Tom-

I appreciate your responding directly to some of my criticisms of your claim
that the Gospel of Matthew was gnostic (in your sense of the term.) I really
do think that this claim is not only mistaken, but badly mistaken, and ought
to be dropped as soon as possible, so that we can devote our attention to
claims that have some plausibility, but be that as it may, let's look at the
three areas where you think GMatt is more friendly to your definition of
gnosticism than the other canonical gospels. The claim you made in a
previous note was this:

> ... Matthew ... does not conflict with the sense of Gnostic structures of
> sprit, and soul.

Now I confess that I misunderstood your wording here. When I think of
"structure", I think of such things as the Platonic tripartite division of
the soul - that is, of its internal structure (as presented in various
ancient theories). What you evidently had in mind was ideas about what the
spirit and soul DO, or rather, were thought to be capable of doing. With
that in mind, then, I would somewhat alter my response, but would still
maintain that if GMatt isn't inconsistent with what you count as gnostic
ideas about "soul" and "spirit", then neither are the other canonical
gospels. You mention, for example, GPhil's idea of "resurrection" before
physical death as a uniquely gnostic idea about the spirit/soul. I think I
could argue that, but that would be tangential to the argument about GMatt,
so I'll save that for another day. Here, I'll simply say that, even if one
grants the above claim, you haven't given any reason to suppose that GMatt
is any different in its ideas about the soul or spirit than the other
canonicals. You do, however, present two other areas where you think GMatt
differs from GLuke, e.g.:

1. Extrinsic vs. intrinsic

> I do not think of Luke as gnostic.  There are too many instances where
> Luke sees God and spirit as an external force to humanity that can exhibit
> free will outside the intrinsic framework of man. The sayings of Thomas
> (3, 22, 77) suggest that spirit and God are not extrinsic or foreign to
> the existence of mankind and nature.  Matthew seems less conflicting in
> this view.  ...  The parallels of Matthew and Thomas do not relate any
> magic or the kind of extrinsic spirits seen in Luke. It would be more
> correct to say that Matthew and Thomas, and the Gnostic Gospels do not
> conflict the same way.  Luke is a different story.

This is a bad argument, in more ways than one. The fact (if it is a fact)
that the parallels to GMatt found in GThom have a certain character does not
at all go to show that GMatt itself in its entirety has this same character.
In other words, you are projecting onto the entire Gospel of Matthew certain
characteristics which you think are present in the GThom parallels, and
ignoring non-paralleled material. But in assessing GMatt, it's illegitimate
to draw conclusions from the small set of material paralleled in GThom.
There are parallels also to GLuke, and yet you don't draw the same kind of
conclusion from that. Rather, you look at the whole of GLuke. Similarly, you
need to look at the whole of GMatt. When you do that, there's no significant
difference between GMatt and GLuke with respect to intrinsic/extrinsic. That
this is so, is shown from your second area, which is a particular instance
of the first:

2. Demons

> Luke's explanation for the 'casting out of demons' from Mary Magdala, is a
> good example of this conflict in the conception of spirit. Luke's demons
> (including Acts) are witchcraft like entities with a will of their own,
> fully operational in the kenoma. The Gnostic view is that evil is
> intrinsic, and a part of the human nature, as related in Th-45, and Mary.

One of the problems with this reasoning is that - as mentioned in my earlier
note - GMatt ALSO has demons, evil spirits, etc. From a brief check, I might
mention GMt 7:22, 8:16, 8:28, 9:32, 10:1, 10:8, 12:22,24,28,45, 15:22, and
17:18. To which can be added the famous scene of the devil tempting Jesus in
chapter 4. So if "the Gnostic view is that evil is intrinsic", then GMatt is
about as far from a "Gnostic" view as one can get. Certainly at least as far
from it as is GLuke.

(Needless to say, I also disagree with your characterization of various
Thomas sayings, but here I want to remain focused on GMatt.)

Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

Last night I did some research on a first century character by the name of
Theudas.   He was a teacher to Valentinus, and studied with Basilides, knew
Peter, and Paul.  He declared himself a prophet, circa 42, C.E., and led off
some followers in Jerusalem, to part the Jordon river.  The Roman Army rounded
them up and killed some there, and hauled in the rest including Theudas,
disciple of Paul. Here is the new Glossary entry.... Please anything that you
think should be changed....

Theudas: (42 CE approx.)  Teacher of Valentinus, and thought to be a disciple of
Paul. He is also thought to have been a student with Basilides under a follower
of Peter named Glaukia, which is perhaps Glaucius in other references. Theudas,
meaning 'gift from God' declared himself a prophet and was executed while
attempting to 'part the Jordan" for his followers. ( Ehrman, "Lost
Christianities, Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98 )

What intrigues me about Thuedas, is what intrigues me about the "Acts of Peter,"
and those acts, of Peter in Acts, is that these texts are demonstrating
characteristics of magic.  Thuedas had followers, and had them believing he was
indeed a prophet.  Prophecy is one of the acknowledged 'crafts' by Paul,
Clement, and others, and those with the gift are considered Pneumatics, at least
at some level.

Parting the Jordon, which may have been a fabrication or misunderstanding on the
part of Josephus, is not the act of a prophet, but a magician.  Theudas, was
Paul's disciple, and this links Paul to magic. Or, the belief that magic was a
viable scientific craft of the time, and there are other references to Paul's
brushes with magic.

Prophets are mentioned inTh- 88, and even if Theudas was a 'crackpot' he
represents a living 'Christian Prophet' or as Clement puts it, a Craftsman.  Two
immediate problems exist with being a known prophet or magician in the first
century.  The standard Roman response to Witchcraft, was immediate death by
decree, from early times.  Clement warns about witchcraft in 'Stromata" and I
can see why.

Mary, Thomas, and Phillip are pretty much devoid of magic.  This is significant
because it puts the issue of the use of magic in Luke, Mark, Matthew(?), John,
and Acts of Peter, in a common set.  It might even suggest that this is cause
for part of the bitterness against Peter, in GMary and Thomas.

No doubt that Simon Magus had an early influence in the use of Magic, and
Christianity.  We cannot separate magic out of Gnosticism but we can organize
it.  Where there is someone who can do magic, the Gnostic saw a Craftsman.  It
would be extremely difficult to separate magic out any other way.  Most orthodox
Christians bought into magic.  Those that did not buy into this 'craft' would
have needed texts devoid of this feature in the documents.

Does this bolster a decent argument for an early Thomas?

Tom Saunders
Platter, OK









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Saunders" <tom@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 10:11 AM
Subject: [GTh] Theudas


>
> Last night I did some research on a first century character by the name of
Theudas.   He was a teacher to Valentinus, and studied with Basilides, knew
Peter, and Paul.  He declared himself a prophet, circa 42, C.E., and led off
some followers in Jerusalem, to part the Jordon river.  The Roman Army
rounded them up and killed some there, and hauled in the rest including
Theudas, disciple of Paul. Here is the new Glossary entry.... Please
anything that you think should be changed....
>
> Theudas: (42 CE approx.)  Teacher of Valentinus, and thought to be a
disciple of Paul. He is also thought to have been a student with Basilides
under a follower of Peter named Glaukia, which is perhaps Glaucius in other
references. Theudas, meaning 'gift from God' declared himself a prophet and
was executed while attempting to 'part the Jordan" for his followers. (
Ehrman, "Lost Christianities, Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98 )
>
Hi Tom
I think you're confusing two people called Theudas.

