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

definition

Expand Messages
  • Mangum Murdock
    Hi all, It appears that we have a slightly different opinion on the definition of Gnosticism probably based on the multitude of historians/writers who define
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 1, 2003
      Hi all,
      It appears that we have a slightly different opinion on the definition of Gnosticism probably based on the multitude of historians/writers who define these various religious sects. I am a science oriented person so in order to gain information from you folks I need to know the most simplist definition of Gnosticism you have.  The following is mine subject to change....
       
      "the personal revelation that leads the soul to perfection through the knowledge of God"
       
        Mangum


      Do you Yahoo!?
      The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
    • pmcvflag
      Hello Magnum... let me jump in on this one. As a scientific minded person, I am betting you will find the club s definition of the term Gnosticism to be
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 1, 2003
        Hello Magnum... let me jump in on this one.

        As a scientific minded person, I am betting you will find the club's
        definition of the term "Gnosticism" to be quite concice. It is true
        that there are a lot of definitions floating around out there, but
        few of them have much to do with academic usages.... this club uses a
        slightly softened version of the Messina colloquium's springboard.

        Gnosticism being one of a number of late antiquities groups who's
        cosmogeny (emanationist/biblical demiurgy), anthropogeny (with the
        entrapment of the spirit), and soteriology (internal recognition of
        the connection to the "Bythos" or apophatic source) are related, as
        well as thier cultural/philosophical backdrop (neoplatonism in the
        semitic or biblical syncratic venue)

        In this club then, when we say "Gnosticism" we are talking about a
        number of historical sects from the late antiquities, but we do
        extend that also (for the sake of the club's purpose) to the modern
        Neognostics who feel themselves drawn by these traditional "Gnostics".

        I would point out that it is generally scholastic concensus that the
        Cathars are not Gnostic because thier soteriology is divergent (which
        is the same reason many academicians also now exclude Manichaeans and
        Marcionism, etc..). I know there are modern writers who repeat the
        equation still with the Cathars (such as T. Churton recently in his
        companion to the BPS series on Gnosticism, and the medievalist that
        magusadeptus recently mentioned, William Eamon, niether of which are
        specialists in the field), but most of them are simply not up to date
        on the critical evaluation of the movement.

        PMCV

        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mangum Murdock
        <mangummurdock@y...> wrote:
        > Hi all,
        > It appears that we have a slightly different opinion on the
        definition of Gnosticism probably based on the multitude of
        historians/writers who define these various religious sects. I am a
        science oriented person so in order to gain information from you
        folks I need to know the most simplist definition of Gnosticism you
        have. The following is mine subject to change....
        >
        > "the personal revelation that leads the soul to perfection through
        the knowledge of God"
        >
        > Mangum
        >
        >
        > ---------------------------------
        > Do you Yahoo!?
        > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
      • Mangum Murdock
        If I understand you correctly this club has established certain definitions of gnosticism and corresponding historical sects for discussion. In otherwords
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 1, 2003
          If I understand you correctly this 'club' has established certain definitions of gnosticism and corresponding historical sects for discussion. In otherwords there are heretics among potential subscribers. I understand. Please accept my apologies for seeking information from the wrong group.
           
          Mangum

          pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
          Hello Magnum... let me jump in on this one.

          As a scientific minded person, I am betting you will find the club's
          definition of the term "Gnosticism" to be quite concice. It is true
          that there are a lot of definitions floating around out there, but
          few of them have much to do with academic usages.... this club uses a
          slightly softened version of the Messina colloquium's springboard.

          Gnosticism being one of a number of late antiquities groups who's
          cosmogeny (emanationist/biblical demiurgy), anthropogeny (with the
          entrapment of the spirit), and soteriology (internal recognition of
          the connection to the "Bythos" or apophatic source) are related, as
          well as thier cultural/philosophical backdrop (neoplatonism in the
          semitic or biblical syncratic venue)

          In this club then, when we say "Gnosticism" we are talking about a
          number of historical sects from the late antiquities, but we do
          extend that also (for the sake of the club's purpose) to the modern
          Neognostics who feel themselves drawn by these traditional "Gnostics".

