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

Priscillian

Expand Messages
  • Unknown
    Hey Karl, as the go-to guy for ancient Gnostic street cred, I m curious where you place the quirky and unapologetically mendacious Priscillian and his crew on
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 12, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Karl, as the go-to guy for ancient Gnostic street cred, I'm curious where you place the
      quirky and unapologetically mendacious Priscillian and his crew on your charts? He's a bit of
      a hybrid, and I'm thinkin' he's probably a little too Manichaean for your tastes to make the
      official PMCV Gnostic cut list. But hey, ya' never know, and I'd love to hear your take.
    • pmcvflag
      ... curious where you place the quirky and unapologetically mendacious Priscillian and his crew on your charts? He s a bit of a hybrid, and I m thinkin he s
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 12, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        >>>Hey Karl, as the go-to guy for ancient Gnostic street cred, I'm
        curious where you place the quirky and unapologetically mendacious
        Priscillian and his crew on your charts? He's a bit of a hybrid, and
        I'm thinkin' he's probably a little too Manichaean for your tastes
        to make the official PMCV Gnostic cut list. But hey, ya' never know,
        and I'd love to hear your take.<<<

        Booya, J-dawg. Das 'cause we be in da crib, yo.

        Seriously, though.... As you know, the line I have sometimes tried
        to illustrate (based on the work of better historians than myself)
        between Mani's teachings and the very closely related movement
        of "Gnosticism" is very specific. It may even be what most people
        here would call a "technicality" (albeit, an important one IMO). The
        cosmology of Priscillian does sound Manichaean to me, but that isn't
        the point. I think I would have to know much more about the
        soteriology, and frankly I just haven't made that intimate study in
        this case.

        Maybe you or others here have some thoughts?

        PMCV
      • Unknown
        Oh, I just had something that popped up in the course of my meanderings, and like I said, I just thought I d get your take on the matter (or anybody else s,
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 12, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Oh, I just had something that popped up in the course of my meanderings, and like I said,
          I just thought I'd get your take on the matter (or anybody else's, for that matter), since
          you've tended to be the line judge for issues like this here, and you've been a good one at
          that, which is a good thing given this group's focus.

          As you know, I use some different sets of measuring sticks, some etic and some emic, and
          more often than not, I toss 'em all out anyways as irrelevant (given my focus). Thing is, for
          the most part, my frameworks aren't exactly apposite or consonant with your stated
          objectives (not that they're anathema), and this group is valuable in its own right.

          In other words, I'm perfectly content to continuing lurking here.

          Besides, the only book I own on the subject is Chadwick's, which I've read along with
          snatches of various articles and other assorted bits and pieces. I thought maybe you'd
          encounter some other stuff, whether in your formal or informal research. But whatever
          your background, I'd say your take on Priscillian (per your yardstick) fits what I know, from
          direct lines of transmission to the generally ascetic and apotropaic orientation, not to
          mention a dollop of an old-fashioned Augustinian condemnation (talk about Manichaean
          street cred, you know?), so forth and so on, and of course, most telling of all, being strung
          up in the end for black magic, always a sure sign of enlightenment.

          But then, hey, the only good Gnostic is a dead Gnostic, as all good Gnostics should know.

          At any rate, I didn't anticipate any big surprises. But you never know what you never know.

          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
          >
          > >>>Hey Karl, as the go-to guy for ancient Gnostic street cred, I'm
          > curious where you place the quirky and unapologetically mendacious
          > Priscillian and his crew on your charts? He's a bit of a hybrid, and
          > I'm thinkin' he's probably a little too Manichaean for your tastes
          > to make the official PMCV Gnostic cut list. But hey, ya' never know,
          > and I'd love to hear your take.<<<
          >
          > Booya, J-dawg. Das 'cause we be in da crib, yo.
          >
          > Seriously, though.... As you know, the line I have sometimes tried
          > to illustrate (based on the work of better historians than myself)
          > between Mani's teachings and the very closely related movement
          > of "Gnosticism" is very specific. It may even be what most people
          > here would call a "technicality" (albeit, an important one IMO). The
          > cosmology of Priscillian does sound Manichaean to me, but that isn't
          > the point. I think I would have to know much more about the
          > soteriology, and frankly I just haven't made that intimate study in
          > this case.
          >
          > Maybe you or others here have some thoughts?
          >
          > PMCV
          >
        • lady_caritas
          ... meanderings, and like I said, ... that matter), since ... you ve been a good one at ... and some emic, and ... my focus). Thing is, for ... your stated ...
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 13, 2009
          • 0 Attachment


