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

Re: Digest Number 563 (seminar lowlights)

Expand Messages
  • Gerry
    ... and yet ... amusing to see ... humanist view ... longer ... tradition. By a ... and in ... I don t think I would go so far as to link him with scholars of
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 5 9:41 PM
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen" <stephen@m...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Erhman sounds like a typical modern scholar of Gnosticism and early
      > Christianity - decent, intelligent and sympathetic to Gnosticism
      and yet
      > ultimately a world away from being a Gnostic himself. It is
      amusing to see
      > a new Jesus myth emerging among those inclined to the liberal
      humanist view
      > which seems to include most scholars. In this new myth Jesus is no
      longer
      > the son of god but a good philosopher of the Jewish Wisdom
      tradition. By a
      > quirk of fate he ends up crucified. After his death his followers,
      and in
      > particular Paul, turn him into a deity.



      I don't think I would go so far as to link him with scholars of
      Gnosticism. While he may chair the Department of Religious Studies
      at my alma mater, his areas of specialization are basically the New
      Testament and Early Christianity. In that regard, I think his works
      could still be a valuable resource for someone simply interested in
      the diversity of thought that characterized the beginnings of
      Christianity.

      In retrospect, I suppose it was a poor assumption on my part to jump
      on reserving myself a place simply because "Nag Hammadi Manuscripts"
      was part of the seminar's title. At the same time, it was very poor
      planning on their part, as I've said, to advertise it as such while
      including only one work which is actually part of that collection,
      especially given that said work (GTh) has been appropriated these
      days by everyone under the sun——from the mainstream to newage.

      I mean, considering all the titles in the NHL, this barely represents
      two percent of the total. When you further factor in that of that
      slim fraction, the book is likely to be subject to orthodox (or even
      apocalyptic!) interpretation while a Gnostic understanding is almost
      relegated to a tangential aberration, then it's clear why anyone who
      associates the NHL with *some* sort of Gnostic relevance would find
      the description of the lectures misleading.



      > One reason why the gospel of Thomas is beginning to win scholarly
      acceptance
      > as 'early' is that it ties in well with this new myth - providing
      that one
      > can ignore or talk down the 'gnostic' elements. In this humanist
      view of
      > Thomas the acceptable non-Gnostic teachings indicate an early
      Christian
      > philosophy that did not include the crucifixion.



      From what I've seen, it is apparently quite easy for some people to
      ignore or diminish those Gnostic elements of Thomas. Recently, I've
      even observed at one site that the salvific knowledge advocated by
      that text is the awareness that God gave his only begotten son . . .
      yada, yada, yada. Go figure!

      I'm not sure whether logion 55 is one of those likely to be ignored
      in a non-Gnostic interpretation, but it still contains the notion
      of "carrying one's cross." Jesus could be seen as prescient in
      predicting his death, as deliberate in fulfilling his sacrifice, or
      simply as using an expression already common in the vernacular of his
      day due to how commonplace crucifixion had become. Even if it's
      ignored, though, you lose me with the part about not including the
      crucifixion since your previous description of the new Jesus myth
      still resulted in the same type of death.



      > This new myth satisfies the modern craving for an ethical Jesus
      without the
      > supernatural baggage. The only problem is that it is completely
      > contradictory to the evidence which shows that Jesus was considered
      divine
      > from the start. No wonder scholars operating within this new myth
      like
      > Erhman tie themselves up in knots!
      >
      > Stephen Peter



      Interesting point. I'm still not sure if the problem results
      strictly from eisegesis or if those authors aren't still going out of
      their way to sell books to the widest audience possible, even if the
      price of it ends up being self-contradiction.

      As for the divinity of Jesus, I wouldn't weigh in with a verdict one
      way or the other without getting a key to the evidence room and
      thoroughly examining exhibits Alpha through Omega. There are just
      too many possible scenarios regarding the nature of Jesus and/or
      Christ for me to put all my eggs in one basket. This flexibility is
      one of the things that attracted me to Gnosticism. Where accounts of
      the crucifixion exist, there are variations, but regardless of the
      differences from one text to another, there is still something
      vitally common to all of them which separates them from non-Gnostic
      traditions. Given that underlying similarity in the metaphorical
      meaning, I've always found the Gnostic message to be far more
      important than the messenger.

      A 1970's mini-series captured the problem I'm getting at. In _The
      Word_, the Christian faithful were faced with a newly discovered text
      which "proved" that Jesus didn't die on Golgotha. Avoiding spoilers
      for anyone interested in watching it, I'll simply say that it offers
      an interesting glimpse of how people can rationalize their faith, and
      where they will draw a line regarding what they're willing to
      believe . . . and disbelieve.

