Gnostic Anti-Semitism: Fact or Fiction?
Logan Ferree
argument over Marcion and how Christianity might have continued in
history if his New Testament and teachings were accepted by the main
stream of the Church. He brought up a claim that because Marcion viewed
the Jewish god as evil, as the Demiurge, that this alternate form of
Christianity would be more Anti-Semitic than the historical one. I
countered that because Marcion placed less importance on the fact that
Jesus was killed by the Jews, there would be less Anti-Semitism. In
addition, I figured that the alternate Christian church would view the
Jews not as evil, but ignorant. Does anyone have some light to shed on
this argument?
Logan Ferree
Spiritualist
Gnasty
The point is moot.
Existant, but moot.
Christ wasn't killed by the Jews, it's one of the great Pauline Lies.
Jewish punishment was stoning to death, while Crucifiction was
strictly a Roman practice.
The practice of releasing a prisoner during Passover wasn't done at
that time.
There was NO "Barabus", and if there WERE, why didn't the two thieves
crucified with Jesus have the chance to be released instead of just
Jesus ??
Pilat was a vicious and rapatious murder in charge of croud control
during Passover, when an estimated half million Jews came to Jerusalem
to worship in the Temple, and cel;ebrate their release from Egyptian
tyrrany, and the Romans were well aware of the potential for a real
uprising at so touchy of a Holy Day....
THOUSANDS of Jews were crucified during that time period, none of them
by the Jews themselves, and most of them for making similar claims to
being the answer to the Jewish problem of domination - that being claims
to being the Messiah, which was an EARTHLY savior, not a heavenly one.
The Sanhedrin might not have liked what he did, but they were not the
outlet to crucifiction in the Rmoan empire.
Mor was claiming to be the Son of God a sin to the Hebraic Temple
either, the Jews believe that we ALL are sons and daughters of God.
Anyone believing that episode of anti-semitism is more valid than
personal prejudice has bought into the Lies of Paul.
I find this particular prejudice to be more motivated by greed and
fear than valid purpose.
Greed for the tithes it represents, and fear of being associated with
the radical Jews that Rome hated so much.
Read a little Josephus or some Philo.
The Jews in the desert, the Essenes, were working on 'The way', a
calling of the Angels to help them out of Roman Domination (Ref: The War
Scrolls)- meaning a way for God to rid them of the Sons of Darkness (the
Romans), John the Baptist was preaching in the desert about preparing
'The Way' for the Messiah, and Jesus was in Nazerith and Jerusalem
preaching from a religious movement he called 'The Way', lecturing on
complete and radical change of their 'Way' of life, and talking in
parables when anyone else got near.
Christ was just a loose end that the Romans cleaned up once they
figured out what was going on, that's all.
The Jews of antiquity were niether evil nor ignorant.
Being prejudice against the Jews, and paying tithe to the Pax Romana,
would go a long way back then to extending ones life, and perhaps
finding favor in the eyes of Rome.
Anti semitism wasn't specifically a Marcionite OR a Pauline doctrine,
it was more an effort to extend ones pityful life off of the backs of
the downtrodden, and perhaps gain a little favortism from their new
Masters by separating themselves from the Jews that were hated by Rome.
Put it togeather for yourself.
Perhaps a fresh perspective that's more acurate will give you the
answers you seek....
Gnasty
And HOPING they don't like it....
Dolf Boek
He brought up a claim that because Marcion viewed the Jewish god as evil, as
the Demiurge, that this alternate form of Christianity would be more
DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
"Since the world is one, Philo accepts the doctrine of the communion of the
parts and the sympathy of the whole. The totality is everywhere decisive.
Only for the sake of the whole do the parts have the right of participation
in it. Ethically, the truly perfect good is a whole. Individual goods, which
are only parts of the perfect good, cannot be called perfect goods. Man is
'Meros tou partos' ie. he is not directly an image of God, he is only an
image of the Divine Logos." [KITTEL 1995 IV:595] Philo expounds the 'eikon
tou theou' (image of God) in the richest way. Under Pythagorean influence he
links it with the number seven [De Opificio Mundi, 100], but also with the
'monas' [De Specialibus Legibus II, 176], the heavenly 'nous' [Legum
Allegoriae I, 33 & 42], though distinguished from the 'anthropos nous' which
is both derived from the breath of God [Genesis 2:7] and partly because it
is fashioned after the 'logos' as its 'archetupos idea'. [KITTEL 1995,
II:394]
"From 'protos nous' (first mind), which is bi-sexual, there is begotten the
distinct 'demiourgos nous' (creative intelligence) [Hebrews 11:10], which
out of fire and water creates the seven animistic rules (logos) of the
world, the planets, and which is also called 'euergesia-benefactors' [Luke
22:25] or 'pnuche tou theou' (breath of God) and depicted in the form of
fire. This second 'nous', which derives from God's ousia-being in so far as
we can speak of such, finds its reflection in the 'logos' but also seems to
be identical with it. Though not in the original form of fire, divine 'nous'
is also a property of man according to the will of the Father. [KITTEL 1995
IV:957] "...knowing-ginosko this-touto first-proton, that no
prophecy-propheteia of Scripture-graphe is of any private-idios
interpretation-epilusis, for prophecy-propheteia never-pote came-pote by the
will-thelema of man-anthropos, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved
by the Holy Spirit." [2 Peter 1:19-21]
When reason serves God purely, it is divine rather than human. It then moves
out of itself, is initiated into the mysteries of God, and makes confession
of Him who truly is. In the ecstatic state, eg. of the prophet, the human
'nous' departs with the coming of the divine 'pneuma' and then returns as
this moves on. The human 'nous' is limited as compared with the divine--It
may grasp things but not itself, let alone comprehend the nature of God.
Because cosmic reason has created the universe, human reason has the promise
that it will finally come to the Father of piety and know its own ego: "And
we know-eido that the Son-uihos of God-theos has come-heko and has
given-didomi us an understanding-dianoia, that we may know-ginosko Him who
is true-alethinos; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God and eternal-aionios life-zoe." [1 John 5:20] By
contrast Philo regards that "...every heavenly thing is 'nous'. Each star is
pure 'nous'. God Himself is 'nous' in the final and deepest sense and is the
great and perfect cosmic reason creative and at work in all things, the good
of the soul and of all things." [KITTEL 1995 IV:956]
Unlike Philo and the Hermetic philosophical tradition generally, the
Apostolic tradition has, beyond a chronological conception of the 7th day
Sabbath, no primary conception of planetary spheres or stars as occulted
focal points of Divine Intelligence (nous) [1 Corinthians 3:18-23]: "See,
this is the matter I found, said Qohelet who is called Solomon the king of
Israel. 'I determined the relationship of the planets-mazal one to the other
to find the reckoning of men what will be at their end.'" [Aramaic Targum of
Qohelet 7:27] But rather seeks instruction from the nomos (Torah) in
anticipation of "...that city-polus which has foundations-themelios, whose
builder-technites and maker-demiourgos is God-theos." [Hebrews 11:10]
- dolf
Moggin
Marcion _did_ establish an "alternate form of Christianity."
The Marcionite Church was a big deal at the time, and a
serious rival to Rome. So the question isn't just hypothetical.
We can ask if Marcion and his followers were anti-Semitic.
It's easy to see how anti-Judaism could slip into anti-Semitism.
At least a few cases seem inevitable. But is there any
evidence of them? Anti-Semitism in the early Church isn't hard
to find. Where is it in Marcion's church?
-- Moggin
Logan Ferree
> Logan:
>
> The point is moot.
>
> Existant, but moot.
>
> Christ wasn't killed by the Jews, it's one of the great Pauline Lies.
I am sure you have quotes handy from the writings of Paul to tell us
that the Jews killed Jesus Christ. The Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John
all have quotes which can be taken as placing the blame of Christ's death on
the Jews. As for Paul, well IIRC his writings didn't even say that Christ
died on a cross. What Paul does do is attack the Jewish Law.
> Jewish punishment was stoning to death, while Crucifiction was
> strictly a Roman practice.
>
> The practice of releasing a prisoner during Passover wasn't done at
> that time.
That I know and agree with. But the thing is that although the truth
might be one thing, the accepted writings of Christianity placed blame on
the Jews for the death of Jesus Christ. A friend of mine stated that if the
views of Marcion were accepted, the level of hate for the Jews would be even
stronger than in our history. I did not believe so, and therefore am asking
the people of this newsgroup for their opinion.
> There was NO "Barabus", and if there WERE, why didn't the two thieves
> crucified with Jesus have the chance to be released instead of just
> Jesus ??
>
> Pilat was a vicious and rapatious murder in charge of croud control
> during Passover, when an estimated half million Jews came to Jerusalem
> to worship in the Temple, and cel;ebrate their release from Egyptian
> tyrrany, and the Romans were well aware of the potential for a real
> uprising at so touchy of a Holy Day....
And yet he's a saint. That's disturbing.
> THOUSANDS of Jews were crucified during that time period, none of them
> by the Jews themselves, and most of them for making similar claims to
> being the answer to the Jewish problem of domination - that being claims
> to being the Messiah, which was an EARTHLY savior, not a heavenly one.
>
> The Sanhedrin might not have liked what he did, but they were not the
> outlet to crucifiction in the Rmoan empire.
>
> Mor was claiming to be the Son of God a sin to the Hebraic Temple
> either, the Jews believe that we ALL are sons and daughters of God.
>
> Anyone believing that episode of anti-semitism is more valid than
> personal prejudice has bought into the Lies of Paul.
Well I dispute them being the Lies of Paul, although I am sure they are
the Lies of someone. But that fact is that Christianity did believe such,
and that did spread Anti-Semitism. I ask, would a Christianity with the
views of Marcion be any more, less, or the same Anti-Semitic.
> I find this particular prejudice to be more motivated by greed and
> fear than valid purpose.
>
> Greed for the tithes it represents, and fear of being associated with
> the radical Jews that Rome hated so much.
>
> Read a little Josephus or some Philo.
>
> The Jews in the desert, the Essenes, were working on 'The way', a
> calling of the Angels to help them out of Roman Domination (Ref: The War
> Scrolls)- meaning a way for God to rid them of the Sons of Darkness (the
> Romans), John the Baptist was preaching in the desert about preparing
> 'The Way' for the Messiah, and Jesus was in Nazerith and Jerusalem
> preaching from a religious movement he called 'The Way', lecturing on
> complete and radical change of their 'Way' of life, and talking in
> parables when anyone else got near.
>
> Christ was just a loose end that the Romans cleaned up once they
> figured out what was going on, that's all.
>
> The Jews of antiquity were niether evil nor ignorant.
>
> Being prejudice against the Jews, and paying tithe to the Pax Romana,
> would go a long way back then to extending ones life, and perhaps
> finding favor in the eyes of Rome.
>
> Anti semitism wasn't specifically a Marcionite OR a Pauline doctrine,
> it was more an effort to extend ones pityful life off of the backs of
> the downtrodden, and perhaps gain a little favortism from their new
> Masters by separating themselves from the Jews that were hated by Rome.
So your general opinion is that a Marcionite Church would be just as
Anti-Semitic as our history's Christianity. OK.
> Put it togeather for yourself.
>
> Perhaps a fresh perspective that's more acurate will give you the
> answers you seek....
>
> Gnasty
>
> And HOPING they don't like it....
Logan Ferree
Spiritualist
Logan Ferree
> Marcion _did_ establish an "alternate form of Christianity."
It just didn't win in the long run.
> The Marcionite Church was a big deal at the time, and a
> serious rival to Rome. So the question isn't just hypothetical.
> We can ask if Marcion and his followers were anti-Semitic.
> It's easy to see how anti-Judaism could slip into anti-Semitism.
> At least a few cases seem inevitable. But is there any
> evidence of them? Anti-Semitism in the early Church isn't hard
> to find. Where is it in Marcion's church?
Well, the argument was based on Marcion's editing out of Jesus's
Jewishness in the Gospels, as Luke is the least Jewish of the Gospels. In
addition, showing the Old Testament god as a flawed creator means that instead
of Jews following a false religion, but the right God, they are following a
false religion and the wrong God. That might turn anti-Judaism into
anti-Semitism. I admit, the line between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism is
easily crossed.
Logan Ferree
Spiritualist
Dolf Boek
to Plato's adelphos nomois? "Therefore let it be known to you brethren, that
through this man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by him
everyone who believes is justified from all things which you could not be
justified by the law of Moses. Beware therefore, lest what has been spoken
in the prophets come upon you: 'Behold, you despisers, marvel and perish;
For I work a work in your days, a work which you will by no means believe,
though one were to declare it to you.'" [Acts 14:38-41]
"Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this
world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in
the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the
foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a
sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto
the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them
which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the
wisdom of God." [1 Corinthians 1:20-24]
"Now to him who is able to establish you according to my Gospel and the
preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the Mystery which
was kept secret since the world began but now has been made manifest, and by
the prophetic Scriptures has been made know to all nations, according to the
commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith--to God,
alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen." [Romans
16:25-27]
When specific mention is made of understanding being given to the Law and
the Mystery, the reference is to the event and meaning of the Divine
Oracles-Logion: "And Moses went down from the mountain to the people, and he
said to them: 'Draw near; receive the ten words.'" [© 1994 The Order of
Saint Benedict, Aramaic Targum of Neofiti 1:Exodus 19:25]
Without further explanation, it would seem there is no semblance of truth to
what you are saying.
- dolf
"Logan Ferree" <lhfe...@roanoke.infi.net> wrote:
...As for Paul, well IIRC his writings didn't even say that Christ died on a
cross. What Paul does do is attack the Jewish Law.
[snipped for context]
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dolf Boek
Well, the argument was based on Marcion's editing out of Jesus's Jewishness
in the Gospels, as Luke is the least Jewish of the Gospels. In addition,
showing the Old Testament god as a flawed creator means that instead of Jews
following a false religion, but the right God, they are following a false
religion and the wrong God. That might turn anti-Judaism into
anti-Semitism. I admit, the line between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism is
easily crossed.
DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
Your attempts to redefine the roles of 'Judaism' and 'Semitism' under a
guise of pseudo-intellectual babble as historical analysis appears to
exhibit the character of 19th century Christians who are as such, implicated
in their holocaust: "'A heritage of anti-Semitism in Christianity' explained
the failure of most Christians to prevent the World War II Holocaust, German
Cardinal Ratzinger said in a newspaper this week" [Vatican City, The
Australian 30-31 December, 2000]
"This brings us to the consideration of the role of historical Church
antisemitism in the lead-up to the Shoah and the actual behavior of
Catholics during those terrible times. First of all a distinction is drawn
... between antisemitism, based on theories contrary to the constant
teaching of the Church on human equality, and anti-Judaism. The National
Socialist Regime, it is said, was a thoroughly modern neo-pagan regime whose
antisemitism had its roots outside Christianity. Then the right question is
asked "Whether the Nazi persecution of the Jews was not made easier by the
anti-Jewish prejudices imbedded in some Christian minds and hearts?"
The implication that while Christians have been guilty of anti-Judaism but
antisemitism is a contradiction of the teaching of the Church is dubious and
it is unfortunate that it is put forward in generalities that could well
mislead... There was indeed a change in the main emphases of antisemitism in
the late 19th century from a religious basis to a more secular prejudice
with a pseudo-racialist base. However can it be said that the latter was not
influenced by the long centuries of Church conditioning? The antisemitic
parties preaching the new ideology from the late 19th century often stressed
their Christian affiliations." [International Jewish Committee on
Interreligious Consultations Response to Vatican Document 'We Remember: A
Reflection on the Shoah' - http://www.virtual.co.il ]
- dolf
Moggin
> Well, the argument was based on Marcion's editing out of Jesus's
> Jewishness in the Gospels, as Luke is the least Jewish of the Gospels.
> In addition, showing the Old Testament god as a flawed creator means
> that instead of Jews following a false religion, but the right God,
> they are following a false religion and the wrong God. That might
> turn anti-Judaism into anti-Semitism. ...
Sure, that could happen. But I'm suggesting that we don't
have to consider this in the abstract. Marcion founded a
church -- a pretty damn big one. So if his thinking _did_ lead
to anti-Semitism, there could be evidence. I can show you
anti-Semitism in orthodox Christianity w/out any problem. Some
people argue it's even in the Gospel of John. But where is
the evidence of anti-Semitism -- not anti-Judaism -- in Marcion
or his church? I'm asking.
-- Moggin
Logan Ferree
> Sure, that could happen. But I'm suggesting that we don't
> have to consider this in the abstract. Marcion founded a
> church -- a pretty damn big one. So if his thinking _did_ lead
> to anti-Semitism, there could be evidence. I can show you
> anti-Semitism in orthodox Christianity w/out any problem. Some
> people argue it's even in the Gospel of John. But where is
> the evidence of anti-Semitism -- not anti-Judaism -- in Marcion
> or his church? I'm asking.
I don't have any archeological evidence handy to support the claim that
Marcion even had a church, let alone it was anti-Semitic.
Logan Ferree
Moggin
> I don't have any archeological evidence handy to support the claim
> that Marcion even had a church, let alone it was anti-Semitic.
I didn't ask for archeological evidence. I asked if there
was evidence, period. Your subject-line asks whether the
notion of Gnostic anti-Semitism is fact or fiction. If there's
no evidence that Marcion or the other Gnostics were
anti-Semites, there's your answer: fiction. If there _is_ any
evidence, I'd very much like to know what it is.
-- Moggin
Logan Ferree
I have found no evidence myself, but I am not expert on Marcion. That
is why I asked the people here.
Logan Ferree
Spiritualist
Dreamsnake
I am no expert on Marcion either, but I shall advance a hypothesis:
1. Marcion is known mainly through the patristic writings.
2. The Church Fathers focused on those elements of heretical
thinking that they found objectionable.
3. :. They would not have mentioned any aspects of the Marcionite
Church which were as anti-Semitic as they were at that point.
4. :. We have no way to tell.
The above actually responds to Moggin more than to you. Every
statement above should have a question mark next to it.
I guess my answer to you is: flip a coin, it's as good a way as any
to decide this.
Dreamsnake
Jeremy Reaban
Logan Ferree wrote in message <3AAA3374...@roanoke.infi.net>...
<snip>
> In
>addition, I figured that the alternate Christian church would view
the
>Jews not as evil, but ignorant. Does anyone have some light to shed
on
>this argument?
Honestly, I don't think it would matter, either way.
If you buy the mainstream christian theology, Jesus wanted to get
crucified, because it was that act which 'saved' humanity. (This is
best demonstrated by a skit on MadTV entitled "The Greatest Action
Story Ever Told", which was a cross between Terminator 2 and the Jesus
movie of the same name). So, the Jews weren't to blame, since Jesus
wanted it, and in fact, they should be praised. Because if they
didn't, then Jesus wouldn't have saved humanity.
But of course, that logic never seemd to make sense to those
mainstream christians that persecuted jews
Similarly, look at Islam. While there's no real reason for it, in
practice, they don't really get along with jews. While much is due to
the palestinians being evicted from their homeland, it's not just
that.
Logan Ferree
> Similarly, look at Islam. While there's no real reason for it, in
> practice, they don't really get along with jews. While much is due to
> the palestinians being evicted from their homeland, it's not just
> that.
The problem between Muslims and Jews is modern. In the past, the
relations between Muslims and Jews was one of peace and general respect
for each other. Most of it is due to the Palestinians being evicted from
their homeland, and the Wars between Israel and the Arab states that
followed. The rise in Arab nationalism this century has also contributed
to a general Anti-Everyone else in some Muslims.
Logan Ferree
Moggin
> I am no expert on Marcion either, but I shall advance a hypothesis:
> 1. Marcion is known mainly through the patristic writings.
> 2. The Church Fathers focused on those elements of heretical
> thinking that they found objectionable.
> 3. :. They would not have mentioned any aspects of the Marcionite
> Church which were as anti-Semitic as they were at that point.
> 4. :. We have no way to tell.
> The above actually responds to Moggin more than to you. Every
> statement above should have a question mark next to it.
If you're aiming this my way, then you must be replying to
a point I didn't make. I'm not giving an argument from
silence. That is, I'm not using the absence of evidence to say
that Marcion couldn't possibly have been anti-Semitic.
Tomorrow a shepherd wandering thru the hills might find a scrap
of parchment reading, "The Jews have stolen my cufflinks.
I'll hate them forever! Sincerely, Marcion." But is there any
evidence today that Marcion was anti-Semitic? To my
knowledge, no: there isn't. So claims he _was_ an anti-Semite
are baseless.
I'm open to correction on the lack of evidence. If anyone
has some to give, I'd be very interested. Just keep in mind
that we're talking about anti-Semitism, not merely anti-Judaism.
