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

Re: Pursuit of gnosis (GNOSIS and Salvation)

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Hello Serenity, welcome to the group. You state.... ... individual and believe in all forms of worship being equally respected by the Creator.
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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.