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

[Gnosticism2] Re: Nag Hammadi codexes

Expand Messages
  • pessy@chez.com
    ... The original sin is a vulgarised version of the Gnosticistic topic of the fall of the soul into matter. Augustinus plaggiated it from Manicheus. Long
    Message 1 of 28 , Apr 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ernststrohregenmantelrad writes:
      > For "sin" if you say we are born with it it means you implied the
      > "original sin" which didn't come into exsitance until Augestine of
      > Hippo.

      The original sin is a vulgarised version of the Gnosticistic topic
      of the fall of the soul into matter.
      Augustinus plaggiated it from Manicheus.
      Long before the Manicheans it was Julius Cassianus
      according to the Stromata of Clem. Al. who knew that
      in paradise man existed not in the flesh,
      but psychically or noetically.
      By the affinity to the matter the soul becomes femalish and subject
      to corruption and perversion. By understanding and encratism
      the corruption is reversed.

      Klaus Schilling
    • Mike Leavitt
      Hello lady_caritas ... Also, neither the Baptists (except perhaps for Faldwell), nor the Quakers nor the Unitarians believe in original sin. It is not
      Message 2 of 28 , Apr 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello lady_caritas

        On 03-Apr-03, you wrote:

        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
        > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        >> Hi sorry to butt in but...
        >>
        >>> Pistic Christian:
        >>>
        >>> Sin = transgression; we're born with it, and can't escape it
        >> without someone else dying for us.
        >>>
        >>> Creator = Loving, Supreme God, paradoxically also a jealous
        >> and selective god, but who cares-at least WE're saved if we but
        >> believe in Him.
        >>>
        >>
        >> I don't think this is good definition.
        >>
        >> For "sin" if you say we are born with it it means you implied the
        >> "original sin" which didn't come into exsitance until Augestine of
        >> Hippo. As you know Augestine went against the thinking of norm
        >> in the church on many issues but some how this theology took
        >> over the church.
        >>
        >> For "creator" it becomes the problem if you take into account
        >> Marcion. So is Marcion "Gnostic" or "Pistic"?
        >
        >
        >
        > Hello, Ernst. If I may butt in, too...
        >
        > I think Gerry was offering definitions for what developed into a
        > more dogmatic, pistic "orthodox" Christianity, which had been part
        > of the discussion of this particular thread. The concept of original
        > sin has been around for a long time and I wouldn't view Marcion as
        > orthodox.
        >
        > Perhaps you'd like to offer a more general definition for "pistic"
        > Christianity that would consider the points you brought up?
        >
        > Cari

        Also, neither the Baptists (except perhaps for Faldwell), nor the
        Quakers nor the Unitarians believe in original sin. It is not
        automatically a belief of Pistic Christians. The Baptists, at least
        prove that.

        Regards
        --
        Mike Leavitt ac998@...
      • lady_caritas
        ... the ... of ... original ... for pistic ... Quite so, Mike! :-) Considering to whom Gerry was writing, I think it s possible he had Roman Catholicism in
        Message 3 of 28 , Apr 4, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
          > Hello lady_caritas
          >
          > On 03-Apr-03, you wrote:
          >
          > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
          > > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > >> Hi sorry to butt in but...
          > >>
          > >>> Pistic Christian:
          > >>>
          > >>> Sin = transgression; we're born with it, and can't escape it
          > >> without someone else dying for us.
          > >>>
          > >>> Creator = Loving, Supreme God, paradoxically also a jealous
          > >> and selective god, but who cares-at least WE're saved if we but
          > >> believe in Him.
          > >>>
          > >>
          > >> I don't think this is good definition.
          > >>
          > >> For "sin" if you say we are born with it it means you implied
          the
          > >> "original sin" which didn't come into exsitance until Augestine
          of
          > >> Hippo. As you know Augestine went against the thinking of norm
          > >> in the church on many issues but some how this theology took
          > >> over the church.
          > >>
          > >> For "creator" it becomes the problem if you take into account
          > >> Marcion. So is Marcion "Gnostic" or "Pistic"?
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Hello, Ernst. If I may butt in, too...
          > >
          > > I think Gerry was offering definitions for what developed into a
          > > more dogmatic, pistic "orthodox" Christianity, which had been part
          > > of the discussion of this particular thread. The concept of
          original
          > > sin has been around for a long time and I wouldn't view Marcion as
          > > orthodox.
          > >
          > > Perhaps you'd like to offer a more general definition
          for "pistic"
          > > Christianity that would consider the points you brought up?
          > >
          > > Cari
          >
          > Also, neither the Baptists (except perhaps for Faldwell), nor the
          > Quakers nor the Unitarians believe in original sin. It is not
          > automatically a belief of Pistic Christians. The Baptists, at least
          > prove that.
          >
          > Regards
          > --
          > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...



          Quite so, Mike! :-)

          Considering to whom Gerry was writing, I think it's possible he had
          Roman Catholicism in mind, a religion well known to Incognita, and
          perhaps he had no intention of offering this as a technical
          definition, but one to which Incognita could relate. He might have
          been oversimplifying to show conceptual differences between Gnostic
          and mainstream usage of terms. Just a guess.

          Cari
        • Gerry
          ... A VERY good guess, I might add, but it was a strategy that nonetheless backfired. Given that the thread had already dragged on to inordinate length, and
          Message 4 of 28 , Apr 4, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Quite so, Mike! :-)
            >
            > Considering to whom Gerry was writing, I think it's possible he had
            > Roman Catholicism in mind, a religion well known to Incognita, and
            > perhaps he had no intention of offering this as a technical
            > definition, but one to which Incognita could relate. He might have
            > been oversimplifying to show conceptual differences between Gnostic
            > and mainstream usage of terms. Just a guess.
            >
            > Cari



            A VERY good guess, I might add, but it was a strategy that
            nonetheless backfired. Given that the thread had already dragged on
            to inordinate length, and probably shouldn't have needed
            clarification at a Gnostic site in the first place, I really
            shouldn't be surprised that my comments should be even further
            misinterpreted.