Theudas(1) is mentioned in Josephus Antiquities 20 ch 5
as a magician and prophet arrested and killed in the 40s CE

Theudas(2) is described in places like Clement Stromateis 7 ch 17
as someone taught by the apostles who taught later Gnostic leaders
like Valentinus. In order for this to make sense Theudas(2) must
have been teaching the young Valentinus say around 90-110  CE.
(Valentinus began teaching others around 125 CE and was active
till around 150 CE.)

Hence Theudas(2) must be someone else than Theudas(1) who had
been killed 40 years before.

Andrew Criddle

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Saunders" <tom@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 4:11 AM
Subject: [GTh] Theudas


>
> Last night I did some research on a first century character by the name of
Theudas.   He was a teacher to Valentinus, and studied with Basilides, knew
Peter, and Paul.  He declared himself a prophet, circa 42, C.E., and led off
some followers in Jerusalem, to part the Jordon river.  The Roman Army
rounded them up and killed some there, and hauled in the rest including
Theudas, disciple of Paul. Here is the new Glossary entry.... Please
anything that you think should be changed....

Other than what Josephus tells us in Book 20 of Antiquities, not much is
known about Theudas except that he was beheaded as a result of his rebellion
under Fadus in 45 CE.  Valentinus died 160 CE.  Theudas could not have been
Valentinus' teacher.  Valentinus, in his fantasy world, claimed to have
DERIVED his ideas from Theudas which was an invention.  Basilides was
writing around 120-130 CE and would have been born around 80-90 CE some 45
years after Theudas lost his head.  Luke's story in Acts 5:36 was an error
by Luke.

There appears to be some serious anachronisms here.

Jack

Hi Mike,

I hope the last post I submitted on Theudas separates Matthew back into the fold
with the canonicals in regard to magic and demons.  Although I was indeed
misconceiving myself about the GMatt, I may have this concept of magic and
gnosticism in a better perspective now that I can characterize magic as a
'craft.'  In other words I can't eliminate magic from the study of Gnosticism
but seeing it as a craft, and a talent some may have exhibited, I may be able to
put this into a better perspective.

You said, "What you evidently had in mind was ideas about what the spirit and
soul DO, or rather, were thought to be capable of doing."

This is indeed what I was looking at.  I have been seeing these elements as
structures related to the process of gnosis. These elements have to be clarified
to be understood, and looking at what they do is the key to understanding what I
have been referring to as 'hidden in plain sight."

In my post on Theudas, I stated that there was a difference in Thomas, Mary, and
Phillip in regard to the way magic or spirit is conceived.  Spirit, or spirits,
'do' different things in the canonicals, and especially John.  In Thomas, Mary
and Phillip, spirit is intrinsic to the functions of the mind, and can be seen
as natural functions within the power of the 'ruling faculty' and the 'carnal
spirit,'  using my favorite Clement model of these. In this model spirit is seen
as a logical and viable form of 'concentration of energies.' It also gives
Thomas sayings like 3, and 77.

This seems to me to be a good standard for the conception of what is natural,
and what might be thought of as supernatural, in regard to spirit and how it can
be defined on the basis of 'what it does.' This is where I am seeing the major
differences between the Gnostic texts, and the NT Gospels. My problem with
Matthew is I combined it together in a Gnostic harmony text a couple of years
ago, and found I got it to work.  I have been confused about GMatt since,
perhaps? (I am not giving up on the idea that there is an early version of
Matthew that will be more revealing to its original nature)

Spirit, if we can get on the same page, and define it on the basis of what it
does, is vital to understanding the soul, and its functions, parts, elements,
and values, if we accept that it is a 'special kind of spirit' or concentration
of energy.  I mean a concentration of energy within the natural 'form' of spirit
within the capabilities of man.  Capabilities that can be proven by what Clement
says, demonstrable evidence.(truths)

Spirit, on the basis of what it does, can be seen in the canonicals and John, as
a supernatural force, extrinsic to the self, in some cases, and may even be
portrayed as having a form that possesses free will, and talks like "Legion"  I
think Gnosticism devoid of the supernatural belief in the nature of 'extrinsic'
spirits (concentrations of energy)  shows an understanding unique in the Gnostic
texts. I think Clement advanced this idea, of trying to sort out magic from
logic and science.

Below are two examples from Matthew.  The first mentions demons, however it is
not clear that they are demons in the magical sense or the gnositc sense, unless
you read the entire set of scripture related to it. The second is an example of
the supernatural or extrinsic, magical demons, modern science can disprove.  I
hope.

Matt: 7- 22.  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy
by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty
works?

Matt: 8- 28.  And when he was come to the other side into the country of the
Gadarenes, there met him two possessed with demons, coming forth out of the
tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man could pass by that way.

Here is the big question concerning the nature of 'spirit' here,  Mtt-8-27. 
"And the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds
and the sea obey him?"  One who has magical powers as a craft.  Or, was thought
to.  Theudas was going to "part the Jordon."  Was he going to use his own power
of the ability to use energy to manipulate matter, or Gods power to do it?

The question about what spirit does here is critical to understanding the
gnostic perspective.  Thomas, Mary and Phillip, do not contain the elements that
would foster the idea of supernatural abilities, in the human context. The
'concentration of energy' so to speak is in the functions of the mind to 'see
the vision.'  Or, in reference to Philip undergo the 'living resurrection.'

The characters of the parables are devoid of 'wisdom' in one manner or another,
in those parables with human characters. This is their fault, not demons.
Encountering the different people in the GThom, saying by saying 'digs' up no
demons, that can be interpreted outside the Clement model of carnal spirit, and
ruling faculty.  This seems to fit with Phillip and Mary also, and for me
Matthew when I was thinking of it in terms of how Gnostic spirit (wisdom) could
be used to do some of the feats of healing and prophecy.  I'm over it now, the
'magic' is back in Matthew. Thanks.

This is what I see hidden in plain sight.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Andrew,

Hence Theudas(2) must be someone else than Theudas(1) who had been killed 40
years before.

That does make sense.  Ehrman's references threw me off, or he is confused too. 
His reference on page 193 of "Lost Christianities" says...

" We knw from Clement of Alexandria, for example that Valentinus was a disciple
of Theudas, who was allegedly a disciple of Paul; and the Gnostic Basilides,
studied under Glaukia, a supposed disciple of Peter." It sounds like this guy
lived in the right time slot except for Valentinus.

Jack Kilmon straightens this out.....

"Valentinus, in his fantasy world, claimed to have
DERIVED his ideas from Theudas which was an invention.  Basilides was
writing around 120-130 CE and would have been born around 80-90 CE some 45
years after Theudas lost his head.  Luke's story in Acts 5:36 was an error
by Luke."

