... particular following and way of gnosticism, when many facets are prevelant today. Becareful in what you may read that says all gnostics are like this ItsMessage 1 of 82 , Oct 11, 2005View Source--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, David Wilson
>particular following and way of gnosticism, when many facets are
> It seems that you might be trying to hard to understand one
prevelant today. Becareful in what you may read that says" all
gnostics are like this" Its not true.
Hello, David. In this group, however, we do compare/contrast to our
focus of *historical* Gnosticism of the late antiquities. And,
although there was some variation among sects, there were also
similarities, which allow us to loosely categorize them together.
The overriding one consistently found in these groups was the
function of Gnosis as salvific. So, although I wouldn't put all
Gnostics in a straightjacket, I also would *not* accept that many
paths, including some modern ones called "Gnostic," are necessarily
simpatico at all with the ancient groups we focus on.
> One last thing I would like to note that is we are creations of theunnamed one, and being of its creation, we share many aspects with
our. To balance the equation the creator must have to have something
to do with time and there are probably overlying rules which even it
>Well, the creator, the demiurge, craftsman/artisan of this world, did
> David W.
not remain "unnamed" with the Gnostics. In literature we see
Ialdabaoth also called Saklas (fool) and Samael (blind god).
Hey David ... need to ask ya first. Did Early Gnostics really think and speak in allegorical terms? Cause if so that may answer a lot but only open moreMessage 82 of 82 , Oct 27, 2005View SourceHey David
>>>wow, your questions really sparked some thought in my head, Ineed to ask ya first. Did Early "Gnostics" really think and speak in
allegorical terms? Cause if so that may answer a lot but only open
more questions to debate. very good questions at that.<<<
Thanks, glad you liked the questions :) As Lady Cari states, there
is evidence in the original Gnostic writings for allegorical
hermeneutic. Part of the point I was trying to bring up was exactly
where this should be applied. In other words... Philip, the
Tripartite Tractate, and other texts state directly that there is
allegory (so there is no question on that front), but exactly where
and how it is applied is very open to discussion.
In this particular case, I was asking if you think that that
allegory extends to the notion of the Demiurge or not. Let me also
point out that the idea that something may literally be true does
not exclude the notion that it may have also been allegorical in
meaning. So.... where do you think this all fit in the original
intent of the Gnostic texts?