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

Rex Mundi film,

Expand Messages
  • teafourme
    Thought I would share this find http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=84733 Looks VERY INTERESTING. NO? KP
    Message 1 of 20 , Feb 27, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Thought I would share this find

      http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=84733

      Looks VERY INTERESTING.
      NO?
      KP
    • Gerry
      ... No, not really. The conspiracy theorists and alternative history writers have already had a field day concerning what might otherwise be of legitimate
      Message 2 of 20 , Feb 27, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment


        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, teafourme <no_reply@...> wrote:

        >
        > Thought I would share this find
        >
        > http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=84733
        >
        > Looks VERY INTERESTING.
        > NO?
        > KP
        >

         

         

        No, not really. 

        The conspiracy theorists and alternative history writers have already had a field day concerning what might otherwise be of legitimate interest with regards to Gnosticism.  Dan Brown took that material and ran with it, and now we can see these popular misconceptions further fantasized into comic book format and a big-screen production of the same. [sigh] 

        The fact that Johnny Depp is involved with this undertaking is really but another nail in its coffin, although I don't mind admitting that I thoroughly enjoyed Chocolat in spite of his appearance in that film.

        Gerry

      • teafourme
        IMO anything that gets the general public open to Gnosis is a good thing Dan Brown opened a lot of doors for many people, and in turn they have their eyes and
        Message 3 of 20 , Feb 28, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment

          IMO anything that gets the general public open to Gnosis is a good thing

          Dan Brown opened a lot of doors for many people, and in turn they have their eyes and minds open too much more.

           

           Some people began asking more questions, taking what he had to say to another level, what ever that level might be to suite their own needs.

          Whether or not they get suck on this theory that is their own issue. The fact that it has opened minds to new possibilities is what matters.

           

           I am not saying that one should agree with all he put in print and screen, but his action of getting it out there was HUGE and it has defiantly had an impact on the general public. People started taking this into their homes and communities and talked about it.

          "Talked about it", .. Isn't that great? People are talking!

          Getting the vibration out there.

          In the search of enlightenment the means that moves a person are vast and varied

           

          The comic book has been around since the 1950's long before DB and the DVC. And if people can relate to this, how can that be bad?  It may open a few more minds and ideas.

           Isn't that what it is all about, opening the mind and expanding Ideas?

           

          Through the centuries Gnosis has been handed down through art and literature, this is no different; one means of art might not appeal to one, but may enlighten another.  So if someone has seen or heard of this Comic, and thought not too much of it, and now they see it in a different form of media that may appeal to them more, than great, another open mind!

           

          Many people didn't like the fact that Tom Hanks was to the major roll in the DVC, but they wanted to know it was all about, so they went anyway.  I don't think the message that was meant to be sent out there was hindered at all by him playing the part.

          So, JD having a hand in this movie isn't such an awful thing.  You are apparently not a big fan of his, but knew he was in Chocolate and you still went to see the movie and you got what you needed from that movie.  

          Take what you need and left the rest.

          What a great concept for all.

           

          Peace,

           

          KP
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, teafourme no_reply@ wrote:
          > >
          > > Thought I would share this find
          > >
          > > http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=84733
          > >
          > > Looks VERY INTERESTING.
          > > NO?
          > > KP
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > No, not really.
          >
          > The conspiracy theorists and alternative history writers have already
          > had a field day concerning what might otherwise be of legitimate
          > interest with regards to Gnosticism. Dan Brown took that material and
          > ran with it, and now we can see these popular misconceptions further
          > fantasized into comic book format and a big-screen production of the
          > same. [sigh]
          >
          > The fact that Johnny Depp is involved with this undertaking is really
          > but another nail in its coffin, although I don't mind admitting that
          > I thoroughly enjoyed Chocolat in spite of his appearance in that film.
          >
          > Gerry
          >
        • pmcvflag
          Hey Ms Teafourme/KP ... good thing
          Message 4 of 20 , Feb 28, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Hey Ms Teafourme/KP

            >>>IMO anything that gets the general public open to Gnosis is a
            good thing<<<

            Perhaps part of the question would be whether this really opens a
            person for "Gnosis" or whether it simply opens a person to
            questions. Now, don't get me wrong... it is important to open a line
            of questioning. In my personal experience the DV Code has done less
            to really open questions rather than edify those who were against
            one stance and turn off those who aren't, but that is another story.
            My point is, just because it attacks "orthodoxy" does not make it
            Gnosis.

            I don't want my point to get in the way of Gerry's sardonic
            response, though it would not be the first time I was accused of
            being overly serious ;) I just mean to point out that I don't know
            whether this movie really has anything to do with Gnosis or not. I
            will be curious to find out.

            We have talked in this forum about popular "arts" and Gnosis
            previously, if anyone wants to search for subjects like the DV code,
            Truman Show, Matrix, Jacob's Ladder (the movie), etc.. I think many
            here are very willing to accept that such a medium could actually
            have that "arete" that relates to Gnosis.

            Still... why is this specific movie "VERY intersting"? We need more.