Thank you Jack.  I am changing the Glossary entry to:

Theudas: (42 CE approx.)  Thought to be a disciple of Paul. He is also thought
to have been a student with Basilides under a follower of Peter named Glaukia,
which is perhaps Glaucius in other references. Theudas, meaning 'gift from God'
declared himself a prophet and was executed while attempting to 'part the
Jordan" for his followers. Years later Valentinus laid claim to some of his
teaching. ( Ehrman, "Lost Christianities, pg 193, Josephus, Jewish Antiquities
20.97-98 )

Tom Saunders
Platter, OK






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Saunders" <tom@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 10:54 PM
Subject: [GTh] Theudas


> Hi Andrew,
>
> Hence Theudas(2) must be someone else than Theudas(1) who had been killed
40 years before.
>
> That does make sense.  Ehrman's references threw me off, or he is confused
too.  His reference on page 193 of "Lost Christianities" says...
>
> " We knw from Clement of Alexandria, for example that Valentinus was a
disciple of Theudas, who was allegedly a disciple of Paul; and the Gnostic
Basilides, studied under Glaukia, a supposed disciple of Peter." It sounds
like this guy lived in the right time slot except for Valentinus.
>
> Jack Kilmon straightens this out.....
>
> "Valentinus, in his fantasy world, claimed to have
> DERIVED his ideas from Theudas which was an invention.  Basilides was
> writing around 120-130 CE and would have been born around 80-90 CE some 45
> years after Theudas lost his head.  Luke's story in Acts 5:36 was an error
> by Luke."
>
> Thank you Jack.  I am changing the Glossary entry to:
>
> Theudas: (42 CE approx.)  Thought to be a disciple of Paul. He is also
thought to have been a student with Basilides under a follower of Peter
named Glaukia, which is perhaps Glaucius in other references. Theudas,
meaning 'gift from God' declared himself a prophet and was executed while
attempting to 'part the Jordan" for his followers. Years later Valentinus
laid claim to some of his teaching. ( Ehrman, "Lost Christianities, pg 193,
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98 )
>
> Tom Saunders
> Platter, OK

We are having some real chronological problems here.  Theudas was not a
disciple of Paul in 42 CE because Paul had not yet begun his ministry.  He
could not have been a student with Basilides because Basilides would not
even be a gleam in his father's eye for another half century.  Gnostics have
always been very...uh...inventive <g>.

Jack

Tom,
I appreciate your turnaround on GMatt. As to using extrinisic/intrinsic as a
dividing line between gnosticism (small-g variety, which is what you're
talking about) and orthodoxy, I don't think it's going to work. Here are
some of your remarks:

> In Thomas, Mary and Phillip, spirit is intrinsic to the functions of the
> mind, and can be seen as natural functions within the power of the 'ruling
> faculty' and the 'carnal spirit,'  using my favorite Clement model ...
> ...
> This seems to me to be a good standard for the conception of what is
> natural, and what might be thought of as supernatural, in regard to spirit
> and how it can be defined on the basis of 'what it does.' This is where I
> am seeing the major differences between the Gnostic texts, and the NT
> Gospels.
> ...
> Spirit ... can be seen in the canonicals and John, as a supernatural
> force, extrinsic to the self, in some cases, and may even be portrayed as
> having a form that possesses free will, and talks like "Legion"  I think
> Gnosticism devoid of the supernatural belief in the nature of 'extrinsic'
> spirits (concentrations of energy)  shows an understanding unique in the
> Gnostic texts.

Clearly, you equate "intrinsic" with "natural" and "extrinsic" with
"supernatural". The distinction is relatively clear, but it seems to me that
neither the canonical gospels nor the Gospel of Philip plunk down for one
side to the exclusion of the other. In fact, they all seem to view "spirit"
(whether good or evil) as BOTH intrinsic and extrinsic. Consider the
following selections from the Gospel of Philip, and see if you don't agree
that, if anything, the HS is usually made to sound basically extrinsic:

"The rulers thought that it was by their own power and will that they were
doing what they did, but the Holy Spirit in secret was accomplishing
everything through them as it wished."

""The Father" and "the Son" are single names; "the Holy Spirit" is a double
name. For they are everywhere: they are above, they are below; they are in
the concealed, they are in the revealed. The Holy Spirit is in the revealed:
it is below. It is in the concealed: it is above."
(this passage is particularly clear that the HS is BOTH)

"Those who have gone astray, whom the spirit begets, usually go astray also
because of the Spirit. Thus, by one and the same breath, the fire blazes and
is put out."

"For it is because of this that the whole place stands, whether the good or
the evil, the right and the left. The Holy Spirit shepherds everyone and
rules all the powers ..."

"There are some who say, "We are faithful" in order that [...] the unclean
spirits and the demons. For if they had the Holy Spirit, no unclean spirit
would cleave to them."

"Through the Holy Spirit we are indeed begotten again, but we are begotten
through Christ in the two. We are anointed through the Spirit."

I don't know how you understand these passages, but to me they seem to
invoke both extrinsic and intrinsic notions - just as we find in GJohn's
famous "born again" passage and other canonical writings. All Christian
writers seem to treat the HS as basically an extrinsic force, that humans
can choose to partake of, just as air is basically extrinsic, but it gets
taken into the lungs, and for a period of time this inhaled patch of air
might be thought of as intrinsic - except that the "air" of the HS seems to
remain an active and activating force when taken in by the individual. There
may be a more subtle difference that you haven't put your finger on yet, but
this particular distinction doesn't seem to do it.

Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

Hi Jack,

I see what you mean, and wonder why the Gnostics like Valentinus made the claim
to have been influenced by Theudas?  And, if Ehrman messed up and didn't catch
the error, I don't feel so bad about not seeing it too.  I do appreciate your
observations.

How would you characterize the influence of Theudas?  If he was remembered by
the Gnostics, he must have been influential in ways we are not seeing yet.

Tom Saunders


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Mike,

Lately, it seems everything I look at gets a little mixed up.  Sorry.  Thank you
for your help in getting the matter of how to look at spirit with some clarity.

I am not sure that the passages from Phillip are talking about the effects of
spirit, outside the realm of Gnostic perspective.  Holy spirit, in the sense
that it has to be acquired and bonded with the soul would logically seem to be
extrinsic to the human, (psyche) in that he has to 'realize' the Holy Spirit
into his own psyche. Then perhaps as part of the body, mind, spirit, and soul.

However we know from Th-3, and Th-77, that the HS, is already a part of the
'All.'  Holy Spirit, and human spirit, are still concentrations of energy, but
HS, is a special kind of spirit.  This makes explaining it as something that is
there in the All, but not in the psyche until 'realized.'

"There are some who say, "We are faithful" in order that [...] the unclean
spirits and the demons. For if they had the Holy Spirit, no unclean spirit
would cleave to them."

This does indeed sound like the orthodox demons and spirits, but I think in the
case of Phillip we are talking about the process in the mind that realizes the
HS, and the effect would be in the mind similar to the descriptions in the GMary
where she overcomes the ignorance, darkness, and desires, of these 'forms.'

""The Father" and "the Son" are single names; "the Holy Spirit" is a double
name. For they are everywhere: they are above, they are below; they are in
the concealed, they are in the revealed. The Holy Spirit is in the revealed:
it is below. It is in the concealed: it is above."

Again, Phillip could be talking about the HS, being realized, in the mind. It is
still everywhere, or the All. Concealed is unrealized, revealed is realized.

"For it is because of this that the whole place stands, whether the good or
the evil, the right and the left. The Holy Spirit shepherds everyone and
rules all the powers ..."

The HS is there whether realized or not.  It is the All or the Pleroma.  Nothing
exists that does not come from the Pleroma.  The Gnostic schema of existence
here is tripartite in that there is seen man's psyche as a part, the kenoma
(earthly state) or body, and the Pleroma, the All.