            Perhaps next time I'll use even more sarcasm than I did to better
            demonstrate that such a contrast is NOT a technical definition . . .
            but I figured I had worn out my "bloody savior" motif already. It
            would seem that whether my posts are too dry, or super saturated,
            there's no pleasing everyone.

            Gerry
          • ernststrohregenmantelrad
            ... more ... the ... thank you for butting in. We can now do the bumps. I see that this all got started from a post by New Age pseudo- gnostic wannabee again
            Message 5 of 28 , Apr 4, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <
              no_reply@y...> wrote:

              > > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > Hello, Ernst. If I may butt in, too...
              >
              > I think Gerry was offering definitions for what developed into a
              more
              > dogmatic, pistic "orthodox" Christianity, which had been part of
              the
              > discussion of this particular thread.

              thank you for butting in. We can now do the bumps.

              I see that this all got started from a post by New Age pseudo-
              gnostic wannabee again confusing his new age "evolution of
              conscieous" crap as a pale rendering of Gnosticism. And then
              that turned into bickering on the definition of "pistis" (BTW,
              looking back at posts, I felt like reading Irenaeus because the
              posts were erased yet some quotes were cited to refute.)

              Anyway, as stated in posts "Gnostic" Christians have varients
              and so one must also realize that so called "pistic" Christians
              have varients too. (BTW, I hate using that term for this particular
              group, more on that later) Including those of so called dogmatic,
              pistic, orthodox etc... (and you can put as many adjective as you
              want it won't make difference). I understand that what he meant
              by the term "pistic" or "orthodox" but my point here is his
              definition of "sin" for supposed "orthodox". As I stated it is only
              after Augestine that the original sin concept was adoptied by the
              "orthodox" church so "Sin = transgression; we're born with it,
              and can't escape it without someone else dying for us." needs
              revision. Also the statement, "Sin = ignorance of our divine origin;
              a state akin to drunkenness from which we can be made sober."
              is much to be of misunderstanding. I don't know where but I think
              we got somewhere stuck in our heads that for Gnostics sin=
              ignorence. Maybe it was from the TV serie "Gnostics" or from
              Pagels' book "Gnostic Gospels". Well, I look back at the Pagels
              book and it doesn't say sin=ingorence. What it says is that for
              orthodox Christians suffering is the result of sin but for Gnostics
              suffering is the result of ignorence. (p.148-150) Then as such
              word "sin" is defined same for orthodox and Gnostics. For "sin'
              means as Pagels states on page 148-149, "the New Testement
              term for sin, _hamartia_, comes from the sport of archery;
              literally, it means "missing the mark" So the original meaning of
              "hamartia" didn't necessary mean "transgresion" per se.




              The concept of original sin
              > has been around for a long time and I wouldn't view Marcion as
              > orthodox.

              I hope that sentense has two ideas not one jointed ideas.
              If you consider since around the 4th century it is long time;
              however, that is not the beginning of so called Chrsitianity
              (although Augestine imo did begin something new) Original sin,
              predestination are all foreign to Christianity til Augestine.

              Marcion is not orthodox yet some would say he isn't Gnostics
              either yet he has the cosmology of Gnostics. yet in actuallity his
              soteriology is pistic. So what's is his case? That was my
              question.

              >
              > Perhaps you'd like to offer a more general definition for "pistic"
              > Christianity that would consider the points you brought up?
              >
              > Cari


              Now to why I don't like the term "pistic" for orthodox. Actually I
              don't like the term orthodox either as it implies that those
              Christians saw themselves as the "right, straight" path and
              others as not. The term is so condisending to others and self
              rightiousness and arrogant.. Anyway, for all we could know,
              Gnostics might call themselves as orthodox. They indeed
              consider their path as the right path. Well, Gerry states there are
              different difinition for "orthodox"

              >>>Even within the context of our discussions, "orthodox" can
              have a generic meaning (straight- or right-thinking), or a specific
              one (such as referring to the conventional, Pistic religion as
              characterized by its dogma).<<< #7390

              Actually more specific one is Orthodox as in Eastern Orthodox.
              But for one to be called orthodox I think there needs to be more
              then "pistic" to be one. So in the definition Gerry includes
              "conventional" so what's that entail? Surely for Christians, it must
              included Christology and perhaps etchatology and yes
              characterized by dogma (but then everyone had dogma). But
              then who will define the boundry?

              I don't like the term pistic Christians because of the same
              reason for the word Gnosticism. There was no movement or
              group that identified each other as "pistic". And as I stated there
              was no uniform "pistic" theology just as there was no uniform
              "Gnostic" theology. It is a misnormer to state that historically
              there were two kinds of Christians, pistic and gnostic, like one
              internet web sites falsely speading as the matter of fact.
            • ernststrohregenmantelrad
              ... ernststrohregenmantelrad ...
              Message 6 of 28 , Apr 4, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <
                no_reply@y...> wrote:
                > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com,
                ernststrohregenmantelrad
                > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, incognito_lightbringer
                <
                > > no_reply@y...> wrote:
                > >
                > > > PS It really is a good idea to reread the posts in this
                > particular
                > > > thread in one go. I've just did that specifically because
                Carrie
                > > > asked me a question and I was trying to recreate the train
                of
                > thought
                > > > and discussion to answer her, and noticed a few things I
                didn't
                > > > address or didn't respond to correctly, and am working on
                some
                > kind
                > > > of reply to you and Carrie. But the board had been down
                when I
                > tried
                > > > to access it this weekend it's taking awhile.
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Who's the heck is Carrie?
                >
                >
                >
                > Ah, so soon they forget... LOL
                >
                > Ernst, I think she was referring to me with an extra "r" and "e".
                >
                >
                > Cari
                >
                > P. S. Apologies if this is posted twice. I think Yahoo ate up my
                > first attempt.