            PMCV
          • Gerry
            ... thing ... The ... Okay, consider what I was discussing previously with Andrew. Do we consider it gnosis that some people have a need to support their
            Message 5 of 20 , Mar 1, 2007
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment


              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, teafourme <no_reply@...> wrote:

              >
              >
              > IMO anything that gets the general public open to Gnosis is a good thing
              >
              > Dan Brown opened a lot of doors for many people, and in turn they have
              > their eyes and minds open too much more.
              >
              >
              >
              > Some people began asking more questions, taking what he had to say to
              > another level, what ever that level might be to suite their own needs.
              >
              > Whether or not they get suck on this theory that is their own issue. The
              > fact that it has opened minds to new possibilities is what matters.
              >

               

              Okay, consider what I was discussing previously with Andrew.  Do we consider it "gnosis" that some people have a "need" to support their racist agenda, and apparently claim to find such substantiation within ancient texts?

              Or, take another look at that passage from Prof. Couliano that PMCV quoted.  Some people seem to have no difficulty picking and choosing which portions of that essay they find relevant, all in order to come away with the very understanding AGAINST which the author was writing.  Unless, of course, they actually DID read the whole thing and (more disturbingly) think to themselves, "Hey, let's be gnostics like the communists and nazis!"

               

              >

              > I am not saying that one should agree with all he put in print and
              > screen, but his action of getting it out there was HUGE and it has
              > defiantly had an impact on the general public. People started taking
              > this into their homes and communities and talked about it.
              >
              > "Talked about it", .. Isn't that great? People are talking!
              >
              > Getting the vibration out there.
              >
              > In the search of enlightenment the means that moves a person are vast
              > and varied
              >

               

              No.  Talking, in and of itself, is not necessarily a great thing.  I've known plenty of people with diarrhea of the mouth.  If their affliction spewed forth something of substance, even on occasion, I might think differently.  After the Matrix trilogy, there are some people who are honestly convinced that we are living in a computer program, and they faithfully await a savior to come and disrupt the machinations so they can be released.  I have seen "talk" of this on the Net.  "Great"?  I'm not convinced.

               

              >

              > The comic book has been around since the 1950's long before DB and
              > the DVC. And if people can relate to this, how can that be bad? It may
              > open a few more minds and ideas.
              >
              > Isn't that what it is all about, opening the mind and expanding
              > Ideas?
              >
              >
              >
              > Through the centuries Gnosis has been handed down through art and
              > literature, this is no different; one means of art might not appeal to
              > one, but may enlighten another. So if someone has seen or heard of this
              > Comic, and thought not too much of it, and now they see it in a
              > different form of media that may appeal to them more, than great,
              > another open mind!
              >
              >
              >
              > Many people didn't like the fact that Tom Hanks was to the major
              > roll in the DVC, but they wanted to know it was all about, so they went
              > anyway. I don't think the message that was meant to be sent out
              > there was hindered at all by him playing the part.
              >
              > So, JD having a hand in this movie isn't such an awful thing. You
              > are apparently not a big fan of his, but knew he was in Chocolate and
              > you still went to see the movie and you got what you needed from that
              > movie.
              >

               

              Actually, I missed Chocolat at the cinema.  I'm not even sure that it was ever released around these parts, but I did manage to catch it numerous times on cable.  I wasn't even aware that Johnny Depp was in it until I was well into the film the first time.  Despite the fact that I find his personal notoriety to be a bit of a distraction, I was able to take in the overall work (writing, direction, other fantastic actors, etc.) and managed to appreciate varying levels of appeal.  If I had driven out of town when the movie first came out just to catch an appearance of Lena Olin on the big screen because I think she's hot … would I have gotten as much out of it?  Who knows.  The point is that one would be more likely to come away with a broader appreciation of the work if such preconceptions as "I hate Johnny Depp" or "I love Lena Olin" were set aside at the start.

               


              > Take what you need and left the rest.

              >
              > What a great concept for all.
              >
              >
              >
              > Peace,
              >
              >
              > KP
              >

               

              This seems like a great concept for anyone who can be satisfied with an exploration of profundity that may be limited to thrashing about in the shallow end or simply swimming across the surface.  Perhaps there's more to the pool than we've considered.  Have we pondered the tiles, or the drain, or the filtration system?  How about the source of the water?  Is it, in fact, meant merely for decoration or reflection?  Could it be intended for sacred or ritualistic purposes?  If so, have we already embarrassed ourselves by diving into it in the first place?  Even though we may be accustomed to seeing a bunch of water and thinking to ourselves what a splashing good time might be had therein, perhaps it would be a good thing to consider the context.

              Gerry

            • teafourme
              please forgive my ignorance of being new on this journey, I think I will just hang around and read for a while with out posting. Although sometimes I learn
              Message 6 of 20 , Mar 1, 2007
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                please forgive my ignorance of being new on this journey, I think I
                will just hang around and read for a while with out posting.
                Although sometimes I learn more by asking questions and expressing
                my feelings. But I will not subject myself to others who need to
                make their point by lashing out in sarcasms instead of trying to be
                a teacher to someone who obviously is in need of a better
                understanding.