I did not mean to implicate the idea of supernatural to extrinsic or extrinsic
forms of spirit.  What I was trying to get at is there must be a distinguishable
difference in the human capacity for what would be considered natural or
otherwise.  The Holy Spirit, and human spirit, merge in the living resurrection,
so from this standpoint the human spirit would no longer be natural in that
sense, after gnosis.  It overcomes the flaw.  That is not necessarily done by
any manner that would not be within man's capacities, at the level of Pneumatic.

You are so right that I am grasping here to seperate the ideas of 'what spirit
does' to get a good sense of it.  I see a perspective unique to Gnostic thought
and a key to understanding gnosis.   Perhaps the way to express the demons like
Legion, are as super-un-natural in their powers within the kenoma. The Gnostics
seem to have had this kind of understanding, but it is not easy to see, or
explain from orthodox views.  I do think there is a distinguishable difference.

What I see in the Gnostic way of thought (Thomas, Phillip, Mary)  is an
adherence away from the abnormal, or what can be disproven by science. This
keeps the process of understanding and application of gnosis in the Gnostic
Gospels within real human capacity, and most important within the human form. 
This does not mean that a Gnostic would be eliminated from doing what could be
thought of as supernatural, but would keep the action of the 'form' within
natural (Pneumatic) boundaries.

What 'Pneumatics' can and cannot do is what is really in question by this issue
of 'what spirit does.'  Peter, in the "Acts of Peter" transforms his daughter
from a cripple, to normal, and back.  This is manipulation of organic matter,
with the power of the mind, (spirit), he attributes to the power of God. He
neglects to ask God to transform his daughter, as a cripple,  he tells her to go
lie down and do it.  If we characterize the 'daughter trick' as explainable
within the boundaries of science that is one thing.  If we observe this trick as
manipulation of organic matter outside the boundries of science that is another.

Either way, the Gnostic is looking for the power of God to be Wisdom. Wisdom
does not hop out of its form and part waters, it enables men to get smart and
build bridges, or dig tunnels.

If we align Thomas with the super-un-natural, then it changes the perspective of
what the Gnostic Gospels suggest in the transcendence of gnosis. It also greatly
alters the perspective of the historical Jesus, and what real message he had
about the human form.

Tom Saunders


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[To Tom and Mike]

This has been an very interesting and extremely informative conversation
from the outside looking in.  I thank you both.

I would also point out that what we know of quantum mechanics and our new
understanding of the concept of "energy" flowing through all forms of
"matter", makes the labeling of "spirit" as "supernatural" premature.  It
may in fact turn out that SPIRIT the most NATURALY thing in "reality".
Science is revealing a great deal though QM that help explain comments like
"in the end, you will know that I am in you, you are in me, and we are all
one in God."  The HOLY SPIRIT seems to be that SEA OF ENERGY that permeates
all things solid, in influences us all.

Anyway, that's my two cents from the peanut gallery. :)

[Michael Mozina]

Mike,

Could you please clarify for us exactly where you got your degree in quantum
physics?  I mean, it's been 30 years since I studied physics, but just
off-hand, I'd say that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking
about.
>
> I would also point out that what we know of quantum mechanics and our new
> understanding of the concept of "energy" flowing through all forms of
> "matter", makes the labeling of "spirit" as "supernatural" premature.

Technically, energy IS matter; they're just different aspects of the same
thing, as stated in Einstein's famous equation,
E = MC2.  Spirit not being supernatural would require there actually being
evidence that the mind-body problem can be solved other than
materialistically, & if you read something like Dennet's _Consciousness
Explained_ you'll see that this may be premature.  I'm not going to argue
this anymore, though.  As with your statement that Jesus was trying to teach
his audience quantum physics, it seems that, as with Tom's concept of gnosis
& Grondin's objection that he was seeing it everywhere, you see QM
everywhere.  Or can you give me a detailed mathematical account of exactly
where this "sea of energy" can be found?

Jim Bauer

> Mike Grondin writes -

> Paul writes of the groaning pains of the birth of such a new world. But
this
> talk of a new world, and of the old world dying and and passing away, did
> not in their minds indicate that the old world was created by mistake, or
by
> an inferior heavenly being. It was the more Hellenistically (and
> polytheistically) inclined Gnostics who drew this conclusion. So if I'm
> correct that this is both a defining characteristic of what I call "big-g
> Gnosticism" and a dividing-line issue between them and the orthodox, then
> the lack of this feature in Thomas casts seemingly insurmountable doubt on
> the claim that it was (big-g) Gnostic. (What I call "small-g gnosticism"
is
> a different story, but then that was pretty much everywhere in the early
> church.)

The idea of an inferior god arose from Jewish Gnostics interpreting the book
of Genesis and probably took place hundreds of years before the supposed
time of Jesus.  The first creation was made by the Elohim and involved
Wisdom (the Spirit of God) separating from the Elohim and moving over the
waters.  In this first creation man was made hermaphrodite in the image of
the Elohim (God the father/Wisdom) -

-------
And God [Elohim] said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'.
[.] So God [Elohim] created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.  (Genesis 1:26-27)

In the day that God [Elohim] created man, in the likeness of God [Elohim]
made he him;  Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called
their name Adam, in the day when they were created.  (Genesis 5:1-2)
-------

The first creation was spiritual and perfect.  The second creation was the
work of Yahweh Elohim alone when he remade man out of dust.  It was Yahweh
who separated the female from the male.  It was Yahweh who forbade Adam to
eat from the Tree of Knowledge representing Gnosis.  It was Yahweh who
expelled Adam and Eve from Eden -

------
And Yahweh Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good
and evil: and now he might put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of
life, and eat, and live for ever: (Genesis 3:22)
------

The Gospel of Thomas is concerned with rectifying the damage done by Yahweh
by returning man to a hermaphrodite state of spiritual completeness - the
kingdom of heaven - which is the same as the rest of the seventh day.  For
example see 11, 22 and 114.  The light within a man of light in saying 24 is
the light of the original creation.  And saying 18 is more explicit -

-------
The disciples said to Jesus: Tell us how our end shall be. Jesus said: Have
you then discovered the beginning, that you seek after the end? For where
the beginning is, there shall the end be. Blessed is he who shall stand in
the beginning, and he shall know the end and shall not taste of death.
(Thomas 18)
-------

None of this makes any sense unless the people who wrote and used Thomas
believed, like Paul, that Yahweh was the inferior God.  The god they
worshiped was the unbegotten father of saying 15.  This is made explicit in
4 where the man aged in days (Yahweh) asks the child of seven days about the
place of life and lives - a reference to the redemption of Yahweh.

The Jewish Gnostics did not need to look to Hellenistic philosophy for this
view of Yahweh - it is in their scripture.

Stephen Peter
www.bridalchamber.com

Jim

Energy is not matter!

Don't be daft!

E = MC2 does not in anyway suggest that energy is matter, but that matter
potentially has energy.

Technically,energy IS NOT matter, but all matter potentially has energy.

Ken
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the membership-

As interesting as a discussion of modern physics might be, it's outside our
scope, and has to be ended. We can perhaps avoid future tangents of this
kind by scrupulously avoiding any consideration WHATSOEVER of whether the
ideas expressed in our subject texts were true or false.