> I guess my answer to you is: flip a coin, it's as good a way as any
> to decide this.
I admit that I'm no good at math, but how does no evidence
of anti-Semitism add up to a fifty percent chance that
Marcion is an anti-Semite? Even "no way to tell" != equal odds.
-- Moggin
Dreamsnake
> Dreamsnake <ktre...@ou.edu>:
>
> > I am no expert on Marcion either, but I shall advance a hypothesis:
>
> > 1. Marcion is known mainly through the patristic writings.
> > 2. The Church Fathers focused on those elements of heretical
> > thinking that they found objectionable.
> > 3. :. They would not have mentioned any aspects of the Marcionite
> > Church which were as anti-Semitic as they were at that point.
> > 4. :. We have no way to tell.
>
> > The above actually responds to Moggin more than to you. Every
> > statement above should have a question mark next to it.
>
> If you're aiming this my way, then you must be replying to
> a point I didn't make. I'm not giving an argument from
> silence. That is, I'm not using the absence of evidence to say
> that Marcion couldn't possibly have been anti-Semitic.
It is the impression I got from your last post:
:>Your subject-line asks whether the
:>notion of Gnostic anti-Semitism is fact or fiction. If there's
:>no evidence that Marcion or the other Gnostics were
:>anti-Semites, there's your answer: fiction.
Maybe confusion arose over the term "fiction," which I interpreted
to mean "couldn't possibly." Did you mean, instead, a sentiment
such as "an unknown quantity"?
[...]
> > I guess my answer to you is: flip a coin, it's as good a way as any
> > to decide this.
>
> I admit that I'm no good at math, but how does no evidence
> of anti-Semitism add up to a fifty percent chance that
> Marcion is an anti-Semite? Even "no way to tell" != equal odds.
I do not know that it does add up to a fifty percent chance. All I
said was that it was "as good a way as any." Since I do not know
how to assign the odds, 50-50 sounded to me no less unreasonable
than, say, 30-70. And all this is stricly IMVHO, of course.
Dreamsnake
GiddyBoy
an expert on Marcion either, I would have to agree with you in that I do not
believe the church would be more antiSemitic had his teachings been more
accepted in mainstream. The Jewish factor was not really an important
element in the Macionite teaching.
--
Peace unto you...
Forever Seeking Truth
www.giddyboy.com
*************************************
"Logan Ferree" <lhfe...@roanoke.infi.net> wrote in message
news:3AAA3374...@roanoke.infi.net...
Gnasty
It pleases me to see that your diction and linguistic skills have
improved so over the last couple years, but I'm sorry to say that you
haven't progressed out of blind faith as much, I eould have thought the
two were linked more closely togeather.
> DOLF BOEK WROTE:
> There is no evidence within either the Old Testament or the New Testament writings to support your assertion concerning the Apostle Paul.
Well, DUH... no big surprise there.
Saul/Paul wasn't even alive when the Old Testament was written, and
most of the New Testament was either ghost written for or supervised by
Paul.
DOLF BORK SUMMARISES:
> Therefore it would appear your opinion is malformed...
Not as much as yours, my friend.
Don't take this to heart, but the man's dead, get over it.
Have you had the opportunity lately to actually read anything other
than the Bible ??
Say, oh, Philo
or Josephus
or anything by, say:
Prof. John Dominic Crossan (De Paul Univ.)
Prof. Hyam Maccoby (University of Leeds)
Prof. Michael Goulder (University of Birmingham)
Prof. Robert Eisenman (Cal State University, Long Beach)
Prof. Geza Hermes (University if Oxford)
Prof, Donald Hagner (Fuller Theological Seminary)
Prof. David Scholer (also from Fuller)
Prof. Donald Senior (Catholic Theological Union)
Prof. Karen King (Harvard)
Prof. Judith Perkins (St. Josephs College)
Prof. Stuart Love (Pepperdine)
Prof. Ronald Hock (University of Southern California)
Prof. Karen Torjesen (Clairmont College)
Prof. Francois Boyon (Harvard)
Prof. Dennis MacDonald (Clairmont College)
Prof. John Meier (CAtholic University)
Or perhaps
Asst. Prof. Christine Thomas (Universith od California, Santa Barbara)
Asst. Prof.Charlotte Fonrobert (University of Judaism)
Asst. Prof. Felix Just (Loyola Marymount)
Or even
Dr. J. Gordon Melton (Dir. Institute for the Study of American
Religion)
Dr. Yaffa Weisman (Hebrew Union Judaical College)
How about Father C. Bernard Ruffin, author of The Twelve
Or any of the myriad writings out there, like:
Jesus as they saw Him
or The Real Jesus Christ
or Jesus, the Alternative Biography
or Mythology and the Bible
or The Birth of Christianity, Reality and Myth
or The Forbidden Gospel
or Jesus Christ and Mythology
or Don't Know Much About the Bible
Or ANYthing that's not pro-Pauline ??
Saul/Paul was a traitor to the Jews, to Christs' Church, and to
Christianity, spreading a mock version of Christs' teachings.
Which had ZERO truth in it.
Paul was a late-comer, and an interloper.
His struggle with James (who was appointed the head of the Church by
Christ) was based on the FACT that he totally ignored Christs'
teachings, and INSISTED on spreading his OWN version, which James felt
was diluting the teachings of The Way, Christs' Church.
Saul/Paul and James had long drawn-out arguements over Saul/Pauls'
modifying Christs' teachings, and Saul/Paul even called Christs' chosen
Apostles "false brethren".
He purposely separated himself from, and changed the teachings of the
Christian Doctrine, and contrary to Christs' teachings specifically.
Saul/Pauls' changes were not only theological, but political as well,
and in fact, Saul/Paul himself may have been directly responsible for
injecting anti-semetic opinionism into his new form of 'Christianity',
as discussed in another thread here at ARG.
Saul/Pauls' efforts were directed at separating the Jewish and
non-Jewish factions developing over Christianity, and mostly made up to
fit his needs at the time.
Perhaps Saul/Paul thought his non-Jewish version of Christianity would
be more acceptable to Rome, but his biggest mistake was turning an
earthly Messiah into a Devine Godhead.
Christ wasn't even considered 'Devine' until Matthiew decided to
include a prophecy by Isiah in his writings.
Christ was just one of THOUSANDS of self-provlaimed Messiahs that were
crucified in those days, to keep control over the Pax Romana.
Most of Christs Apostles were relatives, James was His brother, as was
Jude. John the Baptist was his cousin, and Jude Thaddius his mothers
cousin.
He taught RADICAL disention to the people, He had come to proclaim the
coming of GOD and the ANGELS, as outlined by the War Scrolls, and to
bring back into the fold the Jews that had fallen by the wayside before
said comming occured, and not that HE should be worshipped, but
Saul/Paul found he had a much more palitable story if Christ was Devine
and Resurrected.
Which was NOTHING like what Christ taught.
In Saul/Pauls' own words, he was a lawkeeper to the lawkeepers. a
lawbreaker to the lawbreakers, a Jew to the Jew, a Greek to the Greeks,
and he even claimed Roman citizenship once to keep from being beaten by
the crowd in the Temple.
But, you can read most of this yourself, in the Gospels and
Corinthians.
I'm surprised Dolf, I thought you'd have something more valid to
say....
Dolf Boek
should not now seek your superficial approval.
Although with TELOS (122J 3W 1D - Saturday, 1 Jan 2000) = ARCH (0J 0W 0D) +
C^2 I have more than sufficient evidences as the tangibility of faith
(ek-pistis)
But by all means stick to the topic at hand...
- dolf
"Gnasty" <Gna...@verizon.net> wrote: in message
news:3AB3A3...@verizon.net...
Gnasty
> Your opinion is already recognised as unsubstantial and hence valueless--I should not now seek your superficial approval.
Ok, I recind any and all approval of your blathering drivel.
Sorry to have been polite, I'll try and keep that in check from now
on.
As for my statements being valueless and unsubstantial, can you get
any one else to validate that opinion, or is it just a stand alone
statement ??
Certainly you don't think that your one opinion carries any more
weight here than anyone elses' ??
Judging from the rhonchus responses you get here @ ARG, I'd say it was
more that you are the unsubstantial poster.
As I run a Church with over 600 paritioners, and have for several
years, and am the Senior Minister Protempore, I'd also say that it seems
my statements and sermons are considerably more 'valuable' than those
you've managed to accomplish with your keyboard.
Or do you consider yourself Lewes in-waiting here at ARG ??
The gyst of the subject is that IF one (and that would include you)
believes in Pauline Christianity, they are a fool, and know not that the
Church is the great whore that all men shall commit fornication with.
Looks like you've been hocking gobs for Jesus for a long time.
As for 'sticking to the subject', I think I've made a fairly clear set
of statements, which I see you've not the ability to answer without
attempting to throw in the classic curve.
I see your best writing style is still retortion, and you are still
incapable of justifying the many blank spots in your belief structure.
Can you refute any of my previous statements that Christ was little
more than an eponym ??
How's that ??
Better ??
Dolf Boek
The gyst of the subject is that IF one (and that would include you) believes
in Pauline Christianity, they are a fool, and know not that the Church is
context]
DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
It is to Aegidius of Viterbo that the scribal colophon in the 1499-1504 CE
edition of the Aramaic Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy is believed dedicated
and perhaps by whom references to idols within the [Deuteronomy 4:1-26] text
were eliminated by censored. He was by 1497 a Master of Theology and later
became vicar general of the Augustinians in 1506; Prior General in 1507, and
Cardinal in 1517. John Reuchin's book on the Mirific Word was first
published at Basle in the year 1495 and Tubingen in 1514. The work, regarded
as a miracle of heavenly wisdom, sought to place the Christian Kabbalah
system in the center of old heathen philosophies and considered that many of
the doctrines of Pythagoras and Plato as having been taken from and not
introduced into the wisdom of the Kabbalah.
Being upon this occasion chief of the Austin Friars, Aegidius once wrote of
Reuchin, that he "'had blessed him and all mortals by his works.' Philip
Beroaldus, the younger, wrote to him, 'Pope Leo X. has read you Pythagorean
book, as he reads all good books, greedily; then it was read by Cardinal
de'Medici, and I am expecting next to have my turn.' This book, which had
been read by the Pope himself with eager pleasure, was a wonder of the day,
and was in the most perfect unison with the whole tone of Aggripa's mind; he
really understood it deeply, it was most dear to him as a theosophist, and
he was not to be blamed if he felt, also that of all the books in the world
there was none of which the exposition would so fully serve his purpose of
displaying the extent and depth of his own store of knowledge." [Henry
Cornelius Agrippa, The Philosophy of Nautral Magic - Symbol of the Universal
Spirit of Nature, p 234]
Gnasty
From the depths of the Byzantine Empire came little of lasting value
that the Turks did not distroy - Byzantine art, and perhaps some writ
carried thru even today by isolated Monistaries is about it.
The Naturalism and Humanism of Greece and Rome had influenced Early
Christian writ as much as their archetecture, and from the domed
Byzantine archetecture said to both draw and contain the Sophia during
liturgical ceremonies to the Greek practice of separation of the Mass to
intensify the Mystery of the manifestation of the Devinity, little more
than the Mosaic structures with their heiratic frontal poses changed.
While we can not compare these examples to an assumed deeper
understanding of archaic writ, it does indicate the stoic nature of the
period, and serves to illustrate the failure to progress into a greater
diversification, much less comprehension, and therefor, is comparitive,
but only in that it also illustrates a similar social failure in their
understanding(s).
To say that writ from one era (such as the Augustinians) comprised a
greater understanding, and to use that to compare such as Austin Canons
with earlier second century writ is like stating that Luther was more
correct than Plato, and I can prove it with the dictionary.
The two just don't equate.
Once again, your attempt to curve the subject into an inane response
has produced little, if any, relative comparitive value.
I can quote from the Pristis Sophiensciems, but if you have either no
access to or little knowledge of it, I could run you around in circles,
much like you try to do when faced with straight fact you don't have an
answer to.
Your ability to access archaic writ has nothing what so ever to do
with the subject at hand, it only serves, once again, to avoid a direct
response.
But here's something you may find interesting, a lillte bit of Gnostic
wisdom I believe it to be in reference to you, and those like you, who
have access to theological materials, but fail to comprehend more than
the words:
"Guard the Mysteries for me, and for the Sons of my house."
(In other words, cast not yout pearls before Dolf)
Exerpt from a collection of Logoi:
Texte und Untersuchungen
Agrapha: Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente
Published by:
Resh
1889
(Parenthetical addenum is mine)
Remember -
What ye preach with words before people, do ye in deeds before every
man.
Dolf Boek
To say that writ from one era (such as the Augustinians) comprised a greater
understanding, and to use that to compare such as Austin Canons with earlier
second century writ is like stating that Luther was more correct than Plato,
and I can prove it with the dictionary.
Once again, your attempt to curve the subject into an inane response has
produced little, if any, relative comparitive value.
I can quote from the Pristis Sophiensciems, but if you have either no access
to or little knowledge of it, I could run you around in circles, much like
you try to do when faced with straight fact you don't have an answer to.
Your ability to access archaic writ has nothing what so ever to do with the
subject at hand, it only serves, once again, to avoid a direct response.
[snipped for context]
DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
I'm not arguing on the basis of creedal relativism as continuing
antinomianism by the Christian Church, but rather its origins. Given the
Jewish nation's past sin concerning the Golden Calf, whether we can assert
with confidence that the doctrines of Pythagoras and Plato and hence those
of the Christian Church, have themselves been taken from and not introduced
into this wisdom which later became known as the Kabbalah--And hence are no
different to the paganism of Athens to which the Apostle Paul attests: "Now
this I say lest anyone should deceive-paralogizomai you with persuasive
words. For though I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit,
rejoicing to see your good order and the steadfastness of your faith in
Christ. As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in
Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have
been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. Beware lest anyone cheat you
through philosophy-philosophica and empty-kenos deceit-apate, according to
the tradition of men, according to the basic-stoicheion
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/lexicon/stoicheion.html
principles-kosmos http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/lexicon/kosmos.html
of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells-katoikeo
all-pas the fullness-pleroma of the Godhead-theotes bodily-somatikos; and
you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power."
[Colossians 2:4-10]
"He called them together with the workers of similar occupation, and said:
'Men, you know that we have our prosperity by this trade. Moreover you see
and hear that not only at Ephesus, but throughout almost all Asia, this Paul
has persuaded and turned away many people, saying that they are not gods
which are made with hands. So not only is this trade of ours in danger of
falling into disrepute, but also the temple of the great goddess Diana may
be despised and her magnificence destroyed, whom all Asia and the world
worship.' [Acts 19:25-27]
When first Greek studies were revived, the monks commonly regarded them as
essentially adverse to Roman interests, and the very language seemed to them
to infected with the plague of heresy. In the Netherlands it became almost a
proverb with them that to be known for a grammarian was to be reputed
heretic. Not seldom, indeed, in later times, has John Reuchlin (born 1454),
who, for his Greek and Hebrew scholarship was called, after the manner of
his day, the Phoenix of the Germans, and who was the object of an ardent
hero worship to men like Henry Cornelius Agrippa, been called also the
Father of the Reformation.
Certainly Luther, Erasmus, and Melancthan had instruction from him. It was,
Schwartzerd had been taught to call himself Melancthon; and many will
remember how, after his death, Erasmus, in a pleasant dialog, raised his old
friend to the rank of saint, and prayed to him, 'Oh, holy soul, be
favourable to the languages; be favourable to those that love honorers of
the languages; be propitious to the sacred tongues.' But Reuchlin never
passed himself off as a reformer beyond the detestation of the vices of the
priesthood [Henry Cornelius Agrippa, The Philosophy of Natural Magic -
Symbol of the Universal Spirit of Nature, 1533 CE, p 227]
Reuchlin promulgated widely his Kabbalistic Art, and in 1517 articulated it
by the notion popularly held amongst the Church Fathers, that when "God
created the heaven and earth", it was allegorically interpreted to mean
spirit and matter. Consistent with the views of bi-polar animistic belief
held amongst primative religions, the spirit was thought comprised of
transcendent heirarchies of angelic and other intelligent agencies, as
ministers by whom the ways of man were considered influenced.
"Magic," he said, "dealt with evil spirits, but the true Kabbalah only with
the good." Doubtlessly he believed in astrology and so too Luther and
Melancthon. However Giovanni Pico di Miranola at Florence, whilst adopting
the Kabbalah, remained singular in his hostility to a belief in the
influences of the stars. His own faith in Kabbalism, Reuchlin enforced
thusly: "God, out of love to his people, has revealed the hidden mysteries
to some of them, and these could find in the dead letters the living spirit.
For Scripture consists of single letters, visible signs, which stand in a
certain connection with the angels, as celestial and spiritual emanations
from God. By the pronunciation of the one, the others are affected; but with
a true Kabbalist, who penetrates the whole connection of the earthly with
the heavenly, these signs, rightly placed in connection with each, are a way
of putting him into immediate union with the spirits, who through that are
bound to satisfy his wishes." [Agrippa, p 256]
This kind of belief, which was derived also from the Alexandrian Platonists
led to the development of a spiritual Kabbalism by which such Christians as
Reuchlin and Agrippa profited. It connected them by a strong link with the
divine essence, and they, feeling perhaps more distinctly than their
neighbors that they were partakers of the Divine Nature, and might, by
striving after purity of soul and body win their way to a state of spiritual
happiness and power, cut themselves off from all communion with the
sensuality that had become the scandal of the Church of Rome, and keenly
perceived, as they expressed strongly, their sense of the degraded habits of
the priests. Detaching their search into the mysteries of the universe from
all fear of this kind, the members of the secret societies towards the close
of the sixteenth century, developed into the form of brotherhoods as
Rosicrucians: Physician, Theosophist and Chemists. As that to which
Cornelius belonged, he gathered whatever fruit he could from the forbidden
tree, and obtained mutal benefit by frank exchange of information. Cornelius
had already, by incessant search, collected notes for a complete treatise
upon magic, and of these not a few were obtained from John Rechhlin's
Hebrew-Christian way of using the Kabbalah. [Agripa, p 229-230]
Though often immersed with mystical errors, it was out of this renaissance
for Greek and Hebrew literature, that this form of spiritualism entered into
strife with the Ecclesiastical Authorities and it was in this way that the
Christian Kabbalists assisted in the labors of the Reformation and their
more vital attacks which followed. [pp 243-244, 226]
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/particular.html#KABBALAH
I look forward to you sustaining your discourse with historical facts rather
than simply a vain opinion.
Gnasty
While it is unusual for me to see you speak in terms using trancendant
philosophy rather than attempt to carry discourse with 25 cent words, I
will play your little game, altho I refuse to exscind my information
like you do, rather I prefer to contain my response(s) within historical
fact and or evidence(s).
HOWEVER: Just because there are some historical parchments attesting
to the veracity of some belief structures, that does NOT verificate the
material, you will HAVE to show ME more than that.
As I'm sure you're aware, often times ones' search(es) turn up
antiquated and archaic statement(s) that, while capable of attesting to
their age, do NOT have the ability to authenticate their veracity.
In other words, sometimes you have a very old fake.
Or worse, an ancient falshood possibly purported on the locals that
found its' way thru time, was perhaps accepted over and over again, but
none the less, is still untrue.
So it is with scripture as well, and I'm sure you can understand and
appreciate that.
Often times, one discovers archaic writ having illusory value, and
remiss of validity , where structural intonation and comprehension of
the materials would have provided a more acurate view of the
information, rather than allowing for random interpretation and/or
assumption of statement.
Such as the case with the Gospels, which, during their time period,
were used much like what we use magazines today, and were repleated with
artistic embelishment rather than authenticated fact.
For example, NONE of the 36 'miracles' Christ performed were EVER
verified, nor were they even written about other than in the Bible,
altho Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Old Church Slavonic, Aramaic and several
other of the less popular Semetic languages were extant during the time
in question (Egyptian, Etruscan, Hittite, Carpathic, Hualula, Akkadian,
Cirilic, et. al..).
So it is with the information I am about to impart to you, and while
I grant you there are obvious partialities contained within, it goes a
long way to make my point.
Herein is the material:
...................................................
Text from Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, pp. 148-154:
...................................................
(Please note: all parenthetical addenum is mine)
In the (Jewish) year 3671 (about 6 b.c.) in the days of King
Jannaeus, a great misfortune befell Israel, when there arose a certain
disreputable man of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Joseph Pandera.
He lived at Bethlehem, in Judah.
Near his house dwelt a widow and her lovely and chaste daughter named
Miriam.
