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

Re: First Line of Questions

Expand Messages
  • kdd6@netscape.net
    all of the isms and ists do not matter in true gnosis (greek for knowledge) or Gnosis. capitalizations or not gnosis, knowledge, is just that, gnosis
    Message 1 of 27 , Aug 5, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      all of the "isms" and "ists" do not matter in true gnosis (greek for
      knowledge) or Gnosis. capitalizations or not gnosis, knowledge, is just
      that, gnosis (knowledge).

      after much lurking and reading, i'm of the observation that rhetoric is
      rhetoric. knowledge just is. it does not judge. it does not change,
      it only expands and reveals more to the seeker. it does not say that
      one system of seeking is better than another system. knowledge (gnosis)
      is the same for all. one must avail them self to the experience (for
      lack of a better term) to accept the (gnosis) knowledge.

      knowledge (gnosis) is the creator. it always was, always is and always
      shall be (supreme). as one experiences this level of consciousness,
      one finds that there is much to learn before the next level. of my
      understanding, if one learns to a certain level, one does not repeat
      this level of consciousness, otherwise, one is doomed (pardon the pun)
      to repeat this level of consciousness until the lesson(s) are learned.

      sometimes we find ourselves in a position (sometimes of suffering) to be
      a lesson to another (one who is suffering, but is in denial of that
      suffering). it has nothing to do with our own progression on the path
      to perfection (light, the father, gnosis) but theirs; we are only an
      instrument to their enlightenment. what is fair in an imperfect world?

      dwain
    • William Redman
      imperfection, doubt,disbelief and understanding kdd6@netscape.net wrote:all of the isms and ists do not matter in true gnosis (greek for knowledge) or
      Message 2 of 27 , Aug 5, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        imperfection, doubt,disbelief and understanding

        kdd6@... wrote:
        all of the "isms" and "ists" do not matter in true gnosis (greek for
        knowledge) or Gnosis.  capitalizations or not gnosis, knowledge, is just
        that, gnosis (knowledge).

        after much lurking and reading, i'm of the observation that rhetoric is
        rhetoric.  knowledge just is.  it does not judge.  it does not change,
        it only expands and reveals more to the seeker.  it does not say that
        one system of seeking is better than another system.  knowledge (gnosis)
        is the same for all.  one must avail them self to the experience (for
        lack of a better term) to accept the (gnosis) knowledge.

        knowledge (gnosis) is the creator.  it always was, always is and always
        shall be (supreme).  as one experiences this level of consciousness,
        one finds that there is much to learn before the next level.  of my
        understanding, if one learns to a certain level, one does not repeat
        this level of consciousness, otherwise, one is doomed (pardon the pun)
        to repeat this level of consciousness until the lesson(s) are learned.

        sometimes we find ourselves in a position (sometimes of suffering) to be
        a lesson to another (one who is suffering, but is in denial of that
        suffering).  it has nothing to do with our own progression on the path
        to perfection (light, the father, gnosis) but theirs; we are only an
        instrument to their enlightenment.  what is fair in an imperfect world?

        dwain






        Do you Yahoo!?
        New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
      • William Redman
        We are only men, who do we have the right to judge,but ourselves. Suffering is part of life accept it. Suffering is the part of life knowone wants to accept.
        Message 3 of 27 , Aug 5, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          We are only men, who do we have the right to judge,but ourselves. Suffering is part of life accept it. Suffering is the part of life knowone wants to accept. Reality, all of us suffer in one way or another, this is the way to enlightenment,
          William Redman <phish4bass2000@...> wrote:
          imperfection, doubt,disbelief and understanding

          kdd6@... wrote:
          all of the "isms" and "ists" do not matter in true gnosis (greek for
          knowledge) or Gnosis.  capitalizations or not gnosis, knowledge, is just
          that, gnosis (knowledge).

          after much lurking and reading, i'm of the observation that rhetoric is
          rhetoric.  knowledge just is.  it does not judge.  it does not change,
          it only expands and reveals more to the seeker.  it does not say that
          one system of seeking is better than another system.  knowledge (gnosis)
          is the same for all.  one must avail them self to the experience (for
          lack of a better term) to accept the (gnosis) knowledge.

          knowledge (gnosis) is the creator.  it always was, always is and always
          shall be (supreme).  as one experiences this level of consciousness,
          one finds that there is much to learn before the next level.  of my
          understanding, if one learns to a certain level, one does not repeat
          this level of consciousness, otherwise, one is doomed (pardon the pun)
          to repeat this level of consciousness until the lesson(s) are learned.

          sometimes we find ourselves in a position (sometimes of suffering) to be
          a lesson to another (one who is suffering, but is in denial of that
          suffering).  it has nothing to do with our own progression on the path
          to perfection (light, the father, gnosis) but theirs; we are only an
          instrument to their enlightenment.  what is fair in an imperfect world?

          dwain






          Do you Yahoo!?
          New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!


          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
        • pmcvflag
          Hey Dwain Well, all this stuff you say would mean more if it was true that Gnosis simply means Knowledge . In fact, that is not a completely accurate
          Message 4 of 27 , Aug 5, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Hey Dwain

            Well, all this stuff you say would mean more if it was true
            that "Gnosis" simply means "Knowledge". In fact, that is not a
            completely accurate translation.

            It is true that "Agape" can be translated as "love", so can "eros",
            and so can "storge" and so can a number of other words. However,
            there is a reason that different words were used in the original
            Greek. The same is true of "Gnosis". It CAN be translated
            as "Knowledge", but in fact that is not a particularly accurate
            translation.

            Besides that, we are talking about the usage of the word that
            specific historical groups outlined... which means no matter what
            your personal view is on the word and how you would use it in a
            modern context, the only valid definition here for thte sake of our
            discussion is this older "traditional" Gnostic meaning.

            BTW, this is not open to debate. I do love a good debate, and even
            more than supporting your right to disagree, I find it valuable and
            enjoyable, BUT, debate here starts from the attempt to understand the
            context of the original groups. End of story, take it or leave it.

            You have to figure out for yourself if you find that valuable or not,
            but if you do then you would need to try to understand the
            word "Gnosis" as it was used in these ancient texts. If not, then you
            aren't helping the subject of conversation here.