Mike Grondin

In a message dated 9/29/04 9:08:05 PM, stephen@... writes:


> None of this makes any sense unless the people who wrote and used Thomas
> believed, like Paul, that Yahweh was the inferior God.  The god they
> worshiped was the unbegotten father of saying 15.  This is made explicit in
> 4 where the man aged in days (Yahweh) asks the child of seven days about the
> place of life and lives - a reference to the redemption of Yahweh.
>
> The Jewish Gnostics did not need to look to Hellenistic philosophy for this
> view of Yahweh - it is in their scripture.
>

  John Asks

     Dt 6:4 Hear,O   Israel:The Lord our God is one Lord.
    Isaiah45:22 46:9    I am God there is none else.
     Mathew 12:32                            One God and no other

      You say the Jewish believed in Lesser God?

       From the responses I hear every day from Messianic lists, and others.

        I would say you are mistaken,

        It seems to be clear that Yeshua Bar yosef, even if he believed
himself the Messiah, believed in
One God,
         I ascend to your God and my God   Jn 20:17

         Would you like to offer proof, of that.

          The division, in Thomas does not indicate a high Gnosticism.
Division of Spirit, IS not a Separate God.

            Division becomes Gnostic in the complex explanations of
Apochraphon of John and other later   books.

             I dont see the Spirit of God, or angels as being inherently
Gnostic but rather of the Pharisee sect.
              One of the Two Grand divisions of Judaism, Saducees and
Pharisees.

               Are you suggesting that the Pharisees were all Gnostics?

                They believed in Angels and Spirits. I dont however see them
as Gnostics.

     Regards,

      John Moon
      springfield,Tenn,37172



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Stephen,

I was generally with you up until your next-to-last paragraph:

> None of this makes any sense unless the people who wrote and used Thomas
> believed, like Paul, that Yahweh was the inferior God.

What on earth makes you think that Paul had such a belief?

> The god they
> worshiped was the unbegotten father of saying 15.  This is made explicit
in
> 4 where the man aged in days (Yahweh) asks the child of seven days about
the
> place of life and lives - a reference to the redemption of Yahweh.

I think not. You're ignoring 4.3, which gives the moral of the story -
namely, that "MANY first will become last", and no one will have a
preferential place based on age (this message was more radical and
controversial in a time and place that revered age than it appears to be to
us.) That the moral of the story is GENERAL indicates that the author didn't
have in mind a specific person or being, such as "the ancient of days" of
Dan 7 (if that's what you're thinking). Sorry, but I don't see any
plausibility at all to this suggestion. (And it is a piece of speculation,
of course - not an indisputable matter of fact - in spite of the confident
tone with which it's uttered.)

Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

John,

I certainly did not mean to imply that all or most Jews believed in an
inferior God.  Rather that a small Jewish Gnostic sect did make this
conclusion based on Genesis some time before the Christian era, and that
this sect gave rise to Christianity and the Gospel of Thomas.  This belief
would have blasphemous to Jews but then Thomas 13 indicates a secret
knowledge that was blasphemous.  It is because of the blasphemy that we
should not expect the idea of an inferior God to be explicit in the earliest
Christian writings.  At these early times the church is mainly based among
the Jews and could not afford to be seen as blasphemous.  It is the later
Gnostics who have the freedom to express the idea openly because they are
not in danger of being stoned.

The Spirit of God in itself is not a high Gnostic concept.  However in
Genesis the spirit of God is introduced right at the beginning and long
before Yahweh is mentioned.  I would suggest that this gave rise to the idea
that the Spirit of God (Wisdom) is superior to Yahweh and even responsible
in some way for the creation of Yahweh.  Also the division of male and
female in the garden of Eden is explicitly the work of Yahweh and we know
from the Gospel of Phillip that this division was seen as introducing death
into the world.

Stephen Peter



  John Asks

     Dt 6:4 Hear,O   Israel:The Lord our God is one Lord.
    Isaiah45:22 46:9    I am God there is none else.
     Mathew 12:32                            One God and no other

      You say the Jewish believed in Lesser God?

       From the responses I hear every day from Messianic lists, and others.

        I would say you are mistaken,

        It seems to be clear that Yeshua Bar yosef, even if he believed
himself the Messiah, believed in
One God,
         I ascend to your God and my God   Jn 20:17

         Would you like to offer proof, of that.

          The division, in Thomas does not indicate a high Gnosticism.
Division of Spirit, IS not a Separate God.

            Division becomes Gnostic in the complex explanations of
Apochraphon of John and other later   books.

             I dont see the Spirit of God, or angels as being inherently
Gnostic but rather of the Pharisee sect.
              One of the Two Grand divisions of Judaism, Saducees and
Pharisees.

               Are you suggesting that the Pharisees were all Gnostics?

                They believed in Angels and Spirits. I dont however see them
as Gnostics.

     Regards,

      John Moon
      springfield,Tenn,37172

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen" <stephen@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: [GTh] A Diversion


> John,
>
> I certainly did not mean to imply that all or most Jews believed in an
> inferior God.  Rather that a small Jewish Gnostic sect did make this
> conclusion based on Genesis some time before the Christian era, and that
> this sect gave rise to Christianity and the Gospel of Thomas.  This belief
> would have blasphemous to Jews but then Thomas 13 indicates a secret
> knowledge that was blasphemous.

<SNIP>

> The Spirit of God in itself is not a high Gnostic concept.  However in
> Genesis the spirit of God is introduced right at the beginning and long
> before Yahweh is mentioned.  I would suggest that this gave rise to the
idea
> that the Spirit of God (Wisdom) is superior to Yahweh and even responsible
> in some way for the creation of Yahweh.  Also the division of male and
> female in the garden of Eden is explicitly the work of Yahweh and we know
> from the Gospel of Phillip that this division was seen as introducing
death
> into the world.
>
If these ideas were part of pre-Christian Judaism one would
expect some evidence of them in early esoteric and mystical
Judaism.

But this really isn't so. We have ideas like that of Metatron the
'little Yahweh' in the Hekhalot literature, but Metatron is
subordinate in the sense that he faithfully carries out God's
commmands rather than inferior in the sense of an independent
lesser divinity.

There are many strange ideas in early esoteric Judaism but it seems
to lack any idea of two quasi-independent deities, either equal or
with one inferior to the other..

Andrew Criddle

"None of this makes any sense unless the people who wrote and used Thomas
believed, like Paul, that Yahweh was the inferior God."

I too am puzzled about this statement.  Paul seems to have some perspectives
that do not coincide with gnosticism but I would not chartreuse his work as
reflecting inferior or superior gods.

The people that wrote or used Thomas hold God, in the view, that God is
"Wisdom."  Gnosis is the bonding of the soul with Wisdom.  Put this in terms of
spirit, then the soul, a special kind of spirit, bonds with the Holy Spirit. 
Spirit means simply a concentration of energy.

Also common to these Gnostics is the particular belief in the human 'splinther'
or divine spark. It is not clear how this works in the process or gnostic
transcendence but it is believed to exist within the self.  I think this is the
basis for all forms of gnosticism. It starts with the belief that one can
believe in a personal connection to the divine.

The belief in the human, or earthly (kenomic) flaws is also unique to the
concept of the soul merging with
'Wisdom,' or more correctly Jesus Wisdom.  Man put in the hierarchy of Gnostic
transformation goes something like, beast, hylic, psychic, Pneumatic. 
Pneumatics can be aligned with what Paul and Clement call Craftsmen. The human
flaw is aligned with the person's relative awareness of his own flaws, soul, and
unification with the Holy Spirit. Jesus 'Wisdom' makes the concept of the
pleromic or Holy Spirit, unique to Jesus.

