gnosticism, from my understanding, is Sethian Gnosticism. It is more Hebraic although, some
                            Message 13 of 26 , Apr 13, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gich morgan" <gich2@b...> wrote:
                              > Valintinian gnosticism == Christological gnosticism
                              > Sophian gnosticism == Non-Christological gnosticism

                              Namste Gich,
                              I think that you are confused. Non Christological Gnosticism, from my
                              understanding, is Sethian Gnosticism. It is more Hebraic although,
                              some Christological interpretation seems to have peaked in a bit in
                              the second century of the common era. Of course the strait Platonic
                              Pagans seem to be claiming Gnosticism for themselves as well. They
                              seem to be a smaller bunch and keep more to their own "clans."

                              I will try to answer your other post soon. Today is just horrific for
                              doing anything at length.

                              Blessed be,
                              Serenity
                            • pmcvflag
                              Hey Serenity..... ... found that there are as many variations on the idea of Gnosis as there are about Christ in Christianity decended from the Roman
                              Message 14 of 26 , Apr 13, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hey Serenity.....

                                >>>"I have spent the past few months researching Gnosticism and have
                                found that there are as many variations on the idea of Gnosis as there
                                are about Christ in Christianity decended from the Roman tradition. I
                                hear that the Valintinian tradition is quite popular these days but the
                                Sophian tradition is on the rise. What sort of label to you put on
                                your Gnosis?"<<<

                                My "Gnosis"? Well, what I had been trying to say previously is that we
                                are not here to talk about my particular ideas or beliefs. Let me
                                point you, for a moment, to the undtroduction to our group on the
                                front page. You may be one of the people who participate via e-mail,
                                so perhaps you have not seen it. Here it is.....

                                <<<"Gnosticism" is, specifically, a category derived to express the
                                emphasis of "Gnosis" in the belief system held by any one of a number
                                of inter-related, spiritual traditions of the Late Antiquities.>>>

                                In other words, the focus of this group is historical Gnosticism.
                                Technically, no modern group is part of the category of "Gnosticism"
                                since it is an academic term kind of like "neanderthal". There are neo-
                                Valentinians (groups that attempt to recreate some of the Valentinian
                                system as much as possible, while also having other influences), but
                                there are no actual surviving Valentinians today. The Sophian group
                                you mention is also modern.

                                So, I am not here to talk about a personal system and this group is
                                not in support of any modern group.

                                So, while it is true there are many variations on the ideas
                                of "Gnosis" in modern times (including usages of the term to imply
                                everything from ESP to racial purity), for the sake of this group we
                                are talking about the way the word was used by various groups in
                                history.

                                Does that make more sense?

                                PMCV
                              • pmcvflag
                                Serenity.. ... I think that you are confused. Non Christological Gnosticism, from my understanding, is Sethian Gnosticism. It is more Hebraic although, some
                                Message 15 of 26 , Apr 13, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Serenity..

                                  >>>"Namste Gich,
                                  I think that you are confused. Non Christological Gnosticism, from my
                                  understanding, is Sethian Gnosticism. It is more Hebraic although,
                                  some Christological interpretation seems to have peaked in a bit in
                                  the second century of the common era. Of course the strait Platonic
                                  Pagans seem to be claiming Gnosticism for themselves as well. They
                                  seem to be a smaller bunch and keep more to their own "clans.""<<<<

                                  I am also guessing that Gich may have meant "Sethian" since Jesus is
                                  sometimes assumed to have been a later addition to Sethian texts.

                                  However, the figure of "Christ" is not necessarily equated
                                  with "Jesus" in Gnosticism, so I think the term "Christological"
                                  could be a bit misleading here. A text neen not have Jesus in it to
                                  have Christological elements in this case. The figure of the Logos
                                  is important even if Jesus is not.

                                  One thing you say...

                                  >>>"Of course the strait Platonic Pagans seem to be claiming
                                  Gnosticism for themselves as well."<<<

                                  Could you expand on that? I was not exactly sure which groups you
                                  mean to imply there. And to add something, Platonists were not
                                  generally Christians, but they would have been very angry if you
                                  called them "Pagans".