            PMCV

            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, kdd6@n... wrote:
            > all of the "isms" and "ists" do not matter in true gnosis (greek
            for
            > knowledge) or Gnosis. capitalizations or not gnosis, knowledge, is
            just
            > that, gnosis (knowledge).
            >
            > after much lurking and reading, i'm of the observation that
            rhetoric is
            > rhetoric. knowledge just is. it does not judge. it does not
            change,
            > it only expands and reveals more to the seeker. it does not say
            that
            > one system of seeking is better than another system. knowledge
            (gnosis)
            > is the same for all. one must avail them self to the experience
            (for
            > lack of a better term) to accept the (gnosis) knowledge.
            >
            > knowledge (gnosis) is the creator. it always was, always is and
            always
            > shall be (supreme). as one experiences this level of
            consciousness,
            > one finds that there is much to learn before the next level. of my
            > understanding, if one learns to a certain level, one does not
            repeat
            > this level of consciousness, otherwise, one is doomed (pardon the
            pun)
            > to repeat this level of consciousness until the lesson(s) are
            learned.
            >
            > sometimes we find ourselves in a position (sometimes of suffering)
            to be
            > a lesson to another (one who is suffering, but is in denial of that
            > suffering). it has nothing to do with our own progression on the
            path
            > to perfection (light, the father, gnosis) but theirs; we are only
            an
            > instrument to their enlightenment. what is fair in an imperfect
            world?
            >
            > dwain
          • kdd6@netscape.net
            From: William Redman Subject: Re: Re: First Line of Questions imperfection, doubt,disbelief and understanding kdd6@netscape.net i do
            Message 5 of 27 , Aug 6, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              From: William Redman <phish4bass2000@...>
              Subject: Re: Re: First Line of Questions

              imperfection, doubt,disbelief and understanding

              kdd6@...

              i do not understand what you mean, could you expand your thought for me
              please?
              deain
            • kdd6@netscape.net
              You have to figure out for yourself if you find that valuable or not, but if you do then you would need to try to understand the word Gnosis as it was used
              Message 6 of 27 , Aug 6, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                You have to figure out for yourself if you find that valuable or not,
                but if you do then you would need to try to understand the
                word "Gnosis" as it was used in these ancient texts. If not, then you
                aren't helping the subject of conversation here.

                PMCV

                i am speaking in a historical context. that is my understanding of what
                jesus taught. and you are correct, gnosis is not open to debate. i
                defined my understanding of gnosis. i may be wrong in your
                understanding of the word gnosis, so please define your meaning of
                gnosis so i may understand what you mean.
                dwain
              • Mike Leavitt
                Hello kdd6@netscape.net ... He doesn t seem to realize that reducing gnosis to just knowledge is like reducing logos to word, when it means idea in the word as
                Message 7 of 27 , Aug 7, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello kdd6@...

                  On 08/07/04, you wrote:
                  >
                  > i am speaking in a historical context. that is my understanding of
                  > what jesus taught. and you are correct, gnosis is not open to
                  > debate. i defined my understanding of gnosis. i may be wrong in your
                  > understanding of the word gnosis, so please define your meaning of
                  > gnosis so i may understand what you mean. dwain
                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                  > You have to figure out for yourself if you find that valuable or
                  > not, but if you do then you would need to try to understand the word
                  > "Gnosis" as it was used in these ancient texts. If not, then you
                  > aren't helping the subject of conversation here.
                  >
                  > PMCV

                  He doesn't seem to realize that reducing gnosis to just knowledge is
                  like reducing logos to word, when it means idea in the word as well,
                  and a whole lot more.

                  Regards
                  --
                  Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                • klausdieterdill
                  ... hi mike, thanks for your reply. can idea in the word also mean knowledge in the word ? does not an idea reveal knowledge no matter how meaningful the
                  Message 8 of 27 , Aug 7, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                    > He doesn't seem to realize that reducing gnosis to just knowledge is
                    > like reducing logos to word, when it means idea in the word as well,
                    > and a whole lot more.
                    >
                    > Regards
                    > --
                    > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...

                    hi mike,
                    thanks for your reply. can "idea in the word" also mean "knowledge in
                    the word"? does not an idea reveal knowledge no matter how meaningful
                    the knowledge (idea) may seem? and if it does not, then why
                    communicate the idea?

                    all that i have read about gnosticism says that gnosis is from the
                    greek meaning knowledge and that the early folks sought knowledge
                    outside the orthodoxy of the established church.

                    there seem to be many sects of gnosistics and many understandings of
                    gnosis through out history. i understand that there are many
                    definitions to a word , but there seems to be a concensus with the
                    primary definition that gnosis means knowledge.

                    i have read that the greek for word is logos. i'm not saying that it
                    doesn't mean other things. defining my terms allows you to understand
                    me. i choose logos to mean word and gnosis to mean knowledge. if you
                    choose to define the words differently than i have stated then by
                    choice you will not understand me.

                    i think that if you read gnostic texts to find another meaning than
                    knowledge that the texts are dissiminating, then you are not seeking
                    gnosis. knowledge reveals the divine spark within and allows us to
                    experience the union with the light now.

                    are we discussing semantics or gnosticism? am i missing something?
                    best,
                    dwain
                  • Mike Leavitt
                    Hello klausdieterdill ... Obviously you stilll don t get it. There were two words for knowledge in greek, one meanind mere knowledge like you define gnosis,
                    Message 9 of 27 , Aug 8, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello klausdieterdill

                      On 08/08/04, you wrote:

                      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                      >> He doesn't seem to realize that reducing gnosis to just knowledge
                      >> is like reducing logos to word, when it means idea in the word as
                      >> well, and a whole lot more.
                      >>
                      >> Regards
                      >> --
                      >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                      >
                      > hi mike,
                      > thanks for your reply. can "idea in the word" also mean "knowledge
                      > in the word"? does not an idea reveal knowledge no matter how
                      > meaningful the knowledge (idea) may seem? and if it does not, then
                      > why communicate the idea?
                      >
                      > all that i have read about gnosticism says that gnosis is from the
                      > greek meaning knowledge and that the early folks sought knowledge
                      > outside the orthodoxy of the established church.
                      >
                      > there seem to be many sects of gnosistics and many understandings of
                      > gnosis through out history. i understand that there are many
                      > definitions to a word , but there seems to be a concensus with the
                      > primary definition that gnosis means knowledge.
                      >
                      > i have read that the greek for word is logos. i'm not saying that it
                      > doesn't mean other things. defining my terms allows you to
                      > understand me. i choose logos to mean word and gnosis to mean
                      > knowledge. if you choose to define the words differently than i have
                      > stated then by choice you will not understand me.
                      >
                      > i think that if you read gnostic texts to find another meaning than
                      > knowledge that the texts are dissiminating, then you are not seeking
                      > gnosis. knowledge reveals the divine spark within and allows us to
                      > experience the union with the light now.
                      >
                      > are we discussing semantics or gnosticism? am i missing something?
                      > best,
                      > dwain

                      Obviously you stilll don't get it. There were two words for knowledge
                      in greek, one meanind mere knowledge like you define gnosis, the
                      other meaning something more like revealed or intuitive inner
                      knowledge, gnosis. That is all I have to say. Define it how you
                      wish, you will be misunderstood with your definition.

                      Regards
                      --
                      Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                    • pmcvflag
                      Hey Dwain Actually, this topic has been a pretty common one. Let me point you to a link in which part of your question is answered.
                      Message 10 of 27 , Aug 8, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hey Dwain

                        Actually, this topic has been a pretty common one. Let me point you
                        to a link in which part of your question is answered.
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/9578

                        You see, there is actually more than one word in Greek
                        for "knowledge", and these different words, including pliroforo,
                        xero, and gnosis, actually don't all simply mean "knowledge". I know
                        that you have read sources that tell you "gnosis means knowledge",
                        but that is really only a half truth.

                        You say

                        >>>"i choose logos to mean word and gnosis to mean knowledge. if you
                        choose to define the words differently than i have stated then by
                        choice you will not understand me."<<<

                        BUT, you do need to understand that the same thing applied not only
                        to our understanding of you, but to your understanding of our subject
                        here... the traditional Gnostics. If you choose to define "Logos"
                        as "word", and "Gnosis" as "knowledge" then you define them
                        differently than the groups we are talking about.... which would mean
                        that by your own example, just as we would not understand you for
                        having a different definition.... you would not understand us and
                        them (historical Gnostics).

