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

Re: Rex Mundi film,

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 20 , Mar 3 11:06 AM
    • 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 2 of 20 , Mar 3 11:16 AM
      • 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 3 of 20 , Mar 9 5:46 PM
        • 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 4 of 20 , Mar 9 6:13 PM
          • 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 5 of 20 , Mar 11 3:26 PM
            • 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 6 of 20 , Mar 12 7:09 AM
              • 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 7 of 20 , Mar 12 6:49 PM
                • 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 8 of 20 , Mar 12 6:54 PM
                  • 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 9 of 20 , Mar 12 8:25 PM
                    • 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 10 of 20 , Mar 26 6:13 PM
                      • 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 11 of 20 , Mar 26 7:12 PM
                        • 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.