Frans' musing on a gnostic theme....
gnostic with a large G or a small g?
You may think you're a gnostic, but until you really know, you are but a pretender, a child dressed up in momma's clothes...
knowledge, real knowledge, is always experiential... there is a difference between intellectually knowing God, and scriptures, and actually knowing God, in a biblical sense...
to meet with God... to unite or become one with God is the quest for most religious types, in truth... knowledge of God is what you want, so you gather knowledge of books and thoughts of men, and think you know everything, but until you make that union, a real connection, with divinity, in its many forms, you know nothing...
I have a book here, a collection of vancanas, or "free verse lyrics", poems kind of like bhajans, or devotional songs, to Siva, and my favourite are by Basavanna...
"Look, the world, a swell
of waves, is beating upon my face.
Why should it rise to my heart,
tell me.
O tell me, why is it
rising now to my throat?
Lord,
how can I tell you anything
when it is risen high
over my head
lord lord
listen to my cries
O Lord of the Meeting Rivers
listen.
.....
to my way of looking at things, a lot of ppl feel just like Basavanna. They too are yearning for that "personal" connection with their Lord.
The Catholic Enclyclopedia defines gnosticism as...
" a collective name for a large number of greatly varying and pantheistic-idealistic sects which flourished from some time before the christian era down to the fifth century and which, while borrowing from the phraseology and and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of christianity, held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the deity, and taught the ultimate end of all beings to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the parent-spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some god-sent saviour"...
elements of gnosticism, by stuart holroyd, states;
in the beginning there existened only the transcendent god, a male principle that existed for eternities in repose with a female principle, the Ennoia (thought), until there emanated or was brought forth from their union the two archetypes of mind (male) and truth (female). in turn these principles emanated others, in male-female pairs to the total of thirty, called, aeons, who collectively collectively constituted the devine realm, known as the pleroma or "fullness". Of all the aeons, only the first, Mind, knew and comprehended the greatness of the Father, and could behold him, but the last and youngest, Sophia, (wisdom) became possessed of a passion to do so, and out of the agony of this passion and without the knowledge of her male counterpart she projected from her own being a flawed emanation.
This abortion, the "Demi-urge", was the creatioor of the material cosmos and imagined himself to be the absolute God.
The cosmos he created consisted of a number of spheres, each of which is ruled over by one of the lower powers, archons, who collectively govern man's world, the earth, which is the lowest of the spheres of the degenerate creation".
Jehovah is usually considered to be this demi-urge, the abortion of Sophia...
Not the "father" at all... he just thinks he is, and wants you to think that too...
now, perhaps Jesus is considered a "new" version of the old messiah, the saviour, for gnostics now, and why should this be wrong?
after all, catholicism itself is rife with it's "perfections of spirit" themes. Man, and matter, and Mammon, are flawed, corrupt, whereas the spirit, the soul, is eternal, indestructable, and from God...
And yet- to unite with God, the father, is not really a theme for most christians...
the demi-urge does not want you to merge with him, for if you do you will glimpse the other, the perfect one, the real father, and cast him aside as the corrupt and imperfect deity he is... and then we'd have to stop publishing old testaments...
The Nag Hammadi texts should perhaps be included in the new testament, yet...
how can we change a book written in stone years past?
the gospel of truth, the gospel of thomas, the treatise on the ressurection, gospel of phillip, gospel of mary, wisdom of jesus christ, revelation of james, letter of peter to phillip, on the origin of the world... 41 new texts they found in nag hammadi... many of them seemingly gnostic, and some bearing passages in their texts which are almost exactly the same as in the "modern " bible...
before that... other texts were found, pre-dating nag hammadi, such as... the "pistis sophia", or the "piste sophiae cotice" which refers to the mother of jesus, the virgin, being "the pleroma of pleromas", the apocryphon of john, and the gospel of mary, and the sophia of jesus christ, all discovered in 1896.
Now... lol... there was a priest in rennes-le-chateaux, and it is my belief this priest found these documents, pre-nag hammadi... I believe he sold them to a collector in Cairo and used the money to build his church...
"this is a terrible place"...
indeed it is, Sauniere... I agree...
rumour has it... at this time in history, and a few miles from where Sauniere was based a priest of the same age and physical characteristics was murdered... nobody was ever caught...
rumour has it... Sauniere "saw his ass", and moved the rest to Egypt, and et voila! the Nag Hammadi library was discovered, in a cave, by a small Bedoin boy...
All because the Chruch did not want to admit to the peasants they had spent many years deciding what God and theology and the cosmos was, and woe betide anyone who contradicts us, even if the words come from the mouth of Jesus himself, they would rather burn their Master's words than allow themselves to be exposed as the whore of Babylon, fornicating with a corrupt demi-urge to deny you union with God...
for, if the peasants can unite direct, what use are priests?
If matter is corrupt, we cannot make money from the sale of relics...