Question to the Gnostics here!

[tanelorn]

I think labels kill the spirit.

Was 'gnostics' what they call themselves or labelled by their enemies?

[drael]

Which one would you be angry man, if you had to pick?

Do any of them, get any fringe benefits. You know, cars, women?

I think If I had to pick, I shall choose to be a quantum dialectic spagetti bane gnostic.

...Hmm, no.

Perhaps a mutant three-headed monkey flying star of judas templar of the holy hermetic fashion squad?

Does anyone want to start a cult?

[phildee3]

Originally Posted by tanelorn

I think labels kill the spirit.

Exactly.
Once somebody calls themselves "a Gnostic," they are not one!

[tru3]

why was the gospel of thomas banned from the canon?
do you read other source material other than what is approved by yeshua?
do you live in a commune, or compound?
what is your covenant, in 30 words or less?

i lead by example: my covenant is to choose love where i once chose fear.

see. it's easy. i invite you to respond in kind.

i don't do profiles. i don't have a profile. a profile is a straw man. i am a living man.

engage me from here. in the living Present, as best we can given the limitations of the medium. not from dead works.

[tru3]

Once somebody calls themselves "a Gnostic," they are not one!

exactly. "No-name is the maiden of Heaven and Earth, name is the mother of all things."

like the tao [sic]; if i name it, that's not the tao.

btw: really i did use the word "know" in a post yesterday. i looked it up. i'm ready for my whipping, mr. phildee.

so, i have to ask the OP: i'm sitting around talking about gnosticism. ergo, i must not be a real gnostic.

so why are you wasting your time?

i'm just imagining you guys' homelife...

[tru3]

What seems even more ridiculous to me is the fact that many of you dont even seem to know what your talking about about since you cant answer a straight forward question, if you posed the same question to an orthodox christian you would expect them to answer, yet when the shoe is on the other foot such great secrecy is it any wonder you cant pull many of the brainwashed followers of mainstream religions out of their slumber when you cant even be open about your own belief systems.

ok. sorry. for the sake of clarity...what kind of a gnostic am i? i dunno. pigeonholes are for pigeons.

all i can tell you is certain elements of gnosticism resonate for me. i probably was one in a previous life.

based on your conditions above, i must know what i'm talking about since i answered your question, to the best of my ability.

and since i "seem" to know what i'm talking about according to your parameters, here's my advice: go read the "course in miracles" and you will understand what my views on gnosticism are.

better yet: put the book away and do the exercises in the work book. one exercise every day for 365 days. take an idea and apply to everything in your life, everything that arises. an actual experiential process where you can work with the principles first hand.

if are you are unwilling to do this, you will never understand where i'm coming from. so i have to wonder if this thread is a good faith effort to seek deeper understanding, or just a chance to erect a false idol of false understanding and false intellect?

here's my very real hard-won insight into whatever it is your calling gnosticism:

we created this world, god didn't. only an insane god would create a world like this. it is we, through our upside down thinking, who made this so, and god, because she loved us so, gave us our wish, holds us perfectly in his heart, and awaits our return to Love.

hence the covenant.

any more doctrine than that, i'm gonna hurl.

[phildee3]

Originally Posted by tru3

i'm sitting around talking about gnosticism. ergo, i must not be a real gnostic.

I said if someone calls themselves a Gnostic, they are not one.
Big difference!

Originally Posted by tru3

so why are you wasting your time?
i'm just imagining you guys' homelife...

Wow, that's a new one!

Anyway, what's so creative about going to bed?

Okay, okay. Don't answer that one...

[tru3]

Originally Posted by phildee3

I said if someone calls themselves a Gnostic, they are not one.
Big difference!

yep.

Anyway, what's so creative about going to bed?

i make pup tent.

[curtaincat]

Originally Posted by one666

Does a catholic know themselves? Is this why they feel a need to believe in a god that does not exist? I believe in myself and no one else. I worship myself and no one else.

Me too, and that is why i thank you for your invitation to join your group, but ... sorry, I declined. ( I couldn't find where to decline the invite in the invite.)

thanks anyway, maybe another time

[curtaincat]

the insane god is ruling the world, people are beLIEving it.

that is basically it. Get your little sparks outa here !!! You can do it, just don't believe in any fake gods ! ... and you aint little, you are great.

[tru3]

Originally Posted by curtaincat

the insane god is ruling the world, people are beLIEving it.

that is basically it. Get your little sparks outa here !!! You can do it, just don't believe in any fake gods ! ... and you aint little, you are great.

thanks, i'm re-discovering that on a daily basis.

[curtaincat]

Originally Posted by tru3

thanks, i'm re-discovering that on a daily basis.

yay, glad i could help

[stormer]

Other

[primordialman]

Hmm well thanks all, for all your imputs to my interestingly esoteric thread despite my hard words and no nonsense approach!
VERY surprised the solid stalwart veteran of thelemites & everything crawleyian, marphat has not contributed or reared his 6 goatheads to respond.
Who knows marphat if you respond to this thread i may just take you off my IGNORE list. Would also be good to get a response from greatestian or thirdwave since all these posters appear to be a typical seekers of gnosis!.
Oh well I am off to some tea until next time have a jolly good time chaps "knowing yourselfs" & attempting the herculian task of reinventing the gospels into a lucis trust classic of humanist debauchery!