            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Unknown" <hey_market@...> wrote:
            >
            > Oh, I just had something that popped up in the course of my meanderings, and like I said,
            > I just thought I'd get your take on the matter (or anybody else's, for that matter), since
            > you've tended to be the line judge for issues like this here, and you've been a good one at
            > that, which is a good thing given this group's focus.
            >
            > As you know, I use some different sets of measuring sticks, some etic and some emic, and
            > more often than not, I toss 'em all out anyways as irrelevant (given my focus). Thing is, for
            > the most part, my frameworks aren't exactly apposite or consonant with your stated
            > objectives (not that they're anathema), and this group is valuable in its own right.
            >
            > In other words, I'm perfectly content to continuing lurking here.
            >
            > Besides, the only book I own on the subject is Chadwick's, which I've read along with
            > snatches of various articles and other assorted bits and pieces. I thought maybe you'd
            > encounter some other stuff, whether in your formal or informal research. But whatever
            > your background, I'd say your take on Priscillian (per your yardstick) fits what I know, from
            > direct lines of transmission to the generally ascetic and apotropaic orientation, not to
            > mention a dollop of an old-fashioned Augustinian condemnation (talk about Manichaean
            > street cred, you know?), so forth and so on, and of course, most telling of all, being strung
            > up in the end for black magic, always a sure sign of enlightenment.
            >
            > But then, hey, the only good Gnostic is a dead Gnostic, as all good Gnostics should know.
            >
            > At any rate, I didn't anticipate any big surprises. But you never know what you never know.
            >
            > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag no_reply@ wrote:
            > >
            > > >>>Hey Karl, as the go-to guy for ancient Gnostic street cred, I'm
            > > curious where you place the quirky and unapologetically mendacious
            > > Priscillian and his crew on your charts? He's a bit of a hybrid, and
            > > I'm thinkin' he's probably a little too Manichaean for your tastes
            > > to make the official PMCV Gnostic cut list. But hey, ya' never know,
            > > and I'd love to hear your take.<<<
            > >
            > > Booya, J-dawg. Das 'cause we be in da crib, yo.
            > >
            > > Seriously, though.... As you know, the line I have sometimes tried
            > > to illustrate (based on the work of better historians than myself)
            > > between Mani's teachings and the very closely related movement
            > > of "Gnosticism" is very specific. It may even be what most people
            > > here would call a "technicality" (albeit, an important one IMO). The
            > > cosmology of Priscillian does sound Manichaean to me, but that isn't
            > > the point. I think I would have to know much more about the
            > > soteriology, and frankly I just haven't made that intimate study in
            > > this case.
            > >
            > > Maybe you or others here have some thoughts?
            > >
            > > PMCV
            > >
            >

            Hey, hey_, PMCV, and anyone else following this conversation, I really wish I could somehow channel Valentinus, Mani, Priscillian, and few gazillion others.  ;-)  When it comes to the category of "Gnosticism", how far does the umbrella reach? 

            It appears that groups or schools we categorize as Sethian and Valentinian emphasize Gnosis in their soteriology.  When we see other groups with rigorous ascetic practices such as the Priscillianists, should we assume that they put more emphasis on praxis as a primary route to salvation?  Or is this only one fundamental method to engage or prepare themselves for more esoteric endeavors? 