          I would point out that it is generally scholastic concensus that the
          Cathars are not Gnostic because thier soteriology is divergent (which
          is the same reason many academicians also now exclude Manichaeans and
          Marcionism, etc..). I know there are modern writers who repeat the
          equation still with the Cathars (such as T. Churton recently in his
          companion to the BPS series on Gnosticism, and the medievalist that
          magusadeptus recently mentioned, William Eamon, niether of which are
          specialists in the field), but most of them are simply not up to date
          on the critical evaluation of the movement.

          PMCV

          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mangum Murdock
          <mangummurdock@y...> wrote:
          > Hi all,
          > It appears that we have a slightly different opinion on the
          definition of Gnosticism probably based on the multitude of
          historians/writers who define these various religious sects. I am a
          science oriented person so in order to gain information from you
          folks I need to know the most simplist definition of Gnosticism you
          have.  The following is mine subject to change....

          > "the personal revelation that leads the soul to perfection through
          the knowledge of God"

          >   Mangum
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > Do you Yahoo!?
          > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search



          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


          Do you Yahoo!?
          The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

        • lady_caritas
          Hello, Mangum. I think there might be a misunderstanding regarding the nature and focus of our list. Our membership comprises not just people who consider
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 1, 2003
            Hello, Mangum. I think there might be a misunderstanding regarding
            the nature and focus of our list. Our membership comprises not just
            people who consider themselves "neognostics," but also anyone who has
            an interest in discussion of gnosis and the ancient Gnostics and
            related groups (which would include Cathars, etc.), as described on
            our homepage, and their relation to us in modern times.
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/

            We are *not* a restricted club of self-designated gnostics with a
            specific agenda of excluding people who differ in beliefs. There are
            many other groups that choose to have a broader interpretation of the
            term, Gnosticism. But we *do* want to keep a focus of Gnosticism
            based on a broad categorical use of this word that was coined by
            scholars in the eighteenth century for the specific purpose of
            referring to this Late Antiquities phenomenon as described by PMCV in
            his recent post #8365. You may choose to disagree with others
            regarding what sects were or were not Gnostic. That's cool. There
            is a healthy divergence of opinion here although we won't accept
            proselytizing. We encourage civil discussion and debate. We are not
            inflexible. And we do invite critical thinking.

            Cari


            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mangum Murdock
            <mangummurdock@y...> wrote:
            > If I understand you correctly this 'club' has established certain
            definitions of gnosticism and corresponding historical sects for
            discussion. In otherwords there are heretics among potential
            subscribers. I understand. Please accept my apologies for seeking
            information from the wrong group.
            >
            > Mangum
            >
            > pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
            > Hello Magnum... let me jump in on this one.
            >
            > As a scientific minded person, I am betting you will find the
            club's
            > definition of the term "Gnosticism" to be quite concice. It is true
            > that there are a lot of definitions floating around out there, but
            > few of them have much to do with academic usages.... this club uses
            a
            > slightly softened version of the Messina colloquium's springboard.
            >
            > Gnosticism being one of a number of late antiquities groups who's
            > cosmogeny (emanationist/biblical demiurgy), anthropogeny (with the
            > entrapment of the spirit), and soteriology (internal recognition of
            > the connection to the "Bythos" or apophatic source) are related, as
            > well as thier cultural/philosophical backdrop (neoplatonism in the
            > semitic or biblical syncratic venue)
            >
            > In this club then, when we say "Gnosticism" we are talking about a
            > number of historical sects from the late antiquities, but we do
            > extend that also (for the sake of the club's purpose) to the modern
            > Neognostics who feel themselves drawn by these
            traditional "Gnostics".
            >
            > I would point out that it is generally scholastic concensus that
            the
            > Cathars are not Gnostic because thier soteriology is divergent
            (which
            > is the same reason many academicians also now exclude Manichaeans
            and
            > Marcionism, etc..). I know there are modern writers who repeat the
            > equation still with the Cathars (such as T. Churton recently in his
            > companion to the BPS series on Gnosticism, and the medievalist that
            > magusadeptus recently mentioned, William Eamon, niether of which
            are
            > specialists in the field), but most of them are simply not up to
            date
            > on the critical evaluation of the movement.
            >
            > PMCV
            >
            > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mangum Murdock
            > <mangummurdock@y...> wrote:
            > > Hi all,
            > > It appears that we have a slightly different opinion on the
            > definition of Gnosticism probably based on the multitude of
            > historians/writers who define these various religious sects. I am a
            > science oriented person so in order to gain information from you
            > folks I need to know the most simplist definition of Gnosticism you
            > have. The following is mine subject to change....
            > >
            > > "the personal revelation that leads the soul to perfection
            through
            > the knowledge of God"
            > >
            > > Mangum
            > >
            > >
            > > ---------------------------------
            > > Do you Yahoo!?
            > > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
            >
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
            Service.
            >
            >
            > ---------------------------------
            > Do you Yahoo!?
            > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
          • pmcvflag
            I don t understand how you came by the notion of potential heretics from what I said Mangum.... but Lady Cari is right, I think you have misunderstood my
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 1, 2003
              I don't understand how you came by the notion of "potential heretics"
              from what I said Mangum.... but Lady Cari is right, I think you have
              misunderstood my meaning. You asked what our definition
              of "Gnosticism" was. Maybe I can boil it down a little to remove the
              confusion....