      While looking up a film with a related plot, I saw that one reviewer
      wondered why there should be such a fuss if Jesus were shown not to
      have been resurrected——dying as any other mortal man. According to
      him, cognitive dissonance theory should strengthen the followers'
      beliefs. At a personal level, that could still be the case, but
      given the Church's insistence for centuries that He *was* divine, it
      would be hard for someone not to feel duped. Maybe I'm simply not
      playing it out correctly in my head, but it seems like the majority
      of believers would be devastated; if there are any psychologists
      among us, feel free to chime in.

      At any rate, this gets to the heart of what I was feeling during
      those closing moments of the seminar. Having spoken with Ehrman and
      heard further elaboration on his personal views, I almost couldn't
      help but feel sorry for him. Here's someone whose life has very much
      been influenced by Christianity, and for him, it struck me as if it
      were no more than a counter-revolutionary Jewish movement that simply
      *died*——along with its leader——almost two thousand years ago. It's
      little wonder that religion seems to have failed him——that he would
      be agnostic when he witnesses the ongoing cruelty and injustice in
      the world around him, and that even the "benevolent God" of the
      apocalyptic sectarians is too impotent to do anything about it.

      On the other hand, I can't imagine how any new discoveries would
      unhinge my own beliefs. The religious "connection" I feel isn't tied
      to dogma, or faith, or a personal savior alleged to have existed
      exclusively in one form or another, if he existed at all.

      Gerry
    • eyeambetty
      Hi Gerry, i ve been following your blow by blow of the seminar you attended, YIKES! very disheartening, but it seems your keen sense of judgement and
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 7 4:29 AM
        Hi Gerry,
        i've been following your blow by blow of the seminar you attended,
        YIKES! very disheartening, but it seems your keen sense of judgement
        and perception had already caught wind before you even arrived, eh?
        it seems to be expected these days, i can barely turn on NPR without
        hearing some interview, or story somehow(distantly or distastefully)
        related to these manuscripts, usually to incorporate into some
        already exhisting adgenda.



        >Gerry wrote:
        > I mean, considering all the titles in the NHL, this barely
        represents
        > two percent of the total. When you further factor in that of that
        > slim fraction, the book is likely to be subject to orthodox (or
        even
        > apocalyptic!) interpretation while a Gnostic understanding is
        almost
        > relegated to a tangential aberration, then it's clear why anyone
        who
        > associates the NHL with *some* sort of Gnostic relevance would find
        > the description of the lectures misleading.
        >


        no kidding, you would think they would have the good sense, if indeed
        they were considering a potential Gnostic interpretation, to compare
        and contrast it with the more obvious Gnostic texts included in the
        stated collections. but, it surely seems that the lectures were
        designed to promote this Ehrman fellows book centered around those
        particular manuscripts.





        > Gerry wrote:
        > As for the divinity of Jesus, I wouldn't weigh in with a verdict
        one
        > way or the other without getting a key to the evidence room and
        > thoroughly examining exhibits Alpha through Omega. There are just
        > too many possible scenarios regarding the nature of Jesus and/or
        > Christ for me to put all my eggs in one basket. This flexibility
        is
        > one of the things that attracted me to Gnosticism. Where accounts
        of
        > the crucifixion exist, there are variations, but regardless of the
        > differences from one text to another, there is still something
        > vitally common to all of them which separates them from non-Gnostic
        > traditions. Given that underlying similarity in the metaphorical
        > meaning, I've always found the Gnostic message to be far more
        > important than the messenger.


        Gerry, this reminded me of a passage i recently read, in the book i'm
        still plodding thru by G.R.S. Mead,"Fragments of a Faith Forgotten".

        first, let me say, in regards to a post recently from Terje about
        this author, whom he says "did not shy away from interposing the
        concepts of Karma, Dharma, "Reincarnation" and other concepts out of
        Hinduism/Buddhism without any consideration that not everyone knew
        that originally the terms he "translates" is connected to an entirely
        different worldview..."message 9232, to which i wholeheartedly agree.
        he certainly is liberal in using the concepts within
        Hinduism/Buddhism to assist in explaining Gnostic concepts. however,
        here is a very adept scholar, who with very little to work with
        besides fragments imbedded with Patristic writing, and i believe the
        Askew and Bruce Codice's quite beautifully breathes such life into
        Gnosticism. regardless of whether he is Gnostic himself, it's not
        apparent, but he has the utmost reverance for the tradition and
        the "Gnostic Doctors".
        anyway, the passage is at the end of a chapter on Valentinus, it says:

        "The Gnostics were ever changing their nomenclature; the god of one
        system might even be the devil of another! He who makes a
        concordance of names merely, in Gnosticism, may think himself lucky
        to escape a lunatic asylum; he, on the contrary, who seeks the idea
        behind the name will often find himself in a realm of great beauty
        and harmony of thought. Men like the Gnostics have ever had
        intuitions of a real state of being, of definite and precise realms
        of consciousness; yet each has caught a glimpse of the reality, as
        all men must so long as they are imprisioned in a body. If the
        Gnostics exhausted the philosophy and religion of their time in
        striving to find a decent vestment for the naked truth, as they
        thought they saw it, who shall blame them? Though they contradict one
        another, in the view of the word-hunter, they do not contradict
        themselves for the follower of ideas. the idea is the key which opens
        the mysteries of the Gnosis, and those who refuse to use this living
        key must be content to have the treasury closed against them."



        > Gerry wrote:
        > A 1970's mini-series captured the problem I'm getting at. In _The
        > Word_, the Christian faithful were faced with a newly discovered
        text
        > which "proved" that Jesus didn't die on Golgotha. Avoiding
        spoilers
        > for anyone interested in watching it, I'll simply say that it
        offers
        > an interesting glimpse of how people can rationalize their faith,
        and
        > where they will draw a line regarding what they're willing to
        > believe . . . and disbelieve.
        >
        > While looking up a film with a related plot, I saw that one
        reviewer
        > wondered why there should be such a fuss if Jesus were shown not to
        > have been resurrected——dying as any other mortal man.
        According to
        > him, cognitive dissonance theory should strengthen the followers'
        > beliefs. At a personal level, that could still be the case, but
        > given the Church's insistence for centuries that He *was* divine,
        it
        > would be hard for someone not to feel duped. Maybe I'm simply not
        > playing it out correctly in my head, but it seems like the majority
        > of believers would be devastated; if there are any psychologists
        > among us, feel free to chime in.



        28. Jesus said, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in
        flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find
        any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity,
        because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came
        into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world
        empty.

        But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, they
        will change their ways." Gospel of Thomas.

        one can only hope.


        > Gerry wrote:
        > At any rate, this gets to the heart of what I was feeling during
        > those closing moments of the seminar. Having spoken with Ehrman
        and
        > heard further elaboration on his personal views, I almost couldn't
        > help but feel sorry for him. Here's someone whose life has very
        much
        > been influenced by Christianity, and for him, it struck me as if it
        > were no more than a counter-revolutionary Jewish movement that
        simply
        > *died*——along with its leader——almost two thousand years
        ago. It's
        > little wonder that religion seems to have failed him——that he
        would
        > be agnostic when he witnesses the ongoing cruelty and injustice in
        > the world around him, and that even the "benevolent God" of the
        > apocalyptic sectarians is too impotent to do anything about it.
        >
        > On the other hand, I can't imagine how any new discoveries would
        > unhinge my own beliefs. The religious "connection" I feel isn't
        tied
        > to dogma, or faith, or a personal savior alleged to have existed
        > exclusively in one form or another, if he existed at all.
        >

        yes, the freedom to renegotiate from moment to moment ones concepts,
        without the safety net of set beliefs, allows for the seemingly death-
        defying flexiblity you spoke of earlier.

        betty
      • Mike Leavitt
        Hello eyeambetty ... It should be made clear, this was no hidden adjenda for Mead, he was Madam Blavadsky s secretary, and was merely viewing the gnostics
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 7 11:58 AM
          Hello eyeambetty

          On 07-Mar-04, you wrote:

          > first, let me say, in regards to a post recently from Terje about
          > this author, whom he says "did not shy away from interposing the
          > concepts of Karma, Dharma, "Reincarnation" and other concepts out of
          > Hinduism/Buddhism without any consideration that not everyone knew
          > that originally the terms he "translates" is connected to an
          > entirely different worldview..."message 9232, to which i
          > wholeheartedly agree. he certainly is liberal in using the concepts
          > within Hinduism/Buddhism to assist in explaining Gnostic concepts.
          > however, here is a very adept scholar, who with very little to work
          > with besides fragments imbedded with Patristic writing, and i
          > believe the Askew and Bruce Codice's quite beautifully breathes such
          > life into Gnosticism. regardless of whether he is Gnostic himself,
          > it's not apparent, but he has the utmost reverance for the tradition
          > and the "Gnostic Doctors".
          > anyway, the passage is at the end of a chapter on Valentinus, it
          > says:

          It should be made clear, this was no hidden adjenda for Mead, he was
          Madam Blavadsky's secretary, and was merely viewing the gnostics
          unconsciously from a Theosophical world view.