                then someone is indeed disfiguering words!
              • Gerry
                ... gnostic wannabee again confusing his new age evolution of conscieous crap as a pale rendering of Gnosticism. And then that turned into bickering on the
                Message 7 of 28 , Apr 5, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
                  <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  >>I see that this all got started from a post by New Age pseudo-
                  gnostic wannabee again confusing his new age "evolution of
                  conscieous" crap as a pale rendering of Gnosticism. And then
                  that turned into bickering on the definition of "pistis" (BTW,
                  looking back at posts, I felt like reading Irenaeus because the
                  posts were erased yet some quotes were cited to refute.)<<


                  The only posts that were deleted had no purpose here. They were
                  spam. There's actually another recent one I'm considering
                  eliminating from the archives, but from now on, I'll be sure to
                  forward all spam directly to your mailbox prior to deletion so you
                  can lord over it as you please.


                  >>Anyway, as stated in posts "Gnostic" Christians have varients
                  and so one must also realize that so called "pistic" Christians
                  have varients too. (BTW, I hate using that term for this particular
                  group, more on that later) Including those of so called dogmatic,
                  pistic, orthodox etc... (and you can put as many adjective as you
                  want it won't make difference). I understand that what he meant
                  by the term "pistic" or "orthodox" but my point here is his
                  definition of "sin" for supposed "orthodox". As I stated it is only
                  after Augestine that the original sin concept was adoptied by the
                  "orthodox" church so "Sin = transgression; we're born with it,
                  and can't escape it without someone else dying for us." needs
                  revision. Also the statement, "Sin = ignorance of our divine origin;
                  a state akin to drunkenness from which we can be made sober."
                  is much to be of misunderstanding. I don't know where but I think
                  we got somewhere stuck in our heads that for Gnostics sin=
                  ignorence. Maybe it was from the TV serie "Gnostics" or from
                  Pagels' book "Gnostic Gospels". Well, I look back at the Pagels
                  book and it doesn't say sin=ingorence. What it says is that for
                  orthodox Christians suffering is the result of sin but for Gnostics
                  suffering is the result of ignorence. (p.148-150) Then as such
                  word "sin" is defined same for orthodox and Gnostics. For "sin'
                  means as Pagels states on page 148-149, "the New Testement
                  term for sin, _hamartia_, comes from the sport of archery;
                  literally, it means "missing the mark" So the original meaning of
                  "hamartia" didn't necessary mean "transgresion" per se.<<


                  Thank you for your "clarification," but are you still somehow unaware
                  that my conceptual distinction was never intended to be a technical
                  definition, even after two people have pointed that out? BTW, if we
                  stick to your literalist interpretation of "sin," then the only valid
                  context we can allow for its discussion is on the field while taking
                  aim at a bull's-eye. Furthermore, if you think I pulled the
                  understanding of "sin" as "ignorance" out of a hat, you're again
                  mistaken.


                  >>I don't like the term pistic Christians because of the same
                  reason for the word Gnosticism. There was no movement or
                  group that identified each other as "pistic". And as I stated there
                  was no uniform "pistic" theology just as there was no uniform
                  "Gnostic" theology. It is a misnormer to state that historically
                  there were two kinds of Christians, pistic and gnostic, like one
                  internet web sites falsely speading as the matter of fact.<<


                  If you don't like the term, Ernst, you're free to leave anytime.
                  There's really no point in you remaining to discuss Gnosticism if you
                  truly see no difference between those groups and the rest of
                  Christianity. On the other hand, if you can remove your head from
                  your definitions long enough to realize that certain generalizations
                  can indeed be recognized, then the whole point of having
                  a "Gnosticism" category at Yahoo might just be validated.

                  Gerry
                • Gerry
                  ... Yes, I d say that SOMEONE is, indeed. Don t worry, though . . . your title is far from being challenged. Gerry
                  Message 8 of 28 , Apr 5, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
                    <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                    >
                    >>then someone is indeed disfiguering words!<< [sic]



                    Yes, I'd say that SOMEONE is, indeed.

                    Don't worry, though . . . your title is far from being challenged.

                    Gerry
                  • incognito_lightbringer
                    Ernst I don t like the term pistic Christians because of the same reason for the word Gnosticism. There was no movement or group that identified each other
                    Message 9 of 28 , Apr 5, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ernst<<>>I don't like the term pistic Christians because of the same
                      reason for the word Gnosticism. There was no movement or
                      group that identified each other as "pistic". And as I stated there
                      was no uniform "pistic" theology just as there was no uniform
                      "Gnostic" theology. It is a misnormer to state that historically
                      there were two kinds of Christians, pistic and gnostic, like one
                      internet web sites falsely speading as the matter of fact.<<


                      Gerry<<If you don't like the term, Ernst, you're free to leave
                      anytime.
                      There's really no point in you remaining to discuss Gnosticism if you
                      truly see no difference between those groups and the rest of
                      Christianity>>


                      I agree with Ernst. This whole pistic gnostic heterodox orthodox
                      thread made me understand what exactly he's trying to say now. No
                      matter what neat box you try to fit things into you can still find
                      examples that contradict it. That's why, Gerry, I asked you what is
                      meant by heterodox versus orthodox when applied to gnosticism in post
                      7405.

                      Because then I could claim that those labeled Orthodox or Pistics
                      have various subgroups which have differences in texts and myth, some
                      subtle, others more pronounced, and that as a whole they are
                      heterodox. (thank you Ernst!).