            I found the following, albeit written with a bias: 

            The foundation of the doctrines of the Priscillianists was Gnostic-Manichaean Dualism, a belief in the existence of two kingdoms, one of Light and one of Darkness. Angels and the souls of men were said to be severed from the substance of the Deity. Human souls were intended to conquer the Kingdom of Darkness, but fell and were imprisoned in material bodies. Thus both kingdoms were represented in man, and hence a conflict symbolized on the side of Light by the Twelve Patriarchs, heavenly spirits, who corresponded to certain of man's powers, and, on the side of Darkness, by the Signs of the Zodiac, the symbols of matter and the lower kingdom. The salvation of man consists in liberation from the domination of matter. The twelve heavenly spirits having failed to accomplish their release, the Saviour came in a heavenly body which appeared to be like that of other men, and through His doctrine and His apparent death released the souls of the men from the influence of the material.

            These doctrines could be harmonized with the teaching of Scripture only by a strange system of exegesis, in which the liberal sense was entirely rejected, and an equally strange theory of personal inspiration. The Old Testament was received, but the narrative of creation was rejected. Several of the apocryphal Scriptures were acknowledged to be genuine and inspired. The ethical side of the Dualism of Priscillian with its low concept of nature gave rise to an indecent system of asceticism as well as to some peculiar liturgical observances, such as fasting on Sundays and on Christmas Day. Because their doctrines were esoteric and exoteric, and because it was believed that men in general could not understand the higher paths, the Priscillianists, or at least those of them who were enlightened, were permitted to tell lies for the sake of a holy end. It was because this doctrine was likely to be a scandal even to the faithful that Augustine wrote his famous work, "De mendacio".

            http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/priscill.htm

            If this is accurate that the "enlightened" ones admitted to lying, if necessary, to protect the inner sanctum of their esoteric pursuits, one wonders how much we can discern of the esoteric by way of their exoteric doctrine.  How is one "liberated from the domination of matter"?  Surely, other groups might not be entirely forthright regarding esoteric matters, largely because they were considered to be obscure or even dangerous to the untrained or unenlightened mind or heart.  I wonder, though, how outright devious the Priscillians might have been.  *lol*

            Can anyone versed on this subject further elucidate the Priscillian esoteric and/or exoteric doctrines? 

            Also, anyone feel free to chime in with any more comments or questions.  Here is a link with some info for anyone interested.  I haven't finished going through it myself ~

            http://search.nationmaster.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?query=priscillian

            Cari

             

          • Mark
            If I might ask a rather sophmoric question, who first used the term Gnostic to refer to a person, group, or doctrine? Was it a believer, or was it a
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 14, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              If I might ask a rather sophmoric question, who first used the
              term "Gnostic" to refer to a person, group, or doctrine? Was it
              a "believer," or was it a "critic"? The emic/etic comment from
              Unknown, plus this repeated question of "where to draw the line," are
              the stimuli for this question.