In some of the creation myths there are references to entities of Wisdom that
might be thought of as lesser Gods if you see them that way in regard to
Sophia......

Achamoth: An Aeon representing 'wisdom' created by Sophia (Wisdom) in the
pleroma.  (See First Apocalypse of James, Nag Hammadi Lib.) Called 'Echmoth' in
the Gospel of Phillip, meaning 'little Wisdom' or "wisdom of death."

I am not sure that Achamoth would be looked at as a lesser God, but an entity of
Sophia, something like the elements of form, consciousness, perception, action,
and knowledge, being parts of the soul. (Acts of Thomas, See also Skandas,
Palmer)

Thomas is no doubt the 'hub' of Jesus knowledge you apply in the process of
gnosis, bonding with "Wisdom."  Pre- Christian Gnosticism, and later forms of
Gnosticism, deviate frrom the process of this bonding outside the scope of what
is in the Gnostic Gospels.  Mary, Thomas, and Phillip, do not deviate the
process of gnosis, outside the scope of the rational human mind.  No magic.  The
basis for the context of these texts directly relates to the gnostic process,
relative to Thomas.

Sorting out what is Pre-Christian Gnosticism,  Jesus Gnosticism, and post
Christian Gnosticism like the Johnnite Gnostics requires we distinguish these
types. Yahwey, as Acomoth's brother and a part of Wisdom, would be Gnostic. 
Otherwise, Yahwey is outside the focus of the Gnostic gospels as far as being
God.

Tom Saunders
Platter, OK












[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 9/30/04 2:39:02 PM, tom@... writes:


> Thomas is no doubt the 'hub' of Jesus knowledge you apply in the process of
> gnosis, bonding with "Wisdom."  Pre- Christian Gnosticism, and later forms
> of Gnosticism, deviate frrom the process of this bonding outside the scope of
> what is in the Gnostic Gospels.  Mary, Thomas, and Phillip, do not deviate
> the process of gnosis, outside the scope of the rational human mind.  No
> magic.  The basis for the context of these texts directly relates to the
gnostic
> process, relative to Thomas. 
>
>

  John notes

    While in some sense Paul may be Gnostic. I dont think he saw Iesu Christe
as a lesser God, or that there was even a lesser God.

    It appears in many instances Paul saw Jesus as an Angelic being, Who was a
little lower than the angels. Not as God himself, but a messenger of Yahweh.

    Only in that he thought that Gnosis could be attained through Baptism into
The Death and Resurrection of Jesus.( Gnosi in Baptismo), could he be called
Gnostic.

     Christ crucified flies against all later Gnostic beliefs. That is a
doecetic Jesus that was not
really material, or perhaps some divine play for our benefit.

     In Hebrews It appears to be the word, of God that is the divider. Sharper
than a double edged
sword.

       If such a belief existed, One would think that Philo of Alexandria
would have embraced it rather than giving the long explanations of why, the
LOGOS
was NOT separate.
       Saying it is only Mans perception, that makes it appear as a triune
deity. But still One deity.

        I would say Paul also adapts this premise in saying the Parts are part
of the Greater whole.
  Within the emerging Christian Church..

        There may very well be a Gnostic Branch of Judaism. Within what I
would call Low Gnosticism
    the seeking of Wisdom.

         But time and again Paul addresses that the Wisdom of God is
foolishness to men,..Note Wisdom
is always derived From God,
          Not another God in wisdom.

          Is it being suggested perhaps that The Jewish, theologians and
Philosophers, in separating the concepts of Logos and Spirit, and other aspects,
Then set the stage for the development of these aspects to become literal beings
in later Gnosticism?

           That premise might be understandable, as a beginning to gnosticism,
or proto -Gnostic development.

            Regards,
             John Moon
             Springfield, TN 37172






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

INTRODUCTION

There is a complex inter-relationship involving Thomas 45, Luke 6:43-46,
Matthew 7:16-20, Matthew 12:33-35, and a possible Q passage (i.e., Mt
3:7-10//Lk 3:7-9).  For those who are interested, underneath my signature
and address are the texts of these passages.

In this post, it is suggested that Matthew was aware of both Thomas 45 and
the source (Q?) for Mt 3:7-10//Lk 3:7-9 and that Luke was aware of not only
Thomas and the other postulated source (Q?), but of Matthew as well.

MATTHEW 7:16-20

One of these passages, Mt 7:16-20, appears to have, in terms of line topics,
this mirror image structure

Line 1 They are known by their fruits
Line 2 Good and rotten trees and their fruit
Line 3 The beginning or end of a passage from a source
----------------------------------------Mirror Plane
Line 3' The beginning or end of a passage from a source
Line 2' Good and rotten trees and their fruit
Line 1' They are known by their fruits)

  Here is the full rendering of it:

Line 1 (They are known by their fruits)
By their fruits you will know them
Line 2 (The beginning or end of a passage from a source)
Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles.
(Beginning of Th 45: Grapes are not harvested from thorns, nor are figs
gathered from thistles)
Line 3 (Good and rotten trees and their fruit)
So, every good tree produces good fruits, but the rotten tree produces bad
fruit
Line 3' (Good and rotten trees and their fruit)
A good tree is not able to produce bad fruit, nor a rotten tree to produce
good fruit
Line 2' (The beginning or end of a passage from a source)
Every tree not producing good fruit is cut off and into fire is thrown.
(End of Mt 3:7-10//Lk 3:7-9 (possibly from Q): Therefore, every tree not
producing good fruit is cut down and into fire is thrown.)
Line 6' (They are known by their fruits)
Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.

In addition, there is a marked contrast between lines 2 and 2' in that line
2 is from the beginning of a passage from one source (i.e., the beginning of
saying 45 from Thomas), while line 2' is from the end of a passage (i.e.,
the end of a passage found in Mt3:7-10//Lk 3:7-9) from another source, which
possibly is Q.  There also is a marked contrast between lines 3 and 3' in
that line 3 relates what fruits are produced by good and rotten trees, while
line 3' relates what fruits are not produced by good and rotten trees.

These considerations indicate that Mt 7:16-20 is a carefully crafted
invention of Matthew.  If so, then line 2 reveals that Matthew used Thomas
as a source and line 2' reveals that Matthew also used another document,
possibly Q, as a source.

MATTHEW 12:33-35

Next, let us turn to Mt 12:33-35.

Like Mt 7:16-20, it appears to consist of 6 lines:

Line 1  (Good and rotten trees and their fruit)
Either make the tree good and the fruit of it (will be) good, or make the
tree rotten and the fruit of it (will be) rotten.
Line 2 (They are known by their fruits)
For by the fruit the tree is known
Line 3 (The beginning or end of a passage from a source)
Offspring of vipers
(Beginning of Mt 3:7-10//Lk 3:7-9 (possibly the beginning of a passage from
Q): Children of vipers)
Line 4 (A question)
how are you able to speak good, being evil?
Line 5 (The beginning or end of a passage from a source)
for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
(End of Th 45: For out of the abundance of the heart he brings forth evil
things)
Line 6 (The middle of a passage from a source)
The good man out of the good treasure brings forth good and the evil man out
of the evil treasure brings forth evil.
(Middle of Th 45: A good man  brings forth good from his storehouse; an evil
man brings forth evil things from his evil storehouse)

Note these considerations:
1. Like lines 1 and 1' from Mt 7:16-20, line 2 has the topic of "They are
known by their fruits"
2. Like lines 3 and 3' from Mt 7:16-20, line 1 has the topic of "Good and
rotten trees and their fruit"
3. Like lines 2 and 2' from Mt 7:16-20, lines 3 and 5 have the topic of "The
beginning or end of a passage from a source"
4. As in Mt 7:16-20, the two passages used as sources are Thomas 45 and Mt
3:7-10//Lk 3:7-9.