(Not 'Mary' - the only 'Mary' in this story was Mary Magdalene,
Yehoshua's wife).
Miriam was betrothed to Yohanan, of the royal house of David, a man
learned in the Torah and God-fearing.
At the close of a certain Sabbath, Joseph Pandera, attractive and
like a warrior in appearance, having gazed lustfully upon Miriam,
knocked upon the door of her room and betrayed her by pretending that
he was her betrothed husband, Yohanan.
Even so, she was amazed at this improper conduct and submitted
only against her will. *
Thereafter, when Yohanan came to her, Miriam expressed astonishment
at behavior so foreign to his character.
It was thus that they both came to know the crime of Joseph Pandera
and the terrible mistake on the part of Miriam.
Whereupon Yohanan went to Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah and related to
him the tragic seduction.
Lacking witnesses required for the punishment of Joseph Pandera, and
Miriam being with child, Yohanan (Mariams' betrothed) left for
Babylonia.
Miriam gave birth to a son and named him Yehoshua, after her brother.
This name later deteriorated to Yeshu.
On the eighth day he was circumcised.
When he was old enough the lad was taken by Miriam to the house of
study to be instructed in the Jewish tradition.
One day Yeshu walked in front of the Sages with his head uncovered,
showing shameful disrespect.
At this, the discussion arose as to whether this behavior did not
truly indicate that Yeshu was an illegitimate child and the son of a
niddah.
[My note: a niddah was used in reference to a prostitute, also a
derogatory term used in reference to any female who was part of one
of the many Goddess cults, who were usually sexually promiscuous,
of which Mary Magdalene belonged to one of until she met Jehoshua].
Moreover, the story tells that while the rabbis were discussing the
Tractate Nezikin, he gave his own impudent interpretation of the law
and in an ensuing debate he held that Moses could not be the greatest
of the prophets if he had to receive counsel from Jethro.
This led to further inquiry as to the antecedents of Yeshu, and it
was discovered through Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah that he was the
illegitimate son of Joseph Pandera.
Miriam admitted it.
After this became known, it was necessary for Yeshu to flee to Upper
Galilee.
After King Jannaeus, his wife Helene ruled over all Israel.
In the Temple was to be found the Foundation Stone on which were
engraven the letters of God's Ineffable Name.
Whoever learned the secret of the Name and its use would be able to
do whatever he wished.
Therefore, the Sages took measures so that no one should gain this
knowledge.
Lions of brass were bound to two iron pillars at the gate of the
place of burnt offerings.
Should anyone enter and learn the Name, when he left the lions would
roar at him and immediately the valuable secret would be forgotten.
Yeshu came and learned the letters of the Name; he wrote them upon
the parchment which he placed in an open cut on his thigh [more likely a
small coin bag] and then drew the flesh over the parchment.
As he left, the lions roared and he forgot the secret.
But when he came to his house he reopened the cut in his flesh with
a knife an lifted out the writing.
Then he remembered and obtained the use of the letters.
He gathered about himself three hundred and ten young men of Israel
and accused those who spoke ill of his birth of being people who
desired greatness and power for themselves.
Yeshu proclaimed, "I am the Messiah; and concerning me Isaiah
prophesied and said, 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel.'"
He quoted other messianic texts, insisting, "David my ancestor
prophesied concerning me: 'The Lord said to me, thou art my son, this
day have I begotten thee.'"
The insurgents with him replied that if Yeshu was the Messiah he
should give them a convincing sign.
They therefore, brought to him a lame man, who had never walked.
Yeshu spoke over the man the letters of the Ineffable Name, and the
leper was healed.
Thereupon, they (the 310 followers) worshipped him as the Messiah,
Son of the Highest.
When word of these happenings came to Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin
decided to bring about the capture of Yeshu.
They sent messengers, Annanui and Ahaziah, who, pretending to be his
disciple, said that they brought him an invitation from the leaders
of Jerusalem to visit them.
Yeshu consented on condition the members of the Sanhedrin receive
him as a lord.
He started out toward Jerusalem and, arriving at Knob, acquired an
ass on which he rode into Jerusalem, as a fulfillment of the prophecy
of Zechariah.
The Sages bound him and led him before Queen Helene, with the
accusation:
"This man is a sorcerer and entices everyone."
Yeshu replied, "The prophets long ago prophesied my coming: 'And
there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,' and I am he;
but as for them, Scripture says 'Blessed is the man that walketh not
in the counsel of the ungodly.'"
Queen Helene asked the Sages: "What he says, is it in your Torah?"
They replied: "It is in our Torah, but it is not applicable to him,
for it is in Scripture: 'And that prophet which shall presume to speak
a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak or that
shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.'
He has not fulfilled the signs and conditions of the Messiah."
Yeshu spoke up: "Madam, I am the Messiah and I revive the dead."
A dead body was brought in; he pronounced the letters of the Ineffable
Name and the corpse came to life.
The Queen was greatly moved and said: "This is a true sign."
She reprimanded the Sages and sent them humiliated from her presence.
Yeshu's dissident followers increased and there was controversy in
Israel.
Yeshu went to Upper Galilee. the Sages came before the Queen,
complaining that Yeshu practiced sorcery and was leading everyone
astray.
Therefore she sent Annanui and Ahaziah to fetch him.
They found him in Upper Galilee, proclaiming himself the Son of God.
When they tried to take him there was a struggle, but Yeshu said to
the men of Upper Galilee:
"Wage no battle."
He would prove himself by the power which came to him from his
Father in heaven.
He spoke the Ineffable Name over the birds of clay and they flew
into the air.
He spoke the same letters over a millstone that had been placed upon
the waters.
He sat in it and it floated like a boat.
When they saw this the people marveled. At the behest of Yeshu, the
emissaries departed and reported these wonders to the Queen.
She trembled with astonishment.
Then the Sages selected a man named Judah Iskarioto
[Judas the Iskarioti] and brought him to the Sanctuary where he learned
the letters of the Ineffable Name as Yeshu had done.
When Yeshu was summoned before the queen, this time there were
present also the Sages and Judah Iskarioto.
Yeshu said: "It is spoken of me, 'I will ascend into heaven.'"
He lifted his arms like the wings of an eagle and he flew between
heaven and earth, to the amazement of everyone.
The elders asked Iskarioto to do likewise.
He did, and flew toward heaven. Iskarioto attempted to force Yeshu
down to earth but neither one of the two could prevail against the
other for both had the use of the Ineffable Name.
However, Iskarioto defiled Yeshu, so that they both lost their power
and fell down to the earth, and in their condition of defilement the
letters of the Ineffable Name escaped from them.
Because of this deed of Judah they weep on the eve of the birth of
Yeshu.
Yeshu was seized.
His head was covered with a garment and he was smitten with
pomegranate staves; but he could do nothing, for he no longer had the
Ineffable Name.
Yeshu was taken prisoner to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound
him to a pillar.
To allay his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink.
On his head they set a crown of thorns.
There was strife and wrangling between the elders and the unrestrained
followers of Yeshu, as a result of which the followers escaped with
Yeshu to the region of Antioch; there Yeshu remained until the eve of
the Passover.
Yeshu then resolved to go the Temple to acquire again the secret of
the Name.
That year the Passover came on a Sabbath day.
On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu, accompanied by his disciples,
came to Jerusalem riding upon an ass.
Many bowed down before him.
He entered the Temple with his three hundred and ten followers.
One of them, Judah Iskarioto apprised the Sages that Yeshu was to
be found in the Temple, that the disciples had taken a vow by the Ten
Commandments not to reveal his identity but that he would point him
out by bowing to him.
So it was done and Yeshu was seized.
Asked his name, he replied to the question by several times giving
the names Mattai, Nakki, Buni, Netzer, each time with a verse quoted
by him and a counter-verse by the Sages.
Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover
and of the Sabbath.
When they tried to hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had
possessed the power he had pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no
tree should hold him.
He had failed to pronounce the prohibition over the carob-stalk, for
it was a plant more than a tree, and on it he was hanged until the hour
for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture, "His body shall
not remain all night upon the tree."
They buried him outside the city.
On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene
with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that
he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied.
Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he
had been buried.
A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his
garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into
the garden.
Queen Helene demanded, on threat of a severe penalty, that the body
of Yeshu be shown to her within a period of three days.
There was a great distress.
When the keeper of the garden saw Rabbi Tanhuma walking in the field
and lamenting over the ultimatum of the Queen, the gardener related
what he had done, in order that Yeshu's followers should not steal the
body and then claim that he had ascended into heaven.
The Sages removed the body, tied it to the tail of a horse and
transported it to the Queen, with the words: "This is Yeshu who is
said to have ascended to heaven."
Realizing that Yeshu was a false prophet who enticed the people and
led them astray, she mocked the followers but praised the Sages.
The disciples went out among the nations--three went to the mountains
of Ararat, three to Armenia, three to Rome and three to the kingdoms
buy the sea,
They deluded the people, but ultimately they were slain.
The erring followers amongst Israel said: "You have slain the Messiah
of the Lord."
The Israelites answered: "You have believed in a false prophet."
There was endless strife and discord for thirty years.
The Sages desired to separate from Israel those who continued to
claim Yeshu as the Messiah, and they called upon a greatly learned man,
Simeon Kepha, for help.
Simeon went to Antioch, main city of the Nazarenes and proclaimed to
them: "I am the disciple of Yeshu. He has sent me to show you the way. I
will give you a sign as Yeshu has done."
Simeon, having gained the secret of the Ineffable Name, healed a
leper and a lame man by means of it and thus found acceptance as a
true disciple.
He told them that Yeshu was in heaven, at the right hand of his
Father, in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1.
He added that Yeshu desired that they separate themselves from the
Jews and no longer follow their practices, as Isaiah had said, "Your
new moons and your feasts my soul abhorreth."
They were now to observe the first day of the week instead of the
seventh, the Resurrection instead of the Passover, the Ascension into
Heaven instead of the Feast of Weeks, the finding of the Cross instead
of the New Year, the Feast of the Circumcision instead of the Day of
Atonement, the New Year instead of Chanukah; they were to be
indifferent with regard to circumcision and the dietary laws.
Also they were to follow the teaching of turning the right if
smitten on the left and the meek acceptance of suffering.
All these new ordinances which Simeon Kepha taught them were really
meant to separate these Nazarenes from the people of Israel and to bring
the internal strife to an end.
..........................fin.........................
So - while I agree that the above information is improperly translated
but is heavily tainted in favor of the Jewish position, and most of the
information seems to be in response to the hatred which is still extant
today, you must admit, this CERTAINLY goes a long way to showing that
there IS more than 'just' Chriatian records of the events of the time
DURING the time in question.
Flavius and Phylo show that.
AND showing that there was more than one opinion on the validity of
Christ having been THE Son of God.
DURING the time the claim was asserted.
Pauline Christianity didn't stress "Christs'" teachings, it
depended exclusively on "Christs" having risen, which he didn't.
"Christ" (Yehoshua) was not a product of Devine Birth, he was a
bastard son of a young girl named Miriam, born into a normal family,
circumcised on the eighth day, raised BY Jews to BE Jewish, and he and
his followers were only one of MANY similar cults of the time.
He was the step-son of Joseph, and one of 5 boys and several girls in
the family unit.
As he grew, his actions caused quite a stir, and eventually brought
about his death.
In other words, at best, he was a Mage, with a following.
Yehoshua never claimed to be the "only" Son of God, as a JEW he was
raised to believe we are ALL children of God, thus we are ALL 'Sons
(and Daughters) of God'.
He was only one of MANY Charismatic Leaders of the day, like Simon the
Mage and Saul/Paul.
All be it a well remembered one, but only one of many, none the less.
The Romans crucified THOUSANDS of these 'Devinely Inspired Leaders'
in those days, of which "Christ" was only another one of.
Christianity (not as Saul/Paul represented it, but in reality) was a
JEWISH RADICAL MOVEMENT, and had NOTHING what-so-ever to do with
non-Jews worshipping a risen God.
"For we know that salvation is of the Jews...."
It was a Fundamental Jewish Movement.
Saul/Paul was a self-appointed and self-proclaimed "Christian" that
was infamous for beating and killing "Christians" prior to his
convergence with 'Christianity'.
He claimed, while on the way to Dimascus to eliminate more
"Christians" (radical Jews that had fallen by the wayside) that he was
'visited' by the spirit of "Jesus", who wouldn't otherwise have been
refered to as 'the Christ' until the beginnings of the fourth century.
As we now know that there WAS no "Jesus Christ", we can easily see
that Saul/Paul was a liar and a scam artist.
But not quite as foolish as those he tricked into following his
version of Christianity.
After Saul/Paul got in an arguement with James (the REAL leader of
'the Way', chosen by Jehoshua to succede him) for telling Jews they
didn't have to keep the Law, get circumcized, or eat kosher food
anymore, he was run off, and turned his attention on the non-jewish
community.
A good plan, those ignorant of the Law who wouldn't know the
difference.
It seems he and James got into this great arguement over his methods
he used to 'convert' non Jews, many times, and Saul/Paul and James had
reached an agreement about what he would and wouldn't represent as
being the new Way, an agreement Saul/Paul had broken, over and over
again, until, at last, he was thrown out of the Temples, and
excommunicated from Judaeism.
He was still trying to identify himself with the original movement,
so as to gain credibility, and even tried to BUY his way back in, by
offering James tithes from his travels, which James refused.
He was challenged by James to instead goto the Temple and partake in
Jewish rites, thus showing people he was still a Jew at heart, a
challenge which he accepted, but soon discovered he was in deep doo-doo
when he stepped into the Temple and they recognized him as the HERITIC
he was and attacked him.
Whereupon he shouted out for protection from the Roman Army standing
nearby, claiming he was a ROMAN CITIZEN to gain protection from them.
I guess he was a Roman to the Romans too.
It was at THAT point he became the leader of a NEW movement
having NOTHING AT ALL what-so-ever to do with Jesus' teachings, and
everything to do with the "fact" that Yehoshua ("Jesus") had been
crucified and had risen.
THAT was the turning point whereupon Jesus became "The Christ" and
Christ became devine.
SO...
We can EASILY see how Saul/Paul, a LIAR, a HERITIC, and a TRAITOR to
his own kind, created the whole thing thru lies and deceit to a group
of non-Jews who wouldn't have known the difference between "Christ" and
toilet paper.
Pauline Christianity wouldn't even have become a practice if the
Nicean Council hadn't ramdomly chosen IT over the other versions as a
'standard' to present to Constantine.
Who was another non-Christian, I'd like to point out.
If it wasn't for the fact that the Nicean Council was COMMANDED to
pick one of the many versions of Christianity going on at the time,
and to set it as a standard (by order of Constantine), Pauline
Christianity would have been gone like dust in the wind.
Just like Ben Chokbas' following.
Just like Simon the Mages' following.
Just like the MANY other leaders of the MANY other versions of
Messianic Salvation that existed in those days.
I reiterate:
Pauline Christianity is a LIE.
Gnasty
And HOPING they don't like it....
* I didn't want to break up the flow of the text at that point, but
note that it is CONSIDERED by some that Mariam was a 'town wife' at the
time, that being a loose moraled single female willing to take care of
anyone that had the 'need' for a female.
Dolf Boek
While it is unusual for me to see you speak in terms using trancendant
philosophy rather than attempt to carry discourse with 25 cent words, I will
play your little game, altho I refuse to exscind my information like you
do, rather I prefer to contain my response(s) within historical fact and or
evidence(s).
HOWEVER: Just because there are some historical parchments attesting to the
veracity of some belief structures, that does NOT verificate the material,
you will HAVE to show ME more than that.
[snipped for context]
DOFL BOEK RESPONDS:
It would seem apparent that is too difficult for you to engage your
intellect in systemmatic theology beyond resorting to gnostic fiction...
The historical proof of Jesus of Nazareth is, according to the Apostle Paul
(himself an eminent Torah Philosopher), to be found in the Torah: "...'But
we desire to hear from you what you think; for concerning this sect, we know
that it is spoken against everywhere.' So when they had appointed him a day,
many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified
of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of
Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening." [Acts 28:22-23; cf
Romans 16:25-27]
The Figure of the Enneagram is formed by linking the two 'sacred cosmic
fundamental laws' of the Triamasikamno (Trinity) and the
Heptaparaparschinoch (Sevenness). The former consists of the powers
Surp-Ortheor (Affirmation: Father), Surp-Skiros (Negation: Son) and
Surp-Athanatos (Reconciliation: Holy Spirit). The Enneagram is perpetual
motion (...) It is also the philosopher's stone of the alchemists.
[Alexander Roob, The Hermetic Museum - Alchemy & Mysticism, p 656]
Foundation (in a new movement) - Theology 22/7 = 3.1428571 ... [3W 1D] as
inner harmony of the 9 Gods Ennead/On-'being'; 'ab='Father of an Individual'
as first word in the Hebrew Lexicon of 22 Letters...
6,000 years = Law @ Sinai [50J] + Tetractys [72J] + pi [3W 1D]
6,000 years = Law @ Sinai [50J] + 12 x King David's Creation Reprise [6J] +
pi [3W 1D]
6,000 years (Saturday, 1 January, 2000) = 120J + 120 [120/36 = 33 1/3財
Solar Eclipse Monday, 25 December, 2000
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/boomerang.html#MICRO
METEMPHYSCOSIS - "Whence Plato, being asked by some one, 'What is
philosophy?' replied, 'It is a separation of soul from body.'" [Hippolytus,
Refutation of All Heresies, Book 6, Chapter 20]
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/lexicon/pistis.html
- dolf
GiddyBoy
--
Peace unto you...
Forever Seeking Truth
www.giddyboy.com
*************************************
"Dolf Boek" <dolf...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:7tAt6.36926$v5.8...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Gnasty
> DOFL BOEK RESPONDS:
> It would seem apparent that is too difficult for you to engage your
> intellect in systemmatic theology beyond resorting to gnostic fiction...
True Intellectual Comprehension is devoid of systematic pre-concieved
theology, and deals in facts, not fiction.
If we're to converse further, I would suggest we at least stick to
facts, not theosophical assumptions.
> The historical proof of Jesus of Nazareth is, according to the Apostle Paul (himself an eminent Torah Philosopher), to be found in the Torah:
Once again, you rely on Saul/Paul, who claimed to be a Lawbreaker to
the Lawbreakers, a Lawkeeper to the Lawkeepers, a Jew to the Jews, a
Greek to the Greeks, and even a Roman to the Roman guards to save his
ass in the Temple.
If this guy didn't have MPD, nobody ever has.
How is it that you DEPEND on someone who injected himself into
Christianity with ficticious factoids that no one could prove even back
then about his having a visitation, and HOW can you hold it to be Gospel
Truth ??
Someone that tried to BUY his way in to Christianity, but was finally
not only rejected by James, but also excommunicated from his own people
for HERACY ??
Wouldn't an ENEMA serve you better ??
One more time - back to basics:
The episcopate of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch (such as it
was) was a purposful usurpation of the Old Testament Priesthood, and
litterally a continuation of Justin the Martyr, but his Doctrine of
incarnation was at best a distortion of Vishmu & the doctrine of the
resurection of the body.
Even Marcion saw this as he formulated his first Canon.
Iraeneus also attacked the Way, in an effort to convert it to
non-judaeistic philosophy when he formulated a web of dogma calculated
to alienate sectarian Christians (such as Gnostic Christians like Jesus
was), and separate them as heritics.
Origen of Alexandra was more correct as he attempted to place Jesus'
soul back with all souls in philosophical adjustments by allowing that
we all have pre-existance and reincarnation and his doctrine of cause
and effect.
Even Manchean Christianity challenged orthodox Christianity with Light
and Darkness, and took YEARS to quash by the Papacy, which possibly
wouldn't have been existant if it weren't for the Nicean Council and
Constantines' efforts to homogenize and unify Christianity into one
solid form.
In fact, it wasn't until then that Christ became God Eternal.
After that, Augustine formulated the dogmas of Original Sin, infant
damnation (damn him !) and predestination, and at this point
pre-existance and reincarnation start being denied.
Augustine, with his psychological neurosis rooted in guilt set dogma
that Christians STILL to this day emotionally flagellate themselves for
as they take his sanctimonioius heracies and remasticated orthadox
truths.
Inject the pre-existant theory, and vicarious attonement in place of
expiation of sin by reincarnation, and you've just about got the whole
of Christianity today.
Surely even you can comprehend that much.
I aver emphatically that Saul/Paul was a liar and an interloper, and
your retort is to quote Saul/Paul and Acts.
O.K..
Here's a thought you might encapsulate and digest:
"If we all die - and goto hell - who YOU gonna blame ??"
