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

Re: Limited reading, have questions

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    ... particular following and way of gnosticism, when many facets are prevelant today. Becareful in what you may read that says all gnostics are like this Its
    Message 1 of 82 , Oct 11, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, David Wilson
      <light_life_love@y...> wrote:
      >
      > Chuck,
      >
      > It seems that you might be trying to hard to understand one
      particular following and way of gnosticism, when many facets are
      prevelant today. Becareful in what you may read that says" all
      gnostics are like this" Its not true.



      Hello, David. In this group, however, we do compare/contrast to our
      focus of *historical* Gnosticism of the late antiquities. And,
      although there was some variation among sects, there were also
      similarities, which allow us to loosely categorize them together.
      The overriding one consistently found in these groups was the
      function of Gnosis as salvific. So, although I wouldn't put all
      Gnostics in a straightjacket, I also would *not* accept that many
      paths, including some modern ones called "Gnostic," are necessarily
      simpatico at all with the ancient groups we focus on.



      > One last thing I would like to note that is we are creations of the
      unnamed one, and being of its creation, we share many aspects with
      our. To balance the equation the creator must have to have something
      to do with time and there are probably overlying rules which even it
      must follow.
      >
      > David W.
      >
      >



      Well, the creator, the demiurge, craftsman/artisan of this world, did
      not remain "unnamed" with the Gnostics. In literature we see
      Ialdabaoth – also called Saklas (fool) and Samael (blind god).

      Cari
    • pmcvflag
      Hey David ... need to ask ya first. Did Early Gnostics really think and speak in allegorical terms? Cause if so that may answer a lot but only open more
      Message 82 of 82 , Oct 27, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hey David

        >>>wow, your questions really sparked some thought in my head, I
        need to ask ya first. Did Early "Gnostics" really think and speak in
        allegorical terms? Cause if so that may answer a lot but only open
        more questions to debate. very good questions at that.<<<

        Thanks, glad you liked the questions :) As Lady Cari states, there
        is evidence in the original Gnostic writings for allegorical
        hermeneutic. Part of the point I was trying to bring up was exactly
        where this should be applied. In other words... Philip, the
        Tripartite Tractate, and other texts state directly that there is
        allegory (so there is no question on that front), but exactly where
        and how it is applied is very open to discussion.

        In this particular case, I was asking if you think that that
        allegory extends to the notion of the Demiurge or not. Let me also
        point out that the idea that something may literally be true does
        not exclude the notion that it may have also been allegorical in
        meaning. So.... where do you think this all fit in the original
        intent of the Gnostic texts?

        PMCV
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.