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

Re: definition

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Oct 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 6 , Oct 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 6 , Oct 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 6 , Oct 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 6 , Oct 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              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.