                        So, when you ask "are we discussing semantics or gnosticism?", well,
                        since sementics is the field of linguistics dealing with meaning, we
                        can't talk about Gnosticism if a person is not yet sure what "Gnosis"
                        means. I don't mean that to sound pedantic, Dwain, I simply mean to
                        point out that translating "Gnosis" to simply mean "knowledge" is not
                        accurate for the meaning that Gnostics have traditionally used the
                        term to represent.

                        PMCV

                        > hi mike,
                        > thanks for your reply. can "idea in the word" also mean "knowledge
                        in
                        > the word"? does not an idea reveal knowledge no matter how
                        meaningful
                        > the knowledge (idea) may seem? and if it does not, then why
                        > communicate the idea?
                        >
                        > all that i have read about gnosticism says that gnosis is from the
                        > greek meaning knowledge and that the early folks sought knowledge
                        > outside the orthodoxy of the established church.
                        >
                        > there seem to be many sects of gnosistics and many understandings of
                        > gnosis through out history. i understand that there are many
                        > definitions to a word , but there seems to be a concensus with the
                        > primary definition that gnosis means knowledge.
                        >
                        > i have read that the greek for word is logos. i'm not saying that
                        it
                        > doesn't mean other things. defining my terms allows you to
                        understand
                        > me. i choose logos to mean word and gnosis to mean knowledge. if
                        you
                        > choose to define the words differently than i have stated then by
                        > choice you will not understand me.
                        >
                        > i think that if you read gnostic texts to find another meaning than
                        > knowledge that the texts are dissiminating, then you are not seeking
                        > gnosis. knowledge reveals the divine spark within and allows us to
                        > experience the union with the light now.
                        >
                        > are we discussing semantics or gnosticism? am i missing something?
                        > best,
                        > dwain
                      • kdd6@netscape.net
                        ... mike, if you do not define your meaning of gnosis (knowledge) then how can you be understood. since i defined my terms then it is you who choose to
                        Message 11 of 27 , Aug 9, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com wrote:

                          > Obviously you stilll don't get it. There were two words for knowledge
                          > in greek, one meanind mere knowledge like you define gnosis, the
                          > other meaning something more like revealed or intuitive inner
                          > knowledge, gnosis. That is all I have to say. Define it how you
                          > wish, you will be misunderstood with your definition.
                          >

                          mike,
                          if you do not define your meaning of gnosis (knowledge) then how can you
                          be understood.

                          since i defined my terms then it is you who choose to misunderstand. i
                          do not care if you agree or disagree with my definition. understanding
                          my definition will allow you to understand me. even you say that my
                          definition is (partly) correct. if it is, then how can i be
                          misunderstood? if you don't define your meaning to me, then i
                          misunderstand you, but not by choice; but you my friend, by your own
                          words, choose to misunderstand my (partly) correct definition of gnosis.

                          i have been criticized for not knowing all of the meanings for the word
                          gnosis. that was a pretty big assumption on your part mike; and faulty
                          on my part for not defining my terms even finer for you. sorry for my
                          assumption. when i speak of gnosis, knowledge, i speak of both external
                          and internal knowledge. the internal knowledge, the still small voice,
                          the kingdom of heaven within, has the final say as to what is true
                          gnosis. the spirit that is connected to the father of all, the light,
                          knows what emanates from "above", accepts it and exists on it.

                          but what really disturbed me mike was your reply to my message that
                          addressed pvcm, pcmv or whoever. nothing like making a new comer feel
                          welcome, eh?

                          i do not want to argue with anyone on this list. i thought i had found
                          a place where i could learn more about gnosis and gnosticism, share my
                          understanding and knowledge and discuss until there is understanding. i
                          understand better now than before why there are many gnostic sects, just
                          as there are many christian denominations and christian churches.

                          true gnosis brings together the good. true gnosis divides the good from
                          the bad, the wheat from the chaff. true gnosis just is. true
                          knowledge, external or internal, just is. it is good to share
                          knowledge, that way we all prosper. i have been a gnostic for over 20
                          years, and i just found that out a couple of months ago.
                          best,
                          dwain
                        • pmcvflag
                          Dwain, you state.... ... and gnosticism, share my understanding and knowledge and discuss until there is understanding.
                          Message 12 of 27 , Aug 9, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dwain, you state....

                            >>>"thought i had found a place where i could learn more about gnosis
                            and gnosticism, share my understanding and knowledge and discuss
                            until there is understanding."<<<

                            And, I do hope you feel welcome to do so. Understand though, we are
                            here ONLY to talk about traditional form sof Gnosticism, not about
                            personal definitions of words. It is for this reason that some of the
                            things you are saying seem a bit confusing to us perhaps, for
                            instance......

                            >>>"since i defined my terms then it is you who choose to
                            misunderstand."<<<

                            Don't take me the wrong way here, you seem to be wanting us to
                            understand your usage of "gnosis" to mean "knowledge", and I do. What
                            I think you may not be understanding here is that in this group it is
                            not up to you or any of us (myself included) to make the definitions.
                            We don't care about your terms, or mine, unless creating an arbitrary
                            definition is the only way we can communicate in a specific instance.
                            We are here to study the terms as they are used in the traditional
                            setting. That means it is up to you and us to learn these terms as
                            they were used traditionaly as best we can, not up to us to learn
                            your terms, or up to you to learn my terms. There is no room for
                            debate on this, it is simply what this club is about... historical
                            Gnosticism.

                            So, then here is the challenge for you, Dwain. I understand that you
                            personally translate "gnosis" to mean "knowledge", so now let's
                            define what kind of Knowledge. After all, since we know that there is
                            more than one Greek word for "knowledge", and, we know that even on
                            top of that the Gnostics had thier own special usage of the word that
                            was not quite the same as the common Greek, lets take a look at what
                            the word meant to them.

                            Sound interesting?