Brother Dave Gardner
Religious Comedian
1989
In other words Dolf - I wouldn't bet MY imortal soul on vanity and the
words of MAN.
The Bible has taught you nothing that you did not already know, but
the CHURCH has taught you to sit up and genufleck....
Dolf Boek
True Intellectual Comprehension is devoid of systematic pre-concieved
theology, and deals in facts, not fiction.
[snipped for context]
DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
I bet you are pleased, that at least conceptually, the thrice darkness of
your refridgerator has a light that goes on automatically for you--when you
open the door.
The Figure of the enneagram is formed by linking the two 'sacred cosmic
fundamental laws' of the Triamasikamno (Trinity) and the
Heptaparaparschinoch (Sevenness). The former consists of the powers
Surp-Ortheor (Affirmation: Father), Surp-Skiros (Negation: Son) and
Surp-Athanatos (Reconciliation: Holy Spirit). The Enneagram is perpetual
motion (...) It is also the philosopher's stone of the alchemists.
[Alexander Roob, The Hermetic Museum - Alchemy & Mysticism, p 656]
The Sabbath is an attribute which is not only implicit within Nature, but
one which has been understood since ancient times to impress an order upon
that Nature: "And the vision of the evenings and mornings which was told is
true; therefore seal up the vision, for it refers to many days in the
future" [Daniel 8:26] It gives rise to an opportunity for a transcendental
and cosmic philosophical conception for the pre-existent God. I can find no
better document to reflect this Sabbath metaphysical conception, than to
quote briefly from a highly mystical tractate which was written by that
eminent Rosicrucian Adept, Thomas Vaughan and published by him in 1655,
under the pseudonym of Eugenius Philalethes--"Being a short Discourse of
that Secret Fountain, whose Water flows from Fire; and carries in it the
Beams of the Sun and Moon" as Time, existent from the midst of the week--"I
have Reader, (and I suppose it is not unknown to you) within these few
years, in several little Tractates delivered my Judgment of Philosophy, I
say of Philosophy, for Alchemy in the common acceptation, and as it is a
torture of Metals, I did never believe much less did I study it. In this
print, my books being perused will give you evidence; for there I refer you
to a subject that is universal, that is the foundation of all Nature, that
is the matter whereof all things are made, and wherewith being made are
nourished.
This I presume can be no metal, and therefore as I ever disclaim Alchemy in
the vulgar sense, so I thought fit to let the Alchemists know it, least in
the perusal of my Writings they should fix a construction to some passages,
which cannot suit with the Judgment of their Author." [Thomas Vaughan, To
the Reader] "...Surely I am one that thinks very honourably of Nature, and
if I avoid such Disputes as these, it is because I would not offend weak
Consciences. For there are a people, who though they dare not think the
Majesty of God was diminished, in that he made the Word, yet they dare
think, the Majesty of His Word is much vilified, if it be applied to what he
has made. And Opinion, truly, that carries in it a most dangerous Blasphemy;
namely that God's Word and God's Work should be such different things, that
the one must needs disgrace the other.
I confess I am much to seek, what Scripture shall be applied to, and whom it
was written for if not for use, and for our instruction; for if they that
are whole (as our Saviour testifies) have no need of a Physician, then did
God cause Scriptures to be written, neither for himself, nor for his Angels,
but it was written for those creatures, who having lost the first estate,
were since fallen into corruption. Now then if scriptures was written for
us, it concerns us much to know what use we shall make of it, and this we
may gather from the different conditions of Man before and after his Fall.
Before his fall, Man was a glorious Creature, having received from God
Immortality, and perfect Knowledge; but in and after his Fall, he exchanged
immortality for death, and knowledge for ignorance.
Now as to our redemption from this fall, we may not (in respect of Death)
expect it in this world, God having decreed, that all men should once die;
But for our ignorance, we may and ought to put off this life, forasmuch as
without the Knowledge of God, no man can be saved. For, it is both the Cause
and the Earnest of our future immortality. It remains then that our
ignorance must be put off in part, even in this life, before we can put off
our mortality; and certainly to this end was Scripture written; namely that
by it we might attain to the knowledge of God, and return to him from whom
we were fallen.
And let no man be angry with me, if I ask how Scripture teaches us to know
God? Does it not only tell us there is a God, and leave all the rest to our
discretion? Does it (that I may speak my mind) teach us to know God by his
Works, or without his Works? If by his Works then by Natural things, for
they are his Works, and none other, if without his Works, I desire to know
what manner of teaching that is, for I cannot yet find it. If they say it is
by Inspiration, I say too that God can teach us so, but Scripture cannot;
for certainly Scripture never inspired any man, though it came itself by
inspiration.
But if it be replied, that in Scripture we have the testimonies of men
inspire, I say this Answer is beside my Question; for I speak not here of
the bare Authority of Testimony of Scripture, but I speak of that Doctrine,
by which it proves what it testifies, for with such Doctrine the Scripture
abounds." [Eurphates Or the Waters from the East, Thomas Vaughan, p 14-15]
This is my last post to this discussion thread.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/time.html#TITLE
Gnasty
Interesting tactic - fight Gnostic with Rosecution.
I wonder if you see the humor in that or not.
Brother CRC would be laughing.
"the matter whereof all things are made" that Vaughn speaks of is
found in Da'ath, as any good Mystic, Gnostic or Kabbalist and/or
Alchemist knows, but I assume you have run across that little ditty in
your travels already.
And it's OBVIOUS that metal can not be the foundation of such, as it,
in itself, (as all things within the Void) not being formed (yet), and
therefor has no substance from which to give reference to.
THAT was Vaughns mistake, not that he was wrong, but he was
mis-leading in his reference to it.
But, then again, .... what do you expect from a Gnostic beyond
illuminating double-speak ??
"weak Consciences" is his sense of humor, it means that he thinks most
who read his little ditties are stupid, a trait you seem to have picked
up yourself.
Gods' word (action) and Gods' work (response) being composed for man,
assuming one accepts that concept, is nullified by the separation of the
Seven (tribes), being the whole of genetic individualism in early
primitives (pre-diluvial), as only one tribe (allegedly Adams') would
have use or need of it, the others being independant and having also
assumedly been assigned their course in life by God previous to the
conception of the Ha Adam (proto man).
Which, in and of itself gives evidentiary indication of its' not being
either needed nor necessary, as to have to need of it would be
prejudicing against one tribe in favor of the other, or in this case,
other five.
Knowledge of God is NOT a requirement to escape mortallity, as the
Bible that you're so fond of tells us (you) that without Law there can
be no sin, thereby providing that the entirety of it is un-necessary,
as all one has need to do is avoid being educated.
I would also reiterate from previous posts (of mine) that "All shall
be forgiven but blaspheme of the Spirit...", and therefor unless one
blasphemes, there is nothing to worry about, nor salvation to attain.
And also - "Salvation is not given by works, but by grace...", so
therefor, nothing we can do will help, nor effect the outcome anyway.
But then again, I'm a Son of Seth (original light), what do I
know......
Vaughns' quandary in Scripture production was an interesting one, I
wonder if he flaggelated himself like the Catholics do for his failures.
His inability to comprehend the context of his own writ was to blame,
for how can works be works if they aren't percieved of as of yet, but,
then again, how can they, once percieved, not be ??
AH - a rose is a rose is a rose....
It's too bad you failed to respond to the point of the thread, and
instead side stepped into philosophical double-speak, the thread had
potential....
And, you made not one persuasive retort to the claim against
Saul/Paul, I'd like to point out....
But - thanks for the 25 cent words........ they really do represent
you in a better light this year.
Dreamsnake
> But then again, I'm a Son of Seth (original light), what do I
> know......
I am truly curious how many people you convince by telling them that
they cannot be "true" or "real" Gnostics?
Dreamsnake
Gnasty
> I am truly curious how many people you convince by telling them that
> they cannot be "true" or "real" Gnostics?
Back for more ??
O.K.:
I notice you didn't phrase that to come out how many GNOSTICS I
convince they aren't Gnostic.
Can't be done.
IF someone believes what I tell them, then they weren't really ACTUAL
Gnostics in the first place, were they ??
Ever meet a Gnostic whose inclination was to blurt "Uh - O.K." to any
generic statement thrown at them ??
Or that was intimidated by a vituperative retort ??
As I recall, you took offense to it when I did it to you....
Add in the FACT that most out there actually AREN'T Gnostic, but only
playing the roll, and I'd say I'm pretty much acurate within a few
perecentages.
Considering that most of them spurt out polysyndentitious blather
about a Christianity they actually know nothing about, and you pretty
much encompass the remaining few.
Does it really shake up your belief structure that much ??
Maybe I was right after all....
BTW: you ever figure out what the Pristis Sophiensciema is yet ??
Won't find reference to it anywhere - you'll actually have to KNOW
what it is....
Here's a clue: it's a Gnostic possession given to Keepers.
You DO know what Keepers are, don't you ??
Ukko
> Can't be done.
True.
> IF someone believes what I tell them, then they weren't really ACTUAL
>Gnostics in the first place, were they ??
Or they seem to believe, and it seems that they werent gnostics.
> Ever meet a Gnostic whose inclination was to blurt "Uh - O.K." to any
>generic statement thrown at them ??
How about "Why not". The universal answer to all whys.
> BTW: you ever figure out what the Pristis Sophiensciema is yet ??
> Won't find reference to it anywhere - you'll actually have to KNOW
>what it is....
Names fail to describe all.
--
Sator Ukko
The most effective way of learning is called teaching.
Dreamsnake
[I had written:]
> >I am truly curious how many people you convince by telling them that
> >they cannot be "true" or "real" Gnostics?
>
> Back for more ??
Never left. When I referred to the topic before, you never responded,
so I thought it was time to get more blunt.
> O.K.:
>
> I notice you didn't phrase that to come out how many GNOSTICS I
>convince they aren't Gnostic.
Of course not, as that was not my question. You have claimed that
nobody can be a 'real' Gnostic unless they are of the lineage of Seth.
I am curious how many people you persuade of this. I mean, the
children of Seth would KNOW they are Gnostics, right, and would
know that they are not being included in your comments, so the only
remaining groups are 1) self-identified non-Gnostics, who do not
care anyway, and 2) self-identified Gnostics not of the line of Seth.
I want to know if you ever convince members of the second group.
Not necessarily by "generic statements" as you phrase it below; you
can have spent years convincing them, for all I care.
> Can't be done.
>
> IF someone believes what I tell them, then they weren't really ACTUAL
>Gnostics in the first place, were they ??
>
> Ever meet a Gnostic whose inclination was to blurt "Uh - O.K." to any
>generic statement thrown at them ??
By your account, I must wonder whether I have ever met any Gnostics
at all, other than your own self, as you declared that you were the
*only* real Gnostic on ARG. As far as self-identified Gnostics go,
some of them are critical, and some of them swallow the most amazing
claims whole. So yeah, I have encountered some "Gnostics" who
just might blurt out "OK" to plenty of strange statements.
> Or that was intimidated by a vituperative retort ??
My question was not "intimidated" by anything, as you can tell by
the fact that it is not quaking in its boots. It was *inspired*, if that
is what you mean, by genuine curiosity about your seemingly
self-defeating tactics. You boldly inform ARG that they are not
Gnostics; why would you expect them to listen to what else you say?
Does that not put people off to your other claims? Is it not at odds
with your comment that misdirection is a typical Gnostic tactic, as
it is a most frontal approach?
These are all genuine questions, not vituperative.
> As I recall, you took offense to it when I did it to you....
I am mercurial; what offends me one day will not the next. 'asides,
given the guff that you give people, how can you tell when they are
genuinely offended and when they are just giving some back?
> Add in the FACT that most out there actually AREN'T Gnostic, but only
>playing the roll, and I'd say I'm pretty much acurate within a few
>perecentages.
I do not care at the moment whether you are "accurate." I am
interested only in whether you convince people. Quit changing the
subject.
> Considering that most of them spurt out polysyndentitious blather
>about a Christianity they actually know nothing about, and you pretty
>much encompass the remaining few.
>
> Does it really shake up your belief structure that much ??
No. What you say does not and never did "shake up my belief
structure" because I have none. I KNOW, fool, even if you think I
do not.
> Maybe I was right after all....
Of course you are right, in the sense that I am not a Son of Seth, or
even a Daughter of Seth if that is appropriate. But that is all.
> BTW: you ever figure out what the Pristis Sophiensciema is yet ??
>
> Won't find reference to it anywhere - you'll actually have to KNOW
>what it is....
I have not figured it out because I have not tried. It sounds to me like
something passed down by word of mouth, in which case all the
thinking in the world would not reveal its nature to me. On the other
hand, if it is some sort of direct revelation (which does not sound much
like part of *your* belief structure), I see no reason why revelation
should be language-specific.
> Here's a clue: it's a Gnostic possession given to Keepers.
>
> You DO know what Keepers are, don't you ??
Another shibboleth, no doubt.
Dreamsnake
Gnasty
> > Back for more ??
> Never left. When I referred to the topic before, you never responded,
> so I thought it was time to get more blunt.
Never saw the post - or perhaps it was an insignificant addenum to our
original arguement that I over-looked ??
Verizon has problems w/Email, which is part of the NG .pgm in
Netscape, so I don't always get even my own posts, so it's possible, if
it was a separate post originally, that I never saw it.
(One of my better run-on sentances, even if I do say so myself).
> > I notice you didn't phrase that to come out how many GNOSTICS I
> >convince they aren't Gnostic.
> Of course not, as that was not my question. You have claimed that
> nobody can be a 'real' Gnostic unless they are of the lineage of Seth.
> I am curious how many people you persuade of this. I mean, the
> children of Seth would KNOW they are Gnostics, right, and would
> know that they are not being included in your comments, so the only
> remaining groups are 1) self-identified non-Gnostics, who do not
> care anyway, and 2) self-identified Gnostics not of the line of Seth.
Point was that it wasn't a wasted effort.
Yes, the Children of Seth WOULD know if they were....
And, I reiterate, if one is NOT of the line of Seth, one is NOT a TRUE
Gnostic, but a second generation Gnostic, that being a self proclaimed
Gnostic.
> I want to know if you ever convince members of the second group.
Perhaps, I don't keep count, nor do I follow up on such trivialities,
as I said before:
> > IF someone believes what I tell them, then they weren't really ACTUAL Gnostics in the first place, were they ??
> By your account, I must wonder whether I have ever met any Gnostics
> at all,
Me too.
> other than your own self, as you declared that you were the
> *only* real Gnostic on ARG.
Such is life.
> As far as self-identified Gnostics go, some of them are critical, and some of them swallow the most amazing claims whole.
Who are not really lineal Gnostics, are they ??
> So yeah, I have encountered some "Gnostics" who
> just might blurt out "OK" to plenty of strange statements.
Again, not lineal Gnostics.
> My question was not "intimidated" by anything, as you can tell by
> the fact that it is not quaking in its boots.
Nor did I intend to do so (to you).
> >It was *inspired*, if that is what you mean, by genuine curiosity about your seemingly self-defeating tactics.
"Inspired" ?? No, I don't think so - I was pretty specific in my post.
"Tactic" ? Don't you mean "methods" ?
> You boldly inform ARG that they are not Gnostics; why would you expect them to listen to what else you say?
Not the group as a whole, just the Christian HEritics that come in
here spouting JEsus, then make bold claims to be Gnostic as well -
A little poly-theistic, wouldn't you say ??
And, I"d like to point out, as I have been doing here for years, yes,
and who CARES if non-Gnostics listen ??
This is ARG, not ARN-G.
The POINT of the ORIGINAL method is to rid this NG of Christian fools
and heritical Pauline Christians, who follow nothing they actually KNOW
about (contrary to Gnostic belief structure) nor do they realise THERE
IS NO SUCH THING AS A CHRISTIAN GNOSTIC.
(Or a Jewish Gnostic, or a New Wave Gnostic, or a.....)
There ARE thost that are Christian that follow a Gnostic persuit of
Christianity, but even THEY don't realise what Gnosticism is about, or
they wouldn't follow Christianity. (see my recent posts w/Dolf)
> Does that not put people off to your other claims?
No, but who cares ??
All of my posts are factual, all of my debates are referenced and
parenthetically annotated, and all of my Web Sites are historically
correct.
If they aren't capable of comprehending that much, they need to go
deficate somewhere else.
I don't bother anyone who has a valid point to make, and I don't rag
at Gnostics, it's the Chriatian Heritics and the Blind Faith fools that
bother me - they should start their OWN NG.
Call it alt.religion.fucking.idiots or something.
> Is it not at odds with your comment that misdirection is a typical Gnostic tactic, as it is a most frontal approach?
Ever hear the joke about the farmer trying to get the mule to pull the
plow, he's beating on the mule but the thing won't pull, and a Minister
comes along and says: "All you have to do is talk to him" ??
> These are all genuine questions, not vituperative.
As I recall, the comment was in reference to MY posts towards
non-Gnostics.
> given the guff that you give people, how can you tell when they are
> genuinely offended and when they are just giving some back?
As for non-Gnostics, I don't CARE, as for actual Gnostics, when they
DO post here, I don't do that to them.
Notice I haven't ragged at Sant Mat ??
Or Moggin ??
Or Ceogroach ??
Or ANYbody that makes a VALID point ??
Or anybody that asks a question instead of posting blathering key
drool ??
> I do not care at the moment whether you are "accurate." I am
> interested only in whether you convince people. Quit changing the
> subject.
Interjection of the acuracy of my efforts is on-subject, as it
coinsides with the effort(s) you so acutely protest.
And, it did NOT change the context of the post.
> I KNOW, fool, even if you think I do not.
AH - there's that vituperative retort in defence of a polysyndentious
belief structure again.
That you just claimed you don't make.
Don't you ever get tired of defending Pauline Christianity ??
> > Maybe I was right after all....
>
> Of course you are right, in the sense that I am not a Son of Seth, or
> even a Daughter of Seth if that is appropriate.
> But that is all.
Thank you - that's all I said, in essence, originally.
> > BTW: you ever figure out what the Pristis Sophiensciema is yet ??
> I have not figured it out because I have not tried.
Indicating, once again, you are NOT Gnostic, or you'd KNOW the answer.
> It sounds to me like something passed down by word of mouth, in which > case all the thinking in the world would not reveal its nature to me.
As acurate a guess as I've ever seen.
> On the other hand, if it is some sort of direct revelation (which does not sound much like part of *your* belief structure), I see no reason why revelation should be language-specific.
*My* belief structure is Gnositc, and as the Gnostics were always
heavy into communications with their Inner Guides, and you appear not to
be (once again indicating you are NOT Gnositc).
And, I'd like to point out, there's nothing in Gnosticism that's
language specific, other than physical mass (books, scrolls, etc.).
I have always included that as PART of my belief structure, as all
Gnostics do, and a possible source of revelation(s) of varying kinds.
As a matter of fact, I just closed out a Kia working with channeling
that took me over a YEAR to complete, which is why I haven't been around
until recently, which you should know about if you were an 'old timer'
here, as I posted about it before leaving several times.
Shame on you....
> > You DO know what Keepers are, don't you ??
> Another shibboleth, no doubt.
NO, this time your Christianity is lacking.
Keepers and Watchers.
Reference them before you aver to their tenative realities.
Keepers of the Door, keepers of the Entry, Keepers of the Walls,
Keepers of the House, etc..
(2Kings, 1Chronicals, Esther, Ecclesiasties, Song of Solomon. etc..)
In this case, Keepers of the Pristis Sophinesciema.
Simply put, guards.
In the Gnostic sense, Keepers of the Faith.
"Methinks thou doth protest in lame repute, that as in the doing thou
might give the effort valid gain.. "
Dreamsnake
> Dreamsnake:
>
> > > Back for more ??
>
> > Never left. When I referred to the topic before, you never responded,
> > so I thought it was time to get more blunt.
>
> Never saw the post - or perhaps it was an insignificant addenum to our
> original arguement that I over-looked ??
Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills?
> Verizon has problems w/Email, which is part of the NG .pgm in
> Netscape, so I don't always get even my own posts, so it's possible, if
> it was a separate post originally, that I never saw it.
I am having similar problems myself of late. I did not know you had
responded to my question until Ukko posted a followup; then I had to
track down the text on deja. (The new "improved" deja sucks,
incidentally. It is considerably more behind than the old.)
> > > I notice you didn't phrase that to come out how many GNOSTICS I
> > >convince they aren't Gnostic.
>
> > Of course not, as that was not my question. You have claimed that
> > nobody can be a 'real' Gnostic unless they are of the lineage of Seth.
