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

Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Error

Expand Messages
  • Nick Lawrance
    From: gich morgan Jesus was an Essene; a member of the Qumranian community [the Dead Sea Scrolls]. They always referred to themselves as the living and
    Message 1 of 39 , Jun 11, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
       
      From: gich morgan
       Jesus was an Essene; a member of the Qumranian community [the Dead Sea
      Scrolls]. They always referred to themselves as "the living" and everyone
      else was referred to as "the dead". When outsiders were allowed to join the
      group they became one  of "the living"; they had been raised from "the
      dead". From time to time, people were thrown out of the group - they became
      one of "the dead" - they had "died". If, later, they were allowed back in,
      they became one of the living" again; they had "died" and been brought back
      to "life"; they had been "resurrected"! Understanding the local jargon at
      the time of Jesus and Thomas we can see that clause (1) of Thomas actually
      means: Work hard; learn all the bookwork; ... and you will never be kicked
      out of the group!
      ..............................................
       
      >>Jesus was an Essene; a member of the Qumranian community [the Dead Sea
      Scrolls].
      ..........
      Where did you get that information from, it is believed he may have had contact with the Essene Group but I have never seen anyhing that proves he was a member?
       
      >>They always referred to themselves as "the living" and everyone
      else was referred to as "the dead". When outsiders were allowed to join the
      group they became one  of "the living"; they had been raised from "the
      dead". From time to time, people were thrown out of the group - they became
      one of "the dead" - they had "died". If, later, they were allowed back in,
      they became one of the living" again; they had "died" and been brought back
      to "life"; they had been "resurrected"!
      ......................
      The dead and living certainly meant something different in the New Testament:
       
      "He said to another man, 'Follow me.'
      But the man replied, 'Lord, first let me go and bury my father.'
      Jesus said to him, 'Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.' " (9:59-60) Luke
       
      It  certainly means something different in Gnosticism:
       
      "Those who say that the Lord died first and (then) rose up are in error, for he rose up first and (then) died. If one does not first attain the resurrection, he will not die."
       
      "Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing."
       
      " And so he dwells either in this world or in the resurrection or in the middle place. God forbid that I be found in there! In this world, there is good and evil. Its good things are not good, and its evil things not evil. But there is evil after this world which is truly evil - what is called "the middle". It is death. While we are in this world, it is fitting for us to acquire the resurrection, so that when we strip off the flesh, we may be found in rest and not walk in the middle. For many go astray on the way.........."
       
      ".....If anyone becomes a son of the bridal chamber, he will receive the light. If anyone does not receive it while he is here, he will not be able to receive it in the other place. He who will receive that light will not be seen, nor can he be detained. And none shall be able to torment a person like this, even while he dwells in the world. And again when he leaves the world, he has already received the truth in the images. The world has become the Aeon (eternal realm), for the Aeon is fullness for him. This is the way it is: it is revealed to him alone, not hidden in the darkness and the night, but hidden in a perfect day and a holy light. (Gospel of Philip)
       
      And it certainly means something different in Thomas:
       
      (11) Jesus said: This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away; and those who are dead are not alive, and those who are living will not die. In the days when you ate of what is dead, you made of it what is living. When you come to be light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you have become two, what will you do?
       
      >>Understanding the local jargon at the time of Jesus and Thomas we can see that clause (1) of Thomas actually
      means: Work hard; learn all the bookwork; ... and you will never be kicked out of the group!
       
      That's interesting you believe you have the understanding of one saying and you already can understand what Thomas means when he say's 'one will not taste death.' Look again at the saying again, it sayings 'sayings' not 'saying.' Its plural not singular, interpretation of Thomas require a bit more effort. 
       
      (2) Jesus said, "Let one who seeks not stop seeking until that person finds; and upon finding, the person will be disturbed; and being disturbed, will be astounded; and will reign over the entirety."
       
      And no I am not attacking you again, its just that I think you are totally wrong.
       
      Nick
       

      Original Message -----
      Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 11:06 PM
      Subject: Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Error

      Hey Cari!

      >>>Gich, after all your reading of the mythology and articles summaries,  do
      >>>you have any comments about "error" in relation to "creation"?  Cari<<<

      Not really, apart from it being another name for Sophia or possibly the
      demiurge who both play a role in the creation myth of Valentinus. Nowhere
      can I find a reference to "error" as a concept in the way that you and
      others seem to use the term. I've been through Harris again and the
      introductory texts on gnosis.org and can't find it used in this way.

      To try and get the various conversations back on an even keel, I'd like to
      try and summarise how I, at least, got to where I am now. :-) When I started
      studying gnosticism in January three gnostic concepts struck me early on as
      being very original, very thought proving and very important:

      (1) Salvation is dependent on receipt of "gnosis"; whatever this is. [a new
      idea to me at the time]

      (2) There was initially a flawed creation of man and as a response a "divine
      spark" was added to man's nature. This seemed to me to lead naturally to the
      possibility of (man) having a dual nature [which incidentally I'd never
      considered before].