                            PMCV

                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, kdd6@n... wrote:
                            > gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                            >
                            > > Obviously you stilll don't get it. There were two words for
                            knowledge
                            > > in greek, one meanind mere knowledge like you define gnosis, the
                            > > other meaning something more like revealed or intuitive inner
                            > > knowledge, gnosis. That is all I have to say. Define it how you
                            > > wish, you will be misunderstood with your definition.
                            > >
                            >
                            > mike,
                            > if you do not define your meaning of gnosis (knowledge) then how
                            can you
                            > be understood.
                            >
                            > since i defined my terms then it is you who choose to
                            misunderstand. i
                            > do not care if you agree or disagree with my definition.
                            understanding
                            > my definition will allow you to understand me. even you say that
                            my
                            > definition is (partly) correct. if it is, then how can i be
                            > misunderstood? if you don't define your meaning to me, then i
                            > misunderstand you, but not by choice; but you my friend, by your
                            own
                            > words, choose to misunderstand my (partly) correct definition of
                            gnosis.
                            >
                            > i have been criticized for not knowing all of the meanings for the
                            word
                            > gnosis. that was a pretty big assumption on your part mike; and
                            faulty
                            > on my part for not defining my terms even finer for you. sorry for
                            my
                            > assumption. when i speak of gnosis, knowledge, i speak of both
                            external
                            > and internal knowledge. the internal knowledge, the still small
                            voice,
                            > the kingdom of heaven within, has the final say as to what is true
                            > gnosis. the spirit that is connected to the father of all, the
                            light,
                            > knows what emanates from "above", accepts it and exists on it.
                            >
                            > but what really disturbed me mike was your reply to my message that
                            > addressed pvcm, pcmv or whoever. nothing like making a new comer
                            feel
                            > welcome, eh?
                            >
                            > i do not want to argue with anyone on this list. i thought i had
                            found
                            > a place where i could learn more about gnosis and gnosticism, share
                            my
                            > understanding and knowledge and discuss until there is
                            understanding. i
                            > understand better now than before why there are many gnostic sects,
                            just
                            > as there are many christian denominations and christian churches.
                            >
                            > true gnosis brings together the good. true gnosis divides the good
                            from
                            > the bad, the wheat from the chaff. true gnosis just is. true
                            > knowledge, external or internal, just is. it is good to share
                            > knowledge, that way we all prosper. i have been a gnostic for over
                            20
                            > years, and i just found that out a couple of months ago.
                            > best,
                            > dwain
                          • klausdieterdill
                            george, thanks for your reply. i read your link. it is vague. i understand that there are many definitions for the word. since there are many definitions
                            Message 13 of 27 , Aug 9, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              george,
                              thanks for your reply. i read your link. it is vague. i understand
                              that there are many definitions for the word. since there are many
                              definitions it does make the challenge of communicating difficult at
                              best. that is why i define how i am using the word so i can be
                              understood. if another member of the group wants to communicate and
                              use gnosis in their meaning, then it helps to define the way the word
                              is being used, then all can understand what is meant and discuss from
                              that point.

                              this point of the issue is a no-brainer when discussing anything that
                              can be misunderstood. the greeks used this system of discussing
                              centurys ago. if you do not define how you are going to use a word
                              (idea) then if someone has a different definition of the word (idea)
                              then they can easily misunderstand what the other person means.

                              so, i ask again, how do you define gnosis and when and where do you
                              use these definitions? i am trying to integrate into the group, but
                              the basis of all communication, the understanding of your definitions
                              of gnosis and how you apply them are central to this integration. if
                              you cannot or will not make this clarification, then like lynette, i
                              must go elsewhere.
                              best,
                              dwain
                            • lady_caritas
                              ... understand ... word ... from ... that ... definitions ... if ... Hi, Dwain, and welcome to the group. I have been busy and not posting as much lately. I
                              Message 14 of 27 , Aug 9, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "klausdieterdill" <kdd6@n...>
                                wrote:
                                > george,
                                > thanks for your reply. i read your link. it is vague. i
                                understand
                                > that there are many definitions for the word. since there are many
                                > definitions it does make the challenge of communicating difficult at
                                > best. that is why i define how i am using the word so i can be
                                > understood. if another member of the group wants to communicate and
                                > use gnosis in their meaning, then it helps to define the way the
                                word
                                > is being used, then all can understand what is meant and discuss
                                from
                                > that point.
                                >
                                > this point of the issue is a no-brainer when discussing anything
                                that
                                > can be misunderstood. the greeks used this system of discussing
                                > centurys ago. if you do not define how you are going to use a word
                                > (idea) then if someone has a different definition of the word (idea)
                                > then they can easily misunderstand what the other person means.
                                >
                                > so, i ask again, how do you define gnosis and when and where do you
                                > use these definitions? i am trying to integrate into the group, but
                                > the basis of all communication, the understanding of your
                                definitions
                                > of gnosis and how you apply them are central to this integration.
                                if
                                > you cannot or will not make this clarification, then like lynette, i
                                > must go elsewhere.
                                > best,
                                > dwain


                                Hi, Dwain, and welcome to the group. I have been busy and not
                                posting as much lately. I noticed that you seemed to be posting just
                                about the same time that PMCV was this afternoon. Have you had a
                                chance to read his message #9983?

                                For starters, I'll throw out some discussion of gnosis by Kurt
                                Rudolph in his book _Gnosis_, pages 55-60. I'm not offering this as
                                conclusive definition, but rather as a beginning point for group
                                elaboration, disagreement, discussion, etc. Does Rudolph bring up
                                some ideas that members might choose to dispute?

                                What say you, members? ;-)
                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                >>>The essential basic features of Gnosis can easily be extracted
                                from the Gnostic traditions, even if they belong to the teachings of
                                different schools. There is first of all the idea of "gnosis"
                                itself, a word which derives from Greek and means "knowledge"
                                or "understanding" and in fact became a catchword of that religious
                                movement. The New Testament already voices warnings against the
                                teachings of the "gnosis falsely so called"; the Church Fathers,
                                above all Irenaeus, took up the expression as an appropriate
                                characterisation and set over against it the "true gnosis" of the
                                Church. The representatives of this "false gnosis" frequently called
                                themselves "gnostics", that is "knowers, people of understanding" and
                                there are also frequent references to "knowledge" in their writings,
                                although in a quite special manner. They were not aiming at any
                                ideal philosophical knowledge nor any knowledge of an intellectual or
                                theoretical kind, but a knowledge which had at the same time a
                                liberating and redeeming effect. The content of this knowledge or
                                understanding is primarily religious, in so far as it circles around
                                the background of man, the world and God, but also because it rests
                                not upon one's own investigation but on heavenly mediation. It is a
                                knowledge given by revelation, which has been made available only to
                                the elect who are capable of receiving it, and therefore has an
                                esoteric character. This knowledge freely bestowed can extend from
                                the basic insight into the divine nature of man, his origin and his
                                destiny, up to a complete system. All Gnostic teachings are in some
                                form a part of the redeeming knowledge which gathers together the
                                object of knowledge (the redeeming gnosis) and the knower himself.
                                The intellectual knowledge of the teaching which is offered as
                                revealed wisdom has here a direct religious significance since it is
                                at the same time understood as otherworldly and is the basis for the
                                process of redemption. A man who possesses "gnosis" is for that
                                reason a redeemed man: "If anyone has gnosis", it is said in the
                                Gospel of Truth, "he is a being who comes from above... He fulfils
                                the will of him who has called him. He wishes to please him, he
                                receives rest... He who in this manner shall have gnosis knows whence
                                he is come and whither he goes. He knows like someone who was drunk
                                and has become sober from his drunkenness and, restored again to
                                himself, has again set his own in order". The ignorant man in
                                contrast is one who is a prey to forgetfulness and annihilation; he
                                has no firm foundation. In the Gospel of Philip there is the
                                statement "He who has the knowledge (_gnosis_) of the truth is free.
                                Ignorance is a slave". But not only ignorance stands in contrast to
                                the knowledge of the gnostic, so also does faith, since it knows
                                nothing concerning itself and remains attached to what is immediately
                                in the foreground. It is just this opposition of "faith"
                                and "knowledge" which was one of the central themes in the debates of
                                the Church with the gnostic heresy. It was not only a question of
                                the rights and claim of faith as the only valid means of salvation,
                                but also of the problem of the two-fold truth which became matter for
                                discussion with the entry of the esoteric gnosis into the early
                                Church.<<<
                              • klausdieterdill
                                ... i m with you. is there a lexicon for this period of time to help discern the meaning they intended or is it still up to me to find it for myself, like i
                                Message 15 of 27 , Aug 9, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  -- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                  > Dwain, you state....
                                  >
                                  > >>>"thought i had found a place where i could learn more about gnosis
                                  > and gnosticism, share my understanding and knowledge and discuss
                                  > until there is understanding."<<<
                                  >
                                  > And, I do hope you feel welcome to do so. Understand though, we are
                                  > here ONLY to talk about traditional form sof Gnosticism, not about
                                  > personal definitions of words. It is for this reason that some of the
                                  > things you are saying seem a bit confusing to us perhaps, for
                                  > instance......
                                  >
                                  > >>>"since i defined my terms then it is you who choose to
                                  > misunderstand."<<<
                                  >
                                  > Don't take me the wrong way here, you seem to be wanting us to
                                  > understand your usage of "gnosis" to mean "knowledge", and I do. What
                                  > I think you may not be understanding here is that in this group it is
                                  > not up to you or any of us (myself included) to make the definitions.
                                  > We don't care about your terms, or mine, unless creating an arbitrary
                                  > definition is the only way we can communicate in a specific instance.
                                  > We are here to study the terms as they are used in the traditional
                                  > setting. That means it is up to you and us to learn these terms as
                                  > they were used traditionaly as best we can, not up to us to learn
                                  > your terms, or up to you to learn my terms. There is no room for
                                  > debate on this, it is simply what this club is about... historical
                                  > Gnosticism.
                                  >
                                  > So, then here is the challenge for you, Dwain. I understand that you
                                  > personally translate "gnosis" to mean "knowledge", so now let's
                                  > define what kind of Knowledge. After all, since we know that there is
                                  > more than one Greek word for "knowledge", and, we know that even on
                                  > top of that the Gnostics had thier own special usage of the word that
                                  > was not quite the same as the common Greek, lets take a look at what
                                  > the word meant to them.
                                  >
                                  > Sound interesting?