> > I am curious how many people you persuade of this. I mean, the
> > children of Seth would KNOW they are Gnostics, right, and would
> > know that they are not being included in your comments, so the only
> > remaining groups are 1) self-identified non-Gnostics, who do not
> > care anyway, and 2) self-identified Gnostics not of the line of Seth.
>
> Point was that it wasn't a wasted effort.
How? The Children of Seth do not need to be told, and I expect
the rest would not listen, given the way you tell them, so to what
effect does the effort go?
> Yes, the Children of Seth WOULD know if they were....
>
> And, I reiterate, if one is NOT of the line of Seth, one is NOT a TRUE
> Gnostic, but a second generation Gnostic, that being a self proclaimed
> Gnostic.
>
> > I want to know if you ever convince members of the second group.
>
> Perhaps, I don't keep count, nor do I follow up on such trivialities,
> as I said before:
That's the information I was looking for. I do not recall you saying
it before (perhaps it was in one of those posts I did not get?)
> > > IF someone believes what I tell them, then they weren't really ACTUAL Gnostics in the first place, were they ??
>
> > By your account, I must wonder whether I have ever met any Gnostics
> > at all,
>
> Me too.
Did you not learn from someone?
> > >It was *inspired*, if that is what you mean, by genuine curiosity about your seemingly self-defeating tactics.
>
> "Inspired" ?? No, I don't think so - I was pretty specific in my post.
Okaaaaay.......how do you "intimidate" a question?
> "Tactic" ? Don't you mean "methods" ?
Depends. What difference do you see in the two words?
> > You boldly inform ARG that they are not Gnostics; why would you expect them to listen to what else you say?
>
> Not the group as a whole, just the Christian HEritics that come in
> here spouting JEsus, then make bold claims to be Gnostic as well -
You said you were the only REAL Gnostic on the group, yes? Such
a statement includes the group as a whole, not just a select portion
you target in your mind.
> A little poly-theistic, wouldn't you say ??
That depends. What if I say Jesus is just another dude who happened
to be teaching some Gnostic material, no more divine than myself?
Where is the polytheism in that?
What if I say the historical Jesus never existed, or did not matter if he
did, and the Gnostic material on him is just allegory?
Where is the polytheism in that?
> > Does that not put people off to your other claims?
>
> No, but who cares ??
>
> All of my posts are factual, all of my debates are referenced and
> parenthetically annotated, and all of my Web Sites are historically
> correct.
I have read your posts and I have read as much of your web sites as
I could stomache (sorry, but I find your technique of web design
insufferable). I see some interesting interpretations but little I would
commit to as "fact" in your history.
> If they aren't capable of comprehending that much, they need to go
> deficate somewhere else.
The one who inhabits crystalline domiciles.....
> > Is it not at odds with your comment that misdirection is a typical Gnostic tactic, as it is a most frontal approach?
>
> Ever hear the joke about the farmer trying to get the mule to pull the
> plow, he's beating on the mule but the thing won't pull, and a Minister
> comes along and says: "All you have to do is talk to him" ??
Nope. Are you the minister, the farmer, or the mule?
> > These are all genuine questions, not vituperative.
>
> As I recall, the comment was in reference to MY posts towards
> non-Gnostics.
Non-Gnostics being, what, everyone on this ng with the exception
of yourself?
> > given the guff that you give people, how can you tell when they are
> > genuinely offended and when they are just giving some back?
>
> As for non-Gnostics, I don't CARE, as for actual Gnostics, when they
> DO post here, I don't do that to them.
>
> Notice I haven't ragged at Sant Mat ??
>
> Or Moggin ??
>
> Or Ceogroach ??
>
> Or ANYbody that makes a VALID point ??
>
> Or anybody that asks a question instead of posting blathering key
> drool ??
Mmmm. You have said one or two things to me that might be seen
as ragging when I was asking questions. Maybe you do not think
they are ragging. Or maybe you think my questions are key drool.
> > I do not care at the moment whether you are "accurate." I am
> > interested only in whether you convince people. Quit changing the
> > subject.
>
> Interjection of the acuracy of my efforts is on-subject, as it
> coinsides with the effort(s) you so acutely protest.
>
> And, it did NOT change the context of the post.
It does not matter if you are 1% accurate or 100% accurate, so far
as I can see. If you mistakenly tell a "Son of Seth" that they are not
a real Gnostic, they know better and they will remove themselves
from the pool, leaving only the correctly-identified non-Sethians.
Since I am only interested in *that* group, it is only *that* group
that matters, and any in/accuracies concerning others is not relevant
to my question: do you convince any non-Sethians by telling them
that they cannot be "real" Gnostics?
> > I KNOW, fool, even if you think I do not.
>
> AH - there's that vituperative retort in defence of a polysyndentious
> belief structure again.
>
> That you just claimed you don't make.
A bit vituperative, yes, because I have little patience with your inanities.
Belief structure, no. To paraphrase Starhawk, talking about my
belief structure is like asking if I believe in rocks.
Do you believe in rocks, Gnasty?
> Don't you ever get tired of defending Pauline Christianity ??
I defend Pauline Christianity to the same extent that I defend, say,
Orthodox Judaism or Native American earth-worship. I do not
intend to launch pogroms against them, but I regard them as sadly
misguided and harmful to varying degrees.
> > > Maybe I was right after all....
> >
> > Of course you are right, in the sense that I am not a Son of Seth, or
> > even a Daughter of Seth if that is appropriate.
>
> > But that is all.
>
> Thank you - that's all I said, in essence, originally.
Except that the words coming out of your mouth were, roughly:
'I'm the only REAL Gnostic on this newsgroup!'
Inflammatory stuff, y'know.
> > > BTW: you ever figure out what the Pristis Sophiensciema is yet ??
>
> > I have not figured it out because I have not tried.
>
> Indicating, once again, you are NOT Gnostic, or you'd KNOW the answer.
See below for my comments on your passwords.
> > It sounds to me like something passed down by word of mouth, in which > case all the thinking in the world would not reveal its nature to me.
>
> As acurate a guess as I've ever seen.
>
> > On the other hand, if it is some sort of direct revelation (which does not sound much like part of *your* belief structure), I see no reason why revelation should be language-specific.
>
> *My* belief structure is Gnositc, and as the Gnostics were always
> heavy into communications with their Inner Guides, and you appear not to
> be (once again indicating you are NOT Gnositc).
All you know about my inner life is what I have chosen to post on
ARG, Gnasty. There are things I may talk about someday, here or
on a website; there are things I will never talk about because it is not
fitting, and things that cannot be spoken.
What you speak of is not unfamiliar to me, though I might approach
and even describe it in slightly different terms. It is not something I
can pursue to any great extent at the moment, though.
> And, I'd like to point out, there's nothing in Gnosticism that's
> language specific, other than physical mass (books, scrolls, etc.).
Yes there is, by your definitions. You throw out keyterms: the P.S.,
the Trenchcoaters, the Keepers. My identification of them depends
on having been taught the proper keyterms by oral tradition, reading,
or visions that are language-specific. And you have already told me
that the P.S. cannot be found by reading up.
If, on the other hand, revelations are *not* language-specific, then I
could know about the concepts but under different terms. Your
stating that a real Gnostic knows about the P.S. would then be as
untenable as my stating that they must know about the Diver or be
able to tell me about Seirassh.
> I have always included that as PART of my belief structure, as all
> Gnostics do, and a possible source of revelation(s) of varying kinds.
>
> As a matter of fact, I just closed out a Kia working with channeling
> that took me over a YEAR to complete, which is why I haven't been around
> until recently, which you should know about if you were an 'old timer'
> here, as I posted about it before leaving several times.
>
> Shame on you....
Let me get this straight. You are scolding me for not having gotten
my own computer, enabling me to read Usenet at leisure, until after
you announced your leave of absence? Of what relevance is that?
You were a neophyte at one point, you might remember.
> > > You DO know what Keepers are, don't you ??
>
> > Another shibboleth, no doubt.
>
> NO, this time your Christianity is lacking.
>
> Keepers and Watchers.
>
> Reference them before you aver to their tenative realities.
>
> Keepers of the Door, keepers of the Entry, Keepers of the Walls,
> Keepers of the House, etc..
>
> (2Kings, 1Chronicals, Esther, Ecclesiasties, Song of Solomon. etc..)
>
> In this case, Keepers of the Pristis Sophinesciema.
>
> Simply put, guards.
>
> In the Gnostic sense, Keepers of the Faith.
And either I would know the keyterm by some sort of oral tradition,
in which case I would surely have tipped my hand to you before now
that I knew whereof you spoke.....
.....OR I might know the concept, but not under that term.
> "Methinks thou doth protest in lame repute, that as in the doing thou
> might give the effort valid gain.. "
Yeah, whatever. For all you know, I dedicate two hours every day
to intense work intended to improve the channels of communication
with my inner guide. And for all I know, you wank off in front of the
computer. Or vice versa.
D.
Gnasty
Do you have problems with MPD ??
One time, you agree, the next, you've got a hair up your... well, you
know.
> I am having similar problems myself of late. I did not know you had
> responded to my question until Ukko posted a followup; then I had to
> track down the text on deja. (The new "improved" deja sucks,
> incidentally. It is considerably more behind than the old.)
So, it's ok for YOU to miss a post, but if _I_ do, I need to brush up
on my reading comprehension skills ??
Isn't that a bit two-faced ??
> > Point was that it wasn't a wasted effort.
> How? The Children of Seth do not need to be told, and I expect
> the rest would not listen, given the way you tell them, so to what
> effect does the effort go?
A Son of Seth would get a laugh out of how I respond to you, most of
the rest don't comprehend anything Gnostic anyways.
As for the effect, I'd more qualify it as an affect, much the same way
as it seems to have affected you.
> That's the information I was looking for. I do not recall you saying
> it before (perhaps it was in one of those posts I did not get?)
Good - then I've answered your question, haven't I ??
> Did you not learn from someone?
Yes, my parents and grandparents.
> Okaaaaay.......how do you "intimidate" a question?
You don't - you intimidate the asker.
> Depends. What difference do you see in the two words?
The same difference between reality and Myst.
> > > You boldly inform ARG that they are not Gnostics; why would you expect them to listen to what else you say?
Not all of ARG, just the newbie "Christian Gnostics" and the
cross-posters, I have had many a fine conversation here, and a few good
arguements as well, over the years.
> You said you were the only REAL Gnostic on the group, yes?
Yes, I stand by that statement, altho I'm not saying there couldn't be
more at some other time, past or future.
> Such a statement includes the group as a whole, not just a select portion you target in your mind.
Ah, the conversation returns to vituperative retort.
> What if I say Jesus is just another dude who happened
> to be teaching some Gnostic material, no more divine than myself?
I'd have to agree.
Apparently you didn't see the arguement I just finished with Dolf.
> Where is the polytheism in that?
As above and below, you comment on Jesus' being Gnostic (which I also
agree with), then, according to you, HE would have been Gnostic, and
therefor a polythiest as well, wouldn't he ??
> What if I say the historical Jesus never existed, or did not matter if he did, and the Gnostic material on him is just allegory?
THen you'd be a lot closer to the truth than Dolf, our resident well
spoken, well educated Blind Faith Christian.
> Where is the polytheism in that?
Again, Gnostic materials are purposefully both polytheistic and
allegorical (usually, depending on the interpreter).
> I have read your posts and I have read as much of your web sites as
> I could stomache (sorry, but I find your technique of web design
> insufferable). I see some interesting interpretations but little I would commit to as "fact" in your history.
Isn't that funny, and here I did a 6 year study on what assimilated
better, and which pages were being read longer, and purposely set it up
to provide for the majority.
I would have to say, either you have eye problems, and can't set on
one page too long, or you haven't a clue as to what you're talking
about, as I have a Masters in Psyche, and a D.D., and for 30 years now,
I have studied both how and why Religion was used to shape and mis-shape
history, and quite an archaeological buff as well, and have recently set
up the latest Authenticating Agency, of which there are only 7 of that I
am aware.
Including mine.
And based on that, I'd would have to come to the conclusion that you
are either un-educated, or are in denial, as you can easily verify the
FACTS on my sites IF you have the liking.
> The one who inhabits crystalline domiciles.....
Are you insinuating I live in a glass house ??
> > Ever hear the joke about the farmer trying to get the mule to pull the plow, he's beating on the mule but the thing won't pull, and a Minister comes along and says: "All you have to do is talk to him" ??
> Nope. Are you the minister, the farmer, or the mule?
Each, in proper times.
The bottom line in the joke is the Minister hits the mule with a 2x4,
and the farmer gets mad, and aske him why, when he said he only had to
talk to him, and the Minister says:
"That's true, but sometimes you have to get his attention first."
I think I got your attention.
> Non-Gnostics being, what, everyone on this ng with the exception
> of yourself?
I think I've allowed for the feasability of there being second
generation Gnostics, and others with enough education to actually know
what they're talking about, Gnostic or not, thereby providing quite
stimulating GNOSTIC conversation at times.
> > > given the guff that you give people, how can you tell when they are genuinely offended and when they are just giving some back?
They either engage me in conversive debate, or respond like you do.
> Mmmm. You have said one or two things to me that might be seen
> as ragging when I was asking questions. Maybe you do not think
> they are ragging. Or maybe you think my questions are key drool.
It's in the nature of the beast, you'll get use to me, I respond as I
interpret, sometimes having been offended, my intent is similar, other
times I find some posts absolutely hilarious, licentious, or even key
drool.
And btw, I never said YOUR posts were key drool.
> > And, it did NOT change the context of the post.
> It does not matter if you are 1% accurate or 100% accurate, so far
> as I can see. If you mistakenly tell a "Son of Seth" that they are not a real Gnostic, they know better and they will remove themselves
> from the pool, leaving only the correctly-identified non-Sethians.
Incorrect, I HAVE had a Son or two write me privately, or even answer
the PS question acurately, as most Sons ARE holders of the PS.
> Since I am only interested in *that* group, it is only *that* group
> that matters, and any in/accuracies concerning others is not relevant
> to my question: do you convince any non-Sethians by telling them
> that they cannot be "real" Gnostics?
No - not to date, and as I am one, when they realise it, they usually
contact me privately, and we often have considerable exchange, once the
general ammenities are done with.
> A bit vituperative, yes, because I have little patience with your inanities.
Ah, a vituperative retort to a vituperative response, I like that -
, Would that make you poly-vituperative ??
> Do you believe in rocks, Gnasty?
I believe they take up space, altho I'd argue about their
classification being time constrictive, as they go thru many phases.
> I defend Pauline Christianity to the same extent that I defend, say,
> Orthodox Judaism or Native American earth-worship. I do not
> intend to launch pogroms against them, but I regard them as sadly
> misguided and harmful to varying degrees.
Then you agree with my ORIGINAL post about their being innapropriately
posted here ??
> Except that the words coming out of your mouth were, roughly:
> 'I'm the only REAL Gnostic on this newsgroup!'
Which I've been saying here for years, and only YOU seem to take
offense to.
> Inflammatory stuff, y'know.
YUP :) And HOPING they don't like it....
> See below for my comments on your passwords.
Is the Bible a password ?? How about Christ ?? Was Mary Magdalene one,
or Paul ??
Part of ones' belief structure is never secretive to the believers or
members, and that's why I asked, as you'd have known instantly what I
was talking about, specific language or not.
> All you know about my inner life is what I have chosen to post on
> ARG, Gnasty. There are things I may talk about someday, here or
> on a website; there are things I will never talk about because it is not fitting, and things that cannot be spoken.
There are things one can relate which no one will ever comprehend, no
matter how hard you try to teach them, and other things they will use to
the fullest, never knowing how wrong they were in their assessment of
it, but one can not teach things of the silence, as there are no words
there.
A little over a year aog, someone posted here requesting us to tell
him all the 'secrets' in the Gnostic faith.
I posted back that he should get a good education in languages, learn
to separate and recognise the difference between coloquialisms and
static writ, and consider delving into the mystical aspects of various
belief structures (something to that effect), as no one here could
'teach' him unless he had a working knowledge of the subject to start
with.
To which, he took great offense.
Others here posted that I was not 'playing' with him, and the advice
was valid.
He was still offended.
Some people just won't take the time to learn, what can I say.
> You throw out keyterms: the P.S., the Trenchcoaters, the Keepers. My identification of them depends on having been taught the proper keyterms by oral tradition, reading, or visions that are language-specific. And you have already told me that the P.S. cannot be found by reading up.
Trenchcoaters are a group that go about "liberating' peoples spirits,
so they can 'pass on to the next level', and most Gnostics know well
about them, the WORDS Pristis Sophiensciema can't be found (unless some
fool mis-directedly blurted it out publicly),as it's Holy to the
Gnostics, much like the Most Sacred 42-Fold Schemhamforash to the Jews.
Which means you'd have to be Gnostic to know what it is.
Visual, visionary and spoken teachings are the three ways one learns,
assuming they have eyes to see, and ears to hear - sorry about the
pun...
> If, on the other hand, revelations are *not* language-specific, then I
> could know about the concepts but under different terms. Your
> stating that a real Gnostic knows about the P.S. would then be as
> untenable as my stating that they must know about the Diver or be
> able to tell me about Seirassh.
The Diver sounds like it's sect-specific, I did not do that to you,
Seirassh sounds like your Inner Guide, and yes, it's true we have not
spoken about Theophany yet.
> > <Snip the bla,bla> which is why I haven't been around
> > until recently, which you should know about if you were an 'old timer' here, as I posted about it before leaving several times.
> Let me get this straight. You are scolding me for not having gotten
> my own computer, enabling me to read Usenet at leisure, until after
> you announced your leave of absence? Of what relevance is that?
It is of relevance only in that you first claimed you were an 'old
timer' here, and hadn't recognised me as being one also, which you now
reveal yourself to be untruthful about.
Part of your first arguement(s) were that YOU didn't recognise ME as
being here very long.
Shame on you again....
> You were a neophyte at one point, you might remember.
Yes, when I was 10.
Are you now claiming Neophyte status ??
> > > > You DO know what Keepers are, don't you ??
> > In the Gnostic sense, Keepers of the Faith.
> .....OR I might know the concept, but not under that term.
One of your original claime was to be a Christian Gnostic, Keepers and
Watchers are common Biblical terms, which is why I used them.
> Yeah, whatever. For all you know, I dedicate two hours every day
> to intense work intended to improve the channels of communication
> with my inner guide. And for all I know, you wank off in front of the
> computer. Or vice versa.
And I hope you do.
I spend 7 to 10 hours a day on the Internet, 365 days a year,
maintaining over a dozen Web Sites for my Church, of which I am the
Senior Minister Pro Tempor, some of those sites are religious, others
are business oriented.
And raise an 8 year old little girl myself.
In my spare time, I'm writing a book on Gnosticism and it's place in
history, replete with factual authenticatable information and a HUGE
Bibloigraphy.
Not including writing sermons and bible studies each week,
running the Church Office,
setting up the Web Server the Church is going to host with, that I'll
have to webmaster also,
or the Accrediting Association,
or active voting membership in our Monastery,
or scribe work for the Church,
nor to mention that I'm 100% disabled,
and I STILL find time to channel at least an hour a day, EVERY day.
When do you think I have time to "wank off" ??
See - I'm really proud of what and who I am, and how much I've managed
to accomplish, which is why I often go to leangths to comment on it,
while at times I find other "self-proclaimed" Gnostics to be nothing
more than churl with little more than vane and false claims, and that
offends me, as my ancestors paid with their lives to get me this far,
and I see pseudo-Gnostics as the "wankers" you seem to be so fond of.
And so far, you've done zero to show me that you are what you claim to
be, other than to RAG at me....
I ended our last conversation here with a statement about agreeing
with you, and you're back ragging at me again, after it was all over.
So now, whose the bad guy here ??
Did I tell YOU I thought you were a "Wanker" ??
Dreamsnake
> Dreamsnake:
>
> Do you have problems with MPD ??
No, I have problems with bipolar depression. (Funny you should ask
about MPD--alot of cases are probably misdiagnosed bipolar, or
schizophrenia, or schizoaffective disorder.)
> One time, you agree, the next, you've got a hair up your... well, you
> know.
Maybe I am not the one with the hair? I am not being vituperative,
as you seem to have pegged me, when I say this. What I say in a
straightforward manner, you seem to be taking as--angry? malicious?
I can agree with some of what you say, but calmly disagree with
others, or be interested in further discussion.
> > I am having similar problems myself of late. I did not know you had
> > responded to my question until Ukko posted a followup; then I had to
> > track down the text on deja. (The new "improved" deja sucks,
> > incidentally. It is considerably more behind than the old.)