These considerations indicate two things:
1. Like Mt 7:16-20, Mt. 12:33-35 appears to be the a carefully crafted
invention of Matthew
2. When writing Mt 12:33-35, Matthew took into account what he had already
written in Mt 7:16-20, so that the two passages constitute an inter-locking
pair.

Also note this interesting situation:
1. In Mt 7:16-20, the first citation is to the beginning of Thomas 45 (see
line 2)
2. In Mt 12:33-35, the first citation is to the beginning of Mt 3:7-10//Lk
3:7-9  (see line 3)
3. In Mt 7:16-20, the second citation is to the end of Mt 3:7-10//Lk 3:7-9
(see line 2')
4. In Mt 12:33-35, the second citation is to the end Thomas 45 (see line 5)
This underscores that the two passages constitute an inter-locking pair.

Still, each passage has its unique aspects.  So, only Mt 7:16-20 has mirror
symmetry, while only Mt 12:33-35 has a line that is a question (i.e., line
4) and a line that comes from the middle of a passage he used as a source
(i.e., line 6).

LUKE 6:43-46

Next, let us turn our attention to Luke 6:43-46.

It has six lines that correspond in topics to the six lines in Mt 12:33-35,
although their order is somewhat different:
Line 1 (Good and rotten trees and their fruit)
For there is no good tree producing bad fruit, nor, again, a bad tree
producing good fruit.
Line 2 (They are known by their fruits)
For each tree will be known by its own fruit.
Line 3 (The beginning or end of a passage from a source)
For they do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a
thorn bush
(Beginning of Th 45: Grapes are not harvested from thorns, nor are figs
gathered from thistles,)
Line 4 (The middle of a passage from a source)
The good man from the good storehouse of the heart produces good, and the
evil from evil produces evil.
(Middle of Th 45: A good man  brings forth good from his storehouse; an evil
man brings forth evil things from his evil storehouse)
Line 5 (The beginning or end of a passage from a source)
for from (the) abundance of (the) heart speaks his mouth.
(End of Th 45 For out of the abundance of the heart he brings forth evil
things.)
Line 6 (A question)
And why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord', and (yet) you do not do what I say

Here is the respective order of line topics for Mt12:33-35 and Lk 6:43-46:

Mt       Luke                    Topic
Line 1  Line 1 (Good and rotten trees and their fruit)
Line 2  Line 2  (They are known by their fruits)
Line 3  Line 3  (The beginning or end of a passage from a source)
Line 4  Line 6  (A question)
Line 5  Line 5  (The beginning or end of a passage from a source)
Line 6  Line 4  (The middle of a passage from a source)

Basically, the two orders for line topics are the same except that lines 4
and 6 are reversed.

If (as suggested above), Mt 12:33-35 is a Matthean invention, this suggests
that Luke was aware of Mt 12:33-35 and deliberately used its six line topic
format in his creation of Lk 6:43-46--although reversing Matthew's line
topics for lines 4 and 6.

Further, it is not difficult to see why Luke might have reversed the line
topics for lines 4 and 6.  That is, this reversal creates this line topic
sequence for lines 3, 4, and 5 of Lk 6:43-46:
Line 3 The beginning or end of a passage from a source
Line 4 The middle of a passage from a source
Line 5 The beginning or end of a passage from a source.
This enables Luke to utilize Thomas 45 in sequential order: utilizing the
beginning of it in line 3, the middle of it in line 4, and the end of it in
line 5.

This is an implicit criticism of Matthew's fracturing of Thomas 45: for
Matthew utilizes the beginning of Thomas 45  in line 2 of Mt 7:16-20, the
end of it in line 5 of Mt 12:33-35, and the middle of it in line 6 of Mt
12:33-35.  As a result, in this case, Luke deemed Thomas 45 to be a
reasonably accurate rendering of a saying of Jesus and, so, rejected
Matthew's fracturing of it and, instead, utilized it in its sequential
order.

  A major difference between Mt 12:33-35 and Lk 6:43-46 is that, while both
Thomas 45 and Mt 3:7-10//Lk 3:7-9 are utilized in Mt 12:33-35, only Thomas
45 is utilized in Lk 6:43-46.

Again, we appear to have an implicit criticism of Matthew.  In particular,
Mt 3:7-10//Lk 3:7-9 regards a speech attributed to John the Baptist.  As a
result, in this case, Luke rejected Matthew's utilization it in Mt 12:33-35:
(and, in addition, in Mt 7:16-20): apparently on the basis that this
procedure is illegitimate in that it falsely attributes words of John the
Baptist to Jesus as well.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

There are complex inter-relationships between Mt 3:7-10//Lk 3:7-9, Mt
7:16-20, Mt 12:33-35, Thomas 45, and Lk 6:43-46.

To explain these complex inter-relationships, what is hypothesised in this
post is that:
(1) Matthew was aware of Thomas and a document (possibly Q) that contained
the original version of Mt 3:7-10//Lk 3:7-9
and that:
(2) Luke was not only aware of these two documents, but of Matthew's gospel
as well.

In this case Luke's gospel is very late--perhaps even the one of the latest
of the New Testament documents.  Yet, precisely because, it appears, Luke
critically evaluated his sources, it could be that his gospel is of great
value to us in that it is the first attempt to critically evaluate source
material about Jesus--particularly Mark, Thomas, Matthew, and at least one
other source which possibly might be Q.

If so, then Luke is, in some meaningful sense, the first pioneer in the
endeavor to uncover the true historical Jesus.  Further, the manner in which
he treats his source material needs to be taken into consideration when
evaluating this source material.  So, for example, in trying to determine
whether Thomas 45 is a reasonably accurate rendering of a genuine saying of
Jesus, how Luke utilizes this passage in Lk 6:43-46 perhaps should be given
great weight.

Still his biases need to be taken into consideration--just as the biases of
a modern historian need to be taken into account in evaluating her work.
For example, Luke is closer in thinking to what became labelled as orthodox
teachings than he is to what became labelled as Gnostic teachings.   So, we
need to take into account the possibility that Luke, when evaluating Thomas,
might have wrongfully rejected the genuineness of some of its sayings
because of his bias against what came to be labelled as Gnostic thought.

In the case of Thomas 45, Luke's treatment of it indicates that, he
believed, it is a reasonably accurate rendering of an actual saying of
Jesus.  However, since this saying in Thomas 45 is in accord with what
became labelled as orthodox thinking, he perhaps was biased towards
acceptance of its genuiness.

What is your opinion?  Do you think Thomas 45 to be a reasonably accurate
rendering of a saying of Jesus.  If yes, why?  If no, why not?

(Note: Nuanced replies also appreciated.  For example, the Jesus Seminar
rates the beginning of 45 as pink (Jesus probably said something like this),
the middle of it as grey (Jesus did not say this, but the ideas in it are
close to his own), and the end of it as black (Jesus did not say this; it
represents the perspective or content of a later or different tradition).)