                -- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, teafourme <no_reply@> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > IMO anything that gets the general public open to Gnosis is a
                good
                > thing
                > >
                > > Dan Brown opened a lot of doors for many people, and in turn
                they have
                > > their eyes and minds open too much more.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Some people began asking more questions, taking what he had to
                say to
                > > another level, what ever that level might be to suite their own
                needs.
                > >
                > > Whether or not they get suck on this theory that is their own
                issue.
                > The
                > > fact that it has opened minds to new possibilities is what
                matters.
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                > Okay, consider what I was discussing previously with Andrew. Do we
                > consider it "gnosis" that some people have a "need" to
                > support their racist agenda, and apparently claim to find such
                > substantiation within ancient texts?
                >
                > Or, take another look at that passage from Prof. Couliano that PMCV
                > quoted. Some people seem to have no difficulty picking and
                choosing
                > which portions of that essay they find relevant, all in order to
                come
                > away with the very understanding AGAINST which the author was
                writing.
                > Unless, of course, they actually DID read the whole thing and (more
                > disturbingly) think to themselves, "Hey, let's be gnostics like the
                > communists and nazis!"
                >
                >
                >
                > >
                > > I am not saying that one should agree with all he put in print
                and
                > > screen, but his action of getting it out there was HUGE and it
                has
                > > defiantly had an impact on the general public. People started
                taking
                > > this into their homes and communities and talked about it.
                > >
                > > "Talked about it", .. Isn't that great? People are talking!
                > >
                > > Getting the vibration out there.
                > >
                > > In the search of enlightenment the means that moves a person are
                vast
                > > and varied
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                > No. Talking, in and of itself, is not necessarily a great thing.
                > I've known plenty of people with diarrhea of the mouth. If their
                > affliction spewed forth something of substance, even on occasion, I
                > might think differently. After the Matrix trilogy, there are some
                > people who are honestly convinced that we are living in a computer
                > program, and they faithfully await a savior to come and disrupt the
                > machinations so they can be released. I have seen "talk" of
                > this on the Net. "Great"? I'm not convinced.
                >
                >
                >
                > >
                > > The comic book has been around since the 1950's long before DB
                and
                > > the DVC. And if people can relate to this, how can that be bad?
                It may
                > > open a few more minds and ideas.
                > >
                > > Isn't that what it is all about, opening the mind and expanding
                > > Ideas?
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Through the centuries Gnosis has been handed down through art and
                > > literature, this is no different; one means of art might not
                appeal to
                > > one, but may enlighten another. So if someone has seen or heard
                of
                > this
                > > Comic, and thought not too much of it, and now they see it in a
                > > different form of media that may appeal to them more, than great,
                > > another open mind!
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Many people didn't like the fact that Tom Hanks was to the major
                > > roll in the DVC, but they wanted to know it was all about, so
                they
                > went
                > > anyway. I don't think the message that was meant to be sent out
                > > there was hindered at all by him playing the part.
                > >
                > > So, JD having a hand in this movie isn't such an awful thing. You
                > > are apparently not a big fan of his, but knew he was in
                Chocolate and
                > > you still went to see the movie and you got what you needed from
                that
                > > movie.
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                > Actually, I missed Chocolat at the cinema. I'm not even sure that
                > it was ever released around these parts, but I did manage to catch
                it
                > numerous times on cable. I wasn't even aware that Johnny Depp was
                > in it until I was well into the film the first time. Despite the
                fact
                > that I find his personal notoriety to be a bit of a distraction, I
                was
                > able to take in the overall work (writing, direction, other
                fantastic
                > actors, etc.) and managed to appreciate varying levels of appeal.
                If I
                > had driven out of town when the movie first came out just to catch
                an
                > appearance of Lena Olin on the big screen because I think she's hot
                > … would I have gotten as much out of it? Who knows. The point is
                > that one would be more likely to come away with a broader
                appreciation
                > of the work if such preconceptions as "I hate Johnny Depp" or
                > "I love Lena Olin" were set aside at the start.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > > Take what you need and left the rest.
                > >
                > > What a great concept for all.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Peace,
                > >
                > >
                > > KP
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                > This seems like a great concept for anyone who can be satisfied
                with an
                > exploration of profundity that may be limited to thrashing about
                in the
                > shallow end or simply swimming across the surface. Perhaps there's
                > more to the pool than we've considered. Have we pondered the
                tiles,
                > or the drain, or the filtration system? How about the source of
                the
                > water? Is it, in fact, meant merely for decoration or reflection?
                > Could it be intended for sacred or ritualistic purposes? If so,
                have we
                > already embarrassed ourselves by diving into it in the first
                place?
                > Even though we may be accustomed to seeing a bunch of water and
                thinking
                > to ourselves what a splashing good time might be had therein,
                perhaps it
                > would be a good thing to consider the context.
                >
                > Gerry
                >
              • pmcvflag
                Hey Teafourme You state..... ... will just hang around and read for a while with out posting. Although sometimes I learn more by asking questions and
                Message 7 of 20 , Mar 1, 2007
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hey Teafourme

                  You state.....

                  >>>please forgive my ignorance of being new on this journey, I think I
                  will just hang around and read for a while with out posting.
                  Although sometimes I learn more by asking questions and expressing
                  my feelings. But I will not subject myself to others who need to
                  make their point by lashing out in sarcasms instead of trying to be
                  a teacher to someone who obviously is in need of a better
                  understanding.<<<

                  Don't worry, we are all learning all the time. This is not an easy
                  subject. It can seem rather tough in here at times. Many of us,
                  including myself, can be very blunt and clinical. People who may not
                  be used to critical exploration may find it disconcerting at first. I
                  think you will find shortly that it doesn't mean people are putting
                  YOU down, just raising issues with points.

