Hi james, I understand where your coming from better now.
Thanks for the reply. I guess I have never viewed the synoptic gospels as
gnostic in nature.
I've always considered the fourth gospel to be the most gnostic. It has a
different tone right from the very start.
Some scholors even question how it was able to remain in the canon since it
doesn't carry the same tones as the synoptics(that's my way of saying it wasn't
copied).
Have you ever heard of the quelle or "q" document. Some speculate that it could
be an earlier version used to create the more literal synoptic versions,but that
john was written to return this "q" document back to its more origanal"less
literal form".
I hope I get to see your video soon,my blackberry wouldn't play it clear for
some reason. Maybe I can get to the library soon and watch it! Brian --- In
GnosticThought@yahoogroups.com, "James Lambert" <jehlickova@...> wrote:
>
> --- In GnosticThought@yahoogroups.com, "Brian" <humbleservant1god@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello james, if you consider mark as a gnostic,would you consider his
contemperaray leader (peter) to be gnostic as well?
>
> Hello Brian,
>
> I consider the text of Mark to be a gnostic text, in that it, along with Luke
and Matthew form a set of interlocking texts which contain hidden layers of
meaning.
>
> I am not concerned with the supposed authors, but rather with the texts the
authors have produced.
>
> Be that as it may, if we take the character Peter within the synoptic gospel
narrative, then I'd say yes, he is a gnostic character in that his real identity
is far removed from the facade he presents.
>
> Best,
>
> James Lambert
>