          > "The Gnostics were ever changing their nomenclature; the god of one
          > system might even be the devil of another! He who makes a
          > concordance of names merely, in Gnosticism, may think himself lucky
          > to escape a lunatic asylum; he, on the contrary, who seeks the idea
          > behind the name will often find himself in a realm of great beauty
          > and harmony of thought. Men like the Gnostics have ever had
          > intuitions of a real state of being, of definite and precise realms
          > of consciousness; yet each has caught a glimpse of the reality, as
          > all men must so long as they are imprisioned in a body. If the
          > Gnostics exhausted the philosophy and religion of their time in
          > striving to find a decent vestment for the naked truth, as they
          > thought they saw it, who shall blame them? Though they contradict
          > one another, in the view of the word-hunter, they do not contradict
          > themselves for the follower of ideas. the idea is the key which
          > opens the mysteries of the Gnosis, and those who refuse to use this
          > living key must be content to have the treasury closed against
          > them."

          Despite this, he had real insight, and the book is valuable, this
          quote rests my case.

          Regards
          --
          Mike Leavitt ac998@...
        • floyd788@webtv.net
          Hi, Mike, I just finished reading your dissertation on knowledge of the many things you have gleaned. You really have done your homework. It was a long post,
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 7 4:06 PM
            Hi,
            Mike, I just finished reading your dissertation on knowledge of the many
            things you have gleaned. You really have done your homework. It was a
            long post, but I enjoyed every bit of it. I am rather new to the
            internet. I bought a webtv because I am frugal. My wife calls it right,
            but it's like everything else <> garbage collector-sanitation engineer,
            janitor- custodian, etc. I hate to rush, but I've several more E-mails
            to return. Keep up the good work and we will all know a little more.
            Take care, my friend.

            Love floyd
          • Gerry
            ... judgement ... without ... distastefully) ... LOL I m still amazed that even a few people were able to read through those posts of mine. While I did
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 7 5:11 PM
              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "eyeambetty" <eyeambetty@y...>
              wrote:
              > Hi Gerry,
              > i've been following your blow by blow of the seminar you attended,
              > YIKES! very disheartening, but it seems your keen sense of
              judgement
              > and perception had already caught wind before you even arrived, eh?
              > it seems to be expected these days, i can barely turn on NPR
              without
              > hearing some interview, or story somehow(distantly or
              distastefully)
              > related to these manuscripts, usually to incorporate into some
              > already exhisting adgenda.



              LOL I'm still amazed that even a few people were able to read
              through those posts of mine. While I did strive to capture the mood
              of the experience along with the content, I hope the event wasn't as
              disheartening to you via my blow-by-blow reporting as I found it with
              my ringside seat.

              I'm not sure what to make of that NPR coverage; our reception down
              here is pretty spotty, so I usually only catch it when driving to
              Virginia. Ever since Cari mentioned those print articles and
              especially since the release of "The Passion," television has been
              saturated with supposed documentaries and specials. I'm curious (if
              you should recall any programs in particular) whether those on the
              radio impressed you as more of the liberal bias that Stephen
              mentioned. So far, that Fresh Air interview is the only thing I've
              heard, and other than his apocalyptic view supposedly supported by
              Thomas, Ehrman's background is of the mainstream persuasion. I
              suppose what I'm getting at is that it would be interesting to
              observe if both traditionally conservative and liberal media are
              witnessing a conventional Christian revival, even with regards to
              these non-canonical texts. Could be that orthodoxy makes strange
              bedfellows.



              > no kidding, you would think they would have the good sense, if
              indeed
              > they were considering a potential Gnostic interpretation, to
              compare
              > and contrast it with the more obvious Gnostic texts included in the
              > stated collections. but, it surely seems that the lectures were
              > designed to promote this Ehrman fellows book centered around those
              > particular manuscripts.



              Ya know, I had never read that _Time_ article until I got out there.
              Even though the lecture coordinators had sent out information packets
              beforehand, we each had some additional reading material waiting for
              us on arrival——the "Lost Gospels" article among them. Do you think
              it's some strange coincidence that it opens with a quote from the
              Gospel of Peter and ends with the Gospel of Thomas? A number of
              Ehrman's essays seem to focus on those two books, and that was also
              the same order in which he covered them in person. Bizarre. I think
              I smell a conspiracy brewin' somewhere. ;-)

              As for comparing and contrasting those texts, even that can get
              dicey. The woman who sat next to me was completely new to the
              subject, and it was evident that she was having some difficulty
              taking in any of this other than from her traditional point of
              reference. That just makes for a tough row to hoe. She had a book
              with her that she had checked out of the library, and was thinking
              about purchasing one of her own, but a lot of it just didn't make
              sense to her. Well, the book included only four texts, one of which
              was GTh. Nice enough for beginners, I figured, but the last of the
              four was the Apocryphon of John! I just couldn't believe that such a
              work had been included in something that looked like it was geared
              for novices. She was already struggling with the numerous angels
              mentioned therein which contributed in the creation of Man.
              Naturally——since *her* god didn't need any help in creating anything.