                  I think part of the issue in here may be that right now there is a
                  movement in popular culture to place a "Gnostic" tag on things that
                  question the "orthodox" church. On top of that, though you are right
                  that some of the movies that are out now are getting people to think,
                  some (like the Da Vinci Code) are actually spreading false and
                  harmful info about Gnosticism. Because this forum tries particularly
                  hard to keep the info about Gnosticism as technically accurate as we
                  can, some of us may sometimes find ourselves combating the movie,
                  book, poem, music, etc., in question (even if we may like them
                  personally).

                  Imagine the number of people who initially joined this forum because
                  they thought Gnostics believed that Jesus had children.

                  PMCV
                • lady_caritas
                  ... There seems to be a pervasive need in popular culture to commonly think in terms of historical figures when it comes to religious matters. And mostly I
                  Message 8 of 20 , Mar 3, 2007
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment


                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > I think part of the issue in here may be that right now there is a
                    > movement in popular culture to place a "Gnostic" tag on things that
                    > question the "orthodox" church. On top of that, though you are right
                    > that some of the movies that are out now are getting people to think,
                    > some (like the Da Vinci Code) are actually spreading false and
                    > harmful info about Gnosticism. Because this forum tries particularly
                    > hard to keep the info about Gnosticism as technically accurate as we
                    > can, some of us may sometimes find ourselves combating the movie,
                    > book, poem, music, etc., in question (even if we may like them
                    > personally).
                    >
                    > Imagine the number of people who initially joined this forum because
                    > they thought Gnostics believed that Jesus had children.
                    >
                    > PMCV
                    >

                    There seems to be a pervasive need in popular culture to commonly think in terms of historical figures when it comes to religious matters.  And mostly I shrug my shoulders, except in some cases where misinformation is blatantly tagged to scholarship.

                    From an article today in The New York Times:

                    Early Christian Gospels suggesting that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus and a respected apostle in her own right, not a fallen woman, are the foundation of Gnostic studies by scholars like Elaine Pagels — as well as of the plot of the Dan Brown best seller "The Da Vinci Code."

                    ("Leaning on Theory, Colliding With Faith" by Alessandra Stanley)

                    http://tinyurl.com/2sv7v5

                    [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/arts/television/03stan.html?ex=1173589200&en=98bf67e7c2efc9ed&ei=5070&emc=eta1]

                    I wonder how Elaine Pagels would really describe what she considers the "foundation," the FOUNDATION (yikes), of Gnostic studies and how she feels about being lumped in the same sentence with Dan Brown.

                    Robert Eisenman presents a scathing contrast:

                    http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070228/cm_huffpost/042235

                    Cari

                     

                  • Michael Leavitt
                    Well for once I agree completely with Robert Eisenman. ... Excellent article. -- M. Leavitt
                    Message 9 of 20 , Mar 3, 2007
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Well for once I agree completely with Robert Eisenman.

                      lady_caritas wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > I think part of the issue in here may be that right now there is a
                      > > movement in popular culture to place a "Gnostic" tag on things that
                      > > question the "orthodox" church. On top of that, though you are right
                      > > that some of the movies that are out now are getting people to think,
                      > > some (like the Da Vinci Code) are actually spreading false and
                      > > harmful info about Gnosticism. Because this forum tries particularly
                      > > hard to keep the info about Gnosticism as technically accurate as we
                      > > can, some of us may sometimes find ourselves combating the movie,
                      > > book, poem, music, etc., in question (even if we may like them
                      > > personally).
                      > >
                      > > Imagine the number of people who initially joined this forum because
                      > > they thought Gnostics believed that Jesus had children.
                      > >
                      > > PMCV
                      > >
                      >
                      > There seems to be a pervasive need in popular culture to commonly
                      > think in terms of historical figures when it comes to religious
                      > matters. And mostly I shrug my shoulders, except in some cases where
                      > misinformation is blatantly tagged to scholarship.
                      >
                      > From an article today in /The New York Times/:
                      >
                      > /Early Christian Gospels suggesting that Mary Magdalene was the
                      > wife of Jesus and a respected apostle in her own right, not a
                      > fallen woman, are the foundation of Gnostic studies by scholars
                      > like Elaine Pagels — as well as of the plot of the Dan Brown
                      > <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/dan_brown/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
                      > best seller "The Da Vinci Code."/
                      >
                      > ("Leaning on Theory, Colliding With Faith" by Alessandra Stanley)
                      >
                      > *http://tinyurl.com/2sv7v5*
                      >
                      > [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/arts/television/03stan.html?ex=1173589200&en=98bf67e7c2efc9ed&ei=5070&emc=eta1
                      > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/arts/television/03stan.html?ex=1173589200&en=98bf67e7c2efc9ed&ei=5070&emc=eta1>]
                      >
                      > I wonder how Elaine Pagels would /really/ describe what she considers
                      > the "foundation," the FOUNDATION (yikes), of Gnostic studies and how
                      > she feels about being lumped in the same sentence with Dan Brown.
                      >
                      > Robert Eisenman presents a scathing contrast:
                      >
                      > http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070228/cm_huffpost/042235
                      >
                      > Cari
                      >
                      Excellent article.

                      --
                      M. Leavitt
                    • thalprin
                      ... I think I agree too. It s a find, looks to be an archeological find, and we should, yup, I d imagine try looking/investigating it as that. It ll be
                      Message 10 of 20 , Mar 3, 2007
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Michael Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Well for once I agree completely with Robert Eisenman.


