OccultForum.org

Original post: Great American Desert

I'm currently reading Gnosticism by Stephan Hoeller, founder of Ecclesia Gnostica in Los Angeles. It's a fairly well done primer, and written very matter-of-factly, but I wonder on what authority it is written. He writes of Gnosticism as though he personally knows what the original Gnostics were intending. There doesn't seem to be much objective thought here, rather a presentation of Hoeller's interpretation of historical bits and his preference regarding the nature of Gnosticism throughout history. Writing matter-of-factly is fine, and I wouldn't pay much mind to the style in the book if it weren't for something that I read on the Ecclesia Gnostica website; there's a portion regarding the churches with which the EG communicates and supports, followed by a final statement:

"The aforementioned ecclesiastical bodies are the only ones with which the Ecclesia Gnostica has or has had any association. Concerning all other organizations styling themselves "Gnostic" we advise all inquirers to subject them to thorough scrutiny before accepting their claims to being Gnostic."

Whence does the Ecclesia Gnostica derive its authority to be unquestionably Gnostic, while all others without their mark must be subject to thorough scrutiny? How is Hoeller the Gnostic Prophet, and why should we accept this authority? A PhD does not a holy man make.

Thoughts?

Original post: deviadah

[QUOTE=Great American Desert;318295]Whence does the Ecclesia Gnostica derive its authority to be unquestionably Gnostic, while all others without their mark must be subject to thorough scrutiny? How is Hoeller the Gnostic Prophet, and why should we accept this authority? A PhD does not a holy man make.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I've stumbled on this crowd before... but I don't know much about them. If this guy Hoeller claims to be a Gnostic Prophet then I am sure he is not.

A PhD does not prove anything, other than the fact that he has gone through the same brainwashing machine as everyone else!

If you read something, and if it agrees with you, then use it and be inspired. Don't worry too much on all the hubbub around it. But always be aware if the author has an agenda!!!

Original post: A. Ben-Shema

Great American Desert;318295 wrote:I'm currently reading Gnosticism by Stephan Hoeller, founder of Ecclesia Gnostica in Los Angeles. It's a fairly well done primer, and written very matter-of-factly, but I wonder on what authority it is written. He writes of Gnosticism as though he personally knows what the original Gnostics were intending. There doesn't seem to be much objective thought here, rather a presentation of Hoeller's interpretation of historical bits and his preference regarding the nature of Gnosticism throughout history. Writing matter-of-factly is fine, and I wouldn't pay much mind to the style in the book if it weren't for something that I read on the Ecclesia Gnostica website; there's a portion regarding the churches with which the EG communicates and supports, followed by a final statement:

"The aforementioned ecclesiastical bodies are the only ones with which the Ecclesia Gnostica has or has had any association. Concerning all other organizations styling themselves "Gnostic" we advise all inquirers to subject them to thorough scrutiny before accepting their claims to being Gnostic."

Whence does the Ecclesia Gnostica derive its authority to be unquestionably Gnostic, while all others without their mark must be subject to thorough scrutiny? How is Hoeller the Gnostic Prophet, and why should we accept this authority? A PhD does not a holy man make.

Thoughts?

This is just another hierarchical, exoteric religion like Christianity, but with different books and slightly different beliefs. The Priests dress up like Catholics, e.g.



and their ceremonies are much the same.

Merely 'pseudo-gnosticism' ~ just a pretense of the Spirit.

If you'd like to discover genuine gnosis, see (CLICK) here.

PLU

Original post: Great American Desert

I'm not looking for other Gnostic sources; I'm doing just fine with my own. This was just an attempt to spark an exchange on the self-appointed validity of Hoeller's interpretation.

I do enjoy reading his work. He has many points on which we disagree, but all-in-all he is rather educated on the matter. But he doesn't present it in an entirely academic manner, as it crosses the threshold into theology pretty often. One may of course take these liberties at will, but it must be acknowledged that aside from the gospels and the accounts of the enemies of the Gnostics, we have nothing to go on and it's therefore left wholly to interpretation.

Original post: A. Ben-Shema

Great American Desert;319666 wrote:I'm not looking for other Gnostic sources; I'm doing just fine with my own. This was just an attempt to spark an exchange on the self-appointed validity of Hoeller's interpretation.

I do enjoy reading his work. He has many points on which we disagree, but all-in-all he is rather educated on the matter. But he doesn't present it in an entirely academic manner, as it crosses the threshold into theology pretty often. One may of course take these liberties at will, but it must be acknowledged that aside from the gospels and the accounts of the enemies of the Gnostics, we have nothing to go on and it's therefore left wholly to interpretation.

Genuine gnosis is not 'academic', nor does it have any connection with what is usually meant by 'theology'. Gnosis is not to be 'studied', but EXPERIENCED, and thus gnosis is gained (through Spiritual experience).

No books will ever be able to contain or fully describe such Spiritual Knowledge, for it is way beyond words and the common (unenlightened) mind.

PLU

Original post: [Gnostic]a+

As I understand it, what Hoeller has done is make the best reconstruction he could of the Valentinian tradition. Valentinus was involved in the Catholic Church and the legend has it that he almost was elected a Bishop, losing by a small margin. Hence the garb.

Original post: Sanngetall

That was the first book I read on Gnosticism. I thought it was pretty good. That being said I don't pay much attention to the importance Stephan Hoeller or anyone else assigns to themselves. If their ideas work for me then I adopt them, if not then I disregard them.

I agree 100% with what deviadah said:

[QUOTE=deviadah]If you read something, and if it agrees with you, then use it and be inspired. Don't worry too much on all the hubbub around it. But always be aware if the author has an agenda!!![/QUOTE]

Original post: Jenfucius

Great American Desert;318295 wrote:I'm currently reading Gnosticism by Stephan Hoeller, founder of Ecclesia Gnostica in Los Angeles. It's a fairly well done primer, and written very matter-of-factly, but I wonder on what authority it is written. He writes of Gnosticism as though he personally knows what the original Gnostics were intending. There doesn't seem to be much objective thought here, rather a presentation of Hoeller's interpretation of historical bits and his preference regarding the nature of Gnosticism throughout history. Writing matter-of-factly is fine, and I wouldn't pay much mind to the style in the book if it weren't for something that I read on the Ecclesia Gnostica website; there's a portion regarding the churches with which the EG communicates and supports, followed by a final statement:

"The aforementioned ecclesiastical bodies are the only ones with which the Ecclesia Gnostica has or has had any association. Concerning all other organizations styling themselves "Gnostic" we advise all inquirers to subject them to thorough scrutiny before accepting their claims to being Gnostic."

Whence does the Ecclesia Gnostica derive its authority to be unquestionably Gnostic, while all others without their mark must be subject to thorough scrutiny? How is Hoeller the Gnostic Prophet, and why should we accept this authority? A PhD does not a holy man make.

Thoughts?

I actually heard that Stephan Hoeller may be abit cultish. Wether theres any truth to it I'm not sure. I dont have enough info. about him from exmembers.

[quote]Завтра, 18 маÑ

Which article?