                                  i'm with you. is there a lexicon for this period of time to help
                                  discern the meaning they intended or is it still up to me to find it
                                  for myself, like i have been doing all my life?
                                  best,
                                  dwain
                                  >
                                  > PMCV
                                • klausdieterdill
                                  ... yes, i just read and responded to it. i m not trying to confuse folks, i m just trying to get my feet on the ground and beginning a new thread will allow
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Aug 9, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > Hi, Dwain, and welcome to the group. I have been busy and not
                                    > posting as much lately. I noticed that you seemed to be posting just
                                    > about the same time that PMCV was this afternoon. Have you had a
                                    > chance to read his message #9983?

                                    yes, i just read and responded to it. i'm not trying to confuse
                                    folks, i'm just trying to get my feet on the ground and beginning a
                                    new thread will allow me some time to adjust to how you discuss gnosis
                                    on this list and how you use terminology.
                                    best,
                                    dwain
                                  • pmcvflag
                                    Hey Dwain, you ask... ... discern the meaning they intended or is it still up to me to find it for myself, like i have been doing all my life? best,
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Aug 9, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hey Dwain, you ask...

                                      >>>"i'm with you. is there a lexicon for this period of time to help
                                      discern the meaning they intended or is it still up to me to find it
                                      for myself, like i have been doing all my life?
                                      best,"<<<

                                      Well, while it was myself who compiled this lexicon, I have done my
                                      best to keep the definitions accurate for the subject at hand. You
                                      can of course take it or leave it as you may, but it could help to at
                                      least outline some of the currant thinking on the subject.

                                      Here is the url....
                                      http://www.geocities.com/pmcvflag/lexicon.html

                                      hope it helps a little

                                      PMCV
                                    • Gerry
                                      As PMCV pointed out, Dwain, it s really the usage of the word gnosis by Gnostics, not ancient Greeks or Greek speakers in general, that we would ultimately
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Aug 9, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        As PMCV pointed out, Dwain, it's really the usage of the
                                        word "gnosis" by Gnostics, not ancient Greeks or Greek speakers in
                                        general, that we would ultimately be concerned with here. While you
                                        ponder that distinction, I thought I'd point out another example from
                                        a previous post of yours that might serve to add further
                                        clarification:

                                        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, kdd6@n... wrote:
                                        >
                                        > ...after much lurking and reading, i'm of the observation that
                                        > rhetoric is rhetoric. knowledge just is. [. . .]
                                        >
                                        > knowledge (gnosis) is the creator. it always was, always is and
                                        > always shall be (supreme).
                                        >


                                        For me, this brings two thoughts to mind. Perhaps you're simply
                                        using your own interpretation again, so I won't ask you to point out
                                        in Gnostic texts where you see gnosis equated with the Creator. I
                                        will, however, point out that Gnostics tended *not* to look favorably
                                        upon what they viewed as the Creator of this world. While I agree
                                        that having common definitions is essential for communication, I also
                                        believe that those commonly understood words should have relevance
                                        within the context of a given conversation. Since we're obviously
                                        here to explore the ideas of the traditional Gnostics, it really
                                        wouldn't matter that I completely understood the language used by
                                        someone who might wander in here submitting posts which seem to heap
                                        praise upon the demiurge. Such comments would be antithetical to the
                                        group's subject matter, and those people might just as well be trying
                                        to talk about the Olympics or organizing a recipe swap. Luckily for
                                        us, such forums already exist, so we're free to discuss something of
                                        specific interest to many of us here.

                                        The second thing that struck me was your expression of something I've
                                        heard in various forms for years now by people on the Net: "always
                                        was, always is, and always shall be." Well, beyond questioning the
                                        Gnostic pertinence of the original comment, the thing that really
                                        threw me was that you had just spoken about rhetoric——prior to using
                                        one of the saddest means of supporting an argument as I have ever
                                        witnessed. Admittedly, I think I have such an issue with that phrase
                                        because of one person in particular who used to say it quite
                                        frequently. Frankly, he was one of the most delusional people I've
                                        ever encountered. When he used that sort of statement to back up the
                                        nonsense that came out of his mouth, I was never sure if he was
                                        simply trying to lend an air of authority to what was otherwise
                                        nothing but irrational personal opinion, or if he was trying to
                                        convince *himself* of his own "reality" as well. Who knows——maybe
                                        it's come to be common usage in parts of certain English dialects
                                        somewhere that I'm not familiar with and really doesn't mean
                                        anything, and I'm certainly not lumping you in with that other guy
                                        simply because of the words you chose. My point is, though, that
                                        even though the word "gnosis" appears in that passage you wrote, it
                                        reads more like a mainstream doxology.

                                        This is what I've tried to express in a number of posts of late, that
                                        there are very significant differences between Gnosticism and
                                        orthodoxy. Sometimes it may be easier to understand those
                                        distinctions conceptually rather than jumping into terminology
                                        borrowed from another language. So, while a word like "creator"
                                        might be more easily comprehended by English speakers regardless of
                                        their spiritual persuasion, we would be remiss to assume that it
                                        conveys the same thing to Gnostics as it would to conventional
                                        Christians. Perhaps this is a route you'd care to explore rather
                                        than tackling a new lexicon. I suggest that because of something
                                        else I've repeated lately——understanding Gnosticism isn't just a
                                        matter of adopting a new vocabulary for previously held ideas. I
                                        make that warning because of how frequently I see people at different
                                        discussion groups doing that very thing. It may impress some of
                                        their acquaintances that they can toss around Greek terms, but if the
                                        names are nothing more than new labels for old concepts or even for
                                        misconceptions of new concepts, then what have they actually learned
                                        about Gnosticism?