                        I think I agree too. It's a find, looks to be an archeological find,
                        and we should, yup, I'd imagine try looking/investigating it as
                        that. It'll be interesting to see this program when it airs - and I
                        wanna know more about what is/isn't inside the other burial site
                        they're mentioning too.

                        Thanks for posting this link Lady Caritas.

                        Terrie


                        >
                        > lady_caritas wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > I think part of the issue in here may be that right now there
                        is a
                        > > > movement in popular culture to place a "Gnostic" tag on things
                        that
                        > > > question the "orthodox" church. On top of that, though you are
                        right
                        > > > that some of the movies that are out now are getting people to
                        think,
                        > > > some (like the Da Vinci Code) are actually spreading false and
                        > > > harmful info about Gnosticism. Because this forum tries
                        particularly
                        > > > hard to keep the info about Gnosticism as technically accurate
                        as we
                        > > > can, some of us may sometimes find ourselves combating the
                        movie,
                        > > > book, poem, music, etc., in question (even if we may like them
                        > > > personally).
                        > > >
                        > > > Imagine the number of people who initially joined this forum
                        because
                        > > > they thought Gnostics believed that Jesus had children.
                        > > >
                        > > > PMCV
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > > There seems to be a pervasive need in popular culture to commonly
                        > > think in terms of historical figures when it comes to religious
                        > > matters. And mostly I shrug my shoulders, except in some cases
                        where
                        > > misinformation is blatantly tagged to scholarship.
                        > >
                        > > From an article today in /The New York Times/:
                        > >
                        > > /Early Christian Gospels suggesting that Mary Magdalene was
                        the
                        > > wife of Jesus and a respected apostle in her own right, not a
                        > > fallen woman, are the foundation of Gnostic studies by
                        scholars
                        > > like Elaine Pagels — as well as of the plot of the Dan Brown
                        > >
                        <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/dan_brow
                        n/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
                        > > best seller "The Da Vinci Code."/
                        > >
                        > > ("Leaning on Theory, Colliding With Faith" by Alessandra
                        Stanley)
                        > >
                        > > *http://tinyurl.com/2sv7v5*
                        > >
                        > >
                        [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/arts/television/03stan.html?
                        ex=1173589200&en=98bf67e7c2efc9ed&ei=5070&emc=eta1
                        > >
                        <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/arts/television/03stan.html?
                        ex=1173589200&en=98bf67e7c2efc9ed&ei=5070&emc=eta1>]
                        > >
                        > > I wonder how Elaine Pagels would /really/ describe what she
                        considers
                        > > the "foundation," the FOUNDATION (yikes), of Gnostic studies and
                        how
                        > > she feels about being lumped in the same sentence with Dan Brown.
                        > >
                        > > Robert Eisenman presents a scathing contrast:
                        > >
                        > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070228/cm_huffpost/042235
                        > >
                        > > Cari
                        > >
                        > Excellent article.
                        >
                        > --
                        > M. Leavitt
                        >
                      • thalprin
                        I think things go/can go odd in acheology sometimes. Sometimes, it simply takes time to sort things out. For example (an example which I think is kinda
                        Message 11 of 20 , Mar 3, 2007
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I think things go/can go odd in acheology sometimes. Sometimes, it
                          simply takes time to sort things out. For example (an example which
                          I think is kinda funny,) I was watching as show few days/weeks back
                          on Tut, and folks were discussing this mural of him with a deformed
                          leg. Basically, they were staring at this mural and yet wondering
                          why he had 100+ walking sticks burried with him in his tomb. ?
                          Then, as the program went on, essentially trying to riddle his cause
                          of death, they discovered his broken/missing kneecap and wondered ifn
                          that might've been what killed him. In time, I imagine they'll sort
                          things out to speculate that Tut might've had a knee injury that
                          didn't kill him but left him lame. Still, as yet, I don't think I've
                          heard they have.

                          Terrie


                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Michael Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Well for once I agree completely with Robert Eisenman.
                          >
                          > lady_caritas wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > I think part of the issue in here may be that right now there
                          is a
                          > > > movement in popular culture to place a "Gnostic" tag on things
                          that
                          > > > question the "orthodox" church. On top of that, though you are
                          right
                          > > > that some of the movies that are out now are getting people to
                          think,
                          > > > some (like the Da Vinci Code) are actually spreading false and
                          > > > harmful info about Gnosticism. Because this forum tries
                          particularly
                          > > > hard to keep the info about Gnosticism as technically accurate
                          as we
                          > > > can, some of us may sometimes find ourselves combating the
                          movie,
                          > > > book, poem, music, etc., in question (even if we may like them
                          > > > personally).
                          > > >
                          > > > Imagine the number of people who initially joined this forum
                          because
                          > > > they thought Gnostics believed that Jesus had children.
                          > > >
                          > > > PMCV
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > > There seems to be a pervasive need in popular culture to commonly
                          > > think in terms of historical figures when it comes to religious
                          > > matters. And mostly I shrug my shoulders, except in some cases
                          where
                          > > misinformation is blatantly tagged to scholarship.
                          > >
                          > > From an article today in /The New York Times/:
                          > >
                          > > /Early Christian Gospels suggesting that Mary Magdalene was
                          the
                          > > wife of Jesus and a respected apostle in her own right, not a
                          > > fallen woman, are the foundation of Gnostic studies by
                          scholars
                          > > like Elaine Pagels — as well as of the plot of the Dan Brown
                          > >
                          <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/dan_brow
                          n/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
                          > > best seller "The Da Vinci Code."/
                          > >
                          > > ("Leaning on Theory, Colliding With Faith" by Alessandra
                          Stanley)
                          > >
                          > > *http://tinyurl.com/2sv7v5*
                          > >
                          > >
                          [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/arts/television/03stan.html?
                          ex=1173589200&en=98bf67e7c2efc9ed&ei=5070&emc=eta1
                          > >
                          <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/arts/television/03stan.html?
                          ex=1173589200&en=98bf67e7c2efc9ed&ei=5070&emc=eta1>]
                          > >
                          > > I wonder how Elaine Pagels would /really/ describe what she
                          considers
                          > > the "foundation," the FOUNDATION (yikes), of Gnostic studies and
                          how
                          > > she feels about being lumped in the same sentence with Dan Brown.
                          > >
                          > > Robert Eisenman presents a scathing contrast:
                          > >
                          > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070228/cm_huffpost/042235
                          > >
                          > > Cari
                          > >
                          > Excellent article.
                          >
                          > --
                          > M. Leavitt
                          >
                        • pmcvflag
                          Hey Mike ... Although I agree with Eisenman for being critical of the discoveries, I was taken aback by this statement from him... And what of this Mary s
                          Message 12 of 20 , Mar 9, 2007
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hey Mike