                      If heterodox applies to beliefs of members within the specific
                      gnostic group, in that the group allowed a wide difference in
                      personal interpretation, that's another matter. But I see common
                      myths, common rituals, common teachings within each group.
                      You agree by your "if you see no difference". And it's also implied
                      by the overall tone of response here whenever someone strays off the
                      historical gnostic beaten path into personal interpretation that
                      isn't based on historical gnosticism.

                      You wrote <<I sought to point out that as black is not white, neither
                      might a mainstream definition be appropriately applied in a Gnostic
                      context.>> What does that mean? That any definition "they" used
                      automatically can't be what "we" use? I don't think you believe that,
                      but that's what the statement implies. And it may the case in some
                      points, it may also not be the case in others. What importance a
                      definition is attributed to *any religious system*, how it's defined
                      by that system, is examined by examining the specific religion
                      itself. That is, I believe, critical analysis. Not by examination of
                      another group and defining based on what they think
                      the "enemy" is. If that's not the case, then why don't we start
                      comparing Gnosticism to Hinduism?

                      The entire discussion should not have been about bickering. It should
                      have been about how do historical gnostic groups define faith based
                      on the evidence they left and deductions *based on that evidence*.
                      Has that been done in any depth? A claim was made here that faith was
                      viewed as negative by gnostics. I asked for evidence, where is it? My
                      reading of texts is that faith was high up in the hierarchy
                      importance to gnostics. Why not examine the written material and use
                      that to agree or disagree?

                      If "suposedly different historical definitions are not very
                      different at all, they are variations on a single theme." then what
                      is that definition and context for faith in historical gnosticism,
                      based on the evidence they left? Also written, "this club
                      is about historical Gnostic movements and that is non-negotiable".
                      Now we have a suggestion that the word faith be replaced by another
                      word, whereas historical gnostics did use it, and everyone's offering
                      a different definition "important to me". That indicates that there
                      *is* confusion on this point. And whereas personal interpretation is
                      important in gnosticism, IMHO, you can't have your cake and eat it
                      too. You can't claim that there's some objective analysis going on of
                      historical gnosticism, and then fall back into personal definition
                      with cries of heterodox whenever the literature doesn't agree with
                      personal view. Gnosticism is not "anyone's "personal path" of
                      psychological "spirituality", another comment posted here.

                      Cari asked me why, if I didn't believe in contrasting gnostics to
                      pistics to define aspects of gnosticism, then why did I do that? I
                      was actually shocked because I had no intention of doing that, and
                      realized I fell into it. The simple answer was that I was asked to
                      and the question intrigued me. I now realize it was a HUGE mistake
                      and why. I should have never diverted into that tangent. I'm still
                      holding to, now more than ever, that you do not define gnostic terms
                      as some kind of polar opposite to pistics, or in contrast to any
                      other religion. You define it based on itself.

                      Here's another irony. Why is the attempt to analyze faith is met with
                      suspicion? Is it a dirty word? The pistics are immediately dragged up
                      for comparison (see, lookee here what faith results in). The
                      term "critical reasoning" is bandied about as if it's contrary to
                      faith or mysticism. Mysticism is now not part of gnosis. No matter
                      that gnosticism is a _religion_ and not just merely a philosophy and
                      those elements are blatantly there in the literature. Pursuit of a
                      definition it is met with implied accusations of an orthodox
                      approach, and "gnostics aren't orthodox". Eventually, dead martyrs
                      are dug up, as I knew they'd be, as if to say "see what happens"!
                      What this has to do with pistics I don't know because had
                      the "faithful" been true to their own dogmatic doctrines than there
                      wouldn't have been any slaughter, instead much giving away of coats
                      and shirts, turning of cheeks, and loving the enemy, and avoidance of
                      judgement on others.
                      Conversely, "historical definitions are the important ones for you to
                      know in order to be a part of conversation here" is also brought up
                      the minute someone strays into new age lala land. So which is it?

                      So my "intent" has been questioned, and suspicions of orthodox
                      influence, or rather "baggage", for "zealously defending faith".
                      Now it's what could possibly be my religious influence. (if you're
                      getting p'ed at this too bad, you're not half as mad as I was when I
                      read all this, and you have no idea how I've restrained myself).
                      Snide accusations of past posting history, while at the
                      same time contradictorily stating that bringing up past posts is a no
                      no in debate. Now you write "thread had already dragged on to
                      inordinate length, and probably shouldn't have needed clarification
                      at a Gnostic site in the first place". Thanks a lot, here I thought
                      critical analysis was the point. Except nothings clear as far as the
                      posts go, everyone's falling back is individual interpretation, and
                      what word are we substituting for faith. Oh by the way, I've seen FAR
                      longer threads on this board.
                      This is the most depressing disillusioning experience because it's
                      exactly the kind of thing I experienced in my "orthodox" influence. I
                      know it when I see it.






