Subj : Bible To : KEITH KNAPP From : TODD HENSON Date : Fri Dec 01 2000 12:08 am > SGID: 1:15/63 001866df > CJ> > Uncapitalized, "gnostic" is more of a general attitude that there is > CJ> > secret spiritual wisdom, etc. Church Father Clement of Alexandria, > CJ> > for instance, while arguing against Gnostics, went on at great length > CJ> > about the path of the "true Christian gnostic" such as himself. > > CJ> RZ> Really? A Christian gnostic. I'd like to hear more about that. > > CJ> I have to admit I haven't yet read the Clement stuff I have, > CJ>and only a couple of works by Origen. But the Alexandrian school > > Curtis, stop intellectualizing about something that is beyond the > intellect. Spirituality is not something you think about; it's > something you do. Find a modern source to cause the Awakening the How can you do something unless you think? > Gnostics talked about, and do it. It happens to your body, > and it blows you away. The Gnostics 'got' the deep initiation > and the ancestors of the Roman Church got only the exoteric > nonsense. None of it makes any sense until you have actually > lost bodily consciousness and Realized that you have always been > Bliss and Release itself. The rest is mythology. If one is unconscious, then they won't be experiencing bliss, or much else. > CJ> The work in which Clement goes on at length about the true > CJ>Christian "gnostic" is _Stromateis_. As I said, I haven't yet read > CJ>that, but I do know that one characteristic of their "true Christian > CJ>gnostic" that was shared with the Gnostics was secrecy about doctrine, > CJ>and the duty, if need be, to lie about that doctrine to fellow > CJ>Christians. Clement was explicit about this, and Origen, for example, > CJ>did not believe in Hell but thought that preaching about it to the > CJ>"simple Christians" was necessary to terrorize them into virtue. > > Ordinary people are taught to be nice and not kill others. This is > good. But initiates are radiated into an awareness of the level where > Self and God are literally the same thing. This is part of your body I have serious concerns for someone who walks around thinking that he's God. Perhaps I'm missing something. > right now. You are always already the thing you are seeking. This is What about the things you are NOT seeking? I suppose the victim and the murderer are the same being? > not an intellectual process, but somthing that happens to your body in the > presence of an Initiate or a Realizer like Jesus. Find a Realizer. To realize something takes thought, but you said spirituality isn't something you think about. Jesus certainly provoked much thought in those that heard him. > CJ> Another characteristic that the Alexandrian school shared > CJ>with the Gnostics was secret literature. Of especial interest here > CJ>is the discovery by Morton Smith of a letter by Clement in which > CJ>he quotes texts that Clement claimed were part of the original > CJ>Gospel of Mark and which were to be read only among a secret inner > CJ>circle. They are of great textual interest, one reason being that > CJ>in the letter Clement said they were to be inserted at two places > CJ>where scholars had earlier suspected that passages had been deleted. > CJ>This is gone into in excruciating scholarly detail in Smith's > CJ>_Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark_, which I have > > Stop wasting your time. The practice is this: be radiant Love or not. > Or as Paul said: The Secret is this: Christ in you. The secret is > hidden in plain sight. When did Paul say that? Can you give a quote, and be able to explain it in it's proper Biblical context? > CJ>read. > CJ> I'm afraid that to go much further into about this Secret > CJ>Gospel of Mark, however, would bring me into a topic that the moderator > CJ>just banned. > > CJ> > The Gnostics were a pretty diverse bunch, and their cosmogonies > CJ> > were quite complex and varied, so one hesitates to generalize. But > CJ> > your statement tends to fit the Neo-Platonists (IIRC) and the Manicheans > CJ> > much better. A lot depends also on what you mean by "regain our > CJ> > divinity." The Gnostics did not have a program of becoming God(s), > CJ> > nor did the Manicheans. > > CJ> RZ> What did those people believe then? > > CJ> As I said, they were a pretty diverse bunch. One common factor > CJ>is belief in salvation through a secret knowledge to be given only to > CJ>the uninitiated. A usual form of this knowledge was the steps to be > CJ>taken to ensure an ascent to the uppermost heaven at death to make > CJ>it past the guardians of the respective spheres. (There seem to be > CJ>interesting links to this with Paul's claim to have ascended to the > CJ>third heaven when he learned something "it is not lawful to utter," > CJ>and his allusions to principalities and powers, etc.). > CJ> Another common feature of Gnostics was the notion that this > CJ>world had created by a demiurge (a term borrowed from Plato) who was > CJ>either evil or incompetent, and that this demiurge is to be identified > CJ>with the God of the Old Testament, as opposed to the God of the New > CJ>Testament. (Gnostics loved to quote Paul and GJohn.) This belief > CJ>alone doesn't qualify a sect as Gnostic, however--the Marcionites > CJ>believed this, and they weren't Gnostics. > > This foam is best explained by Freud. Have all your fears been > demolished by falling into Radiant Bliss, or not? The Gnostics were What is Radiant Bliss? > just as idiotic as everyone else at assigning ultimate cause (story) > to everything. The physical world has no meaning. It just is. The world doesn't cease to have meaning just because you say it doesn't. The world had to come from somewhere, and the meaning of the world would be determined by whatever brought it into existence. But if you're trying to say that the source of spiritual meaning lies beyond the physical, I'd agree. > Stop trying to figure this world out, and just get beyond it. How does he do that? > You are Curtis Johnson, and that is good and right and normal. By what standard? What if being Curtis Johnson is bad, wrong, and abnormal? > But once the sexual jolt goes up your spine into your head, you will > lose track of Curtis Johnson. And once it goes above your head Why? Why does sexual ecstasy make you lose track of who you are? > into the blissful tornado above your head, you will know that What tornado? > Curtis Johnson is okay, but that you don't know who or what that is. > Once you have gotten beyond all danger, you will Know that Curtis > Johnson is just a construct. Suddenly, all of your bodily bullshit, > all of your history, will seem ephemeral. Given a choice, would you > rather have bodily success, or infinite mindless Radiant Love? Tell me, when does a human live up to their purpose - when they seek after meaning in truth anf spirit, living by principles, philosophy, and wisdom, or when he allows himself to become lost in sensual pleasures that take the place of the higher functions of consciousness? > That is the proper context for the debate about Gnostics v. Literalists. Not quite. > CJ> A good introduction to the Gnostics is Elaine Pagel's book, > CJ>which is relatively short. --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-5016 (1:10/345) .