              She also pointed to the picture of Rosamonde Miller (donning robe and
              chalice) in that "Lost Gospels" article and questioned the fact that
              her group worships Sophia. Well, in truth, the article doesn't say
              anything about them "worshiping" anyone, but merely states that the
              Palo Alto group's "Sunday Eucharistic service honors Sophia." In my
              mind, there's a big difference, but as other people saw it, Miller
              might as well have had horns sprouting from her head.



              > Gerry, this reminded me of a passage i recently read, in the book
              i'm
              > still plodding thru by G.R.S. Mead,"Fragments of a Faith Forgotten".
              >
              > first, let me say, in regards to a post recently from Terje about
              > this author, whom he says "did not shy away from interposing the
              > concepts of Karma, Dharma, "Reincarnation" and other concepts out
              of
              > Hinduism/Buddhism without any consideration that not everyone knew
              > that originally the terms he "translates" is connected to an
              entirely
              > different worldview..."message 9232, to which i wholeheartedly
              agree.
              > he certainly is liberal in using the concepts within
              > Hinduism/Buddhism to assist in explaining Gnostic concepts.
              however,
              > here is a very adept scholar, who with very little to work with
              > besides fragments imbedded with Patristic writing, and i believe
              the
              > Askew and Bruce Codice's quite beautifully breathes such life into
              > Gnosticism. regardless of whether he is Gnostic himself, it's not
              > apparent, but he has the utmost reverance for the tradition and
              > the "Gnostic Doctors".
              > anyway, the passage is at the end of a chapter on Valentinus, it
              says:
              >
              > "The Gnostics were ever changing their nomenclature; the god of one
              > system might even be the devil of another! He who makes a
              > concordance of names merely, in Gnosticism, may think himself lucky
              > to escape a lunatic asylum; he, on the contrary, who seeks the idea
              > behind the name will often find himself in a realm of great beauty
              > and harmony of thought. Men like the Gnostics have ever had
              > intuitions of a real state of being, of definite and precise realms
              > of consciousness; yet each has caught a glimpse of the reality, as
              > all men must so long as they are imprisioned in a body. If the
              > Gnostics exhausted the philosophy and religion of their time in
              > striving to find a decent vestment for the naked truth, as they
              > thought they saw it, who shall blame them? Though they contradict
              one
              > another, in the view of the word-hunter, they do not contradict
              > themselves for the follower of ideas. the idea is the key which
              opens
              > the mysteries of the Gnosis, and those who refuse to use this
              living
              > key must be content to have the treasury closed against them."



              Thanks so much for sharing that, Betty. Not only had I not read it
              before, but I've been disappointed that I never did get a copy of
              Mead's take on the Pistis Sophia. As for the interpretation, I'm not
              at all opposed to exercising caution where warranted and appreciating
              value where we find it. I don't think I even need to second Mike's
              motion on closing that case——the above passage effectively pounds the
              gavel for us.



              > 28. Jesus said, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in
              > flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not
              find
              > any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity,
              > because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they
              came
              > into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world
              > empty.
              >
              > But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, they
              > will change their ways." Gospel of Thomas.
              >
              > one can only hope.



              Makes you want to brew up a world-sized pot of coffee with aspirin
              chasers, doesn't it?



              > yes, the freedom to renegotiate from moment to moment ones
              concepts,
              > without the safety net of set beliefs, allows for the seemingly
              death-
              > defying flexiblity you spoke of earlier.
              >
              > betty



              That's actually the part of the film _Dogma_ that I enjoyed the most——
              the Apostle's insistence that it's better to have ideas than
              beliefs. I'd hate to have someone be able to undermine the
              cornerstone of my philosophy——potentially bringing my whole world
              tumbling down around me.

              Gerry
            • Mike Leavitt
              Hello eyeambetty ... I mean he was not trying to theosophize the Gnostics, just that he was so embedded in Theosophy he looked at all Philosophy with
              Message 6 of 14 , Mar 7 8:15 PM
                Hello eyeambetty

                On 07-Mar-04, you wrote:

                > Hello Mike,
                >
                >
                >> Mike wrote:
                >> It should be made clear, this was no hidden agenda for Mead, he
                >> was Madam Blavadsky's secretary, and was merely viewing the
                >> gnostics unconsciously from a Theosophical world view.
                >>
                >
                > M. Blavadky's secretary? wow, that is a fascinating bit of
                > information. Mike, may i ask, why you say "viewing the gnostics
                > *unconsciously*..."?