              Thanks,
              Mark

              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Unknown" <hey_market@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Oh, I just had something that popped up in the course of my
              > meanderings, and like I said,
              > > I just thought I'd get your take on the matter (or anybody
              else's, for
              > that matter), since
              > > you've tended to be the line judge for issues like this here, and
              > you've been a good one at
              > > that, which is a good thing given this group's focus.
              > >
              > > As you know, I use some different sets of measuring sticks, some
              etic
              > and some emic, and
              > > more often than not, I toss 'em all out anyways as irrelevant
              (given
              > my focus). Thing is, for
              > > the most part, my frameworks aren't exactly apposite or consonant
              with
              > your stated
              > > objectives (not that they're anathema), and this group is
              valuable in
              > its own right.
              > >
              > > In other words, I'm perfectly content to continuing lurking here.
              > >
              > > Besides, the only book I own on the subject is Chadwick's, which
              I've
              > read along with
              > > snatches of various articles and other assorted bits and pieces. I
              > thought maybe you'd
              > > encounter some other stuff, whether in your formal or informal
              > research. But whatever
              > > your background, I'd say your take on Priscillian (per your
              yardstick)
              > fits what I know, from
              > > direct lines of transmission to the generally ascetic and
              apotropaic
              > orientation, not to
              > > mention a dollop of an old-fashioned Augustinian condemnation
              (talk
              > about Manichaean
              > > street cred, you know?), so forth and so on, and of course, most
              > telling of all, being strung
              > > up in the end for black magic, always a sure sign of
              enlightenment.
              > >
              > > But then, hey, the only good Gnostic is a dead Gnostic, as all
              good
              > Gnostics should know.
              > >
              > > At any rate, I didn't anticipate any big surprises. But you never
              know
              > what you never know.
              > >
              > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag no_reply@ wrote:
              > > >
              > > > >>>Hey Karl, as the go-to guy for ancient Gnostic street cred,
              I'm
              > > > curious where you place the quirky and unapologetically
              mendacious
              > > > Priscillian and his crew on your charts? He's a bit of a
              hybrid, and
              > > > I'm thinkin' he's probably a little too Manichaean for your
              tastes
              > > > to make the official PMCV Gnostic cut list. But hey, ya' never
              know,
              > > > and I'd love to hear your take.<<<
              > > >
              > > > Booya, J-dawg. Das 'cause we be in da crib, yo.
              > > >
              > > > Seriously, though.... As you know, the line I have sometimes
              tried
              > > > to illustrate (based on the work of better historians than
              myself)
              > > > between Mani's teachings and the very closely related movement
              > > > of "Gnosticism" is very specific. It may even be what most
              people
              > > > here would call a "technicality" (albeit, an important one
              IMO). The
              > > > cosmology of Priscillian does sound Manichaean to me, but that
              isn't
              > > > the point. I think I would have to know much more about the
              > > > soteriology, and frankly I just haven't made that intimate
              study in
              > > > this case.
              > > >
              > > > Maybe you or others here have some thoughts?
              > > >
              > > > PMCV
              > > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > Hey, hey_, PMCV, and anyone else following this conversation, I
              really
              > wish I could somehow channel Valentinus, Mani, Priscillian, and few
              > gazillion others. ;-) When it comes to the category of
              > "Gnosticism", how far does the umbrella reach?
              >
              >
              >
              > It appears that groups or schools we categorize as Sethian and
              > Valentinian emphasize Gnosis in their soteriology. When we see
              other
              > groups with rigorous ascetic practices such as the Priscillianists,
              > should we assume that they put more emphasis on praxis as a primary
              > route to salvation? Or is this only one fundamental method to
              engage or
              > prepare themselves for more esoteric endeavors?
              >
              >
              >
              > I found the following, albeit written with a bias:
              >
              > The foundation of the doctrines of the Priscillianists was
              > Gnostic-Manichaean Dualism, a belief in the existence of two
              kingdoms,
              > one of Light and one of Darkness. Angels and the souls of men were
              said
              > to be severed from the substance of the Deity. Human souls were
              intended
              > to conquer the Kingdom of Darkness, but fell and were imprisoned in
              > material bodies. Thus both kingdoms were represented in man, and
              hence a
              > conflict symbolized on the side of Light by the Twelve Patriarchs,
              > heavenly spirits, who corresponded to certain of man's powers, and,
              on
              > the side of Darkness, by the Signs of the Zodiac, the symbols of
              matter
              > and the lower kingdom. The salvation of man consists in liberation
              from
              > the domination of matter. The twelve heavenly spirits having failed
              to
              > accomplish their release, the Saviour came in a heavenly body which
              > appeared to be like that of other men, and through His doctrine and
              His
              > apparent death released the souls of the men from the influence of
              the
              > material.
              >
              > These doctrines could be harmonized with the teaching of Scripture
              only
              > by a strange system of exegesis, in which the liberal sense was
              entirely
              > rejected, and an equally strange theory of personal inspiration.
              The Old
              > Testament was received, but the narrative of creation was rejected.
              > Several of the apocryphal Scriptures were acknowledged to be
              genuine and
              > inspired. The ethical side of the Dualism of Priscillian with its
              low
              > concept of nature gave rise to an indecent system of asceticism as
              well
              > as to some peculiar liturgical observances, such as fasting on
              Sundays
              > and on Christmas Day. Because their doctrines were esoteric and
              > exoteric, and because it was believed that men in general could not
              > understand the higher paths, the Priscillianists, or at least those
              of
              > them who were enlightened, were permitted to tell lies for the sake
              of a
              > holy end. It was because this doctrine was likely to be a scandal
              even
              > to the faithful that Augustine wrote his famous work, "De mendacio".
              >
              > http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/priscill.htm
              > <http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/priscill.htm>
              >
              >
              >
              > If this is accurate that the "enlightened" ones admitted to
              > lying, if necessary, to protect the inner sanctum of their esoteric
              > pursuits, one wonders how much we can discern of the esoteric by
              way of
              > their exoteric doctrine. How is one "liberated from the domination
              > of matter"? Surely, other groups might not be entirely forthright
              > regarding esoteric matters, largely because they were considered to
              be
              > obscure or even dangerous to the untrained or unenlightened mind or
              > heart. I wonder, though, how outright devious the Priscillians
              might
              > have been. *lol*
              >
              >
              >
              > Can anyone versed on this subject further elucidate the Priscillian
              > esoteric and/or exoteric doctrines?
              >
              >
              >
              > Also, anyone feel free to chime in with any more comments or
              questions.
              > Here is a link with some info for anyone interested. I haven't
              > finished going through it myself ~
              >
              >
              >
              > http://search.nationmaster.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?query=priscillian
              > <http://search.nationmaster.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?
              query=priscillian>
              >
              >
              >
              > Cari
              >
            • lady_caritas
              ... Hi, Mark. Not at all a sophomoric question! Birger A. Pearson addresses this nicely in his recent book, Ancient Gnosticism: Tradition and Literature.
              Message 6 of 8 , Jan 15, 2009
              • 0 Attachment