                            >>Well for once I agree completely with Robert Eisenman.<<<

                            Although I agree with Eisenman for being critical of the discoveries,
                            I was taken aback by this statement from him...

                            "And what of this "Mary"'s other descendant all Gnostic Gospel
                            enthusiasts and those wishing for the eternal feminine (to say nothing
                            of "the bloodline of the Holy Grail" ) fantasize over, "Sarah"?"

                            Good lord! Now Nag Hammadi studies have no validity and anyone with an
                            insterest in Gnosticism must be followers of Dan Brown's uncritical
                            historical theories. Is there an emoticon for the rolling of ones eyes?

                            PMCV
                          • Michael Leavitt
                            ... I didn t take that statement personally, but you have a point. 0)0) (rolls eyes) (I just made that up). :-)
                            Message 13 of 20 , Mar 9, 2007
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              pmcvflag wrote:
                              > Hey Mike
                              >
                              >
                              >>> Well for once I agree completely with Robert Eisenman.<<<
                              >>>
                              >
                              > Although I agree with Eisenman for being critical of the discoveries,
                              > I was taken aback by this statement from him...
                              >
                              > "And what of this "Mary"'s other descendant all Gnostic Gospel
                              > enthusiasts and those wishing for the eternal feminine (to say nothing
                              > of "the bloodline of the Holy Grail" ) fantasize over, "Sarah"?"
                              >
                              > Good lord! Now Nag Hammadi studies have no validity and anyone with an
                              > insterest in Gnosticism must be followers of Dan Brown's uncritical
                              > historical theories. Is there an emoticon for the rolling of ones eyes?
                              >
                              > PMCV
                              >
                              I didn't take that statement personally, but you have a point. 0)0)
                              (rolls eyes) (I just made that up). :-)
                            • tau_mar_thoma
                              ... nothing ... with an ... eyes? ... Greetings, Mike and PMCV: AMEN! It s about time that people accept that, in fact, The Da Vinci Code is a book of
                              Message 14 of 20 , Mar 11, 2007
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Michael Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > pmcvflag wrote:
                                > > Hey Mike
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >>> Well for once I agree completely with Robert Eisenman.<<<
                                > >>>
                                > >
                                > > Although I agree with Eisenman for being critical of the discoveries,
                                > > I was taken aback by this statement from him...
                                > >
                                > > "And what of this "Mary"'s other descendant all Gnostic Gospel
                                > > enthusiasts and those wishing for the eternal feminine (to say
                                nothing
                                > > of "the bloodline of the Holy Grail" ) fantasize over, "Sarah"?"
                                > >
                                > > Good lord! Now Nag Hammadi studies have no validity and anyone
                                with an
                                > > insterest in Gnosticism must be followers of Dan Brown's uncritical
                                > > historical theories. Is there an emoticon for the rolling of ones
                                eyes?
                                > >
                                > > PMCV
                                > >
                                > I didn't take that statement personally, but you have a point. 0)0)
                                > (rolls eyes) (I just made that up). :-)
                                >
                                Greetings, Mike and PMCV:

                                AMEN! It's about time that people accept that, in fact, "The Da Vinci
                                Code" is a book of fictions, not inspired by the True God, but
                                comprised of a clever concoction of facts but mostly theories put
                                together to make money, promote movies, and to be the new hot topic of
                                bloggers galore. Furthermore, a lot of his "facts and theories" are
                                imperfectly understood and, consequently, render a very imperfect
                                "gnostic" revelation. Besides, in the final analysis, you will never
                                find Truth in any form of written literature, not even the NHL et al.
                                but solely through experiential Gnosis. The written words have their
                                place, to be sure, but they are at best vague adumbrations of how and
                                what Truth might appear as.

                                It is one thing to say "The Word" but this mystical concept must never
                                be confused - not ever - with the written words of humans, be they
                                spiritual or secular or nearly brain-dead. Unless, at heart, we too
                                are become "bible-beating fundamentalists"? What divine Being ever
                                wrote anything down, other than the demiurge when it "inscribed" the
                                words of the Torah on two blocks of stone?

