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

Thomas, Philip,... acquaintance

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    ... been somewhat hectic here on my end, which is why I am just getting back to you now.
    Message 1 of 42 , Mar 5, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Blissful Branches
      <blissful_branches@y...> wrote:
      > Dear Lady Carita,
      >
      > Greetings.
      >
      > Thank you so much for your input, it is most appreciated. It has
      been somewhat hectic here on my end, which is why I am just getting
      back to you now.<<


      Ditto, Bliss. Looks like we are both in "hectic schedule" mode. :-)




      >> Yes, you are quite correct in saying that I have been taught the
      orthodox Christian way. However, to me, there was always something
      empty and questionable about it all, whilst growing up. For
      instance, what was Jesus doing during his 20's, where did He go?
      India? Also, why were the other apostles,Thomas & Philip not
      included within the New Testament? Thoughts and possibly subtle
      answers to these questions have come to mind during times of
      stillness, but, it has been over the last three to four years,
      through Kundalini Yoga, research, & word of mouth that has led me to
      come across information relating to Gnosis, The Cathars & other info
      relating to the real truth, as well as, the corruption of the
      Catholic Church, both past and present. These revelations have always
      lingered in the back of my mind, thus making sense to me.<<


      Bliss, your comments seem to reflect a Gnostic path of self-
      acquaintance, gradually uncovering what is already within you.

      This directly goes to the issue of why Thomas and Philip are "not
      included the New Testament." The compilers of the Bible canon had
      specific political and theological ideas in mind, which conflicted
      with ideas in gospels of "Philip" and "Thomas." For instance, as
      Elaine Pagels discusses this in her new book, _Beyond
      Belief_, "Thomas's gospel encourages the hearer not so much to
      _believe in Jesus_, as John requires, as to _seek to know God_
      through one's own, divinely given capacity¬Ö" (p. 34). I should note
      here, Bliss, that Valentinians had their own exegesis of John (which
      Pagels discusses in another book of hers) that differed from the
      proto-orthodox version used in this instance. Pagels continues
      (p.34), "For Christians in later generations, the Gospel of John
      helped provide a foundation for a unified church, which Thomas, with
      its emphasis on each person's search for God, did not." Bliss, you
      mention corruption of the church. I suppose self-awareness isn't
      always popular or convenient when emphasis on power becomes paramount.

      The anthology, _Gospel of Philip_, similarly emphasizes self-
      acquaintance, self-discovery of what we already "possess",... and
      resurrection now.

      "Should not all people who possess all things know themselves
      utterly? Now, if some do not know themselves, they will not have the
      use of what they possess; but those who have learned about themselves
      will do so."

      "While we exist in this world we must acquire resurrection, so that
      when we put off the flesh we might be found in repose and not walk in
      the midpoint: for many get lost along the way."



      >> There is still the mystery behind Jesus's death, and am open to
      learning more about the Gnostic view of His death. The Cathars
      believed that Jesus was an apparition and not of flesh. In addition,
      their belief, is that if one became "Perfected" in this lifetime, one
      would no longer spend future lifetimes being reincarnated here on
      earth. However, I've always felt that The Christ was incarnated into
      Jesus's body, in order for Him to convey God's message, which is that
      of not attaching ourselves to the materialistic bondages of the
      earthly realm.<<
      >


      Say, Bliss, your comments remind me of a recent post of mine
      discussing various portrayals of the Christ:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/9212

      Do any of these thoughts resonate with you?


      Cari
    • Gerry
      ... to the group, please note that I do need to do quite a bit of reading. I also agree that Kundalini & Gnosticism are not two of the same, but merely
      Message 42 of 42 , Mar 7, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Blissful Branches
        <blissful_branches@y...> wrote:
        > Thanks for clearing those things up for me. Aside from being new
        to the group, please note that I do need to do quite a bit of
        reading. I also agree that Kundalini & Gnosticism are not two of the
        same, but merely conveying that the Gospels Thomas and Philip had
        certain qualities that remind me of Kundalini.
        >
        > Please be patient with me.
        >
        > All the best,
        > Bliss



        Hey Bliss.

        Forgive me for not looking back in the earlier messages, but I'm
        hoping you were the one who had questions about how it was decided
        which books made it into the Bible. Here's a link that covers the
        canonization process:

        http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/Canon/canon.htm
        l

        I hate that it looks like you may have to cut and paste one letter to
        make that work, but you may find it interesting enough to make it
        worth the bother.

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