                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
                      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
                      > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > >>I see that this all got started from a post by New Age pseudo-
                      > gnostic wannabee again confusing his new age "evolution of
                      > conscieous" crap as a pale rendering of Gnosticism. And then
                      > that turned into bickering on the definition of "pistis" (BTW,
                      > looking back at posts, I felt like reading Irenaeus because the
                      > posts were erased yet some quotes were cited to refute.)<<
                      >
                      >
                      > The only posts that were deleted had no purpose here. They were
                      > spam. There's actually another recent one I'm considering
                      > eliminating from the archives, but from now on, I'll be sure to
                      > forward all spam directly to your mailbox prior to deletion so you
                      > can lord over it as you please.
                      >
                      >
                      > >>Anyway, as stated in posts "Gnostic" Christians have varients
                      > and so one must also realize that so called "pistic" Christians
                      > have varients too. (BTW, I hate using that term for this particular
                      > group, more on that later) Including those of so called dogmatic,
                      > pistic, orthodox etc... (and you can put as many adjective as you
                      > want it won't make difference). I understand that what he meant
                      > by the term "pistic" or "orthodox" but my point here is his
                      > definition of "sin" for supposed "orthodox". As I stated it is only
                      > after Augestine that the original sin concept was adoptied by the
                      > "orthodox" church so "Sin = transgression; we're born with it,
                      > and can't escape it without someone else dying for us." needs
                      > revision. Also the statement, "Sin = ignorance of our divine
                      origin;
                      > a state akin to drunkenness from which we can be made sober."
                      > is much to be of misunderstanding. I don't know where but I think
                      > we got somewhere stuck in our heads that for Gnostics sin=
                      > ignorence. Maybe it was from the TV serie "Gnostics" or from
                      > Pagels' book "Gnostic Gospels". Well, I look back at the Pagels
                      > book and it doesn't say sin=ingorence. What it says is that for
                      > orthodox Christians suffering is the result of sin but for Gnostics
                      > suffering is the result of ignorence. (p.148-150) Then as such
                      > word "sin" is defined same for orthodox and Gnostics. For "sin'
                      > means as Pagels states on page 148-149, "the New Testement
                      > term for sin, _hamartia_, comes from the sport of archery;
                      > literally, it means "missing the mark" So the original meaning of
                      > "hamartia" didn't necessary mean "transgresion" per se.<<
                      >
                      >
                      > Thank you for your "clarification," but are you still somehow
                      unaware
                      > that my conceptual distinction was never intended to be a technical
                      > definition, even after two people have pointed that out? BTW, if
                      we
                      > stick to your literalist interpretation of "sin," then the only
                      valid
                      > context we can allow for its discussion is on the field while
                      taking
                      > aim at a bull's-eye. Furthermore, if you think I pulled the
                      > understanding of "sin" as "ignorance" out of a hat, you're again
                      > mistaken.
                      >
                      >
                      > >>I don't like the term pistic Christians because of the same
                      > reason for the word Gnosticism. There was no movement or
                      > group that identified each other as "pistic". And as I stated there
                      > was no uniform "pistic" theology just as there was no uniform
                      > "Gnostic" theology. It is a misnormer to state that historically
                      > there were two kinds of Christians, pistic and gnostic, like one
                      > internet web sites falsely speading as the matter of fact.<<
                      >
                      >
                      > If you don't like the term, Ernst, you're free to leave anytime.
                      > There's really no point in you remaining to discuss Gnosticism if
                      you
                      > truly see no difference between those groups and the rest of
                      > Christianity. On the other hand, if you can remove your head from
                      > your definitions long enough to realize that certain
                      generalizations
                      > can indeed be recognized, then the whole point of having
                      > a "Gnosticism" category at Yahoo might just be validated.
                      >
                      > Gerry
                    • Mike Leavitt
                      Hello ernststrohregenmantelrad On 04-Apr-03, you wrote: . For sin means as Pagels states on ... THIS POINT NEEDS EMPHASIZING, THIS IS THE TRUE MEANING OF
                      Message 10 of 28 , Apr 5, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello ernststrohregenmantelrad

                        On 04-Apr-03, you wrote:
                        . For "sin' means as Pagels states on
                        > page 148-149, "the New Testement term for sin, _hamartia_, comes
                        > from the sport of archery; literally, it means "missing the mark" So
                        > the original meaning of "hamartia" didn't necessary mean
                        > "transgresion" per se.

                        THIS POINT NEEDS EMPHASIZING, THIS IS THE TRUE MEANING OF SIN.

                        > I don't like the term pistic Christians because of the same
                        > reason for the word Gnosticism. There was no movement or
                        > group that identified each other as "pistic". And as I stated there
                        > was no uniform "pistic" theology just as there was no uniform
                        > "Gnostic" theology. It is a misnormer to state that historically
                        > there were two kinds of Christians, pistic and gnostic, like one
                        > internet web sites falsely speading as the matter of fact.

                        Yes, Marcion comes to mind, a little bit of each. :-) Origin and
                        Clement too, for that matter.

                        Regards
                        --
                        Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                      • Mike Leavitt
                        Hello incognito_lightbringer ... Just to clarify, I agree with your point about the role of faith in Gnosticism, Pistis is ahead of Sophia in the title after
                        Message 11 of 28 , Apr 5, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hello incognito_lightbringer

                          On 05-Apr-03, you wrote:

                          > So my "intent" has been questioned, and suspicions of orthodox
                          > influence, or rather "baggage", for "zealously defending faith". Now
                          > it's what could possibly be my religious influence. (if you're
                          > getting p'ed at this too bad, you're not half as mad as I was when I
                          > read all this, and you have no idea how I've restrained myself).
                          > Snide accusations of past posting history, while at the same time
                          > contradictorily stating that bringing up past posts is a no no in
                          > debate. Now you write "thread had already dragged on to inordinate
                          > length, and probably shouldn't have needed clarification at a
                          > Gnostic site in the first place". Thanks a lot, here I thought
                          > critical analysis was the point. Except nothings clear as far as the
                          > posts go, everyone's falling back is individual interpretation, and
                          > what word are we substituting for faith. Oh by the way, I've seen
                          > FAR longer threads on this board. This is the most depressing
                          > disillusioning experience because it's exactly the kind of thing I
                          > experienced in my "orthodox" influence. I know it when I see it.