      (3) The concepts of "hylic man", "psychic man", spiritual man". [again these
      are concepts I'd never considered before]

      These three led me to the models I've produced and the view of gnosticism
      that I outlined in my post of 31st May.

      The creation myths and the various gnostic cosmologies did not strike me as
      being particularly important at all. Of the creation myths that I've
      studied, the one I found most interesting is that in the gnostic writing:
      Poemandres. About this G.R.S. Mead writes: "The Fall has here become the
      descent of the Primal Man through the spheres of the planets to the world of
      Nature, a descent caused not by disobedience but by love, and done with the
      blessing of God". This seems to me to be much more optimistic than Genesis
      or Valentinus.

      With regard to the leading members of this group, there seems to be an over
      emphasis on understanding the texts, especially where they are somewhat
      obscure. This is seen as the route to salvation. This is being driven, so
      far as I can see, by one sentence in Thomas, clause (1):

      "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience
      death."; Lambdin.

      "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste
      death."; Patterson and Meyer

      "Whoever finds the meaning of these words will not taste death."; Patterson
      and Robinson

      Some members have recently accused me of being an orthodox Christian
      literalist. If you knew me you'd realise how laughable such a suggestion is;
      people appear to be reading between the lines of my posts and drawing
      exactly the wrong conclusion. [I have no religion - The best I've found in
      my life is the Bahá'í faith but, unfortunately, it's completely unworkable.]
      But there are literalists in this group with regard to much of the gnostic
      writings that appear to be in plain English; all of the leading members! For
      example, they are all taking clause (1) from Thomas literally.

      Jesus was an Essene; a member of the Qumranian community [the Dead Sea
      Scrolls]. They always referred to themselves as "the living" and everyone
      else was referred to as "the dead". When outsiders were allowed to join the
      group they became one  of "the living"; they had been raised from "the
      dead". From time to time, people were thrown out of the group - they became
      one of "the dead" - they had "died". If, later, they were allowed back in,
      they became one of the living" again; they had "died" and been brought back
      to "life"; they had been "resurrected"! Understanding the local jargon at
      the time of Jesus and Thomas we can see that clause (1) of Thomas actually
      means: Work hard; learn all the bookwork; ... and you will never be kicked
      out of the group!

      Changing the subject, with the exception of Cari, the reaction of the
      leading members of this group to my posts has been unrelentingly negative.
      Their responses have on occasion been aggressive, insulting and derogatory
      culminating in the latest attack from Nick. I joined this group to discuss
      gnosticism and to learn but (again with the exception of Cari) none of the
      leadership is interested in talking to me; when they do respond they only
      try to "be clever" at my expense. Also it's clear that my posts are being
      censured - the Church Fathers would be proud of you. I shall not communicate
      further with this group.

      Gich





      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "lady_caritas" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      To: <gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:08 PM
      Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Error


      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gich morgan" <gich2@b...> wrote:
      >
      >> Returning to the conversation with Gerry where he writes
      >>
      >> >>> In the case of Error, you don't seem to have picked up on even
      > the
      >> >>> "literal" mention of it in the texts.... <<<
      >>
      >> Well I had come across it, as another name for some mythical
      > character. As
      >> such it never struck me as being an important concept in its own
      > right as
      >> Gerry seems to be indicating. [And Harris certainly does not refer
      > to it in
      >> this way] After reading your references that's still my
      > position ... am I
      >> missing something?
      >>
      >> Gich
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      > Context.
      >
      > Gerry originally brought up "error" in relation to your discussion
      > of "creation" and a "plan":
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/11103
      >
      > Gich, after all your reading of the mythology and articles summaries,
      > do you have any comments about "error" in relation to "creation"?
      >
      > Cari
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >



    • Mike Leavitt
      Hello pmcvflag ... At least we can t accuse him of ego inflation. :-) Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998_@_lafn._org remove - s
      Message 39 of 39 , Jul 28, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello pmcvflag

        On 07/25/05, you wrote:

        > Gerry is overly humble. Let me state for the record that I have
        > taken his observations over people who actually technically
        > ARE "linguists" by trade.
        >
        > PMCV
        >
        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
        >>
        >> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "marinas_snake"
        >> <marinas_snake@y...> wrote:
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> Gerry, are you a linguist?
        >>>
        >>> Marina
        >>>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> A Linguist? No, Marina. I was raised a Methodist.
        >>
        >> Well, I was going to extend my facetious abuse of that term to a
        >> long
        >> spiel on glossolalia, but even as waggish as I feel at the moment,
        >> it
        >> is actually my fatigue that is winning out. Let me just admit
        >> that I
        >> do have a peculiar interest (i.e., geeky fascination) when it
        >> comes
        >> to languages. Nothing of a professional nature though.
        >>
        >> Gerry

        At least we can't accuse him of ego inflation. :-)

        Regards
        --
        Mike Leavitt ac998_@_lafn._org remove -'s
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.