Thanks, Jeffrey, good post, I shall ponder it awhile.
But no to Gnosticism, the world isn't overwhelmingly evil, utterly fraught,
yes, but ....
Interesting that I substituted 'Elohim' for 'Eloi'. I find the former much
more rhythmically satisfying.
Best
Dave
David Bircumshaw
Leicester, England
Home Page
A Chide's Alphabet
Painting Without Numbers
www.paintstuff.20m.com/index.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Jullich" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: A Gnostic Lesson - Life is a dream - Calderon De La Barca
> "david.bircumshaw" wrote:
>
> > Never quite 'bought' the Gnostics. Who would claim to 'wisdom'.
>
> Another Jesuit contact, Fr. Richard Roach (last seen around Seattle) used
to say
> that America had become overwhelmingly gnostic. Gnosticism differed from
X-ity
> or Judaism in that X-ity and Judaism hold that Genesis belief of "And it
was
> good", that the world is fundamentally good, and that we've somehow
slipped out
> of that original goodness but could aspire returning it through specific
paths
> (faith, good works, . . .): these "salvations" were associated with
traditions
> (priestly, canon) that moved through generation-by-generation succession
and
> ultimately traced back to (what was believed, however questionable the
history,
> to have been) a uniquely authoritative founder (Moses, Jesus). (I don't
know
> Islam well enough to plot it into this. Sorry.) Gnosticism, to the
contrary,
> believes that the world at its base is evil, bad, corrupt, that it was
created
> not by a good God but by a daemon imposter God who, along with the bad
"flesh,"
> restricts our freedom; and that "salvation" was through independent,
> spontaneous, visionary enlightenment (wisdom) where an apparition of some
> mystical being (the gnostic Christ) would raise the level of the gnostic
without
> any recourse to society or tradition.
>
> America's "gnosticism" (via Fr. Roach) should be easily self-evident, if
you
> just loosen the religiosity of some of the gnosticism and see its basic
> principles re-playing themselves.
>
> "david.bircumshaw" wrote:
>
> > I always end up at the Matthean Sermon, where life does matter but no
> > answers are forthcoming, 'elohim, elohim, lama sabacthani'. If I quote
> > aright.
>
> Richard, a pretty quotable Jesuit, also had a rather brilliant and novel
> interpretation of that. The Hebrew is the opening verse of Psalm 22:1.
The
> psalm goes on to culminate in majestic hope, triumph over death ("shall
live
> forever") and good global unification: "The meek shall eat and be
satisfied:
> they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.
All
> the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the
> kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee."
>
> Fr. Roach's take on it was: The Greek doesn't say Jesus "spoke" those
words.
> The Gk. is closer to "intoned" or "hummed" or sang. Hebrew psalms all had
> distinct melodies, instantly recognizeable (Name That Tune) within the
first few
> bars. So, like hearing only the words "Somewhere over the rainbow . . .",
> everybody knows the rest. And the sentiment or "message" of that verse
was in
> the remainder of the psalm and its optimism (the truth hidden in the
"invisible"
> unrecited words that ever listener could fill in on their own).
>
> The KJV transliteration is: " Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" [Mark 15:34].
(The
> original Gk. has two m's in ~lamma.~)
>
> I don't mean to "evangelize." Just seemed on-topic.
>