                                  PMCV
                                • lady_caritas
                                  ... mind ... provide on ... appreciated. ... No, I m not personally aware of different versions, Gich, but then I m not aware of all modern Sophian groups that
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Apr 14, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gich morgan" <gich2@b...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Hey Cari!
                                    >
                                    > >>>... explain WHICH "Sophian gnosticism" ...<<<
                                    >
                                    > I didn't know there was ONE recognised "Sophian gnosticism" never
                                    mind
                                    > SEVERAL as is implied by your question. Any information you can
                                    provide on
                                    > the different versions of "Sophian gnosticism" would be much
                                    appreciated.
                                    > :-)


                                    No, I'm not personally aware of different versions, Gich, but then
                                    I'm not aware of all modern Sophian groups that might be around. I
                                    just worded my question in that manner because you had denoted an
                                    actual modern category of "Sophian gnosticism" and I thought you
                                    might have had some modern groups in mind. Now I see you were
                                    hypothesizing such a category, if I understand you correctly.
                                    Generally, historical Gnosticism has been broadly categorized into
                                    Valentinian and Sethian Gnosticism.



                                    > Now to answer your question which was prompted by my earlier
                                    comments. The
                                    > way I use the term "Sophian gnosticism" is regarding a gnosticism
                                    that would
                                    > be "Sophia" centred rather than "Christ" centred. There will be a
                                    > Christology because the "Christ" event cannot be ignored but the
                                    main route
                                    > to salvation will be via Sophia and her emanations. The
                                    whole "idea" system
                                    > forms a very coherent whole and a very workable traditional non-
                                    Christian
                                    > "Sophia centred" gnosticism can be described without reference to
                                    Christ at
                                    > all.
                                    > Gich


                                    Interesting conjecture, Gich; however, I am confused as to how you
                                    are using the term, "Christ." If Sophia were to be the "anointed" in
                                    this hypothetical system, she could theoretically be a soter. On the
                                    other hand, if you're saying that Jesus, a man, need not be part of
                                    the system, that's another thing.

                                    Even in Valentinian mythology, there is a difference between the
                                    anointed (Christ) within the Pleroma (Fullness) and the (lower) Jesus
                                    born of Mary of the material realm. Also, Ptolemy's version of the
                                    Gnostic myth includes a higher Jesus (second-anointed Christ) within
                                    the Fullness, Achamoth's bridegroom (and NOT to be confused with the
                                    Jesus of the material realm)[_The Gnostic Scriptures_, Bentley
                                    Layton, p. 278 – a book with helpful annotations I would highly
                                    recommend, BTW, Gich.].

                                    Cari
                                  • Nick Lawrance
                                    From: Serenity Namate Nick, I haven t much time today and would probably mess up the explanation anyway, so I will give you a site that will explain
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Apr 15, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      From: Serenity
                                      Namate Nick,
                                      I haven't much time today and would probably mess up the explanation
                                      anyway, so I will give you a site that will explain everything. I hope
                                      that you enjoy it.

                                      ......................................................
                                      Thanks Serenity, I was confused as Indicated I thought you were refering to the aeon Sophia.
                                       
                                      Nick
                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      From: Serenity
                                      Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 7:15 PM
                                      Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Pursuit of gnosis (GNOSIS and Salvation)



                                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Nick Lawrance"
                                      <nicholson2000r@c...> wrote:
                                      >   What is the difference between the Valentinian tradition and the
                                      Sophian tradition. I believe Sophia plays a big role in the school of
                                      Valentinius?

                                      Namate Nick,
                                      I haven't much time today and would probably mess up the explanation
                                      anyway, so I will give you a site that will explain everything. I hope
                                      that you enjoy it.

                                      http://www.sophian.org/

                                      Blessed be,
                                      Serenity








                                    • lady_caritas
                                      ... You re welcome, Gich. ... confusing. I don t ... by the ... event? I ... Christ ... short of ... together. Confusion. (Excuse me a moment while I jump out
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Apr 15, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gich morgan" <gich2@b...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Cari
                                        >
                                        > Hey Cari
                                        >
                                        > Thanks for a very constructive post.


                                        You're welcome, Gich.


                                        >
                                        > From the start of my studies I've found the "Christ" term
                                        confusing. I don't
                                        > know why it's there. Why not use SOTER instead? Was it introduced
                                        by the
                                        > Christian gnostics when trying to make sense of the "Jesus Christ"
                                        event? I
                                        > understand that it's a concept not necessarily connected with Jesus
                                        Christ
                                        > but in my reading [? I need to check this; I'm not sure; but I'm
                                        short of
                                        > time today and wanted to reply to you] they always seem to occur
                                        together.


                                        Confusion. (Excuse me a moment while I jump out of my chair and
                                        yell, "YES!") Okay, I'm back.