              We essentially use the general academic definition of the word, the
              one scholors use.

              PMCV

              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mangum Murdock
              <mangummurdock@y...> wrote:
              > If I understand you correctly this 'club' has established certain
              definitions of gnosticism and corresponding historical sects for
              discussion. In otherwords there are heretics among potential
              subscribers. I understand. Please accept my apologies for seeking
              information from the wrong group.
              >
              > Mangum
              >
              > pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
              > Hello Magnum... let me jump in on this one.
              >
              > As a scientific minded person, I am betting you will find the
              club's
              > definition of the term "Gnosticism" to be quite concice. It is true
              > that there are a lot of definitions floating around out there, but
              > few of them have much to do with academic usages.... this club uses
              a
              > slightly softened version of the Messina colloquium's springboard.
              >
              > Gnosticism being one of a number of late antiquities groups who's
              > cosmogeny (emanationist/biblical demiurgy), anthropogeny (with the
              > entrapment of the spirit), and soteriology (internal recognition of
              > the connection to the "Bythos" or apophatic source) are related, as
              > well as thier cultural/philosophical backdrop (neoplatonism in the
              > semitic or biblical syncratic venue)
              >
              > In this club then, when we say "Gnosticism" we are talking about a
              > number of historical sects from the late antiquities, but we do
              > extend that also (for the sake of the club's purpose) to the modern
              > Neognostics who feel themselves drawn by these
              traditional "Gnostics".
              >
              > I would point out that it is generally scholastic concensus that
              the
              > Cathars are not Gnostic because thier soteriology is divergent
              (which
              > is the same reason many academicians also now exclude Manichaeans
              and
              > Marcionism, etc..). I know there are modern writers who repeat the
              > equation still with the Cathars (such as T. Churton recently in his
              > companion to the BPS series on Gnosticism, and the medievalist that
              > magusadeptus recently mentioned, William Eamon, niether of which
              are
              > specialists in the field), but most of them are simply not up to
              date
              > on the critical evaluation of the movement.
              >
              > PMCV
              >
              > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mangum Murdock
              > <mangummurdock@y...> wrote:
              > > Hi all,
              > > It appears that we have a slightly different opinion on the
              > definition of Gnosticism probably based on the multitude of
              > historians/writers who define these various religious sects. I am a
              > science oriented person so in order to gain information from you
              > folks I need to know the most simplist definition of Gnosticism you
              > have. The following is mine subject to change....
              > >
              > > "the personal revelation that leads the soul to perfection
              through
              > the knowledge of God"
              > >
              > > Mangum
              > >
              > >
              > > ---------------------------------
              > > Do you Yahoo!?
              > > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              Service.
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > Do you Yahoo!?
              > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
            • Mike Leavitt
              Hello lady_caritas ... Would you believe I hadn t ever visited the home page before, thanks for bringing it to my attention again. Regards -- Mike Leavitt
              Message 6 of 6 , Oct 1, 2003
                Hello lady_caritas

                On 01-Oct-03, you wrote:

                > Hello, Mangum. I think there might be a misunderstanding regarding
                > the nature and focus of our list. Our membership comprises not just
                > people who consider themselves "neognostics," but also anyone who
                > has an interest in discussion of gnosis and the ancient Gnostics and
                > related groups (which would include Cathars, etc.), as described on
                > our homepage, and their relation to us in modern times.
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/

                Would you believe I hadn't ever visited the home page before, thanks
                for bringing it to my attention again.

                Regards
                --
                Mike Leavitt ac998@...
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.