>
> So, it's ok for YOU to miss a post, but if _I_ do, I need to brush up
> on my reading comprehension skills ??
>
> Isn't that a bit two-faced ??
Nope. You gave me two possibilities: either you had seen the post
and not noticed what I was saying, or you had not seen the post for
reasons beyond your control.
I gave two responses, predicated on whether you had had the
opportunity to read the post. *If* you had seen it, and not realized
I was seeking a response, then you *might* need to brush up on
your reading skills. (Or maybe not. I did phrase my response in
the form of a question, meaning to allow room for doubt.)
> > That's the information I was looking for. I do not recall you saying
> > it before (perhaps it was in one of those posts I did not get?)
>
> Good - then I've answered your question, haven't I ??
Yeah--my original question. You do not mind if we hash out some
other things, do you?
> > Did you not learn from someone?
>
> Yes, my parents and grandparents.
So then you have met other Gnostics in the form of your relatives?
I mean, real Gnostics according to your definition. And you have
commented about having gotten in touch with other Sons of Seth.
So I conclude that your statement about wondering whether you have
ever met other Gnostics cannot have been strictly accurate. Or was
it rhetorical?
Do you talk with people in your church about "real" Gnostics?
> > Depends. What difference do you see in the two words?
>
> The same difference between reality and Myst.
So, how does it work? Methods are to tactics as reality is to Myst?
If you prefer "methods" for that reason, fine. You have indicated to
me that you have no real interest in making any impact by trumpeting
about "real" Gnostics, in which case "methods" is a better word.
> > > > You boldly inform ARG that they are not Gnostics; why would you expect them to listen to what else you say?
>
> Not all of ARG, just the newbie "Christian Gnostics" and the
> cross-posters, I have had many a fine conversation here, and a few good
> arguements as well, over the years.
>
> > You said you were the only REAL Gnostic on the group, yes?
>
> Yes, I stand by that statement, altho I'm not saying there couldn't be
> more at some other time, past or future.
>
> > Such a statement includes the group as a whole, not just a select portion you target in your mind.
>
> Ah, the conversation returns to vituperative retort.
It is not vituperative; it is a simple presentation of my reasoning.
1) You say that you are the only REAL Gnostic on the group.
2) You qualify that there could be others in the past or future,
meaning that there are not any IN THE PRESENT.
3) THEREFORE, you inform the entire *present* group that none
of them are REAL Gnostics.
Which presents a logical contradiction with your statement:
:> Not the group as a whole, just the Christian HEritics that come in
:> here spouting JEsus, then make bold claims to be Gnostic as well -
You cannot simultaneously address the entire present group AND
only the ones who are "spouting Jesus."
> > What if I say Jesus is just another dude who happened
> > to be teaching some Gnostic material, no more divine than myself?
>
> I'd have to agree.
>
> Apparently you didn't see the arguement I just finished with Dolf.
And I guess you did not see (understandably) the statement I made
that I suspect you are understanding the term "Christian Gnostic"
differently than I, and possibly others, do.
I consider the options I gave to be included in the term. If someone
thinks Jesus was a Gnostic teacher, and chooses to study and follow
his Gnostic teachings in preference to, say, the published Sethian
scriptures, I would call that person a "Christian Gnostic."
I do not consider a Christian Gnostic must agree with a single book
in the "Bible"; agree with Paul in any way, shape or form; or call
Jesus "God."
> > Where is the polytheism in that?
>
> As above and below, you comment on Jesus' being Gnostic (which I also
> agree with), then, according to you, HE would have been Gnostic, and
> therefor a polythiest as well, wouldn't he ??
>
> > What if I say the historical Jesus never existed, or did not matter if he did, and the Gnostic material on him is just allegory?
>
> THen you'd be a lot closer to the truth than Dolf, our resident well
> spoken, well educated Blind Faith Christian.
Hey, it is not hard to get closer to the truth than Dolf.
> > Where is the polytheism in that?
>
> Again, Gnostic materials are purposefully both polytheistic and
> allegorical (usually, depending on the interpreter).
I am confused. You spoke of those "Christian heretics spouting Jesus"
as being polytheistic in a way that seemed to be derogatory, although
now you are talking about it as a Gnostic characteristic. I must have
misunderstood something. Can you explain?
> > I have read your posts and I have read as much of your web sites as
> > I could stomache (sorry, but I find your technique of web design
> > insufferable). I see some interesting interpretations but little I would commit to as "fact" in your history.
>
> Isn't that funny, and here I did a 6 year study on what assimilated
> better, and which pages were being read longer, and purposely set it up
> to provide for the majority.
Interesting. I can spend plenty of time at many websites (as long as
they have content I find intriguing or important), but yours I find most
offputting in terms of human factors engineering. The opening pages
demand so much scrolling to read that they do not invite me to further
investigation. Even the further pages are rather nasty in their layout.
All IMO, of course, since you say they are suited to the majority.
Something else you might consider is getting someone to edit them
for you, since you have problems spelling. An educated person who
stops by your website and sees the multiple spelling errors in what
is a semi-published work into which you put some effort, is not
unlikely to conclude that you are yourself an uneducated enthusiast
who knows nothing of the subjects and gets suckered in by bad
scholarship, or that you are a very careless person who has not
taken much care with your websites, or both.
Not vituperative retorts, but observation.
> I would have to say, either you have eye problems,
For which I have corrective lenses, so that ain't the problem.
> and can't set on one page too long,
If I could not stare at a computer page for any length of time, I could
not do my job.
> or you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about,
If you mean the reading bit, then I know perfectly well what I am
talking about. All it takes is for me to observe, "hey, I find this
page insufferable!" and it does not matter how many others respond
well in your studies, since my responce is subjective. But I
suspect that is not what you mean.
> as I have a Masters in Psyche,
Then I'll let you know that, at least these days and in academia, the
usual preferred abbreviation is "Psych".
> and a D.D., and for 30 years now,
> I have studied both how and why Religion was used to shape and mis-shape
> history, and quite an archaeological buff as well, and have recently set
> up the latest Authenticating Agency, of which there are only 7 of that I
> am aware.
>
> Including mine.
>
> And based on that, I'd would have to come to the conclusion that you
> are either un-educated, or are in denial, as you can easily verify the
> FACTS on my sites IF you have the liking.
I have my fair share of formal education, and I have had my share of
bad knocks in life, and I know enough about the material to tell when
your "facts" are facts and when they are problematic or just plain
wrong.
I think you have several websites, yes? If so, could you give me
a few URLs? I wanted to revisit them for review, but my search
only turned up one active link.
> > The one who inhabits crystalline domiciles.....
>
> Are you insinuating I live in a glass house ??
Metaphorically, yes. Literally, I am saying that referencing your
debates is useless if you use bad sources and that your "historically
correct" websites ain't, and if you cannot comprehend that much,
well....I would not phrase the sentence as you did, but you can take
a flying leap at yourself if you want to indict others for their lack of
historical method while ignoring your own lack of same.
> I think I got your attention.
You woulda' gotten my attention more effectively with another method,
believe it or not.
> It's in the nature of the beast, you'll get use to me, I respond as I
> interpret, sometimes having been offended, my intent is similar, other
> times I find some posts absolutely hilarious, licentious, or even key
> drool.
Then give me credit for same, eh? I am not just being "vituperative";
I can be pretty forward and even blunt, but it is not hostility. I do
get myself in a snit more often than I should, but I am ready to
apologize when I recognize it too. You will get used to me.
> > Since I am only interested in *that* group, it is only *that* group
> > that matters, and any in/accuracies concerning others is not relevant
> > to my question: do you convince any non-Sethians by telling them
> > that they cannot be "real" Gnostics?
>
> No - not to date, and as I am one, when they realise it, they usually
> contact me privately, and we often have considerable exchange, once the
> general ammenities are done with.
"They" being the Sons of Seth or the non-Sons? The sense seems
to say one thing, the parsing another.
> > A bit vituperative, yes, because I have little patience with your inanities.
>
> Ah, a vituperative retort to a vituperative response, I like that -
> , Would that make you poly-vituperative ??
Meta-vituperative, actually ;-)
> > Do you believe in rocks, Gnasty?
>
> I believe they take up space, altho I'd argue about their
> classification being time constrictive, as they go thru many phases.
Oh, I have beliefs *about* rocks, if that is what you mean, such as
that they are sedimentary or &c, but I do not have to believe that they
are here. In the same way, I do not have to believe my Gnosticism,
at least not the core. There are many questions I have not answered
and speculate about, but I guess the speculation is not really belief
either. I do not consider something I experience to be "belief."
> > I defend Pauline Christianity to the same extent that I defend, say,
> > Orthodox Judaism or Native American earth-worship. I do not
> > intend to launch pogroms against them, but I regard them as sadly
> > misguided and harmful to varying degrees.
>
> Then you agree with my ORIGINAL post about their being innapropriately
> posted here ??
Yes, although I disagree with some of your approach and I prefer
to tolerate a small amount of off-topic meandering in a group.
> > See below for my comments on your passwords.
>
> Is the Bible a password ?? How about Christ ?? Was Mary Magdalene one,
> or Paul ??
No, depends, depends, no.
"Christ" and "Mary" have sometimes taken on idiosyncratic meanings
and I can certainly imagine that those meanings could be considered
as passwords of a sort to specific groups.
> Part of ones' belief structure is never secretive to the believers or
> members, and that's why I asked, as you'd have known instantly what I
> was talking about, specific language or not.
As I have long since explained, I do not know your keyterms. And
yes, they are language-specific. They demand that I know the exact
word, not just the concept.
Let us pretend, hypothetically, that I was a Daughter of Seth. How
could I recognize the term "Trenchcoaters" if my family had not been
in contact with other groups since before trenchcoats were developed?
> the WORDS Pristis Sophiensciema can't be found (unless some
> fool mis-directedly blurted it out publicly),as it's Holy to the
> Gnostics, much like the Most Sacred 42-Fold Schemhamforash to the Jews.
>
> Which means you'd have to be Gnostic to know what it is.
"Real" Gnostic, you mean?
> > If, on the other hand, revelations are *not* language-specific, then I
> > could know about the concepts but under different terms. Your
> > stating that a real Gnostic knows about the P.S. would then be as
> > untenable as my stating that they must know about the Diver or be
> > able to tell me about Seirassh.
>
> The Diver sounds like it's sect-specific, I did not do that to you,
Sure you did. You keep asking about the PS. It depends on being in
a sect (or one of several sects, I cannot tell from the way you talk)
that knows about the PS. You asked about the Keepers, and in a
subsequent post made it clear that the term came from the OT. It
depends on being in a sect that studies the OT.
> Seirassh sounds like your Inner Guide, and yes, it's true we have not
> spoken about Theophany yet.
Sorry, wrong guess. You might be able to piece together what
Seirassh is if you dig enough in the right places.
> > > <Snip the bla,bla> which is why I haven't been around
> > > until recently, which you should know about if you were an 'old timer' here, as I posted about it before leaving several times.
>
> > Let me get this straight. You are scolding me for not having gotten
> > my own computer, enabling me to read Usenet at leisure, until after
> > you announced your leave of absence? Of what relevance is that?
>
> It is of relevance only in that you first claimed you were an 'old
> timer' here, and hadn't recognised me as being one also, which you now
> reveal yourself to be untruthful about.
>
> Part of your first arguement(s) were that YOU didn't recognise ME as
> being here very long.
I did complain about your arriving on the scene unannounced and
behaving in the particular way you did, and I stand by that inasmuch
as you had no knowledge of group dynamics at the time, no matter
how long you had been on ARG previous to your sabbatical.
I did not, to my recollection, describe myself as an "old timer" on
ARG as I would not consider someone to be such in less than a
couple of years (at least). Glenn did call me an old timer, for which
I am not responsible.
> Shame on you again....
Shame on you, perhaps, for ascribing statements to me which were
made by another.
> > You were a neophyte at one point, you might remember.
>
> Yes, when I was 10.
>
> Are you now claiming Neophyte status ??
As far as being on ARG, absolutely.
As far as being a Gnostic, I do not consider myself quite a neophyte,
maybe a tyro, although I do not know of any technical meaning the
term might have to you.
As far as life goes, I feel far past neophyte status currently.
> > > > > You DO know what Keepers are, don't you ??
> > > In the Gnostic sense, Keepers of the Faith.
>
> > .....OR I might know the concept, but not under that term.
>
> One of your original claime was to be a Christian Gnostic, Keepers and
> Watchers are common Biblical terms, which is why I used them.
Ah, but you pointed to portions of the OT which I regard as useless
after asking about Keepers. As I said, I think you have a different
idea of what it takes to be a "Christian Gnostic" and I do not reference
most of the OT.
Had you said *Watchers* when you asked the question, that would
have been another matter......
> > Yeah, whatever. For all you know, I dedicate two hours every day
> > to intense work intended to improve the channels of communication
> > with my inner guide. And for all I know, you wank off in front of the
> > computer. Or vice versa.
>
> And I hope you do.
[snip lengthy list of regular activities]
> When do you think I have time to "wank off" ??
Vituperative, are you?
You dropped me a quote implying that I was protesting rather than
doing, based I presume on the fact that I disagree with you rather
strongly on some points. So I make a reply in my usual blunt way
intended to illustrate that we really have no way to know each
other's activities except by voluntary reporting. If you had read
what I said carefully, you would have recognized that I could just
as easily be the wanker in the story. That is one way I say "hey--
nothing personal." Get used to it.
The point is, you cannot know what my efforts toward spirituality
are because I have said so little on this ng, except for some vague
references to meditating, reading, &c. You have not said much in
the past few months either, you know.
> See - I'm really proud of what and who I am, and how much I've managed
> to accomplish, which is why I often go to leangths to comment on it,
Fine. You want lists of accomplishments? Here's one of mine:
Since the beginning of 1997 I have been putting myself through
graduate school.
Until a year ago I was taking care of my husband, who developed
schizophrenia right after I started; making sure he got counselling and
medication, dealing with the bureacracies; paying for his medicines,
counselling, hospital bill, and tuition when he tried returning to school,
all on a grad student's salary.
Last year, when I realized I had to end the marriage for his own
best interests, I had to convince him that it was really ended, and
make all the arrangements for his moving out and for a divorce.
Since I have bipolar depression, I spent most of that time either
depressed or a little manic, and I have had several bad reactions
to medications, taking months out of my life.
In the past year, since I found out that my spiritual experiences were
Gnostic (secondary Gnostic, in your view), I have done as much
reading as I could relating to Gnosticism, religion, and mythology, in
addition to my schoolwork.
I have made extensive notes towards a spiritual/nonscholarly work
on Gnosticism, and I have an eye towards a future scholarly paper
or two on Gnosticism.
Except for the times (like now) when I have been so depressed that
my spirit seems to be entirely unreachable, I have also been
meditating and doing spiritual work regularly.
And, of course, I got my M.A. and am about to take my generals for
the doctorate, and my major professor says I am among the best
students he has ever worked with, and he is well respected and has
worked with a number of students. We are currently co-writing a
paper, and when we submit it my name is going first, which is very
rare in academia today.
> while at times I find other "self-proclaimed" Gnostics to be nothing
> more than churl with little more than vane and false claims, and that
> offends me, as my ancestors paid with their lives to get me this far,
> and I see pseudo-Gnostics as the "wankers" you seem to be so fond of.
>
> And so far, you've done zero to show me that you are what you claim to
> be, other than to RAG at me....
That's okay, you have not shown me you are what you claim to be
either. All you have done is:
1. make historically problematical or just plain wrong statements
about early Christianity.
2. assert that you are descended from Seth himself, indicating that
you think you can trace your lineage back--what--5000 years?
3. demonstrate convincingly that Dolf Boek is a clueless person.
4. attack other people's spirituality, without stopping for a moment
to investigate what they are actually talking about, so far as I can
tell.
> I ended our last conversation here with a statement about agreeing
> with you, and you're back ragging at me again, after it was all over.
Only on the points where we do not agree, or where confusion persists.
We seem to disagree about when it is all over. Are you sick of this
because you see all of my posts to you as hostile? I have that
impression of you. I am asking questions, on and on, because I see
points that I want explicated.
> So now, whose the bad guy here ??
>
> Did I tell YOU I thought you were a "Wanker" ??
No. Try reading instead of jumping to conclusions. I said I knew
nothing of your activities, and that they could include two hours
channeling a day, or wanking off in front of the computer, for all I
could tell. I also said the same things could be true about myself.
Do you disagree that I have no way of knowing what you do with
your time unless you tell me, and vice versa?
I did not realize it would get to you *that* much; I am used to being
around folx who are more laid back about sexuality than you appear
to be. Apologies for striking such a nerve.
Dreamsnake
Gnasty
> What I say in a
> straightforward manner, you seem to be taking as--angry? malicious?
Abusive ? Rude ??
Don't get me wrong, I like vituperative, at least you stand up for
yourself.
> I can agree with some of what you say, but calmly disagree with
> others, or be interested in further discussion.
Your posts do not diaplay any calmness, at times they seem almost to
revile mine.
> You gave me two possibilities: either you had seen the post
> and not noticed what I was saying, or you had not seen the post for
> reasons beyond your control.
> I did phrase my response in
> the form of a question, meaning to allow room for doubt.)
NO - you posted in such a way as to be indicative of either I or my
computer *wanking*.
> You do not mind if we hash out some
> other things, do you?
Not at all.
I have no problems with exchanging information, nor do I take offense,
as, after all, this is one way we learn, isn't it ??
> So then you have met other Gnostics in the form of your relatives?
> I mean, real Gnostics according to your definition. And you have
> commented about having gotten in touch with other Sons of Seth.
Yes.
I also run a Church, with over 600 paritioners, both physical and
virtual, so I guess you could also say there's quite a community out
there, not only of Sons, but of second generation Sons as well.
And, I make the same distinctions to my paritioners, as well.
> So I conclude that your statement about wondering whether you have
> ever met other Gnostics cannot have been strictly accurate. Or was
> it rhetorical?
It was in reference to YOUR posted doubt to having met any real
Gnostics according yo my definition.
And yes, it was rhetorical.
> Do you talk with people in your church about "real" Gnostics?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I run the Church in true Gnostic tradition,
with pseudo-Christian services, underlieing secondary meanings, and with
a healthy history lesson thrown in for good measure.
> So, how does it work? Methods are to tactics as reality is to Myst?
I had re-defined what you categorised, but yes, I would say that's
fairly acurate, a tactic is a now-time real effort, and a reality is a
supposition of perception(s), they being the Myst.
> If you prefer "methods" for that reason, fine. You have indicated to
> me that you have no real interest in making any impact by trumpeting
> about "real" Gnostics, in which case "methods" is a better word.
> > > Such a statement includes the group as a whole, not just a select portion you target in your mind.
Actually, again, we were talking about YOUR methods.
Also, if you go back and look, you'll see that I originally 'targeted'
the Cross-posters.
> 1) You say that you are the only REAL Gnostic on the group.
As far as I can detect, yes.
> 2) You qualify that there could be others in the past or future,
> meaning that there are not any IN THE PRESENT.
As far as I can detect, yes.
> 3) THEREFORE, you inform the entire *present* group that none
> of them are REAL Gnostics.
I had made that statement, yes, but the statement was to YOU, not the
group as an entirety.
> Which presents a logical contradiction with your statement:
> > "Not the group as a whole, just the Christian Heritics that come in here spouting JEsus, then make bold claims to be Gnostic as well" -
Actually, I had made that particular statement to you - the rest here
have heard me make it time and again, and have no problem with it.
> You cannot simultaneously address the entire present group AND
> only the ones who are "spouting Jesus."
True enough.
Not relevant, or to the point, but true enough.
> And I guess you did not see (understandably) the statement I made
> that I suspect you are understanding the term "Christian Gnostic"
> differently than I, and possibly others, do.
I saw it.
What I did was question its' validity.
> I consider the options I gave to be included in the term. If someone
> thinks Jesus was a Gnostic teacher, and chooses to study and follow
> his Gnostic teachings in preference to, say, the published Sethian
> scriptures, I would call that person a "Christian Gnostic."
In the same sense that the Pauline Church would consider them
'back-sliders'.
> Hey, it is not hard to get closer to the truth than Dolf.
I tried to illuminate him, but he has niether eyes to see, nor ears to
hear.
He is Sooo tied up in heritical Pauline doctrine, and residual writ
it's impossible.
> > Again, Gnostic materials are purposefully both polytheistic and
> > allegorical (usually, depending on the interpreter).
> I am confused. You spoke of those "Christian heretics spouting Jesus"
> as being polytheistic in a way that seemed to be derogatory, although
> now you are talking about it as a Gnostic characteristic. I must have
> misunderstood something. Can you explain?
