Re: I have a question...
- Hey Enkki, welcome to the group. Well, you just happened to stumble
in here as we were discussing the very topics that you have expressed
interest in, so I assume you have cought up a little on the
conversation going on right now. Feel free to also answer any of the
posts in the threads dealing with the subject if you have any
observations or questions.
Anyway, to some of your points....
>>>If you think my beliefs are wrong then tell me w/out attacks andI'll be happy to look at what you think.<<<
We don't flame here, but we do sometimes respectfully disagree.
>>>I'm not saying I necessarily believe all of what I'm going to saybut hopefully some of you can see my direction and give me your
thoughts in line with my question... Lets say for the sake of
conversation that Jesus was by all practical understanding, just a
man. Not of the spirit as the bible says. Not born from a virgin.
Didn't walk on water. Didn't heal the sick or resurrect the dead.
Not saying he wasn't a man of God or even a prophet but still just a
man as any man is today.<<<
Well, as you probably already noticed it is a subject being explored
already in conversation. However, in keeping with the focus of
Gnosticism we should also point out that while this view is very
possible, it doesn't seem to have been the beliefs of the historical
Gnostics. We should also leave open for discussion the possibility
that Jesus simply never existed, or any of a number of possibilities
between these two extremes. In the end, though, most important to
explore for this group would be the historical Gnostic view of Jesus.
>>>I think one hurdle for many people seems to be just accepting thatJesus actually had "Sex" in order to even have children. Not that if
he was married to M.M. that sex between them would have
been 'against God'. Maybe if they weren't married that would have
been a different story. but God did say for us to "Go forth and
Well, in keeping with the Gnostic ideal, it may be important to
remember that Gnostics did not generally consider this "God" who
commanded people to "go forth and multiply" to be the real god, but
just an ignorant (or even evil) Demiurge. This means the command
itself was generally rejected by the Gnostics.
>>>>Christians have always thrown negativity in sex though.<<<The Christians, in turn, got it from the "pagan" Romans.
>>>I think its always been within the christian dogma for people tojust accept that if Jesus was the Man-God then he was above the flesh
and didn't have sexual relations with anyone.<<<
Most modern Christians would agree with you on this, but most
critical historians would not.
>>>M.M. was also said to be a 'lady of the night', and thereforemaybe it was looked at that Jesus (being "Perfect") couldn't have
possibly defiled himself to have had relations with a harlot, but I
personally don't believe M.M. was of that profession. I don't believe
any of that was true. I have read much on M.M. and I think the church
wanted people to think these bad things of her only to discredit for
their own benefit. It was a "Mans" world back in the day and I think
the church felt threatened by M.M. so it was easier for them to put a
bad label on her.<<<<
There is also another possibility here, one that comes from a
considerably deeper source. The equation could have an allegorical
origin. Have you read "Exegesis on the Soul" from the Nag Hammadi
library? Or maybe you are familiar with the Gnostic idea of the fall
of Sophia? You may notice that Lady Cari (and Gerry in a subtle way)
just brought up the idea of the MEANING of Mary to the Valentinian
Gnostics, and what the passage in Philip could imply in this context.
What do you think of these other possibilities?