                          Just to clarify, I agree with your point about the role of faith in
                          Gnosticism, Pistis is ahead of Sophia in the title after all. Also I
                          have enjoyed your posts, and learned from them. I guess I'm an old
                          jaded gnostic, as nothing in this thread has upset me, only
                          enlightened me as different points of view were put forth. It is, of
                          course, the best form to leave out personal references, but
                          cultivating a thick skin helps as it will happen. :-)

                          Regards
                          --
                          Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                        • incognito_lightbringer
                          Thanks Mike This is having a thick skin, for me LOL :O If there s debate among scholars defining gnosis and gnosticism, I don t suppose faith should have been
                          Message 12 of 28 , Apr 6, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Thanks Mike
                            This is having a thick skin, for me LOL :O
                            If there's debate among scholars defining gnosis and gnosticism, I
                            don't suppose faith should have been any different.
                            And it's not so much faith as it is taking the mystical or
                            transcendent out of gnosis and gnosticism that bothered me; takes all
                            the flavor out of it, like salt without food (to quote from my
                            orthodox upbringing). And the transcendent is the starting point in
                            gnostic texts that describe the Father and the series of emanations.
                            I don't see how that can be broached without some element of faith
                            working.

                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                            > Hello incognito_lightbringer
                            >
                            > On 05-Apr-03, you wrote:
                            >
                            > > So my "intent" has been questioned, and suspicions of orthodox
                            > > influence, or rather "baggage", for "zealously defending faith".
                            Now
                            > > it's what could possibly be my religious influence. (if you're
                            > > getting p'ed at this too bad, you're not half as mad as I was
                            when I
                            > > read all this, and you have no idea how I've restrained myself).
                            > > Snide accusations of past posting history, while at the same time
                            > > contradictorily stating that bringing up past posts is a no no in
                            > > debate. Now you write "thread had already dragged on to inordinate
                            > > length, and probably shouldn't have needed clarification at a
                            > > Gnostic site in the first place". Thanks a lot, here I thought
                            > > critical analysis was the point. Except nothings clear as far as
                            the
                            > > posts go, everyone's falling back is individual interpretation,
                            and
                            > > what word are we substituting for faith. Oh by the way, I've seen
                            > > FAR longer threads on this board. This is the most depressing
                            > > disillusioning experience because it's exactly the kind of thing I
                            > > experienced in my "orthodox" influence. I know it when I see it.
                            >
                            > Just to clarify, I agree with your point about the role of faith in
                            > Gnosticism, Pistis is ahead of Sophia in the title after all. Also
                            I
                            > have enjoyed your posts, and learned from them. I guess I'm an old
                            > jaded gnostic, as nothing in this thread has upset me, only
                            > enlightened me as different points of view were put forth. It is,
                            of
                            > course, the best form to leave out personal references, but
                            > cultivating a thick skin helps as it will happen. :-)
                            >
                            > Regards
                            > --
                            > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                          • Gerry
                            ... all ... emanations. ... Micren, before I even come close to having the time required in a day to address your previous questions and allegations of the
                            Message 13 of 28 , Apr 6, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, incognito_lightbringer
                              <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                              > Thanks Mike
                              > This is having a thick skin, for me LOL :O
                              > If there's debate among scholars defining gnosis and gnosticism, I
                              > don't suppose faith should have been any different.
                              > And it's not so much faith as it is taking the mystical or
                              > transcendent out of gnosis and gnosticism that bothered me; takes
                              all
                              > the flavor out of it, like salt without food (to quote from my
                              > orthodox upbringing). And the transcendent is the starting point in
                              > gnostic texts that describe the Father and the series of
                              emanations.
                              > I don't see how that can be broached without some element of faith
                              > working.
                              >



                              Micren, before I even come close to having the time required in a day
                              to address your previous questions and allegations of the horrible
                              mistreatment you've gotten here, I'd like to ask one simple question:

                              You close that paragraph with the unmistakable implication that
                              people are continuing to "piss" on Pistis——as if they genuinely felt
                              that it had NO place in Gnosticism. I'm just really curious if you
                              never noticed the repeated attempts by your "opponents" in
                              this "debate" to inform you that such was never an issue in our eyes?

                              From my standpoint, I have merely wanted to point out that there is a
                              difference in application of the terms between a Gnostic setting and
                              one of a conventional faith.

                              Mike and Ernst are right about the etymological origin of "sin," a
                              fact which was NOT disputed here. In fact, the same definition had
                              been offered here before (probably on numerous occasions prior to the
                              botched archive re-shuffling). Again, I love to see that we have
                              another area of agreement, but the fact remains that the notion
                              of "missing the mark" is different in the eyes of a purely Pistic
                              individual than for a Gnostic.

                              Gerry
                            • Gerry
                              ... I ... of ... Mike, I have one question for you as well (just to see if we ve all been on the same page all along). Since this relates to a matter of a
                              Message 14 of 28 , Apr 6, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > Just to clarify, I agree with your point about the role of faith in
                                > Gnosticism, Pistis is ahead of Sophia in the title after all. Also
                                I
                                > have enjoyed your posts, and learned from them. I guess I'm an old
                                > jaded gnostic, as nothing in this thread has upset me, only
                                > enlightened me as different points of view were put forth. It is,
                                of
                                > course, the best form to leave out personal references, but
                                > cultivating a thick skin helps as it will happen. :-)
                                >
                                > Regards
                                > --
                                > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...



                                Mike, I have one question for you as well (just to see if we've all
                                been on the same page all along). Since this relates to a matter of
                                a personal nature, you may choose to treat it as a rhetorical
                                question, but I'll ask nonetheless:

                                Realizing that you preside over a Gnostic church, I'm curious why you
                                made that choice, rather than . . . say . . . a Methodist church?

                                I'm hoping you won't tell me something like, "It's a shorter
                                commute," although I wouldn't put it past you. LOL In spite of the
                                dangers of "assuming" anything, I'd wager that there was "something"
                                about the Gnostic viewpoint that resonated differently for you than
                                within the mainstream.

                                Again, this is the gist of the case I've tried to present here——that
                                there IS a difference, otherwise, none of us would be at a Gnostic
                                site, there would be no Gnosticism category, and any of us of a
                                religious persuasion would be attending the VERY SAME Church since
                                such terms as heterodox and orthodox have been defenestrated for
                                utter lack of interest.