I take offense to those that spout JEsus as Lord claiming that they
are Gnostic, they don't even realise that the Pauline Doctrine they so
ferverently follow was a pseudo-philosophy, nor that it was chosen by
the Nicean council out of DOZENS of versions as indicative of what THEY
wanted Christianity to be represented as, and not even CLOSE to the
truth, nor do they realise Christ taught a version of Radical JUDAEISM,
and he, like his cousin John the Baptist and his brother James, was
eliminated for causing SEDITION among the people, which went against the
Pax Romana, and NOT for claiming to be the Son of God, which he never
claimed, nor was it a crime to do so.
Saul/Paul claimed it.
He wasn't even considered 'holy' or born unto a 'virgin' until after
they had had a chance to write it in, which occured around the late 3rd
or early 4th century, WELL after his crucifiction.
> Interesting. I can spend plenty of time at many websites (as long as
> they have content I find intriguing or important), but yours I find most offputting in terms of human factors engineering. The opening pages demand so much scrolling to read that they do not invite me to further investigation. Even the further pages are rather nasty in their layout.
Gee, and if you use any recent Bible program, it's almost an identical
pattern, with perhaps the exception of biblical programs being smaller
print.
It's actually quite a common style.
AND research showed me that by breaking up the paragraphs, it became
easier to assimilate (in smaller pieces), thereby making it easier to
read.
As for 'human engineering', like I said before, it's a common style.
The further pages you comment on are identical the the others, with
different colors, that's all, I'm still in the process of attempting to
see if certain colors are prefered, and I'll note your response as part
of the survey.
AND, I'd say it was a Gnasty layout.
But then again, I'm only vested in 4 major Newspapers, with (until
last month, when both my parents died) 14 columns in 17 Newspapers
through out the country, and have been doing layout for them since I was
10 (44 years), so what do I know.
> Something else you might consider is getting someone to edit them
> for you, since you have problems spelling.
Actually, they aren't proof read yet, as I was in the hospital for a
while, and didn't have a spell checker at the time I posted them.
Is that all you really have, is to rag at my spelling ??
Here in this post, where you spell folks with an 'x' ??
> An educated person who stops by your website and sees the multiple spelling errors in what is a semi-published work into which you put some effort, is not unlikely to conclude that you are yourself an uneducated enthusiast who knows nothing of the subjects and gets suckered in by bad
> scholarship, or that you are a very careless person who has not
> taken much care with your websites, or both.
Actually, an educated person would recognise the factual content first,
and consider their gramerical value afterwards.
I reiterate:
> > you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about,
All of my information is acurate to the tens, as they say, and the
bibliography behind the postings are almost 22 pages long.
The posts themselves are but pieces of that book I'm writing I
mentioned in an earlier post, and encompass only a mere 30 years study
and a life time of being Gnostic, but, then again, your guess obviously
is better than my research, my families history, and all of Gnosticism
in general, so I guess I should scrap the entire project because you
think, without ANY research, without ANY studies, without ANY
verification, that the material is wrong, eh ??
I suggest to you that you actually DO some reading before you post as
to the validity of someone elses' information.
"Opinions" won't get you far here.....
MUCH more knowledgeable persons than you have gone to my sites to
refute them, and come back silent.
> If you mean the reading bit, then I know perfectly well what I am
> talking about. All it takes is for me to observe, "hey, I find this
> page insufferable!" and it does not matter how many others respond
> well in your studies, since my responce is subjective. But I
> suspect that is not what you mean.
I suspect that SPECIFICALLY what I mean is that you are oh so
obviously un-educated that your posts are becoming little more than
theoristic and inane opinionisms.
> > as I have a Masters in Psyche,
>
> Then I'll let you know that, at least these days and in academia, the
> usual preferred abbreviation is "Psych".
Wow - now THAT one hurt.
Big deal, I hit the e.
If that's the strength of your retort, I suggest you come up with
something more valid.
> I have my fair share of formal education,
Apparently not. or you wouldn't say that my posts are inacurate,
unless that education you speak of was in gymnastics.
> and I know enough about the material to tell when
> your "facts" are facts and when they are problematic or just plain
> wrong.
Apparently not.
I suggest you start with:
Marcossius (G.P.) De Vitis, Secretis, et Dogmatibus omnium Haereticorum
(1596)
MArcarius (L) Abraxas seu Apistopistus quae est antiquaria de GEmmis
basilidians Dequistio
(1659)
Sircus (M) Simonis MAgi Haereticorum omniun PAtris Privates
(1664)
Michaelis (?) Dissertatio de Indiciis Philosophiae gnosticae TEmpore
(1667)
Ittig (T) T. Ittigii de Haeresiarchis AEvi apostolici primi
(1690)
Ittig (T) Dissertationis Ittigianae de Haeresiarchis
(1709)
Strunz (F) Frederici Strunzii Historia Bardesanis et BArdesanistarium
et cet.
(1710)
Massnet (R) Prolegomena (to his edition of Irenaeus)
(1710)
Beausobre (I.de) Histoire critique de Manichee et du Manicheisme
(1734)
Moshiem (J.L.v) Institutiones christianae majores
(1739)
(and, of course, his): GEschichte der Schlangenbruder
(1750)
(And, of course, also his):
De Rebus christianis anti Constantinum magnum Commentarii
(1753)
Schumacher (J.H.) Erlauterung der Lebrtafel der Ophiten
(1756)
Tittmann (C.C.) Tractatus de Vestigiis GNosticorum in N.T. frustra
quaesttis
(1773)
Munter (F.C.C.H.) VErsuch uber u.s.v. (Essai sur les Antiquities
ecclesiastiques du Gnosticisme
(1790)
and:
Schelling (F.W.J.V.) De Marcione Epistolarum Paulinarium Emenadatore
(1795)
And don't forget to brush up on your Latin, Greek, Spanish, German and
Italian.
You might want to throw in a few Old Church Slavinics too, I've got a
LOT of reference materials I'd like to discourse on with you before I
can accept your bland statement that anything _I_ post is inacurate or
untrue.
When you get that far, let me know, and I'll bring you into the
1800's with a little Lewald, Neander, Hahn and Bellermann, and we'll go
from there.
I have some older stuff too, but let's build the roots before we
depend on the tendrils.
That's just page one of the bibliography from which the information
was amassed and re-interpreted, there's another 21 pages....
If that's too much for you, or foreign language is not your strong
point, I suggest:
The Pistis Sophia
The Bruce Codex
The Nag Hammadi
The Qum' Ran Scrolls (inclusive of the War Scrolls)
The Naassene Psalms
The book of Secrets (of Enoch)
Luke
Jubalees
The Epis of Barnabas
The Testament of the 12 Patriarchs
The Prayer for Revelation
and
The Holy Gnostic Rosary
OR - if those are 'too old' for you, there's an EXCELLENT list I gave
Dolf, just above in this thread somewhere, I think it was the second to
last post I made to Dolf.
> I think you have several websites, yes? If so, could you give me
> a few URLs? I wanted to revisit them for review, but my search
> only turned up one active link.
You mean you actually wanted to READ them after your comment ??
I can only assume that's what you mean, after that ludicrous
generalization as to the validity of my materials being nil.
Or, as Dolf would say:
As a Biblical Scriptural Theologist, versed in theoretics, philosophy
and theosophy, I find that your comprehension of polysindentious
doxology lacking, and bolstered by dissimulate an uneducated
versimilitude of inpalpable intangible and inpose guffaw.
Which would lead to your comment about my "historically correct
websites ain't" being an embarrasment on your part.
In other words, you have been socially masturbating, and In Flagrante
Delicto, no less.
And, if YOU can not comprehend THAT much, I WOULD put it that way.
> You woulda' gotten my attention more effectively with another method,
> believe it or not.
I prefer not.
Your ego in this area you seem to be so lacking in actual knowledge,
it required it.
> I am not just being "vituperative";
Oh yes you are.
Calling my sites inacurate, while you have zero knowledge in the field
yourself is egotistical AND vituperative.
Correcting my spelling, while I could have easily done the same to you
is in bad taste as well.
> > > A bit vituperative, yes, because I have little patience with your inanities.
And you think I consider your bland un-informed opinionizations in
better esteam ??
<ref: belief in rocks> In the same way, I do not have to believe my
Gnosticism, at least not the core.
And there we have it, folks, a self-proclaimed Gnostic Christian, who
doesn't have to believe in Gnosticism, other than her own
interpretations.
Well, isn't that all heartsandflowereandbutterfliesandrainbows.
> I do not consider something I experience to be "belief."
And if you were to experience an Theophany, would that come under your
"beliefs" ??
> > > I defend Pauline Christianity to the same extent that I defend,
> > > Orthodox Judaism or Native American earth-worship. I do not
> > > intend to launch pogroms against them, but I regard them as sadly
> > > misguided and harmful to varying degrees.
> >
> > Then you agree with my ORIGINAL post about their being innapropriately posted here ??
>
> Yes, although I disagree with some of your approach
Then I've made my point, and you've recinded your opinion.
> and I prefer to tolerate a small amount of off-topic meandering in a group.
That's one opinion.
I think you'll find you're all alone on this, not including the
Heritical Cross-posters I seem to have managed to run off for the most
part.
> > Is the Bible a password ?? How about Christ ?? Was Mary Magdalene one, or Paul ??
> No, depends, depends, no.
> "Christ" and "Mary" have sometimes taken on idiosyncratic meanings
> and I can certainly imagine that those meanings could be considered
> as passwords of a sort to specific groups.
Then you support the feasibility of the Blood-line theory ??
> As I have long since explained, I do not know your keyterms. And
> yes, they are language-specific. They demand that I know the exact
> word, not just the concept.
Actually, I was speaking in English, a language you should be familiar
with, and conversing on standard Gnostic knowledges, which you should
also be familiar with, if you were Gnostic, as you have claimed here
several times.
> Let us pretend, hypothetically, that I was a Daughter of Seth. How
> could I recognize the term "Trenchcoaters" if my family had not been
> in contact with other groups since before trenchcoats were developed?
IF you were Gnostic, you WOULD know who they are, as you are in the
present tense, and not in the historical past.
Altho, they were called Westcut Gnostics several hundred years ago.
> > Which means you'd have to be Gnostic to know what it is.
<ref: Pristis Sophiensciema>
> "Real" Gnostic, you mean?
Yes, a REAL Gnsotic.
> > The Diver sounds like it's sect-specific, I did not do that to you,
>
> Sure you did. You keep asking about the PS. It depends on being in
> a sect (or one of several sects, I cannot tell from the way you talk)
EACH and EVERY sect has their version of the Pristis Sophiensciems,
like each and every sect in Christianity has its' version of the Bible.
> You asked about the Keepers, and in a
> subsequent post made it clear that the term came from the OT. It
> depends on being in a sect that studies the OT.
As each Gnostic sect, inclusive of ALL the so called Christian
Gnostics, holds some truths to the Old Testament, and more often refutes
them, so the term was relevant, and I gave easily attainable references
to it as well.
> I did not, to my recollection, describe myself as an "old timer" on
> ARG as I would not consider someone to be such in less than a
> couple of years (at least). Glenn did call me an old timer, for which
> I am not responsible.
>
> > Shame on you again....
>
> Shame on you, perhaps, for ascribing statements to me which were
> made by another.
No, the statement was yours.
> As far as being a Gnostic, I do not consider myself quite a neophyte,
> maybe a tyro, although I do not know of any technical meaning the
> term might have to you.
a tyro (novice) is less than a neophyte, as a neophyte at least has
immersed themself into the subject.
> > One of your original claime was to be a Christian Gnostic, Keepers and Watchers are common Biblical terms, which is why I used them.
>
> Ah, but you pointed to portions of the OT which I regard as useless
But easily refrenced.
> As I said, I think you have a different
> idea of what it takes to be a "Christian Gnostic" and I do not reference most of the OT.
Obviously.
> Had you said *Watchers* when you asked the question, that would
> have been another matter......
So, TWO terms out of the O.T. would have been easier to recognise ??
Come on now....
> Vituperative, are you?
And HOPING they don't like it....
> The point is, you cannot know what my efforts toward spirituality
> are because I have said so little on this ng,
I'll be the first to agree with THAT....
> Fine. You want lists of accomplishments? Here's one of mine:
Mine were in reference to Gnosticism, yours are not.
And, yet, you still hold to the belief that you have the right to
berate my posts, and invalidate my information, based on how you 'feel'
about its' structural composition, and not on its' historical acuracy,
altho, you seem to be a little vague on the differences.
Except, perhaps this:
> In the past year, since I found out that my spiritual experiences were
> Gnostic (secondary Gnostic, in your view), I have done as much
> reading as I could relating to Gnosticism, religion, and mythology, in
> addition to my schoolwork.
> I have made extensive notes towards a spiritual/nonscholarly work
> on Gnosticism, and I have an eye towards a future scholarly paper
> or two on Gnosticism.
And yet, without any (self-stated) scholarly knowledge, you attempt to
dis-credit MY works.
Shame on you.
> > And so far, you've done zero to show me that you are what you claim to be, other than to RAG at me....
> That's okay, you have not shown me you are what you claim to be
> either. All you have done is:
> 1. make historically problematical or just plain wrong statements
> about early Christianity.
I have posted Gnostic TRUTHS about a sect you actually know nothing
about. (judging by your posts, and your own words).
You need to comprehend that reading about Gnosticsim, and actually
BEING Gnostic are two VERY separate subjects.
You could, for example, read about Simon Trismaegestus, and THINK you
had the ability to emulate his ability to float, but without the
knowledge it takes to actually float, you'd be self-deluded.
> 2. assert that you are descended from Seth himself, indicating that
> you think you can trace your lineage back--what--5000 years?
Actually, longer back than that, but - OK:
Adam - Seth - Enos - Cainan - Mahalaleel - Jared - Enoch - Methuselah
- Lamech - Noah - Shem (who carried thru the Sethian belief structure) -
Arafaxin - Salah - Aber - Peleb - Ru - Saru - Nahor - Tira - Abraham
(who was a Caldee born in UR) - Jacob - Essa - Tamar, whose wife,
Phoenix was Pahronic, and birthed not only the Levite blood line, but
Christs blood line as well (actually, they're the same line)- that takes
us to the Levite Priesthood, into the modern calendar, and cuts your
estimate by over 4000 years - the rest is specific family lines....
There were several rivulettes that ran from Shem and his sons, mine
generates from and thru Arafaxin to Peleb, Ru, Saru and so-on....
Need I go on ??
It's not hard to comprehend.
> 3. demonstrate convincingly that Dolf Boek is a clueless person.
:):):))):):) :):))):):):) )):))):):)))<laughter>
Yes, I did do that....
> 4. attack other people's spirituality, without stopping for a moment
> to investigate what they are actually talking about, so far as I can
> tell.
I didn't attack your spirituality, I questioned your claim that it was
of Gnostic roots.
And, if I told you I know more about your Religious belief structure
than you do, would that bother you ??
And, if I demonstrate I do, wouldn't that then invalidate your posts
completely ??
Do I HAVE to do that to you ??
> I did not realize it would get to you *that* much; I am used to being
> around folx who are more laid back about sexuality than you appear
> to be. Apologies for striking such a nerve.
Don't glorify yourself honey, it didn't.
I'm an EXTREMELY Dominant and Aggressive male, and I doubt if ANY
female could shake My tree, trust Me on that one....
And, your appologies are un-necessary, I know of what I post about, or
I don't post.
I suggest to you to adopt a similar concept for your posts.
Gnasty
And HOPING they don't like it....
Start here:
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/robson/662/
http://homepages.go.com/~gnasty1/
http://www.crosswinds.net/~book/
(the last one seems to have problems, but you CAN access it)
Dreamsnake
> Dreamsnake:
>
> > What I say in a
> > straightforward manner, you seem to be taking as--angry? malicious?
>
> Abusive ? Rude ??
>
> Don't get me wrong, I like vituperative, at least you stand up for
> yourself.
>
> > I can agree with some of what you say, but calmly disagree with
> > others, or be interested in further discussion.
>
> Your posts do not diaplay any calmness, at times they seem almost to
> revile mine.
You have been on Usenet long enough to know that posts are not
necessarily a good indication of the poster's emotions. I think over
my posts, and shelve them if I deem it necessary. You can take my
word for it that not everything from me you call "ragging" really is; or
you can view me as a big fat liar, in which case any hope of
communication between us is meaningless because you can question
anything I say arbitrarily. Just be sure to let me know.
If you do not back off a little on considering me to be a hothead
speaking with the intent of reviling you, I will consider that a form of
letting me know.
> > You gave me two possibilities: either you had seen the post
> > and not noticed what I was saying, or you had not seen the post for
> > reasons beyond your control.
>
> > I did phrase my response in
> > the form of a question, meaning to allow room for doubt.)
>
> NO
Ah, so when I say "perhaps....?" it does not indicate doubt?
Therefore, when you said, " perhaps it [meaning my original post]
was an insignificant addenum to our original arguement that I
over-looked ??" it does not indicate doubt. Got it. Despite the
fact that you also suggested you simply had not seen the post for
reasons beyond your control.
> - you posted in such a way as to be indicative of either I or my
> computer *wanking*.
So, like you, I have posted something that could be parsed in a way
other than the original intent (that it could be you wanking and me
channelling, or me wanking and you channelling--although it was all
hypothetical flipness). Did you not get puzzled at my comment in
the next post I made: "I also said the same thing could be said
about myself"? It only just dawned on me that you were reading the
"vice versa" to include you and the computer, rather than you and
me.
> I also run a Church, with over 600 paritioners, both physical and
> virtual, so I guess you could also say there's quite a community out
> there, not only of Sons, but of second generation Sons as well.
>
> And, I make the same distinctions to my paritioners, as well.
So the second generation Sons, as you call them here, are--what?
The same as secondary Gnostics? Do they agree they cannot be
'real' Gnostics?
> > So I conclude that your statement about wondering whether you have
> > ever met other Gnostics cannot have been strictly accurate. Or was
> > it rhetorical?
>
> It was in reference to YOUR posted doubt to having met any real
> Gnostics according yo my definition.
You did not phrase it in such a way as to make that meaning clear. I
read it a different way and it did not even occur to me that you were
referring to *my* not having encountered other real Gnostics.
> > If you prefer "methods" for that reason, fine. You have indicated to
> > me that you have no real interest in making any impact by trumpeting
> > about "real" Gnostics, in which case "methods" is a better word.
> > > > Such a statement includes the group as a whole, not just a select portion you target in your mind.
>
> Actually, again, we were talking about YOUR methods.
? I was distinctly under the impression that we were discussing *your*
methods, since I got into this thread with my indicating that I thought
some of your methods (the word I was using was tactics) worked at
cross-purposes to your intents. I know now that I misread your
intents, so your methods were not at cross-purposes.
> > 3) THEREFORE, you inform the entire *present* group that none
> > of them are REAL Gnostics.
>
> I had made that statement, yes, but the statement was to YOU, not the
> group as an entirety.
Hmm. I thought you made it in a thread started by Pythagoras T.,
in which I had not participated until you made your contribution.
Got something else in mind?
> > And I guess you did not see (understandably) the statement I made
> > that I suspect you are understanding the term "Christian Gnostic"
> > differently than I, and possibly others, do.
>
> I saw it.
>
> What I did was question its' validity.
I have seen your generic posts on your problems with the term
"Christian Gnostic." I have not seen you question specifically the
validity of my use of the term until now.
> > > Again, Gnostic materials are purposefully both polytheistic and
> > > allegorical (usually, depending on the interpreter).
>
> > I am confused. You spoke of those "Christian heretics spouting Jesus"
> > as being polytheistic in a way that seemed to be derogatory, although
> > now you are talking about it as a Gnostic characteristic. I must have
> > misunderstood something. Can you explain?
>
> I take offense to those that spout JEsus as Lord claiming that they
> are Gnostic, they don't even realise that the Pauline Doctrine they so
> ferverently follow was a pseudo-philosophy,
[snip &c]
Okay, let me clarify my question. You seem at one point to be using
polytheism in a derogatory sense and at another to apply it to material
that I think you view positively (Gnostic writings). Are you using the
word to have more than one meaning and, if so, how? If not, are you
meaning to slam Paulism for being polytheist when they pretend not to
be? Or some other option that I have not imagined?
> > Interesting. I can spend plenty of time at many websites (as long as
> > they have content I find intriguing or important), but yours I find most offputting
[...]
> AND research showed me that by breaking up the paragraphs, it became
> easier to assimilate (in smaller pieces), thereby making it easier to
> read.