                I mean he was not trying to theosophize the Gnostics, just that he was
                so embedded in Theosophy he looked at all Philosophy with Theosophical
                specticles. It was unconscious, not some kind of not to well hidden
                agenda. His book on the world soul shows the same perspective, for
                instance. To him Theosophy was a universal philosophy, applicable to
                everything, and this pervaded his approach to Gnosticism, but did not
                blunt his insight into it.

                Regards
                --
                Mike Leavitt ac998@...
              • eyeambetty
                Hello Mike, ... M. Blavadky s secretary? wow, that is a fascinating bit of information. Mike, may i ask, why you say viewing the gnostics *unconsciously*... ?
                Message 7 of 14 , Mar 7 8:52 PM
                  Hello Mike,


                  > Mike wrote:
                  > It should be made clear, this was no hidden adjenda for Mead, he was
                  > Madam Blavadsky's secretary, and was merely viewing the gnostics
                  > unconsciously from a Theosophical world view.
                  >

                  M. Blavadky's secretary? wow, that is a fascinating bit of
                  information. Mike, may i ask, why you say "viewing the gnostics
                  *unconsciously*..."?



                  > > "The Gnostics were ever changing their nomenclature; the god of
                  one
                  > > system might even be the devil of another! He who makes a
                  > > concordance of names merely, in Gnosticism, may think himself
                  lucky
                  > > to escape a lunatic asylum; he, on the contrary, who seeks the
                  idea
                  > > behind the name will often find himself in a realm of great beauty
                  > > and harmony of thought. Men like the Gnostics have ever had
                  > > intuitions of a real state of being, of definite and precise
                  realms
                  > > of consciousness; yet each has caught a glimpse of the reality, as
                  > > all men must so long as they are imprisioned in a body. If the
                  > > Gnostics exhausted the philosophy and religion of their time in
                  > > striving to find a decent vestment for the naked truth, as they
                  > > thought they saw it, who shall blame them? Though they contradict
                  > > one another, in the view of the word-hunter, they do not
                  contradict
                  > > themselves for the follower of ideas. the idea is the key which
                  > > opens the mysteries of the Gnosis, and those who refuse to use
                  this
                  > > living key must be content to have the treasury closed against
                  > > them."

                  Mike wrote:
                  > Despite this, he had real insight, and the book is valuable, this
                  > quote rests my case.


                  i completely agree, i am thoroughly enjoying, and devouring the book.
                  it has been very helpful in visually outlining, historically, the
                  stream of what Mead calls a "Living Tradition".

                  betty
                • floyd788@webtv.net
                  Hi Betty, I hope you won t feel that I am butting into your E-mail conversation with Gerry, but that s exactly what I m doing. I ve been in this group about a
                  Message 8 of 14 , Mar 7 10:04 PM
                    Hi Betty,
                    I hope you won't feel that I am butting into your E-mail conversation
                    with Gerry, but that's exactly what I'm doing. I've been in this group
                    about a week now and I want to learn all I can from y'all. I'm getting a
                    good amount now as I read your post to Gerry. Y'all must have been doing
                    this for along time. I hope you won't think me rude for the
                    interruption. I was a Christian until recently, ( less than a year ).
                    I'm looking for people like you, who has had more experience than I have
                    Well. I've talked enough for now. Y'all take care and be safe.

                    Love, floyd
                  • eyeambetty
                    Hiya Gerry, ... (if ... alright, you caught me exaggerating a wee bit, shame on me... actually besides the Fresh Air interview, there was a panel discussion, i
                    Message 9 of 14 , Mar 9 1:40 AM
                      Hiya Gerry,


                      >
                      > I'm not sure what to make of that NPR coverage; our reception down
                      > here is pretty spotty, so I usually only catch it when driving to
                      > Virginia. Ever since Cari mentioned those print articles and
                      > especially since the release of "The Passion," television has been
                      > saturated with supposed documentaries and specials. I'm curious
                      (if
                      > you should recall any programs in particular) whether those on the
                      > radio impressed you as more of the liberal bias that Stephen
                      > mentioned. So far, that Fresh Air interview is the only thing I've
                      > heard, and other than his apocalyptic view supposedly supported by
                      > Thomas, Ehrman's background is of the mainstream persuasion. I
                      > suppose what I'm getting at is that it would be interesting to
                      > observe if both traditionally conservative and liberal media are
                      > witnessing a conventional Christian revival, even with regards to
                      > these non-canonical texts. Could be that orthodoxy makes strange
                      > bedfellows.

