Confused over not connecting with Thoth

ravenest

Hmmm.... Annoyingly charming comes more to mind. ;)

I'm sorry to hear of the constant pain you seem to be having to endure. It must be exhausting.

No no no ... dont be sorry, its great .... thats my point about life. I am just revealing that stuff to show how the few speed humps in the road arent really that bad if one has right attitude about life.

man, if I wrote about 1/10 of the good stuff it would be pages and pages and pages long.
 

Richard

I used to think gnostic means "unknown", and it originates from their belief "God is unknown"......

You probably were thinking of agnostic or agnosticism.
 

foolMoon

The meaning of the word "gnostic" has never been used by its original meaning. It was always used to mean "revelation" or "unknown God" I read it somewhere.
 

Richard

The meaning of the word "gnostic" has never been used by its original meaning. It was always used to mean "revelation" or "unknown God" I read it somewhere.

The classical Greek noun γνωσις means knowledge, wisdom, understanding; γνωστος means known, knowable; and γνωστης means one that knows. It is odd that a Greek root would be used with almost the opposite of its original meaning. I think your source may have been mistaken.
 

Richard

I'm beginning to get a handle on this. The Gnostics considered the True God to be totally transcendent and therefore impossible to experience directly, rather like the negative existence of Ain (Nothing) in Kabbalah. However, God emanates intermediate beings, Aeons, which may be experienced.
 

foolMoon

The classical Greek noun γνωσις means knowledge, wisdom, understanding; γνωστος means known, knowable; and γνωστης means one that knows. It is odd that a Greek root would be used with almost the opposite of its original meaning. I think your source may have been mistaken.

I thought the heart of the message from the source was "the word Gnostic has never been used for its original meaning. It doesn't reflect the Gnotics teachings, beliefs or practices."

It could be, in that case I thought, used for what is the core of their belief - God is unknown.
 

Richard

I thought the heart of the message from the source was "the word Gnostic has never been used for its original meaning. It doesn't reflect the Gnotics teachings, beliefs or practices."

It could be, in that case I thought, used for what is the core of their belief - God is unknown.
The word gnostic has always been used with reference to its meaning in the Greek language. Gnosticism is not about knowing God; it is about self realization, experiential knowledge of the self, its origin, and its destiny. It is very unlike Christianity, although it shares some of the same mythology. Gnosticism is based on knowledge rather than divine revelation.
 

foolMoon

The word gnostic has always been used with reference to its meaning in the Greek language. Gnosticism is not about knowing God; it is about self realization, experiential knowledge of the self, its origin, and its destiny. It is very unlike Christianity, although it shares some of the same mythology. Gnosticism is based on knowledge rather than divine revelation.

This definition contradicts with my source which is from the Britannica.

It says "If we wish to grasp the peculiar character of the great Gnostic movement, we must take care not to be led astray by the catch word Gnosis. It is a mistake to regard the Gnostics has anything to do with knowledge. .... Among the majority of the followers of the movement Gnosis was understood as not meaning "knowledge" or "understanding" in our sense of word, but divine revelation."
 

Richard

Heretofore, I have never known the Britannica to be blatantly incorrect. The author of the encyclopedia article obviously disbelieves that the Gnostic philosophy actually was based on personal knowledge, and that is a legitimate opinion with which I am basically in agreement. However, the knowledge/understanding aspect is precisely what distinguished the Gnostic movement from other religious movements of that time. I think the leaders of the movement actually believed that it was based on philosophical principles (primarily neo-Platonic) rather than divine revelation. Of course, it is impossible for me to dig into the minds of the ancient Gnostics, but neither was it possible for the author of the article to do so. I am afraid that the Britannica entry was overly influenced by the author's personal opinion (which may be correct, but does not justify presenting it as absolute fact).
 

foolMoon

I think the author of the Britannica article on Gnostics is making it clear that the Gnostics has nothing to do with philosophical speculations or knowledge. To Think they do, is a mistake, he adds.

He is also saying that the Gnostics believed that God is hidden away from us, and could only be revealed by their religious practices which are not accessible by those outside.

The Britannica has been in print for over hundred years, and they are renowned world wide as good source for especially art topics including religion, philosophy, literature, history and occultism for general reference.

I am in the process of learning more about it recently by reading, discussing and researching. It is interesting to read about different views on it.