Re: [Gnosticism2] Re:Professor Bart Erhman is non-stop
- wow ! thats your assessment as a theological major ! well I think that Im very averse to titles at this point , dont call democrat nor repub..dont call me a christian, muslim nor knostic..I simply agree that we are a part of God and he dwells within us as stated in doctrine in numerous instances . " he made us of mud and breathed life into us" .."ashes to ashes , dust to dust" and so forth. I do agree tht this is not a secret to early religious scholars and it certainly seems that the bible hides this from us and even has us back to worshiping man ! missing God.
- hmm? im not sure anyone mentioned judging anyone..how did you articulate that ? but another question to me is he atheiest or agnostic and whats the fine granularity of the two ? One says he believes not in a God..I never really heard him say tht . the other says he believes not in religion..again i havent heard him say that either but it seems the case.
- Ra Un Nefer ?Ive read one of his works..11 laws of Maat ? good piece but hmm..if i had to put a label on it would it be knosis ? it seems to lean toward spiritual development and not specific to a religion but then again the ancient egyptian religion is the basis for its principals. or am i digressing ?knosis can be a part of any religion it seems , based on hebrew, chrisitan and egyptian modalties ,huh ?
- My interest has always been the history of religious development with an emphasis on the shared traits that have been adopted by various religions. Gnostic traits being very much universal to mankind. As written in the temples of Egypt "Man know thyself". This much as "above so below". Modern religion for the most part denies this lineage and deny it's legitimacy. Answers are found on the imprint that the Divine has left on us and not in the pages of doctrine that refutes the most basic truths of the ancients. Mythology becomes literal truths and meanings of esoteric teachings are lost and polluted. Spiritual development is usurped for the simple doctrine of accepting and believing. The roadmap for gnosticism is lost and banished, forcing mankind deeper into his isolation from the very Divine that is inside of him. Bart Ehrman questions more than he answers. He points to fallacy without adding his personally sanctioned alternative. If you ever get a chance to hear him lecture, do it. I feel that He is at his best there. Peace! Nazgno
- An article on a CNN website stated that the reason he abandoned organized religion was that he had a bad experience with one of his child hood mentors ( a bishop of some sort). This did, however, occur after he had some education in religion.
NealGnostic and other Judeo-Christian materials/ subjects at
From: william unowho <jake0840@...>
Sent: Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:57 am
Subject: Re: [Gnosticism2] Re:Professor Bart Erhman is non-stop
hmm? im not sure anyone mentioned judging anyone..how did you articulate that ? but another question to me is he atheiest or agnostic and whats the fine granularity of the two ? One says he believes not in a God..I never really heard him say tht . the other says he believes not in religion..again i havent heard him say that either but it seems the case.
From: "mowthpeece@ gmail.com" <mowthpeece@gmail. com>
To: gnosticism2@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wed, February 10, 2010 8:45:45 AM
Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re:Professor Bart Erhman is non-stop
Ehrman is athiest. He lost his religion after spending decades studying its origins and traditions. Many scholars do. Unless anyone else here has spent decades studying the real stuff up close and personal, I would not judge the validity of his choice. He's learned and forgotten more on the subject of Christianity than anyone on this list can ever hope to (barring the presence of any other Ph.D's we haven't seen yet, of course).
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
- yeah..i read about struggle in the preface of one of his books. it goes on to explain the difference between an agnostic and an athiest too