                                Gerry
                              • Mike Leavitt
                                Hello incognito_lightbringer ... You haven t said anything there I disagree with either. Good points. Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
                                Message 15 of 28 , Apr 6, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hello incognito_lightbringer

                                  On 06-Apr-03, you wrote:

                                  > Thanks Mike
                                  > This is having a thick skin, for me LOL :O If there's debate among
                                  > scholars defining gnosis and gnosticism, I don't suppose faith
                                  > should have been any different. And it's not so much faith as it is
                                  > taking the mystical or transcendent out of gnosis and gnosticism
                                  > that bothered me; takes all the flavor out of it, like salt without
                                  > food (to quote from my orthodox upbringing). And the transcendent is
                                  > the starting point in gnostic texts that describe the Father and the
                                  > series of emanations. I don't see how that can be broached without
                                  > some element of faith working.

                                  You haven't said anything there I disagree with either. Good points.

                                  Regards
                                  --
                                  Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                • Mike Leavitt
                                  Hello Gerry ... I hate one word replies, but this calls for one, _absolutely_! Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Apr 6, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hello Gerry

                                    On 06-Apr-03, you wrote:

                                    > Mike and Ernst are right about the etymological origin of "sin," a
                                    > fact which was NOT disputed here. In fact, the same definition had
                                    > been offered here before (probably on numerous occasions prior to
                                    > the botched archive re-shuffling). Again, I love to see that we have
                                    > another area of agreement, but the fact remains that the notion of
                                    > "missing the mark" is different in the eyes of a purely Pistic
                                    > individual than for a Gnostic.

                                    I hate one word replies, but this calls for one, _absolutely_!

                                    Regards
                                    --
                                    Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                  • Mike Leavitt
                                    Hello Gerry ... Well Bishop Stephan presides over the church, I m just the senior priest by date of ordination (1975). Actually it is a longer commute. :-) Yes
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Apr 6, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hello Gerry

                                      On 06-Apr-03, you wrote:

                                      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >> Just to clarify, I agree with your point about the role of faith in
                                      >> Gnosticism, Pistis is ahead of Sophia in the title after all. Also
                                      > I
                                      >> have enjoyed your posts, and learned from them. I guess I'm an old
                                      >> jaded gnostic, as nothing in this thread has upset me, only
                                      >> enlightened me as different points of view were put forth. It is,
                                      > of
                                      >> course, the best form to leave out personal references, but
                                      >> cultivating a thick skin helps as it will happen. :-)
                                      >>
                                      >> Regards
                                      >> --
                                      >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Mike, I have one question for you as well (just to see if we've all
                                      > been on the same page all along). Since this relates to a matter of
                                      > a personal nature, you may choose to treat it as a rhetorical
                                      > question, but I'll ask nonetheless:
                                      >
                                      > Realizing that you preside over a Gnostic church, I'm curious why
                                      > you made that choice, rather than . . . say . . . a Methodist
                                      > church?
                                      >
                                      > I'm hoping you won't tell me something like, "It's a shorter
                                      > commute," although I wouldn't put it past you. LOL In spite of the
                                      > dangers of "assuming" anything, I'd wager that there was "something"
                                      > about the Gnostic viewpoint that resonated differently for you than
                                      > within the mainstream.
                                      >
                                      > Again, this is the gist of the case I've tried to present here

                                      Well Bishop Stephan presides over the church, I'm just the senior
                                      priest by date of ordination (1975).

                                      Actually it is a longer commute. :-)

                                      Yes it was something different, in my case from the Rosicrucian
                                      (Heindel/Steiner not AMORC)/Manley Hall (still good)/New Age religious
                                      upbringing I had (actually it was not pushed on me, I took it up on
                                      my own). But I never had any Orthodox religious junk to deal with in
                                      my upbringing. I attended Episcopal services in Vietnam, but that
                                      was for the liturgy, because I was already hooked on that from
                                      Stephan's church, though I was more into Qabalah theologically than
                                      anything else at the time. It made a logical transition to Gnosis
                                      (especially Luria), and I never gave it up either. As you may have
                                      guessed, the liturgy drew me in, then came Gnosis.

                                      Regards
                                      --
                                      Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                    • ernststrohregenmantelrad2000
                                      Hi, please bear with me because this is a long post. In post #7463 ... pseudo- gnostic wannabee again confusing his new age evolution of conscieous crap as a
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Apr 15, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hi, please bear with me because this is a long post.

                                        In post #7463

                                        >>>>Me: I see that this all got started from a post by New Age
                                        pseudo-
                                        gnostic wannabee again confusing his new age "evolution of
                                        conscieous" crap as a pale rendering of Gnosticism. And then
                                        that turned into bickering on the definition of "pistis" (BTW,
                                        looking back at posts, I felt like reading Irenaeus because the
                                        posts were erased yet some quotes were cited to refute.)<<

                                        Gerry:
                                        The only posts that were deleted had no purpose here. They
                                        were
                                        spam. There's actually another recent one I'm considering
                                        eliminating from the archives, but from now on, I'll be sure to
                                        forward all spam directly to your mailbox prior to deletion so you
                                        can lord over it as you please.<<<<

                                        I was just commenting on the how reading posts which were
                                        replies to the delated post reminded me of reading polmetical
                                        works of heresiologists. I was not commenting on the validity of
                                        erased posts or their relevence (as you see them) in this egroup.
                                        In fact if you are so concerned about spams why don't you erase
                                        #7361. (As of the time of this writing it is not erased.). This post
                                        is a spam as much as those that were posted by the delated ex-
                                        member Weyne. As for the posts in question they were Gerry's
                                        post #7304 which was a reply to #7298 and PMCV's post #7300
                                        which was reply to #7299. Now one post by Weyne was purely a
                                        post with just a link to a web site of a book (which he was so
                                        enthuse about or pushing everyone to buy it. It depeses on one's
                                        perspective) but IMO #7298 and #7299 included some
                                        information besides the link to the aforementioned web site.
                                        Granted that information might have been a rationalization to the
                                        web site but still it gave, as far as I can see from archives inspite
                                        of delated posts, some sort of discussion over the term
                                        "Gnosticism". But I really can not tell because the
                                        aforementioned posts were erased and judging from the replies
                                        on what really did Weyne post lead me to guessing because in
                                        replies his quotes are not in entirely and they may be quotted out
                                        of context. AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY I COMMENTED AS
                                        SUCH. JUST COMMENTING THAT THIS INTERACTION
                                        REMINDED ME OF IRENAEUS NOT I WANT TO READ SPAM AS
                                        YOU SARCASTICALLY STATED.