                                        Truthfully, Gich, it seems that a large source of miscommunication
                                        comes from the fact that most people first encounter these terms in a
                                        modern, traditional, orthodox context. These terms certainly occur
                                        together in a traditional context. Jesus and Christ are the same in
                                        orthodox theology in the literal person of Jesus, a.k.a. Jesus
                                        Christ. Christ in Greek (same as the Hebrew "messiah") means "the
                                        anointed". The Old Testament prophets, priests, and kings would have
                                        been anointed for their particular offices. The deliverer of the
                                        Jews would have been "the Anointed," having the characteristics of a
                                        prophet, priest, and king. "Soter" is Greek for savior. A savior
                                        would have these characteristics of the Anointed. So, effectively
                                        these terms were similar.

                                        Now, as I mentioned in my last post, the Gnostics did not view the
                                        flesh and blood Jesus and the Christ as one and the same. In
                                        adoptionist versions, the Christ descends into Jesus; however, the
                                        Christ would not suffer death, as the mortal Jesus would. And,
                                        further, in the docetic version, even Jesus only *appears* to be
                                        human. These interpretations all serve to emphasize the
                                        otherworldliness of the Gnostics.

                                        In any case, why use all these "Christian" terms? Well, because in
                                        the fluid milieu of the first few centuries, many whom we refer to
                                        as "Gnostic" thought of themselves as *Christian* (before "orthodoxy"
                                        demanded a specific dogma), with a varying, esoteric interpretation
                                        of a Christological *mythology*.



                                        >
                                        > You're correct - I was suggesting "that Jesus, a man, need not be
                                        part of
                                        > the system". How do you view this?


                                        Since you were apparently speaking hypothetically of a modern,
                                        Sophian gnosticism, Gich, I'd say that a man, Jesus, as part of the
                                        system might not at all be necessary. But then, I guess I really
                                        don't know how you would envision this system.



                                        > Thanks for the reference, I'll look into it; I've got a long list
                                        of books I
                                        > want to read already ... not enough hours in the day nor days in
                                        the week.
                                        > :-) ..."Jonas, Hans (1988) "The Gnostic Religion", Boston." sounds
                                        very
                                        > useful; described as "seminal" by Harris. Do you have an opinion on
                                        this
                                        > book?


                                        Hmmm, well, Han Jonas's book is considered by many to be very useful,
                                        but outdated. He does have an existential outlook, which some find
                                        compelling. Kurt Rudolph's book, _Gnosis_, which is more recent,
                                        does fully incorporate the Nag Hammadi texts. Gich, I would highly
                                        recommend that you obtain some original Gnostic texts, with or
                                        without commentary. Robinson's _The Nag Hammadi Library and Layton's
                                        selections, _The Gnostic Scriptures_ (which I already mentioned, with
                                        annotations and outlines of mythic characters) would be very good
                                        additions to your library. In any case, it's good to immerse
                                        yourself in the actual texts and not just rely on commentary.

                                        Cari
                                      • pmcvflag
                                        Hey Gich, sorry it took so long. I got caught up in silly things. It looks like Lady Caritas has gotton to your question as well, so let me just throw in some
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Apr 16, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hey Gich, sorry it took so long. I got caught up in silly things.

                                          It looks like Lady Caritas has gotton to your question as well, so
                                          let me just throw in some backing. Part of the problem is in dealing
                                          with the way christ is used in different situations. Consider this
                                          passage...

                                          "Through the Holy Spirit we are indeed begotten again, but we are
                                          begotten through Christ in the two. We are anointed through the
                                          Spirit. When we were begotten, we were united. None can see himself
                                          either in water or in a mirror without light. Nor again can you see
                                          in light without mirror or water. For this reason, it is fitting to
                                          baptize in the two, in the light and the water. Now the light is the
                                          chrism."

                                          As you know, "Christ" simply means "anointed". So, who is the christ
                                          here? This author has just pointed out that become anointed.

                                          Later passage....

                                          "Jesus appeared [...] Jordan - the fullness of the Kingdom of
                                          Heaven. He who was begotten before everything, was begotten anew. He
                                          who was once anointed, was anointed anew. He who was redeemed, in
                                          turn redeemed (others)."

                                          The Christ manifest in Jesus, is anointed in Jesus "anew", and the
                                          same thing happens to us? In other words, the Christ manifests in
                                          one with the anointing...