                                Peace,

                                +Tau Mar Thoma

                                http://www.myspace.com/holy_ewer_gnostic_studies
                                http://blog.myspace.com/holy_ewer_gnostic_studies
                              • lady_caritas
                                ... Vinci ... of ... never ... al. ... their ... and ... never ... Hello, + Tau Mar Thoma. We ve had many discussions about how the ancient Gnostics might
                                Message 15 of 20 , Mar 12, 2007
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "tau_mar_thoma"
                                  <tau_mar_thoma@...> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > Greetings, Mike and PMCV:
                                  >
                                  > AMEN! It's about time that people accept that, in fact, "The Da
                                  Vinci
                                  > Code" is a book of fictions, not inspired by the True God, but
                                  > comprised of a clever concoction of facts but mostly theories put
                                  > together to make money, promote movies, and to be the new hot topic
                                  of
                                  > bloggers galore. Furthermore, a lot of his "facts and theories" are
                                  > imperfectly understood and, consequently, render a very imperfect
                                  > "gnostic" revelation. Besides, in the final analysis, you will
                                  never
                                  > find Truth in any form of written literature, not even the NHL et
                                  al.
                                  > but solely through experiential Gnosis. The written words have
                                  their
                                  > place, to be sure, but they are at best vague adumbrations of how
                                  and
                                  > what Truth might appear as.
                                  >
                                  > It is one thing to say "The Word" but this mystical concept must
                                  never
                                  > be confused - not ever - with the written words of humans, be they
                                  > spiritual or secular or nearly brain-dead. Unless, at heart, we too
                                  > are become "bible-beating fundamentalists"? What divine Being ever
                                  > wrote anything down, other than the demiurge when it "inscribed" the
                                  > words of the Torah on two blocks of stone?
                                  >


                                  Hello, + Tau Mar Thoma. We've had many discussions about how the
                                  ancient Gnostics might have conceived "Gnosis." Of course, without
                                  their writings we could not learn what they thought or experienced,
                                  nor did they convey this information without a theoretical setting of
                                  some sort. We don't have absolute, firsthand knowledge of all their
                                  initiatory study and practices; however, their writings exhibit more
                                  than a passing familiarity with Platonist philosophy, for instance.

                                  You mention that written works have their place. If I may ask, what
                                  place is that? If Truth is found "only through experiential Gnosis,"
                                  what does the adjective "experiential" encompass? From your reading
                                  of the NHL you mention and other literature, what would the ancients
                                  take this to mean?

                                  Do you agree or disagree with the "Attributes of Gnosis" outlined in
                                  our group files section regarding the historical Gnostics?
                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/files/

                                  Cari
                                • Michael Leavitt
                                  ... Right on both points. _The Da Vinci Code_ is no better than _Holy Blood, Holy Grail._
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Mar 12, 2007
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > Greetings, Mike and PMCV:
                                    >
                                    > AMEN! It's about time that people accept that, in fact, "The Da Vinci
                                    > Code" is a book of fictions, not inspired by the True God, but
                                    > comprised of a clever concoction of facts but mostly theories put
                                    > together to make money, promote movies, and to be the new hot topic of
                                    > bloggers galore. Furthermore, a lot of his "facts and theories" are
                                    > imperfectly understood and, consequently, render a very imperfect
                                    > "gnostic" revelation. Besides, in the final analysis, you will never
                                    > find Truth in any form of written literature, not even the NHL et al.
                                    > but solely through experiential Gnosis. The written words have their
                                    > place, to be sure, but they are at best vague adumbrations of how and
                                    > what Truth might appear as.
                                    >
                                    Right on both points. _The Da Vinci Code_ is no better than _Holy
                                    Blood, Holy Grail._
                                  • Michael Leavitt
                                    ... To me Cari, the books are the lead into the experiential thing, no more no less, sort of like a road map. Now I ll shut up and let the two of you talk.
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Mar 12, 2007
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      lady_caritas wrote:
                                      > You mention that written works have their place. If I may ask, what
                                      > place is that? If Truth is found "only through experiential Gnosis,"
                                      > what does the adjective "experiential" encompass? From your reading
                                      > of the NHL you mention and other literature, what would the ancients
                                      > take this to mean?
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      To me Cari, the books are the lead into the experiential thing, no more
                                      no less, sort of like a road map. Now I'll shut up and let the two of
                                      you talk.
                                    • pmcvflag
                                      Hey Tau Mar Thoma ... Vinci Code is a book of fictions, not inspired by the True God, but comprised of a clever concoction of facts
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Mar 12, 2007
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hey Tau Mar Thoma

                                        >>>AMEN! It's about time that people accept that, in fact, "The Da
                                        Vinci Code" is a book of fictions, not inspired by the True God, but
                                        comprised of a clever concoction of facts<<<

                                        I go even further than that, in that I question whether these
                                        supposed "facts" really are facts at all.

                                        Anyway, I will be interested to hear your take on Lady Cari's
                                        questions.