                                        Gerry
                                      • klausdieterdill
                                        ... thanks, i ve copied it and will peruse it later. best, dwain
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Aug 10, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                          > Hey Dwain, you ask...
                                          > Here is the url....
                                          > http://www.geocities.com/pmcvflag/lexicon.html
                                          >
                                          > hope it helps a little
                                          >
                                          > PMCV

                                          thanks, i've copied it and will peruse it later.
                                          best,
                                          dwain
                                        • klausdieterdill
                                          ... i have it now. it seems that the gnostics use gnosis as internal knowledge or the knowledge discovered in the kingdom of heaven within. i realize that not
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Aug 10, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > As PMCV pointed out, Dwain, it's really the usage of the
                                            > word "gnosis" by Gnostics, not ancient Greeks or Greek speakers in
                                            > general, that we would ultimately be concerned with here.

                                            i have it now. it seems that the gnostics use gnosis as internal
                                            knowledge or the knowledge discovered in the kingdom of heaven within.
                                            i realize that not all gnostics see it that way, but it comes through
                                            that way for me as is related in the gospel of thomas. i received my
                                            copy yesterday and i have begun reading. at first read it is how i
                                            have been thinking since 1988.

                                            in fact the author, stevan davies, mentions that the gospel is not
                                            what you would call traditional gnosticism, because it does not
                                            address the myths and other traditional gnostic thinking.

                                            it seems to be more of the mind set of having the kingdom of heaven
                                            within and without here, now. that idea is pretty firey and it sits
                                            well in my thinking and my spirit.


                                            >While I agree that having common definitions is essential for
                                            >communication, I also believe that those commonly understood words
                                            >should have relevance within the context of a given conversation.

                                            this has been my point all along. how someone defines their terms
                                            brings the understanding. i realize that some of my terminology is
                                            not what you on the list use, but in my way i'm trying to communicate
                                            the idea that i agree with what you say on many topics. i tried to be
                                            relevant. maybe now i will be given an ear to do so.

                                            i have also come to realize that for historical sake i will listen to
                                            the discussions and ask questions from time to time, but my main
                                            interest is in the gnostic thought as it relates to me and mankind
                                            today. how can i have now what jesus said i can have now.

                                            >Since we're obviously here to explore the ideas of the traditional
                                            >Gnostics, it really wouldn't matter that I completely understood the
                                            >language used by someone who might wander in here submitting posts
                                            >which seem to heap praise upon the demiurge. Such comments would be
                                            >antithetical to the group's subject matter,...

                                            i agree. as i said earlier, understanding the use of terms in a given
                                            language is of great importance if one wants to communicate about a
                                            given subject. although you have ideas and opinions about the
                                            substance of the universe, you would probably be misunderstood if you
                                            tried to communicate with physicists and mathmaticians without knowing
                                            what words mean and how they are used.

                                            i also did not mean to imply that i was heaping praise upon the
                                            demiurge. as i was reading the gnostic bible, i was jumping for joy
                                            at the unmasking of the erroneous god, demiurge, devil. i found
                                            myself cheering for the snake in the garden and feeling sorry for what
                                            happened to eve. i am a lot more like members on the list than you
                                            all first realized.


                                            > The second thing that struck me was your expression of something
                                            >I've heard in various forms for years now by people on the Net:
                                            >"always was, always is, and always shall be." Well, beyond
                                            >questioning the Gnostic pertinence of the original comment, the thing
                                            >that really threw me was that you had just spoken about
                                            >rhetoric——prior to using one of the saddest means of supporting an
                                            >argument as I have ever witnessed. ...My point is, though, that
                                            > even though the word "gnosis" appears in that passage you wrote, it
                                            > reads more like a mainstream doxology.

                                            touche! i was not aware that i might have offended members on the
                                            list. i apologize for my ignorance. again, it goes back to knowing
                                            the language. the gnosis is there; how to properly express it in this
                                            forum is an issue that only time and experience will settle.


                                            >——understanding Gnosticism isn't just a matter of adopting a new
                                            >vocabulary for previously held ideas. I make that warning because of
                                            >how frequently I see people at different discussion groups doing that
                                            >very thing. It may impress some of their acquaintances that they can
                                            >toss around Greek terms, but if the names are nothing more than new
                                            >labels for old concepts or even for misconceptions of new concepts,
                                            >then what have they actually learned about Gnosticism?

                                            i agree.

                                            like i said in an earlier post, gnosis is immutable and only
                                            expandable. i have acquired much inner knowledge over the past 20 or
                                            so years of my life. that knowledge has not changed, but has expanded
                                            as i grew as a person. yes, there were numerous misconceptions that i
                                            had been taught, but i had set out to correct the disinformation.

                                            i have never agreed fully with orthodox religion. there were too many
                                            inconsistencies to be dealt with. certain terminologies stayed, but
                                            others replaced outdated terms.

                                            studying philosophy in college broadened my perspectives and invited
                                            more questions for orthodox religion that could not offer a logical
                                            explaination for the contradictions in their belief systems. i was
                                            always seeking the truth, knowledge, gnosis or whatever you want to
                                            call it.

                                            i was told i had joined a cult when i began studying christian science
                                            (which i found out on the gnosis.org web site is a gnostic religion).
                                            one day a member of the church told me after a sunday service that
                                            mary baker eddy did'nt have it all. wow, what a wake up call. i
                                            pondered the remark and began noticing things that disturbed me.

                                            i kept looking. all of the isms from philosophy kept flashing in my
                                            brain. i read sidhartha and was mesmerized. i began studying other
                                            religions.

                                            i was labled a kook; told that i was confused, that i was a radical.
                                            i began reading more spiritual texts, studying other spiritual
                                            leaders. always looking. i joined the quality paperback book club.
                                            i saw the gnostic bible and took a chance. well, here i am, offending
                                            the very people i have more in common with than i have ever had before.

                                            now, maybe you all can understand why i was so, and still, adamant
                                            about defining your terms. it's so i can learn those terms and be
                                            able to communicate my brotherhood and sisterhood with you.
                                            best,
                                            dwain
                                          • Gerry
                                            Forgive me, Dwain, for only replying to a couple portions of your post today, but I m more pressed for time than usual and can t locate some of the material I
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Aug 10, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Forgive me, Dwain, for only replying to a couple portions of your
                                              post today, but I'm more pressed for time than usual and can't locate
                                              some of the material I was thinking about referring to. You raise a
                                              lot of points for consideration, but let me address these just for
                                              now:

                                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "klausdieterdill" <kdd6@n...>
                                              wrote:
                                              > [. . .]
                                              >
                                              > i also did not mean to imply that i was heaping praise upon the
                                              > demiurge. as i was reading the gnostic bible, i was jumping for joy
                                              > at the unmasking of the erroneous god, demiurge, devil. i found
                                              > myself cheering for the snake in the garden and feeling sorry for
                                              what
                                              > happened to eve. i am a lot more like members on the list than you
                                              > all first realized.
                                              >


                                              Understandable, and I was hoping it was simply a case of enthusiasm
                                              for the subject matter. Gnosticism is very much the story of
                                              underdogs, and it can be hard *not* to get caught up in the
                                              revelations you were encountering in the texts. I only picked up a
                                              copy of The Gnostic Bible back in February and still haven't had time
                                              to look through much of it. One word of caution I should throw out
                                              there is that the scope of that book is quite broad. I absolutely
                                              agree with the editors' decision to produce such an all-encompassing
                                              anthology, but if I recall correctly, it also covers texts from what
                                              we would consider the "fringe" of Gnosticism——and well beyond.