                                          "The chrism is superior to baptism, for it is from the word "Chrism"
                                          that we have been called "Christians," certainly not because of the
                                          word "baptism". And it is because of the chrism that "the Christ"
                                          has his name. For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed
                                          the apostles, and the apostles anointed us. He who has been anointed
                                          possesses everything. He possesses the resurrection, the light, the
                                          cross, the Holy Spirit."

                                          Philip does go on to equate Jesus with the "Christ", but you can see
                                          that this would be obvious. Other cases are a bit different though.

                                          In Allogenes we see the anointing.... but no Jesus.

                                          >>>"And the all-glorious One, Youel, anointed me again and she gave
                                          power to me."<<<

                                          And here is a point of interest. Jesus is only mentioned off-hand in
                                          the "Gospel of the Egyptians", as a sort of suit put on by Seth, the
                                          true savior, but "Christ" is integrated in the text. It possible
                                          that the Christian element (of Jesus' name) may be a later addition
                                          (as we know happened to "Eugnostos the Blessed") to the tradition,
                                          while "Christ" is not likely so.

                                          PMCV

                                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gich morgan" <gich2@b...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > PMCV
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Hey PMCV
                                          >
                                          > >>>the figure of "Christ" is not necessarily equated with "Jesus"
                                          in
                                          > >>>Gnosticism <<<
                                          >
                                          > I thought they were "linked" and you couldn't have one without the
                                          other.
                                          > Could you go into this in more detail please. When I write
                                          about 'the
                                          > "Christ" event' I'm specifically thing of Jesus; I may have to
                                          change may
                                          > terminology and write about 'the "Jesus" event'.
                                          >
                                          > Gich
                                        • Mike Leavitt
                                          Hello pmcvflag ... This could as well be read that Jesus and Christ were one at birth and just renewed at the jordan, and not adoptionist at all. Of course it
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Apr 17, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Hello pmcvflag

                                            On 04/17/05, you wrote:

                                            > "Jesus appeared [...] Jordan - the fullness of the Kingdom of
                                            > Heaven. He who was begotten before everything, was begotten anew. He
                                            > who was once anointed, was anointed anew. He who was redeemed, in
                                            > turn redeemed (others)."

                                            This could as well be read that Jesus and Christ were one at birth and
                                            just renewed at the jordan, and not adoptionist at all. Of course it
                                            is but one statement out of Phillip's Gospel, and it is Valentinian.

                                            Regards
                                            --
                                            Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                          • pmcvflag
                                            Hey Mike ... and just renewed at the jordan, and not adoptionist at all. Of course it is but one statement out of Phillip s Gospel, and it is Valentinian.
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Apr 18, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Hey Mike

                                              >>>"This could as well be read that Jesus and Christ were one at birth
                                              and just renewed at the jordan, and not adoptionist at all. Of course
                                              it is but one statement out of Phillip's Gospel, and it is
                                              Valentinian."<<<

                                              Oh, sure.... which is why I pointed out that in the end Philip does
                                              equate the two as well. But even in teh equation there are
                                              destinctions. Obviously in other texts the case is different, and
                                              there are many ways in which the "Christ" motif and the "Jesus" motif
                                              is dealt with. Maybe you could point out which ones are most
                                              interesting to you?

                                              PMCV
                                            • Mike Leavitt
                                              Hello pmcvflag ... In the docetist text the Acts Of John, Christ actually talks extensively to John while Jesus is being crucified, what they say of me I
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Apr 19, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Hello pmcvflag

                                                On 04/19/05, you wrote:

                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Hey Mike
                                                >
                                                >>>> "This could as well be read that Jesus and Christ were one at
                                                >>>> birth
                                                > and just renewed at the jordan, and not adoptionist at all. Of
                                                > course it is but one statement out of Phillip's Gospel, and it is
                                                > Valentinian."<<<
                                                >
                                                > Oh, sure.... which is why I pointed out that in the end Philip does
                                                > equate the two as well. But even in teh equation there are
                                                > destinctions. Obviously in other texts the case is different, and
                                                > there are many ways in which the "Christ" motif and the "Jesus"
                                                > motif is dealt with. Maybe you could point out which ones are most
                                                > interesting to you?
                                                >
                                                > PMCV

                                                In the docetist text the Acts Of John, Christ actually talks
                                                extensively to John while Jesus is being crucified, "what they say of
                                                me I suffered, I did not suffer, what they do not say of me, that I
                                                suffered" (paraphrased).

                                                Regards
                                                --
                                                Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.