                                        PMCV
                                      • lady_caritas
                                        ... what ... Gnosis, ... reading ... ancients ... more ... of ... Hi, Mike. Certainly there is no need to shut up. Silence can be deafening at times. ;-)
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Mar 26, 2007
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Michael Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > lady_caritas wrote:
                                          > > You mention that written works have their place. If I may ask,
                                          what
                                          > > place is that? If Truth is found "only through experiential
                                          Gnosis,"
                                          > > what does the adjective "experiential" encompass? From your
                                          reading
                                          > > of the NHL you mention and other literature, what would the
                                          ancients
                                          > > take this to mean?
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > To me Cari, the books are the lead into the experiential thing, no
                                          more
                                          > no less, sort of like a road map. Now I'll shut up and let the two
                                          of
                                          > you talk.
                                          >


                                          Hi, Mike. Certainly there is no need to "shut up." Silence can be
                                          deafening at times. ;-)

                                          So, if "books are the lead into the experiential thing," as you say,
                                          could one also place other things like ritual as part of the
                                          direction, part of the "road map"? Actually, does one even need
                                          books or rituals in order to generate whatever this "experiential
                                          thing" is you mention? Or are you referring to a
                                          unique "experiential thing"? I guess what I'm thinking is that
                                          specific guides might influence direction or quality or framework of
                                          a certain "experiential thing." In fact, all these could be
                                          considered part of the whole experiential process, even as various
                                          facets could be readdressed during an ongoing progression?

                                          And even though many different written words and everyday life
                                          rituals could influence a mystical episode or a progression of
                                          spiritual occurrences and inner exploration in someone's life, it
                                          seems that there are specific paths that rely on particular
                                          precedents, taken together as an interrelated whole, in order to
                                          accomplish desired results within a distinctive context. Gaining
                                          inner knowledge or spiritual clarity or whatever is sought after is
                                          not always a free-for-all, taking various elements out of context,
                                          when it comes to methodology.

                                          A question might remain whether all the guides make any difference in
                                          the uniqueness or authenticity of a mystical experience. And that is
                                          outside the scope of our group. What seems apparent to me, however,
                                          is that how one interprets the experience, how much emphasis one
                                          places on a mystical episode in relation to other aspects of the
                                          process, and how one proceeds in this existent life are factors that
                                          can be observed, apart from judging as to efficacy. And the Gnostic
                                          writings do give us some information on that score.

                                          Anyway, I'll stop here for now to allow for others' coments.

                                          Cari
                                        • Michael Leavitt
                                          ... I agree, and ritual has its part. Being ordained a Deacon and then a Priest were numinous experiences, but geared to service, and initiation in support
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Mar 26, 2007
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            lady_caritas wrote:
                                            > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Michael Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            >>
                                            >> lady_caritas wrote:
                                            >>
                                            >>> You mention that written works have their place. If I may ask,
                                            >>>
                                            > what
                                            >
                                            >>> place is that? If Truth is found "only through experiential
                                            >>>
                                            > Gnosis,"
                                            >
                                            >>> what does the adjective "experiential" encompass? From your
                                            >>>
                                            > reading
                                            >
                                            >>> of the NHL you mention and other literature, what would the
                                            >>>
                                            > ancients
                                            >
                                            >>> take this to mean?
                                            >>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>>
                                            >>>
                                            >> To me Cari, the books are the lead into the experiential thing, no
                                            >>
                                            > more
                                            >
                                            >> no less, sort of like a road map. Now I'll shut up and let the two
                                            >>
                                            > of
                                            >
                                            >> you talk.
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Hi, Mike. Certainly there is no need to "shut up." Silence can be
                                            > deafening at times. ;-)
                                            >
                                            > So, if "books are the lead into the experiential thing," as you say,
                                            > could one also place other things like ritual as part of the
                                            > direction, part of the "road map"? Actually, does one even need
                                            > books or rituals in order to generate whatever this "experiential
                                            > thing" is you mention? Or are you referring to a
                                            > unique "experiential thing"? I guess what I'm thinking is that
                                            > specific guides might influence direction or quality or framework of
                                            > a certain "experiential thing." In fact, all these could be
                                            > considered part of the whole experiential process, even as various
                                            > facets could be readdressed during an ongoing progression?
                                            >
                                            > And even though many different written words and everyday life
                                            > rituals could influence a mystical episode or a progression of
                                            > spiritual occurrences and inner exploration in someone's life, it
                                            > seems that there are specific paths that rely on particular
                                            > precedents, taken together as an interrelated whole, in order to
                                            > accomplish desired results within a distinctive context. Gaining
                                            > inner knowledge or spiritual clarity or whatever is sought after is
                                            > not always a free-for-all, taking various elements out of context,
                                            > when it comes to methodology.
                                            >
                                            > A question might remain whether all the guides make any difference in
                                            > the uniqueness or authenticity of a mystical experience. And that is
                                            > outside the scope of our group. What seems apparent to me, however,
                                            > is that how one interprets the experience, how much emphasis one
                                            > places on a mystical episode in relation to other aspects of the
                                            > process, and how one proceeds in this existent life are factors that
                                            > can be observed, apart from judging as to efficacy. And the Gnostic
                                            > writings do give us some information on that score.
                                            >
                                            > Anyway, I'll stop here for now to allow for others' coments.
                                            >
                                            > Cari
                                            >
                                            >
                                            I agree, and ritual has its part. Being ordained a Deacon and then a
                                            Priest were numinous experiences, but geared to service, and initiation
                                            in support thereof. The mass can do this to you as can Golden Dawn
                                            rituals, these are all I'm familiar with. All have had their effect.
                                            Reading Zostranos, I was there with him for a while, and that was not
                                            the only instance. When I read Gareth Knight on the paths, I worked
                                            them. My psyche got thrown all over the place. So reading has its place.
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.