                                              >
                                              > ...
                                              > touche! i was not aware that i might have offended members on the
                                              > list. i apologize for my ignorance. again, it goes back to knowing
                                              > the language. the gnosis is there; how to properly express it in
                                              this
                                              > forum is an issue that only time and experience will settle.
                                              >


                                              No worries, Dwain. I don't know that anyone was offended, but it
                                              seemed like a good example to point out how easily something could be
                                              grossly misconstrued. There are certain buzzwords among these
                                              circles, and saying something out of context like "creator" (either
                                              in English or Greek) could easily cause someone to think that
                                              whatever you're talking about, it's not Gnosticism. Since you
                                              obviously have an interest in the subject, I'm just trying to avoid
                                              those sorts of misunderstandings.


                                              >
                                              > ...i was told i had joined a cult when i began studying christian
                                              > science (which i found out on the gnosis.org web site is a gnostic
                                              > religion).


                                              Until I have a chance to catch up, maybe I could leave you with some
                                              thoughts on those last comments. I was curious enough to use the
                                              Google search feature at Gnosis.org to see where it mentioned
                                              Christian Science as being "Gnostic." Well, I had a feeling that it
                                              would turn up in the article I had in mind:

                                              http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/whatisgnostic.htm

                                              If indeed that is the same page that you were referring to, I'd ask
                                              you to go back and take another look at what Dr. Hoeller is writing
                                              about, along with his purpose for using the example you cite. Also
                                              give careful consideration to how he describes the writer he quotes,
                                              and give weight to why Panton might have written what he did.

                                              Gerry
                                            • Mike Leavitt
                                              Hello klausdieterdill ... Yes you have it now, you ve got it, at least most of it anyway. Excellant post BTW. Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Aug 10, 2004
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Hello klausdieterdill

                                                On 08/10/04, you wrote:

                                                > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
                                                >>
                                                >>
                                                >> As PMCV pointed out, Dwain, it's really the usage of the
                                                >> word "gnosis" by Gnostics, not ancient Greeks or Greek speakers in
                                                >> general, that we would ultimately be concerned with here.
                                                >
                                                > i have it now. it seems that the gnostics use gnosis as internal
                                                > knowledge or the knowledge discovered in the kingdom of heaven
                                                > within.

                                                Yes you have it now, you've got it, at least most of it anyway.
                                                Excellant post BTW.

                                                Regards
                                                --
                                                Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                              • Mike Leavitt
                                                Hello Gerry ... Christian Science, the mother of New Thought would be more accurate. ... Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Aug 10, 2004
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Hello Gerry

                                                  On 08/10/04, you wrote:

                                                  > http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/whatisgnostic.htm
                                                  >
                                                  > If indeed that is the same page that you were referring to, I'd ask
                                                  > you to go back and take another look at what Dr. Hoeller is writing
                                                  > about, along with his purpose for using the example you cite. Also
                                                  > give careful consideration to how he describes the writer he quotes,
                                                  > and give weight to why Panton might have written what he did.
                                                  >
                                                  > Gerry

                                                  Christian Science, the mother of New Thought would be more accurate.
                                                  :-)

                                                  Regards
                                                  --
                                                  Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                                • klausdieterdill
                                                  ... thank you. it has taken me a while to get to this point. i feel like i m on fire. best, dwain
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Aug 10, 2004
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                                                    > Hello klausdieterdill
                                                    >
                                                    > On 08/10/04, you wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
                                                    > >>
                                                    > >>
                                                    > >> As PMCV pointed out, Dwain, it's really the usage of the
                                                    > >> word "gnosis" by Gnostics, not ancient Greeks or Greek speakers in
                                                    > >> general, that we would ultimately be concerned with here.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > i have it now. it seems that the gnostics use gnosis as internal
                                                    > > knowledge or the knowledge discovered in the kingdom of heaven
                                                    > > within.
                                                    >
                                                    > Yes you have it now, you've got it, at least most of it anyway.
                                                    > Excellant post BTW.
                                                    >
                                                    > Regards
                                                    > --
                                                    > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...

                                                    thank you. it has taken me a while to get to this point. i feel like
                                                    i'm on fire.
                                                    best,
                                                    dwain
                                                  • klausdieterdill
                                                    ... i have to admit, i was exaggerating my reaction to the material. i was smiling all while i read it, because i knew there was more to the story of creation
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Aug 10, 2004
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:

                                                      > Understandable, and I was hoping it was simply a case of enthusiasm
                                                      > for the subject matter. Gnosticism is very much the story of
                                                      > underdogs, and it can be hard *not* to get caught up in the
                                                      > revelations you were encountering in the texts.

                                                      i have to admit, i was exaggerating my reaction to the material. i
                                                      was smiling all while i read it, because i knew there was more to the
                                                      story of creation in the first two chapters of genisis.

                                                      >I only picked up a copy of The Gnostic Bible back in February and
                                                      >still haven't had time to look through much of it. One word of
                                                      >caution I should throw out there is that the scope of that book is
                                                      >quite broad.

                                                      you are quite correct about the scope of the book being broad. it was
                                                      a great overview of gnosticism and not just from the christian point
                                                      of view.

                                                      they dealt with islamic gnosticism and other groups as well. i had a
                                                      time following the islamic point, because i have not finished reading
                                                      the koran; and it has been a while since i have read it at all, so i
                                                      guess i will have to go back to the beginning and start over.

                                                      i liked how they tied judaism, christianity and islam together. i
                                                      assume that the authors mentioned the major gnostic groups during this
                                                      period.

                                                      i had a ball reading about the "fringe" groups as you called them. i
                                                      think that to get a grasp of what was going on in the "world" during
                                                      this period of time this book is a killer read. it was interesting to
                                                      read about the group that rejected the old testament completely
                                                      calling it a sham. i got a grin when i read about the group that
                                                      rejected jesus calling him a sorcerer and accepting john the baptiser
                                                      as the messiah; but who knows for certain?

                                                      mani had it going. he seemed to be close to what jesus taught, but i
                                                      think he got a bit zealous in his approach. but it worked for him and
                                                      his followers; and it seems that the book mentioned that gnostics
                                                      consider him a prophet just like jesus and mohammed.

                                                      some of the texts from the nag hammadi library are included in the
                                                      book. i really enjoyed reading the gospel of truth. it was almost
                                                      like listening to a christian science lecture (except they heap praise
                                                      on the demiurge and pretty much dismiss genisis 2 as error), but the
                                                      language and terminology is pretty much like that used in the gospel.