                      alright, you caught me exaggerating a wee bit, shame on me...
                      actually besides the Fresh Air interview, there was a panel
                      discussion, i think on Talk of the Nation. i also recall another
                      Fresh Air interview with a fellow who had just written a book, he was
                      talking about Jewish mythology and the Kabbala, unfortunately, i
                      rarely get a chance to sit still long enough to hear things at
                      length, only little snippets. all this was surrounding "The Passion",
                      NPR seemed to be leaning towards voicing the outrage, and profiling
                      the types of people whom this film would resonate with, and the
                      reasons why. all this against a backdrop of Haitian revolt, Gay
                      Marriages, and the jaw-dropping number of catholic priest who have
                      molested their congregations children, you know, real people
                      suffering and stuggling in the face of adversity, right now.
                      i think perhaps the importance or any understanding of the non-
                      canonical texts gets lost and swallowed up in the context of these
                      media driven soundbites, they are just seen as points of interest to
                      add to the bigger story, in this case, as one Jewish theologian put
                      it, a catholic snuff film. oohh stop me...


                      Gerry wrote:
                      Do you think
                      > it's some strange coincidence that it opens with a quote from the
                      > Gospel of Peter and ends with the Gospel of Thomas? A number of
                      > Ehrman's essays seem to focus on those two books, and that was also
                      > the same order in which he covered them in person. Bizarre. I
                      think
                      > I smell a conspiracy brewin' somewhere. ;-)



                      or very effective PR.


                      betty
                    • eyeambetty
                      ... was ... Theosophical ... to ... not ... thank you kindly, Mike. betty
                      Message 10 of 14 , Mar 9 1:49 AM
                        > Mike, may i ask, why you say "viewing the gnostics
                        > > *unconsciously*..."?
                        >

                        > I mean he was not trying to theosophize the Gnostics, just that he
                        was
                        > so embedded in Theosophy he looked at all Philosophy with
                        Theosophical
                        > specticles. It was unconscious, not some kind of not to well hidden
                        > agenda. His book on the world soul shows the same perspective, for
                        > instance. To him Theosophy was a universal philosophy, applicable
                        to
                        > everything, and this pervaded his approach to Gnosticism, but did
                        not
                        > blunt his insight into it.

                        thank you kindly, Mike.

                        betty
                      • eyeambetty
                        Well, Hello to you Floyd! ... conversation ... group ... getting a ... doing ... year ). ... have ... i am a newcomer myself, i listened for quite awhile and
                        Message 11 of 14 , Mar 9 2:40 AM
                          Well, Hello to you Floyd!


                          floyd wrote:
                          > Hi Betty,
                          > I hope you won't feel that I am butting into your E-mail
                          conversation
                          > with Gerry, but that's exactly what I'm doing. I've been in this
                          group
                          > about a week now and I want to learn all I can from y'all. I'm
                          getting a
                          > good amount now as I read your post to Gerry. Y'all must have been
                          doing
                          > this for along time. I hope you won't think me rude for the
                          > interruption. I was a Christian until recently, ( less than a
                          year ).
                          > I'm looking for people like you, who has had more experience than I
                          have
                          > Well. I've talked enough for now. Y'all take care and be safe.
                          >
                          > Love, floyd

                          i am a newcomer myself, i listened for quite awhile and only recently
                          have been participating in discussions. it's certainly not rude to
                          join in, gotta start somewhere, eh?
                          what has brought you here?

                          take care, as well.
                          betty
                        • Gerry
                          ... was ... Passion , ... to ... LMAO No, I m not about to stop you——I hadn t heard the snuff comment, either. Something like that really wakes me up
                          Message 12 of 14 , Mar 9 6:09 AM
                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "eyeambetty" <eyeambetty@y...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > alright, you caught me exaggerating a wee bit, shame on me...
                            > actually besides the Fresh Air interview, there was a panel
                            > discussion, i think on Talk of the Nation. i also recall another
                            > Fresh Air interview with a fellow who had just written a book, he
                            was
                            > talking about Jewish mythology and the Kabbala, unfortunately, i
                            > rarely get a chance to sit still long enough to hear things at
                            > length, only little snippets. all this was surrounding "The
                            Passion",
                            > NPR seemed to be leaning towards voicing the outrage, and profiling
                            > the types of people whom this film would resonate with, and the
                            > reasons why. all this against a backdrop of Haitian revolt, Gay
                            > Marriages, and the jaw-dropping number of catholic priest who have
                            > molested their congregations children, you know, real people
                            > suffering and stuggling in the face of adversity, right now.
                            > i think perhaps the importance or any understanding of the non-
                            > canonical texts gets lost and swallowed up in the context of these
                            > media driven soundbites, they are just seen as points of interest
                            to
                            > add to the bigger story, in this case, as one Jewish theologian put
                            > it, a catholic snuff film. oohh stop me...