                                        Gerry #7463

                                        >>Thank you for your "clarification," but are you still somehow
                                        unaware
                                        that my conceptual distinction was never intended to be a
                                        technical
                                        definition, even after two people have pointed that out?<<<

                                        Is it right to make the distingtion between technical and non-
                                        technical term when you are discussing something historical
                                        and needs to be explained with definiton as you are doing with
                                        Incognito? This I find to be confusing. This is what you wrote in
                                        #7390 before your "sarcastic, non-technical" definition.

                                        > >>If sin isn't sin and faith isn't faith and creator isn't creator,
                                        than what is it?<<(Incognito)
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Guess I goofed again. By including "damnation" (which you
                                        seemed to notice was out of place) in that string of redundancy, I
                                        was trying to show that if the mainstream definitions were the
                                        only ones available, then those groups sheltered under the
                                        umbrella of Gnosticism would be no different from the
                                        conventional orthodoxy. Are these differences not what we've
                                        been pointing out during this discussion of "faith"?
                                        >

                                        From this you draw up the supposed "sarcastic, non-technical"
                                        i.e. caricature definitions to show Incognito that these terms
                                        were different between Gnostics and so called pistics. I have no
                                        problem with that and I also see your point; however, what I
                                        pointing out is that (and I think this was what Incognito also was
                                        asserting -tell me if I'm wrong) that the difference between
                                        Gnostics and so called pistics came NOT as the result of
                                        different differnition of terms that you discussed (faith, sin,
                                        creator and damnation(!)) but as consequence resulting from
                                        their respective cosmology. So if you mean definition those
                                        terms are same for both Gnostics and Orthodox but the
                                        consequese is different. I feel you are confusing those two.



                                        >> BTW, if we
                                        stick to your literalist interpretation of "sin," then the only valid
                                        context we can allow for its discussion is on the field while taking
                                        aim at a bull's-eye.<<

                                        Again the term "sin" is same for both Gnostics and Orthodox.
                                        And thank you for your sarcastic comment but you know full well
                                        what I'm aiming at here (a pun intended). For both groups "sin",
                                        no matter what, means "missing the target set by God". Humans
                                        fell grory of "God" (or Pleroma in case of Gnostics) no matter
                                        what. That is the sin. The difference comes when ones goes
                                        from there-what to do with "sin". What is the consequese of "sin",
                                        How "sin" came about" and What is the remedty. In fact besides
                                        Pagels, I heard the defintion of "sin" as "missing the target" from
                                        two people. One is Stephan Hoeller in one of his talk and
                                        another is a Luteran paster in a church I used to attend. Now as
                                        you say those two are typical resprentive of your "Gnostics" and
                                        so called "pistic" yet they used the same definition of "sin as
                                        missing the target" And to tie with your discussion with Incognito
                                        on other terms, faith, etc... is also same in definition.


                                        >>Furthermore, if you think I pulled the
                                        understanding of "sin" as "ignorance" out of a hat, you're again
                                        mistaken.<<

                                        No, I didn't. Did I say that? Look again. I specially stated that it
                                        might be floating around the general discussion and perhasp
                                        from the TV documentary "Gnostics" in the post.



                                        >>If you don't like the term, Ernst, you're free to leave anytime.
                                        There's really no point in you remaining to discuss Gnosticism if
                                        you
                                        truly see no difference between those groups and the rest of
                                        Christianity. On the other hand, if you can remove your head
                                        from
                                        your definitions long enough to realize that certain
                                        generalizations
                                        can indeed be recognized, then the whole point of having
                                        a "Gnosticism" category at Yahoo might just be validated.<<

                                        Why not liking the term "pistic" warrent my departure from the
                                        group? The term like Gnosticism is not really cleary concensus
                                        term. There are differences of opinion on the term and what it
                                        entails (for example like I said how about Marcion?) plus it was
                                        the term not by used by those in question. If one goes by what
                                        you saying then a person should also leave because one is not
                                        happy with the definition of "Gnosticism". You are putting words
                                        in my mouth if I think there are no difference between Gnosticism
                                        and what became of Orthodox. What I was saying there is that
                                        the term pistic is a misnormer and shouldn't used at all (that's
                                        why I don't used it) and my feeling is that it shouldn't be used at
                                        all because it will create the confusion of equating what became
                                        as Orthodox with 'pistic' as some group. That is not seeing
                                        orthodox and gnostics and the same entities.

                                        BTW, when I created the club there was no yahoo category
                                        "Gnosticism". So basing that as one one the rationalization is not
                                        good.
                                      • George Harvey
                                        ... Hi, I wanted to ask you this off list as this is off topic, but you seem to have your address hidden so: What club are you talking about? And to everyone
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Apr 16, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad2000
                                          <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > BTW, when I created the club there was no yahoo category
                                          > "Gnosticism". So basing that as one one the rationalization is not
                                          > good.

                                          Hi,
                                          I wanted to ask you this off list as this is off topic, but you seem
                                          to have your address hidden so:

                                          What club are you talking about?

                                          And to everyone else: I apologize for the off topic post.

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