[tru3]

Originally Posted by primordialman

Hmm well thanks all, for all your imputs to my interestingly esoteric thread despite my hard words and no nonsense approach!
VERY surprised the solid stalwart veteran of thelemites & everything crawleyian, marphat has not contributed or reared his 6 goatheads to respond.
Who knows marphat if you respond to this thread i may just take you off my IGNORE list. Would also be good to get a response from greatestian or thirdwave since all these posters appear to be a typical seekers of gnosis!.
Oh well I am off to some tea until next time have a jolly good time chaps "knowing yourselfs" & attempting the herculian task of reinventing the gospels into a lucis trust classic of humanist debauchery!

i appreciate a no nonsense approach. respect.

ironically, i was just checking in to say i was going to abandon my position here because, well i'm not really a gnostic. if my comments distracted from the thread, i apologise. if they added clarity, no thanks required. i really was just saying kind of tongue in cheek, in my op, that my "previous life" included certain things i took on assumption in this lifetime. certain assumptions in my own personal inception matrix have been examined, defused, and recycled. merely this.

personally, i have a deep mistrust of any organized forms of gnosticism. can we at least agree on this: that within these different categories you present, which honestly i know nothing about, their are dominator hierarchies that actually subvert the very thing they profess to offer: "enlightenment" as something to be gained. imv, that is bullshit.

can we at least agree on that?

[tru3]

i'm going to re-introduce a question: based on my comments about the course in miracles, which i do know something about, what kind of "gnostic" am i? or was when i was doing 365 exercises over 14 months, having two meltdowns and wonderful deep release all the way through. merely one subjective direct experience.

so iow: i am offering you a strawman for you to vivisect. you might be surprised what color the blood is, probably the same color as yours.

run it through your "BELIEF-O-MATIC" matrix and put your barcode on it. go ahead. make my day.

hear is my one condition: please answer the questions about the gospel of thomas, at least. i've already abandoned the last question on the list. your direct personal expression of your covenant would also be helpful, but i'll muddle through somehow without it if this makes you uncomfortable.

let's carve up this turkey together, shall we?

[chip1]

The book of Thomas was banned from the Bible for one reason it made women equal to men...

Can't have that in a book of men written by men... And make everything equal could we...

They say it does not meet the criteria...

The early church councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Was the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?

The gospel of Thomas fails all of these tests. The gospel of Thomas was not written by Jesus' disciple Thomas. The early Christian leaders universally recognized the gospel of Thomas as a forgery. The gospel of Thomas was rejected by the vast majority of early Christians. The gospel of Thomas contains many teachings that are in contradiction to the biblical Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. The gospel of Thomas does not bear the marks of a work of inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

But they did pick out the one's they thought were inspired...

All Words are Inspired by GOD... Every word they do belong to him...

[tru3]

Originally Posted by chip1

The book of Thomas was banned from the Bible for one reason it made women equal to men...

Can't have that in a book of men written by men... And make everything equal could we...

They say it does not meet the criteria...

The early church councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Was the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?

The gospel of Thomas fails all of these tests. The gospel of Thomas was not written by Jesus' disciple Thomas. The early Christian leaders universally recognized the gospel of Thomas as a forgery. The gospel of Thomas was rejected by the vast majority of early Christians. The gospel of Thomas contains many teachings that are in contradiction to the biblical Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. The gospel of Thomas does not bear the marks of a work of inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

But they did pick out the one's they thought were inspired...

All Words are Inspired by GOD... Every word they do belong to him...

excellent start. please define "inspiration of the Holy Spirit".

edit: you also mention "they"?

who am them?

edit: so, based on your four point criteria, which points are relevent? all of them? correct? upon cursory glance, i immediately re-but your presumption on #4. again, whose values? whose morals?

[tru3]

Originally Posted by snoopsnuffleopagus

No such person.

The real Jesus Name is Yahshua=Yah Helps/Saves.

Here:
JESUS AND THE IDENTITY OF GOD

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_JIG.htm

if you want to stopthemadness you have to keep it real.............

i went back and read your link; would you agree that paul, in a sense, contaminated the message of the gospels with roman beliefs, or at least certainly shepherded the new testament in alignment with his hellenstic worldview? perhaps he did indeed have a conversion on the road to damascus about his own behaviour, then continued to cram Essence into a babylonian jar. one look at constantine reveals a pragmatist, not a visionary. imo.

i never did get it. there has always been this cognitive dissonance with respect to the king jame's bible. and other versions. i'm sorry i don't read aramaic so any interpretation i'm a little skeptical about someone else's word for these matters.

i am that i am can be translated and subsitituted, in the aramaic, as "i will be what i will to be." that's just one example that jumps to mind. anyone else see the implications of this?

the only possible benefit of continuing to view the new/old testament as a seamless work is to marry the spirit of the law with the letter of the law (read --one's own covenant). if that's the purpose of your post, then i support that and am mindful of that in my own life.