                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <larockpitts@...> wrote:
                >
                > If I might ask a rather sophmoric question, who first used the
                > term "Gnostic" to refer to a person, group, or doctrine? Was it
                > a "believer," or was it a "critic"? The emic/etic comment from
                > Unknown, plus this repeated question of "where to draw the line," are
                > the stimuli for this question.
                >
                > Thanks,
                > Mark
                >

                Hi, Mark.  Not at all a sophomoric question!  Birger A. Pearson addresses this nicely in his recent book, Ancient Gnosticism: Tradition and Literature.  Not all the groups we moderns label as "Gnostic" referred to themselves with this name.  However, Irenaeus (Against Heresies) did refer to a group who called themselves "Gnostikoi".  And the Greek "gnostikos" goes back to Plato.  I was able to find a section from Dr. Pearson's book online. 

                More here:

                 http://books.google.com/books?id=QPvQUPMtFgQC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=term+gnostic&source=web&ots=2_ClmgIdHx&sig=XmSGHUP_5wx-JJIscth4HTXwLwY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA9,M1

                Hope this helps.

                Cari

                 

              • Mark
                Cari, Thanks for this reference. I may have to put Pearson s book on my to read list. So it seems that at least one group self-identified (emic) as
                Message 7 of 8 , Jan 15, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Cari,

                  Thanks for this reference. I may have to put Pearson's book on my to
                  read list. So it seems that at least one group self-identified (emic)
                  as "Gnostics"--according to Irenaeus (etic), a critic. This in turn
                  suggests that most other historical groups/writings that are today
                  called "Gnostic" are subject to the interpreter's categories (etic),
                  which, of course, can be debated. In such a situation "where to draw
                  the line" can determine academic careers.

                  I am wondering: would all "drawing of lines" at least include the
                  self-identified (emic) groups within the Gnostic camp? If so, then
                  self-identification as a Gnostic trumps all etic attempts at
                  grouping. If such is true for historical groups, then why not so for
                  present day groups?

