OST is closed for business but its spirit survives on my blog.
Sir, I agree with you very much so: symbolic, arhetypal, but divinely inspired. The thing I hate is when people make inspiration to mean divinely written as in…every single word they wrote contains the power of God, and if we respect the authors or the pages of their veyr bibles as anything less than a fourth to the trinity or a paper Jesus, then we are anti-Christian.
And, just as you said, it is AN expression of God, not the only one. How do the fundies reconcile Jesus claiming to be God with the OT where it keeps saying there is one God, the almighty Father? Again, as in the past posts on this, the "theos" could be being used as an adjective to men divine.
Also, with the "trinity" - I suppose that as long as it is kept as a divine council rather than God, I can accept it. The Father is God, even without the Son, and even without the ever-so-personified Spirit. Jesus is not equal to the Father, but is right underneath him, as his chosen son, thruogh the Father's Holy Spirit. That's my trinity.
As far as those doctrines being of the early church, well…no one can ever really say for sure. For the sake of getting along, I'll go along with that, but the earliest church (the disciples and their disciples <the first 2 generations of Christians>) had a very loose theology. The only reason some ignorant Christians went out and slaughtered the other Christians is because they wanted the remaining and otherwise barely surviving Christianity to be theirs.
I've never really met a Gnostic, so, this is cool you actually admit to being one. Awesome indeed. As I also believe it is very awesome your branch has survived the trimming the "orthodox" ones have done. Speaking of branches and trimmings…wouldn't you agree that the most beautiful type of forest or park is the one that's untainted and uncontrolled?