                                                      i think that if mary baker eddy had been alive during the discovery
                                                      and translation of the dead sea scrolls and the nag hammadi library
                                                      finds, christian science would be more gnostic today than it is.

                                                      > If indeed that is the same page that you were referring to, I'd ask
                                                      > you to go back and take another look at what Dr. Hoeller is writing
                                                      > about, along with his purpose for using the example you cite. Also
                                                      > give careful consideration to how he describes the writer he
                                                      > quotes, and give weight to why Panton might have written what he >did.

                                                      panton called christian science and others a new theology. he was an
                                                      orthodox christian. christian science is not an orthodox christian
                                                      religion. they practice healing as jesus did. they get their
                                                      instruction for this activity from the scriptures (king james
                                                      version). they do not drink, use tobacco or other drugs, legal or
                                                      illegal. there are times however that they will use pain killers
                                                      (i.e. setting a broken bone,dental work). some do not ingest caffine
                                                      or other stimulants.

                                                      christian scientists understand that man is made in the image and
                                                      likeness of god and that he is spiritual and therefore cannot be
                                                      anything unlike god (perfect, eternal, loving, etc.). i did not say
                                                      that c.s was true gnostcism, but as i have said before, gnosis is
                                                      gnosis. like mani, mary baker eddy had her quirks. christian science
                                                      was instrumental in my progression from then to now. i have outgrown
                                                      the movement. i do not care to put new wine in an old container, or
                                                      however the quote goes, because i know that the container would surely
                                                      break; and i'm not interested in hospitalization at this point. ;^)
                                                      best,
                                                      dwain
                                                    • Gerry
                                                      ... Personally, I would agree that gnosis is gnosis, but it seems to get confused with many other things. With that in mind, I don t think it would be helpful
                                                      Message 26 of 27 , Aug 19, 2004
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "klausdieterdill" <kdd6@n...>
                                                        wrote:
                                                        > i did not say
                                                        > that c.s was true gnostcism, but as i have said before, gnosis is
                                                        > gnosis.




                                                        Personally, I would agree that gnosis is gnosis, but it seems to get
                                                        confused with many other things. With that in mind, I don't think it
                                                        would be helpful for anyone to confuse Christian Science with
                                                        Gnosticism. If you'll take another look at what you originally said,
                                                        you may see why I chose to address the issue at all:

                                                        >>i was told i had joined a cult when i began studying christian
                                                        science (which i found out on the gnosis.org web site is a gnostic
                                                        religion).<<

                                                        Again, what you were referring to is found on the following page, in
                                                        the second paragraph:

                                                        http://www.gnosis.org/whatisgnostic.htm

                                                        Now, this will likely be plenty scandalous, but having thought about
                                                        it for a while already, I feel a need to point something out despite
                                                        how it will inevitably be misinterpreted. Here's a statement which I
                                                        see as analogous to the one above:

                                                        "I saw it mentioned on the gnosis.org web site that Nazis were
                                                        Gnostic."

                                                        In fact, by the way I worded that example, it's possibly even more
                                                        factually accurate than the previous comment, but it certainly lacks
                                                        correctness in a truthful sense.

                                                        There's a reason that we keep stressing the importance of context.

                                                        Anyway, I'm hoping there's someone out there who will carefully read
                                                        at least the first five paragraphs of Dr. Hoeller's article and tell
                                                        me first what is right about that brazen statement, and then, more
                                                        importantly, what is dreadfully wrong with it.


                                                        Gerry
                                                      • queen annie
                                                        ... get ... it ... said, ... in ... about ... despite ... I ... lacks ... read ... tell ... I hadn t had time until now to investigate what you meant when you
                                                        Message 27 of 27 , Sep 16 9:55 PM
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
                                                          > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "klausdieterdill" <kdd6@n...>
                                                          > wrote:
                                                          > > i did not say
                                                          > > that c.s was true gnostcism, but as i have said before, gnosis is
                                                          > > gnosis.
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > Personally, I would agree that gnosis is gnosis, but it seems to
                                                          get
                                                          > confused with many other things. With that in mind, I don't think
                                                          it
                                                          > would be helpful for anyone to confuse Christian Science with
                                                          > Gnosticism. If you'll take another look at what you originally
                                                          said,
                                                          > you may see why I chose to address the issue at all:
                                                          >
                                                          > >>i was told i had joined a cult when i began studying christian
                                                          > science (which i found out on the gnosis.org web site is a gnostic
                                                          > religion).<<
                                                          >
                                                          > Again, what you were referring to is found on the following page,
                                                          in
                                                          > the second paragraph:
                                                          >
                                                          > http://www.gnosis.org/whatisgnostic.htm
                                                          >
                                                          > Now, this will likely be plenty scandalous, but having thought
                                                          about
                                                          > it for a while already, I feel a need to point something out
                                                          despite
                                                          > how it will inevitably be misinterpreted. Here's a statement which
                                                          I
                                                          > see as analogous to the one above:
                                                          >
                                                          > "I saw it mentioned on the gnosis.org web site that Nazis were
                                                          > Gnostic."
                                                          >
                                                          > In fact, by the way I worded that example, it's possibly even more
                                                          > factually accurate than the previous comment, but it certainly
                                                          lacks
                                                          > correctness in a truthful sense.
                                                          >
                                                          > There's a reason that we keep stressing the importance of context.
                                                          >
                                                          > Anyway, I'm hoping there's someone out there who will carefully
                                                          read
                                                          > at least the first five paragraphs of Dr. Hoeller's article and
                                                          tell
                                                          > me first what is right about that brazen statement, and then, more
                                                          > importantly, what is dreadfully wrong with it.
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > Gerry


                                                          I hadn't had time until now to investigate what you meant when you
                                                          said your comment about the Nazis didn't get any responses, and I did
                                                          find Dr Hoeller's article very well written. It would be a good one
                                                          to put in the group files, along with a similar comment by you as
                                                          made here, for other new members who might be bewildered upon
                                                          initially joining, if you don't mind the suggestion.

                                                          Here is my offering toward your request above:

                                                          What is right about that statement: There is obviously a tidbit in
                                                          every packaged religion, regardless of deistic focus, that is of a
                                                          gnostic origin. This is perhaps an explanation for the well known
                                                          saying 'there is some truth in everything'. It must be seen as
                                                          having that origin if one considers the statement 'What originates in
                                                          the psyche bears the imprint of the psyche. ' found in the article in
                                                          reference to the affinity with depth psychology. One of the points
                                                          in the definition as credited to Professor Emery: 'Within each
                                                          natural man is an "inner man," a fallen spark of the divine
                                                          substance. Since this exists in each man, we have the possibility of
                                                          awakening from our stupefaction. '

                                                          On the other hand, what is wrong in that statement is this: To
                                                          reduce or define the uniqueness of gnosis by equating it with any
                                                          other belief system just by virtue of the small spark each contains
                                                          that is gnostic in nature is just as erroneous as saying anyone with
                                                          an understanding of one piece of the whole gnostic experience is,
                                                          because of that, a true gnostic. While we may all have a spark
                                                          within us somewhere, that doesn't mean a fire has been lit by that
                                                          spark.

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