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

Re: Gospel of Thomas not Gnostic???

Expand Messages
  • crosswort
    Being the one who brought up the Eastern connection, I thought I d throw in my two cenys worth with an altered perspective on this. It appears from reaserch of
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 15, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Being the one who brought up the Eastern
      connection, I thought I'd throw in my two cenys worth with an
      altered perspective on this. It appears from reaserch of
      texts of the Qu'ran and other posts of interest on the
      net (Sorry I didn't write down where they were or how
      I got there) that Jesus and Mary Magdalene moved
      over to the Hidu Kush area by some lake after the
      crucifixion. These speculations ( and I do emphasize that is
      what they are as they cannot be proven or vouched for)
      say that Jesus could not have died on the cross as it
      was much too short a time for that to happen. It was
      usually several days until crucifixion victims were dead,
      but in a weakened state from little food, much
      wandering, wounds and such who knows? But it was surmised
      that he was revived likely by some Essenes who had the
      ability and medical knowledge to do it. <br> The
      supposition that these travels of Jesus were in the 30 "lost"
      years was possibly only that. He may have traveled
      extensively after his revival and brought the mystic
      traditions which became the foundation of Sufism and Sant
      Mat to the East. The Sant Mat paths especially are
      extremely like the gnostic writings and the resemblence is
      too close to ignore such a connection. Sant Mat of
      course did not evole until many centuries later,
      evolving from Tabriz and J'al al din Rumi to Kabir. <br>
      My two cents on what is gnostic, it really depends
      upon how pedantic you want to be. The word seems to
      find ways to make Itself known in the hearts, minds
      and lives of men/women in many diverse and wonderful
      ways. Even in times of spiritual drought and obscutity
      it has manifested in at least some people, to the
      extent that you could say It has been present since when
      we could first be called Human. Speaking of which is
      much like determining when gnosticism was first really
      Gnosticism. It certainly had its germination with Jesus but
      didn't come into full fruitition until a couple of
      centuries later. When does wine become wine? Did the
      disciples obtain gnosis? Were much of the writings actually
      written 2 centuries later or is that the age of the
      discovered texts? I think the split was quite early, like
      immediately. The Judaism of that time (and indeed even for the
      majority today) would have been difficult for people to
      grasp let alone accept the concepts of a spiritual
      heirarchy and salvation through gnosis of true self. Face
      it most people are in the base of Maslow's heirarchy
      of needs and have many more lives to go before
      applying full attention to spiritual growth and gnosis. I
      look at myself and am digusted that I cannot spend the
      time necessary in contemplation/meditation to attain
      transcendence. Surely I could sacrifice several hours of sleep a
      day to attain this noble goal, but the flesh is weak.
      Those interested in Gnosis will be drawn to it, those
      not will hope for salvation and eternal vacation from
      the One's work by the grace of Yaldabaoth and some
      miracle. Thus Gnosticism began even before Malchezidek, it
      began with the first humans. We are getting caught up
      in terminology and definitions which If you called
      blue tagok it would still look blue. The manifestation
      of the term probably originated in the 2nd century
      and was especially helpful during the persecution
      which came several centuries later. <br><br>Sorry my
      arguments and discussions are not as learned as you fine
      people, I've still much to learn.<br>Don
    • ernststrohregenmantelrad
      Please don t mix the terms Gnosis and Gnosticism ! I don t think there was Gnosticism until specific world view and cosmology was established within the
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 20, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Please don't mix the terms "Gnosis" and "Gnosticism"! I don't
        think there was Gnosticism until specific world view and
        cosmology was established within the milieu of Hellenistic
        sycretism.


        --- In gnosticism2@y..., crosswort wrote:
        > Being the one who brought up the Eastern
        > connection, I thought I'd throw in my two cenys worth with an
        > altered perspective on this. It appears from reaserch of
        > texts of the Qu'ran and other posts of interest on the
        > net (Sorry I didn't write down where they were or how
        > I got there) that Jesus and Mary Magdalene moved
        > over to the Hidu Kush area by some lake after the
        > crucifixion. These speculations ( and I do emphasize that is
        > what they are as they cannot be proven or vouched for)
        > say that Jesus could not have died on the cross as it
        > was much too short a time for that to happen. It was
        > usually several days until crucifixion victims were dead,
        > but in a weakened state from little food, much
        > wandering, wounds and such who knows? But it was
        surmised
        > that he was revived likely by some Essenes who had the
        > ability and medical knowledge to do it. <br> The
        > supposition that these travels of Jesus were in the 30 "lost"
        > years was possibly only that. He may have traveled
        > extensively after his revival and brought the mystic
        > traditions which became the foundation of Sufism and Sant
        > Mat to the East. The Sant Mat paths especially are
        > extremely like the gnostic writings and the resemblence is
        > too close to ignore such a connection. Sant Mat of
        > course did not evole until many centuries later,
        > evolving from Tabriz and J'al al din Rumi to Kabir. <br>
        > My two cents on what is gnostic, it really depends
        > upon how pedantic you want to be. The word seems to
        > find ways to make Itself known in the hearts, minds
        > and lives of men/women in many diverse and wonderful
        > ways. Even in times of spiritual drought and obscutity
        > it has manifested in at least some people, to the
        > extent that you could say It has been present since when
        > we could first be called Human. Speaking of which is
        > much like determining when gnosticism was first really
        > Gnosticism. It certainly had its germination with Jesus but
        > didn't come into full fruitition until a couple of
        > centuries later. When does wine become wine? Did the
        > disciples obtain gnosis? Were much of the writings actually
        > written 2 centuries later or is that the age of the
        > discovered texts? I think the split was quite early, like
        > immediately. The Judaism of that time (and indeed even for the
        > majority today) would have been difficult for people to
        > grasp let alone accept the concepts of a spiritual
        > heirarchy and salvation through gnosis of true self. Face
        > it most people are in the base of Maslow's heirarchy
        > of needs and have many more lives to go before
        > applying full attention to spiritual growth and gnosis. I
        > look at myself and am digusted that I cannot spend the
        > time necessary in contemplation/meditation to attain
        > transcendence. Surely I could sacrifice several hours of sleep
        a
        > day to attain this noble goal, but the flesh is weak.
        > Those interested in Gnosis will be drawn to it, those
        > not will hope for salvation and eternal vacation from
        > the One's work by the grace of Yaldabaoth and some
        > miracle. Thus Gnosticism began even before Malchezidek, it
        > began with the first humans. We are getting caught up
        > in terminology and definitions which If you called
        > blue tagok it would still look blue. The manifestation
        > of the term probably originated in the 2nd century
        > and was especially helpful during the persecution
        > which came several centuries later. <br><br>Sorry my
        > arguments and discussions are not as learned as you fine
        > people, I've still much to learn.<br>Don
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.