                  Mark

                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <larockpitts@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > If I might ask a rather sophmoric question, who first used the
                  > > term "Gnostic" to refer to a person, group, or doctrine? Was it
                  > > a "believer," or was it a "critic"? The emic/etic comment from
                  > > Unknown, plus this repeated question of "where to draw the line,"
                  are
                  > > the stimuli for this question.
                  > >
                  > > Thanks,
                  > > Mark
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  > Hi, Mark. Not at all a sophomoric question! Birger A. Pearson
                  > addresses this nicely in his recent book, Ancient Gnosticism:
                  Tradition
                  > and Literature. Not all the groups we moderns label as
                  > "Gnostic" referred to themselves with this name. However,
                  > Irenaeus (Against Heresies) did refer to a group who called
                  themselves
                  > "Gnostikoi". And the Greek "gnostikos" goes back to
                  > Plato. I was able to find a section from Dr. Pearson's book online.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > More here:
                  >
                  >
                  > http://books.google.com/books?
                  id=QPvQUPMtFgQC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=term+gno\
                  > stic&source=web&ots=2_ClmgIdHx&sig=XmSGHUP_5wx-
                  JJIscth4HTXwLwY&hl=en&sa=\
                  > X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA9,M1
                  > <http://books.google.com/books?
                  id=QPvQUPMtFgQC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=term+gn\
                  > ostic&source=web&ots=2_ClmgIdHx&sig=XmSGHUP_5wx-
                  JJIscth4HTXwLwY&hl=en&sa\
                  > =X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA9,M1>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Hope this helps.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Cari
                  >
                • lady_caritas
                  ... to ... (emic) ... turn ... (etic), ... draw ... for ... Mark, are you referring to modern day Gnostic groups? Historically, scholars have found
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jan 19, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <larockpitts@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Cari,
                    >
                    > Thanks for this reference. I may have to put Pearson's book on my
                    to
                    > read list. So it seems that at least one group self-identified
                    (emic)
                    > as "Gnostics"--according to Irenaeus (etic), a critic. This in
                    turn
                    > suggests that most other historical groups/writings that are today
                    > called "Gnostic" are subject to the interpreter's categories
                    (etic),
                    > which, of course, can be debated. In such a situation "where to
                    draw
                    > the line" can determine academic careers.
                    >
                    > I am wondering: would all "drawing of lines" at least include the
                    > self-identified (emic) groups within the Gnostic camp? If so, then
                    > self-identification as a Gnostic trumps all etic attempts at
                    > grouping. If such is true for historical groups, then why not so
                    for
                    > present day groups?
                    >
                    > Mark


                    Mark, are you referring to modern day "Gnostic" groups?

                    Historically, scholars have found commonalities among groups that
                    they call Gnostic, regardless of self-designation, which category, as
                    you say, is open to debate. And it's my understanding that self-
                    identified historical Gnostics are included, but correct me if I'm
                    wrong.

                    When it comes to modern groups, we likely have many more individuals
                    and groups self-designated as "Gnostic." Anyone can call themselves
                    whatever they want, I suppose. But at some point definition or
                    categorization is useful, if communication is desired, in order to
                    avoid utter confusion, should every self-identified group or
                    individual trump a generally accepted modern etic understanding (open
                    to debate). Then again, do we even have such a general understanding
                    of modern self-identification? I admit to being confused about
                    contemporary usage. Is it enough to say that a modern Gnostic is one
                    who has an "inner experience" or some kind of spiritual "knowing"?
                    Why not call themselves a Christian or a Buddhist or a heretic or
                    whatever instead of a Gnostic? Or do they have more than one self-
                    designation? How do they define gnosis? What about their
                    understanding of cosmology, cosmogony, soteriology, etc.? Having
                    some kind of etic understanding of "Gnostic" doesn't determine whose
                    spiritual path or knowledge is more accurate, but it helps for
                    clarification; otherwise, the term becomes subject to only personal
                    bias.

                    And then whether or not a modern "Gnostic" claims a tie to those who
                    called themselves Gnostics in the past, it behooves modern people to
                    attempt some kind of valid understanding as to the historical
                    Gnostic's position and not merely superimpose one's own understanding
                    when comparing.

                    Mark, please let me know if I don't understand the gist of what
                    you're saying. Anyone else want to weigh in?

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