                            LMAO No, I'm not about to stop you——I hadn't heard the "snuff"
                            comment, either. Something like that really wakes me up in the
                            morning. :-)

                            As for the exaggeration, no shame there. We'll just chalk it up to
                            hyperbole——an effective, rhetorical strategy! You're in good company
                            as far as wondering about how the profound continues to be lost amid
                            the profane of the current media hype. Rather than suggesting that
                            orthodoxy has made strange bedfellows then, maybe I'll contend that
                            the conservative and liberal obsession of late simply has to do with
                            extremism all around. Whether Mel Gibson is claiming to be a
                            mouthpiece for the Holy Spirit, or Tim Robbins acts as one for Susan
                            Sarandon, it amounts to little more than fundamentalist propaganda
                            being force-fed to the masses, who, evidently, can't make a decision
                            for ourselves.

                            Case in point, I just now had to tear myself away from the computer
                            when I heard Mary Magdalene mentioned on the TV in the other room.
                            Looks like the Today Show is running a special segment on Jesus this
                            week near the top of the second hour. Anyway, Ann Curry pointed out
                            two viewpoints currently in the popular spotlight: Gibson's
                            portrayal of Mary in "The Passion" (which basically minimizes the
                            connection between her and Jesus); and their overly speculated
                            relationship in _The Da Vinci Code_. Once again, Elaine Pagels was
                            brought in to represent the voice of reason, suggesting that the
                            truth might be found somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.
                            Unfortunately, that middle-of-the-road approach often lacks the
                            sensationalism of imagining either a harlot being stoned to death or
                            the Savior's offspring being spirited away to Europe.

                            People need to believe in something, though. Whether we believe in
                            the faith of our fathers, or believe it's time to have another beer,
                            or simply believe we've had enough of all this, this need to believe
                            may be our undoing if extremist distractions continue to saturate out
                            thoughts.



                            > Gerry wrote:
                            > Do you think
                            > > it's some strange coincidence that it opens with a quote from the
                            > > Gospel of Peter and ends with the Gospel of Thomas? A number of
                            > > Ehrman's essays seem to focus on those two books, and that was
                            also
                            > > the same order in which he covered them in person. Bizarre. I
                            > think
                            > > I smell a conspiracy brewin' somewhere. ;-)
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > or very effective PR.
                            >
                            >
                            > betty



                            "Very effective" indeed. It was pointed out that these professors
                            aren't paid for their participation in this program's lectures, but
                            it was certainly a grand opportunity to promote the sale of their
                            books.

                            Gerry
                          • lady_caritas
                            ... this ... out ... extremes. ... or ... beer, ... believe ... out ... Well, looks like someone else is tired of all the inaccuracies, too, Gerry: Jesus
                            Message 13 of 14 , Mar 9 6:25 AM
                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Case in point, I just now had to tear myself away from the computer
                              > when I heard Mary Magdalene mentioned on the TV in the other room.
                              > Looks like the Today Show is running a special segment on Jesus
                              this
                              > week near the top of the second hour. Anyway, Ann Curry pointed
                              out
                              > two viewpoints currently in the popular spotlight: Gibson's
                              > portrayal of Mary in "The Passion" (which basically minimizes the
                              > connection between her and Jesus); and their overly speculated
                              > relationship in _The Da Vinci Code_. Once again, Elaine Pagels was
                              > brought in to represent the voice of reason, suggesting that the
                              > truth might be found somewhere in the middle of those two
                              extremes.
                              > Unfortunately, that middle-of-the-road approach often lacks the
                              > sensationalism of imagining either a harlot being stoned to death
                              or
                              > the Savior's offspring being spirited away to Europe.
                              >
                              > People need to believe in something, though. Whether we believe in
                              > the faith of our fathers, or believe it's time to have another
                              beer,
                              > or simply believe we've had enough of all this, this need to
                              believe
                              > may be our undoing if extremist distractions continue to saturate
                              out
                              > thoughts.


                              Well, looks like someone else is tired of all the inaccuracies, too,
                              Gerry:

                              "Jesus Demands Creative Control Over the Next Movie"
                              http://onion.com/news/


                              ;-)
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.