I concur that large paragraphs are more difficult to read than small
pieces on a computer. The pieces you use are smaller than what I
find optimum but they would be tolerable. What I have problems
with are the lines too long for the page which leave another line one
or two words long, usually centered on the page, in the one site I
can access currently. The first page is also *very* long, and with
the "soundbite" phrases I would like a little more material on the
screen at once so I can take it in. I do not find that to be a real
problem after the first page.
> The further pages you comment on are identical the the others, with
> different colors, that's all, I'm still in the process of attempting to
> see if certain colors are prefered, and I'll note your response as part
> of the survey.
FWIW, I prefer the soft green and lavender. I find the white background
too harsh and the grey too--institutional. I should warn you though that
I am colorblind (blue and green), do not know if that makes my
reaction to the colors atypical.
> > Something else you might consider is getting someone to edit them
> > for you, since you have problems spelling.
>
> Actually, they aren't proof read yet, as I was in the hospital for a
> while, and didn't have a spell checker at the time I posted them.
>
> Is that all you really have, is to rag at my spelling ??
No, I was making a serious suggestion. With all the junk on the 'net,
some users evaluate the potential of sites by taking a look at the first
page or two, and image plays a role as well as content. Image is
especially important in sites that have low content on the first page,
as in the case of the one page of yours I can access currently.
It was not "ragging." I would make the same suggestion to a friend
and colleague were they in a similar position.
> Here in this post, where you spell folks with an 'x' ??
Hey, what can I say, I regard posts as the cyberequivalent of talking,
and I speak casually and readily accept that others do the same.
However, websites are a more serious and permanent endeavour and
are apt to be judged by different standards.
> > An educated person who stops by your website and sees the multiple spelling errors in what is a semi-published work into which you put some effort, is not unlikely to conclude that you are yourself an uneducated enthusiast who knows nothing of the subjects and gets suckered in by bad
> > scholarship, or that you are a very careless person who has not
> > taken much care with your websites, or both.
>
> Actually, an educated person would recognise the factual content first,
> and consider their gramerical value afterwards.
I live my life surrounded by educated people by definition, and there
is not a one of them but recognizes that too much of the 'web is
junksites with little informational value. Not enough time in the world
to read every site, so things like grammar have to be a guide. Sorry,
but life ain't fair, just as it ain't fair when people are judged by their
looks.
> All of my information is acurate to the tens, as they say, and the
> bibliography behind the postings are almost 22 pages long.
>
> The posts themselves are but pieces of that book I'm writing I
> mentioned in an earlier post, and encompass only a mere 30 years study
> and a life time of being Gnostic, but, then again, your guess obviously
> is better than my research, my families history, and all of Gnosticism
> in general, so I guess I should scrap the entire project because you
> think, without ANY research, without ANY studies, without ANY
> verification, that the material is wrong, eh ??
Skipping over the part of the question that is ranting and excessive,
no, I do not think you should scrap your project. I do think you
should consider carefully the way you present your various kinds of
sources. Family history, in particular, is a difficult source of information
and needs to be handled in a different way than published and
verifiable information, such as the text of a 17th-century book.
A good deal of what I have read from you on this ng has been based
around your family history and secret Gnostic traditions.
> > If you mean the reading bit, then I know perfectly well what I am
> > talking about. All it takes is for me to observe, "hey, I find this
> > page insufferable!" and it does not matter how many others respond
> > well in your studies, since my responce is subjective. But I
> > suspect that is not what you mean.
>
> I suspect that SPECIFICALLY what I mean is that you are oh so
> obviously un-educated that your posts are becoming little more than
> theoristic and inane opinionisms.
Yeesh. Education. Bite me. I do have advanced graduate training
in intellectual history, but wtf does it matter if I never finished high
school if I say something correct?
> > > as I have a Masters in Psyche,
> >
> > Then I'll let you know that, at least these days and in academia, the
> > usual preferred abbreviation is "Psych".
>
> Wow - now THAT one hurt.
>
> Big deal, I hit the e.
>
> If that's the strength of your retort, I suggest you come up with
> something more valid.
Again, not a retort, but a comment. I thought I would pass on some
information, in case you had gotten your Master's 30 years ago, and
not been in touch, and the common practice had changed since then.
Don't care? Fine, you don't care. But it is not a retort.
> > I have my fair share of formal education,
>
> Apparently not. or you wouldn't say that my posts are inacurate,
> unless that education you speak of was in gymnastics.
B.A. in History, M.A. in History of Science, currently doctoral student
in same, strong emphasis on interactions of science with magic and
religion (which cannot really be separated, but they have been,
mistakenly, in most of the historiography until recently). More relevant
than a psychology degree, at least.
> > and I know enough about the material to tell when
> > your "facts" are facts and when they are problematic or just plain
> > wrong.
>
> Apparently not.
>
> I suggest you start with:
>
> Marcossius (G.P.) De Vitis, Secretis, et Dogmatibus omnium Haereticorum
> (1596)
[snip list]
> Schelling (F.W.J.V.) De Marcione Epistolarum Paulinarium Emenadatore
> (1795)
I confess that I have not read a single one of these works. Before I
consider whether it would be worth my while to find and forge into
them, a task that would no doubt take years, I would like to discuss
the concepts behind this list. Are you selecting them as secondary
sources? Historical methods between 1596 and 1795 were flawed
and I would treat any history written in that time period veeeerrryy
cautiously. Is there a reason why you chose to recommend them
first, rather than the more modern sources to which you pointed Dolf?
You can get some choice astronomical information from a book
written about 1596, but it is not the first place to send someone to
learn about astronomy.
> And don't forget to brush up on your Latin, Greek, Spanish, German and
> Italian.
You forgot to list French.
I suspect you of trying to bluff me out of questioning you. Not that
I do not believe you can read those languages--ministers, in my
experience, tend to be polyglots--but that anyone with Latin is not
going to have much to do in terms of brushing up on their Italian.
(Knowing Latin and Spanish will take you a long way through the
French too, and French will get you well into Spanish.)
Maybe giving me the old list was part of an attempt to put me off.
It is a normal reaction to not want to go read old books, as they
have a reputation for delicacy and they are usually housed in
inconveniently placed collections with stringent use policies. 17th
and 18th-century books are seldom ILL'd.
> You might want to throw in a few Old Church Slavinics too,
Why not throw in Coptic for luck? And hieroglyphic Egyptian; you
might as well be thorough.
> I've got a
> LOT of reference materials I'd like to discourse on with you before I
> can accept your bland statement that anything _I_ post is inacurate or
> untrue.
In Slavonic?
> When you get that far, let me know, and I'll bring you into the
> 1800's with a little Lewald, Neander, Hahn and Bellermann, and we'll go
> from there.
........I sense a brushoff.
> I have some older stuff too, but let's build the roots before we
> depend on the tendrils.
>
> That's just page one of the bibliography from which the information
> was amassed and re-interpreted, there's another 21 pages....
.......or maybe bragging.
> If that's too much for you, or foreign language is not your strong
> point, I suggest:
>
> The Pistis Sophia
> The Bruce Codex
> The Nag Hammadi
> The Qum' Ran Scrolls (inclusive of the War Scrolls)
> The Naassene Psalms
> The book of Secrets (of Enoch)
> Luke
> Jubalees
> The Epis of Barnabas
> The Testament of the 12 Patriarchs
> The Prayer for Revelation
> and
> The Holy Gnostic Rosary
Read a bunch of them. Is every one necessary to get started?
(Actually I am just as curious about what you have omitted--like
the Odes of Solomon and the Hermetica.)
> > I think you have several websites, yes? If so, could you give me
> > a few URLs? I wanted to revisit them for review, but my search
> > only turned up one active link.
>
> You mean you actually wanted to READ them after your comment ??
Nah. I just asked for the sake of exercizing my fingers [heavy sarcasm]
> I can only assume that's what you mean, after that ludicrous
> generalization as to the validity of my materials being nil.
Well, if one is going to be discussing things at this length, one should
have them at one's fingertips.
Put this way: I looked, I saw problems, I can safely say that I recall
looking and seeing problems. But if it is going to come down to
telling you what my specific problems are, I should have the primary
sources (what you have said or quoted).
But do note that I have reservations about your historical posts as
much as your websites.
> > I am not just being "vituperative";
>
> Oh yes you are.
Fine then; I am vituperative. I hope you have gotten that out of your
system.
> Calling my sites inacurate, while you have zero knowledge in the field
> yourself is egotistical AND vituperative.
I do have some small knowledge of intellectual history and historical
methods.
> Correcting my spelling, while I could have easily done the same to you
> is in bad taste as well.
Well, if it will satisfy you to view me as vituperative and tasteless
and to identify noting spelling as a feedback device as an indicator
of such characteristics, I can oblige by eyeballing all your posts to
me for spelling errors in future; just let me know. But I would
prefer to be known for saying "aw, bloody hell" while picking my
nose.
> > > > A bit vituperative, yes, because I have little patience with your inanities.
>
> And you think I consider your bland un-informed opinionizations in
> better esteam ??
What is this practice of yours? You cannot think of a good comeback
during the course of the conversation, but it comes back to you five
minutes after you walk out, so you come back and repeat it to me
when you get another chance?
> <ref: belief in rocks> In the same way, I do not have to believe my
> Gnosticism, at least not the core.
>
> And there we have it, folks, a self-proclaimed Gnostic Christian, who
> doesn't have to believe in Gnosticism, other than her own
> interpretations.
>
> Well, isn't that all heartsandflowereandbutterfliesandrainbows.
Nope. It's rather brutal. Your background should have exposed you
to some rather heavy skepticism; did you ever actually *try* it?
Stub your toe on the damned rock and tell me in that moment that
you believe in the rock rather than knowing the rock.
> > I do not consider something I experience to be "belief."
>
> And if you were to experience an Theophany, would that come under your
> "beliefs" ??
Nah. It would come under an "experience." My interpretation of it
would be an "interpretation." Ultimately, it could be wrong, just as
my interpretation that posts emanate from other humans or that
animals have feelings like my own could be wrong.
> > > Then you agree with my ORIGINAL post about their being innapropriately posted here ??
> >
> > Yes, although I disagree with some of your approach
>
> Then I've made my point, and you've recinded your opinion.
No, since my opinion was that not all of that should be chased off
the ng, and none in the particular way you tried going about it.
> > and I prefer to tolerate a small amount of off-topic meandering in a group.
>
> That's one opinion.
So you recognize I have not rescinded my opinion.
> I think you'll find you're all alone on this, not including the
> Heritical Cross-posters I seem to have managed to run off for the most
> part.
No, since we had a conversation on the subject while you were away.
> > > Is the Bible a password ?? How about Christ ?? Was Mary Magdalene one, or Paul ??
>
> > No, depends, depends, no.
>
> > "Christ" and "Mary" have sometimes taken on idiosyncratic meanings
> > and I can certainly imagine that those meanings could be considered
> > as passwords of a sort to specific groups.
>
> Then you support the feasibility of the Blood-line theory ??
Like I said in another thread, I cannot utterly rule anything out, but I
find your bloodline theory improbable in the extreme, as it demands
the highly accurate transmission of information in a very select group
over very long periods of time, and information shifts over time.
How you go from my saying that groups could have secret material
and use knowledge of that secret material as passwords, to concluding
that I support the feasability of bloodlines, is beyond me.
> > Let us pretend, hypothetically, that I was a Daughter of Seth. How
> > could I recognize the term "Trenchcoaters" if my family had not been
> > in contact with other groups since before trenchcoats were developed?
>
> IF you were Gnostic, you WOULD know who they are, as you are in the
> present tense, and not in the historical past.
So you are *absolutely* sure that all the real Gnostics stay in touch
with each other all the time? It is not possible for a branch to get
cut off, forget they have relatives in the rest of the world, and not keep
up-to-date on the latest trends?
> > > The Diver sounds like it's sect-specific, I did not do that to you,
> >
> > Sure you did. You keep asking about the PS. It depends on being in
> > a sect (or one of several sects, I cannot tell from the way you talk)
>
> EACH and EVERY sect has their version of the Pristis Sophiensciems,
> like each and every sect in Christianity has its' version of the Bible.
Every "real" Gnostic sect? Every "secondary" Gnostic sect? Since
we have been discussing the differences and similarities between these
two groups at some length, it would be helpful (to me) for you to
specify which or both you are talking about.
> > You asked about the Keepers, and in a
> > subsequent post made it clear that the term came from the OT. It
> > depends on being in a sect that studies the OT.
>
> As each Gnostic sect, inclusive of ALL the so called Christian
> Gnostics, holds some truths to the Old Testament, and more often refutes
> them, so the term was relevant, and I gave easily attainable references
> to it as well.
Is a term relevant if it comes from material I regard as the outdated
rantings of a Yahweh-worshipper berating other Yahweh-worshippers?
> > I did not, to my recollection, describe myself as an "old timer" on
> > ARG as I would not consider someone to be such in less than a
> > couple of years (at least). Glenn did call me an old timer, for which
> > I am not responsible.
> >
> > > Shame on you again....
> >
> > Shame on you, perhaps, for ascribing statements to me which were
> > made by another.
>
> No, the statement was yours.
Prove it. Tell me the thread and date where I said I was an "old timer."
> > As far as being a Gnostic, I do not consider myself quite a neophyte,
> > maybe a tyro, although I do not know of any technical meaning the
> > term might have to you.
>
> a tyro (novice) is less than a neophyte, as a neophyte at least has
> immersed themself into the subject.
Okay, I have encountered them put the other way around, but my
dictionaries are not making any meaningful discrimination between the
two words, so never mind. I suppose I cannot tell *you* whether I
am claiming neophyte status unless I know what *you* mean by the
word.
> > > One of your original claime was to be a Christian Gnostic, Keepers and Watchers are common Biblical terms, which is why I used them.
> >
> > Ah, but you pointed to portions of the OT which I regard as useless
>
> But easily refrenced.
Your point?
> > Had you said *Watchers* when you asked the question, that would
> > have been another matter......
>
> So, TWO terms out of the O.T. would have been easier to recognise ??
No, if you had said "Watchers" *instead* of "Keepers" it would have
been easier to recognize.
> Come on now....
Your point?
> > Fine. You want lists of accomplishments? Here's one of mine:
>
> Mine were in reference to Gnosticism, yours are not.
You mean like when you mentioned running business-oriented
websites, being disabled, or raising a child? Or maybe it was setting
up the web server. Yeah, that is real Gnostic.
Come off it, Gnasty, you were listing your activities in order to
demonstrate how busy you are, because by your own admission you
like to brag about your accomplishments. All I did was respond in
kind.
Of course, there were a couple of Gnostic-related activities in mine,
one of which you ignored and the other you could not know about,
unless you had read and absorbed some of my posts not addressed
to you.
First, some of my schoolwork *does* relate to Gnosticism, since
I study the history of Hermeticism, alchemy, and suchlike, and I
strive to *understand* the mindset of the good people who are my
subjects, not just look at the words and translate it into modern terms.
Second, going through a pile of shit in your life has *everything* to
do with Gnosticism, since, well, it is an important clue to the fact
that life is a pile of shit.
> And, yet, you still hold to the belief that you have the right to
> berate my posts, and invalidate my information, based on how you 'feel'
> about its' structural composition, and not on its' historical acuracy,
> altho, you seem to be a little vague on the differences.
What do you have in mind when you refer to the structural
composition and not the historical accuracy?
> Except, perhaps this:
>
> > In the past year, since I found out that my spiritual experiences were
> > Gnostic (secondary Gnostic, in your view), I have done as much
> > reading as I could relating to Gnosticism, religion, and mythology, in
> > addition to my schoolwork.
>
> > I have made extensive notes towards a spiritual/nonscholarly work
> > on Gnosticism, and I have an eye towards a future scholarly paper
> > or two on Gnosticism.
Gee, you left out one: you know, the bit about meditating and spirit
work? You know, the 'getting in touch with your Inner Guide' type
activities?
> And yet, without any (self-stated) scholarly knowledge, you attempt to
> dis-credit MY works.
>
> Shame on you.
Au contraire, my dear interlocutor, I have a fine scholarly background
in early science, of which there is a good deal in classical Gnosticism.
I also have a scholarly background in history, and a good deal of any
advanced education in the humanities involves learning how to learn
on your own.
> > > And so far, you've done zero to show me that you are what you claim to be, other than to RAG at me....
>
> > That's okay, you have not shown me you are what you claim to be
> > either. All you have done is:
>
> > 1. make historically problematical or just plain wrong statements
> > about early Christianity.
>
> I have posted Gnostic TRUTHS about a sect you actually know nothing
> about. (judging by your posts, and your own words).
You have posted a lot of claims that you can trace your lineage back
several thousand years. Guess what, just because it is in the Bible
doesn't make it so.
> > 2. assert that you are descended from Seth himself, indicating that
> > you think you can trace your lineage back--what--5000 years?
>
> Actually, longer back than that, but - OK:
>
> Adam
[...]
> Need I go on ??
>
> It's not hard to comprehend.
But you comprehend the historical problems with the early part of
that genealogy, yes? You may have faith in it, but that does not
make it historically verifiable. The doublings in the lineage of Genesis
4 and 5 suggest that they are based on a common tradition and that
the Cainite lineage was the original, or closer to the original than
the Sethian.
> > 4. attack other people's spirituality, without stopping for a moment
> > to investigate what they are actually talking about, so far as I can
> > tell.
>
> I didn't attack your spirituality, I questioned your claim that it was
> of Gnostic roots.
>
> And, if I told you I know more about your Religious belief structure
> than you do, would that bother you ??
>
> And, if I demonstrate I do, wouldn't that then invalidate your posts
> completely ??
>
> Do I HAVE to do that to you ??
Yes. You seem to think that I need ego-puncturing and you seem to
think that if you demonstrate this claim, it will have that effect, and
you seem to think that you can do so.
So tell me about my "religious belief structure." Show me that you know
more about it than I do. Then explain, if I do not get it, how that
invalidates my posts.
> > I did not realize it would get to you *that* much; I am used to being
> > around folx who are more laid back about sexuality than you appear
> > to be. Apologies for striking such a nerve.
>
> Don't glorify yourself honey, it didn't.
>
> I'm an EXTREMELY Dominant and Aggressive male, and I doubt if ANY
> female could shake My tree, trust Me on that one....
[raised eyebrows] I am accustomed to hanging with people who
would not use words like "abusive" to describe what I said. Or go
on a several page rant about how they could not possibly be a
wanker because they were so busy. Or imply I was "the bad guy"
for it. But that is because they would have recognized what I was
saying.
> And, your appologies are un-necessary, I know of what I post about, or
> I don't post.
Sure. That's why you can't tell when I am or am not calm.
(Hint: extreme irony)
> I suggest to you to adopt a similar concept for your posts.
I learned about something from you in your last post. You said it,
but you seem not to know of it.
This one is currently down.
> http://www.crosswinds.net/~book/
> (the last one seems to have problems, but you CAN access it)
I can access some of it; is some of it not finished or dead links?
Dreamsnake
Gnasty
I hope Verizon has it togeather by now, I'm going to try posting again
and see....
You get my Email that responded to this ??
I sent it to you from the Gnostic Church account at Angelfire.
I tried to post it, but Verizon was having problems with their NG
function (AGAIN) at the time.
Let me know....
And, btw, I am perfectly willing to discuss more recent publications
with you - as long as you give credence to earlier works being at least
reference materials.
I understand your qualms about ancient tomes having been prejudiced,
or mis-interpretted, or worse, purposfully altered, but even you have to
admit, the authors WERE closer to the subject materials tham we are, and
it's not clear that ALL ancient writ is tainted.
MOST materials available were translated by those that actually USED
the information (for research or whatever), and therefor subject to
consideration as to being as accuratley translated as was possible at
the time.
ALL books have value, if for nothing else than to illustrate their
having been a generalized mis-perception, or there having been an
assumptive following based on common misunderstanding, purposeful or
not, like Pauline Christianity.
Dreamsnake
I've been quite busy for the past week, plus I wanted to take some time to
think over our conversation to date. I should have dropped you a note
saying I had gotten your email. Sorry 'bout that. Would you prefer to
take this thread to email? I'm certainly willing if it would be more
convenient. I probably won't get a chance for a real reply until Wed. at
the earliest.
Later,
D.
Gnasty
> Would you prefer to take this thread to email? I'm certainly willing if it would be more convenient.
Whatever floats your boat.
If you want, we can start with something more contemporary as well.
All the reference I gave was for your elucidation, I don't expect you
to be able to absorb it all immediately, nor do I believe you should
have to, I just wanted to make it clear that the materials HAD been
researched, extensively.