Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Salvation
I dont think being "reborn" into the spirit necessarily implies reincarnation, rather a resurrection of the soul (into the spirit) via gnosis.
In my (personal) gnosticism, souls are never destroyed, but those that have not received the salvational gnosis will not receive the salvation that naturally flows from life on earth; rather they continue in a sort of never-never land, possibly for all time. The salvational function of gnosis is to save us from this outcome to our life on earth.
William----- Original Message -----From: pmcvflagSent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 7:12 PMSubject: [Gnosticism2] Re: SalvationHey William
I wanted to take a slightly different line than Nick on a couple of
things... which is not so much to express disagreement as to simply
express other areas for exploration.
>>>I presume this `rebirth' is reincarnation?<<<
Remember also that the notion of being "reborn" into the spirit is
important in Gnosticism. We should maybe not be so quick to assume
this was meant to refer to reincarnation.
>>>Is this an essential part of gnosticism in your view? .......Is
there, in your view, a viable gnostic system that does not
As Nick points out, a sort of reincarnation (maybe more
accurately "metempsychosis") could be seen in texts like Apoc of
John. This is the usual Platonic model, with the "cup of
forgetfulness" and all. However, it is not something that all
Gnostic texts repeat so we have to discard it as an essential
attribute of Gnosticism. Common, yes, but not always present. Other
models include the simple destruction of souls that don't find
Gnosis. Or we could also examine groups closely related to
Gnosticism, such as the Manichaeans, that present even different
What I am saying is, the salvational function of Gnosis is certainly
an area of cohesion for any group or text we would call "Gnostic",
but exactly what it is saving us from (besides the material realm of
ignorance) isn't always equally as cohesive.
>>>With this background and also having read Freke and Gandy's booksand Elaine Pagels, Gnostic Gospel but mostly from experiencing
personal Gnosis which I'm sorry to say is being separated from this
discussion or seems to be discounted.<<<
It isn't that your personal definition of the word "Gnosis" is
discounted here, just that it isn't the definition of the
word "Gnosis" that this forum uses.
>>>Freke and Gandy explain the experience of Gnosis as more than canbe written, it must be experienced, it is that knowledge or knowing
beyond intellect that cannot contain the totality to Gnosis.<<<
Freke and Gandy also claim that this definition of the word "Gnosis"
is the one used by the traditional Gnostics... but I should point
out that Freke and Gandy are mistaken. We are a bit more technical
>>>You are all so intelligent but you miss the mark if you think youwill "get it" from all your books and reading, get quiet and get in
touch with the God with in and you may start to have Gnosis.<<<
You misunderstand, Aleada, no body suggested that your idea
of "Gnosis" is something that would be found in a book, but you need
to also understand the historical meaning of the word "Gnosis" and
not only the modern definition you get from people like Freke and
>>>>Whatever the culture it's all the same God or Great Spirit,whatever; the experience of Gnosis is the same, look at the mystics
and refer to Barbara's experience and you will see what it is to
No, that is what it means to have a mystical experience..... not
Gnosis. They are not the same thing.
Why do you feel that we must use your definition of the
word "Gnosis" rather than the one this forum was designed to deal
with? It isn't that I disagree with the importance of the experience
you are talking about, it is just that we don't call that
experience "Gnosis" here.