Frank McCoy
1809 N. English Apt 15
Maplewood, MN USA 55109

Thomas 45, "Jesus said, 'Grapes are not harvested from thorns, nor are
figs gathered from thistles, for they do not produce fruit.  A good man
brings forth good from his storehouse; an evil man brings forth evil things
from his evil storehouse, which is in his heart, and says evil things.  For
out of the abundance of the heart he brings forth evil things.'"

Matthew 7:16-20, "By their fruits you will know them.  Grapes are not
gathered from thorns or figs from thistles.  So, every good tree produces
good fruits, but the rotten tree produces bad fruit.  A good tree is not
able to produce bad fruit, nor a rotten tree to produce good fruit.  Every
tree not producing good fruit is cut off and into fire is thrown.
Therefore, by their fruits you will know them."

Matthew 12:33-35 "Either make the tree good and the fruit of it (will be)
good, or make the tree rotten and the fruit of it (will be) rotten.  For by
the fruit the tree is known.  Offspring of vipers, how are you able to speak
good, being evil?--for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
The good man out of the good treasure brings forth good and the evil man out
of the evil treasure brings forth evil."

Luke 6:43-46 "For there is no good tree producing bad fruit, nor, again, a
bad tree producing good fruit.  For each tree will be known by its own
fruit.  For they do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes
from a thorn bush.  The good man from the good storehouse of the heart
produces good, and the evil from evil produces evil.--for from (the)
abundance of (the) heart speaks his mouth.  And why do you call me, 'Lord,
Lord', and you do not do what I say?"

Matthew 3:7-10, "Children of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming
wrath? ...Therefore, every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and
into fire is thrown."

The works of Paul in the Nag Hammadi Library have important parallels, and even
some synoptics with  the other works in the Nag Hammadi.  These works are in
line with the elements, structures, and process of gnosis through Jesus 'Wisdom'
from the Gnostic Gospels, the text known as Baptism B., and others. I have
numbered the sentences of the "Prayer of Paul" so that I can point out the
relevance of the Gnostic process in the body of the prayer, to other works.....

Prayer of Paul

1.... your light, give me your mercy! My Redeemer, redeem me, for I am yours;
the one who has come forth from you. You are my mind; bring me forth! 2. You are
my treasure house; open for me! 3.You are my fullness; take me to you! You are
(my) repose; give me the perfect thing that cannot be grasped!

Paragraph, 1.

1. It is not typical to ask for mercy, but the reference to 'light' is
consistent with the use of the term in Thomas. Paul is naming Jesus as a
Redeemer, perhaps 'savior' could be synonymous with this term.

2. The reference to 'treasure house,' or treasure shows up in several texts,
including Pistis Sophia," But she {Pisitis Sophia}was wont to sing praises to
the light in the height which she saw in the veil of the Treasure of the Light."
Gospel Of Mary Ch 5-9) "Blessed are you that you did not waver at the sight of
Me. For where the mind is there is the treasure." This reference may also be in
line with the storehouse or barn idea in Thomas 63.

3. This reference is to the 'perfect thing.'  There is a corresponding reference
in Baptism B., "we were brought from seminal bodies into bodies with a perfect
form."  This is in reference to the process of Gnosis, or becoming what is
considered 'being the perfect thing' by the process of gnosis.  "I entered by
way of example, the remnant, for which the Christ rescued us in the fellowship
of his Sprit. And he brought us forth who are in him, and from now on the souls
will become 'perfect spirits.'  This from the Gospel of Phillip, in reference to
Jesus.."because he is a perfect man."

There can be no confusion that what the prayer is asking for is the 'wisdom' of
Jesus to connect with the pleromic form, or to become Pneumatic. References to
the storehouse in Thomas 45, are no doubt also in reference to the 'treasure
house' of the mind. Where most of the above reference to the storehouse are
about the process of gnosis, the evil storehouse {of the mind} is about human or
kenomic flaws. In both cases the importance is to realize the mind's role in the
Gnostic process, and as part of the kenoma, as well as the psyche, in reaching
the level of Pneumatic, the Pleroma.

Paragraph 2.

4. I invoke you, the one who is and who pre-existed in the name which is exalted
above every name, through Jesus Christ, the Lord of Lords, the King of the ages;
give me your gifts, of which you do not repent, through the Son of Man, the
Spirit, the Paraclete of truth. 5. Give me authority when I ask you; give
healing for my body when I ask you through the Evangelist, and redeem my eternal
light soul and my spirit. And the First-born of the Pleroma of grace -- reveal
him to my mind!

4. "Gifts" in sentence 4., is no doubt in reference to what Paul names in his
letters in regard to Pneumatics, or Craftsmen. (1 Cor. 12, Rom 12:3-8)  "Son of
Man, the Spirit, the Paraclete of truth," is another reference to Jesus as the
Holy Spirit or form of "Wisdom" to bond with in the gnostic process.  'Paraclete
of truth' is somewhat rare, but 'paraclete' is used in the 1st "Book of Jue." 
Truth, Word, All, Light, Law etc. are references to the bond with Sophia, or
wisdom, in Gnostic scripture.

5. The sentence is clearly another reference to the process of gnosis.  Paul is
asking for the 'gift of healing' which is among the 'gifts' mentioned above, and
in Thomas 14. Healing is a known 'Craft' which identifies the Craftsmen-Healers
in Paul's letters as Gnostics, or 'pneumataphoroi.'  The last phrase, 'reveal
him to my mind,' is another parallel to the GMary's importance of the mind being
the treasure.

  Paragraph 3.

6.Grant what no angel eye has seen and no archon ear (has) heard, and what has
not entered into the human heart which came to be angelic and (modeled) after
the image of the psychic God when it was formed in the beginning, since I have
faith and hope. 7. And place upon me your beloved, elect, and blessed greatness,
the First-born, the First-begotten, and the wonderful mystery of your house; for
yours is the power and the glory and the praise and the greatness for ever and
ever. Amen.

6. The reference to angel eye, and archon ear, is another parallel to the series
of eye, and ear, references in Thomas, Mary and a host of other Nag Hammadi
texts.  As the following from the 1st "Book of Jue" states, "This is the book of
the gnoses of the invisible God, by means of the hidden mysteries which show the
way to the chosen race, leading in refreshment to the life of the Father - in
the coming of the Saviour , of the deliverer of souls who receive themselves the
Word of life which is higher than all life - in the knowledge of the living
Jesus, who has come forth through the Father from the aeon of light at the
completion of the Pleroma -"

This from the Gospel of the Egyptians, " The holy book of the Egyptians about
the great invisible Spirit, the Father whose name cannot be uttered, he who came
forth from the heights of the perfection, the light of the light of the aeons of
light, the light of the silence of the providence <and> the Father of the
silence, the light of the word and the truth, the light of the incorruptions,
the infinite light, the radiance from the aeons of light of the unrevealable,
unmarked, ageless, unproclaimable Father, the aeon of the aeons, Autogenes,
self-begotten, self-producing, alien, the really true aeon."

The next phrase 'angelic and molded after the image of the psychic God, is
clearly a reference to the hierarchy of man as hylic, in the progression of
hylic, psychic, Pneumatic, and the progression in gnostic transition to the
level of Pneumatic.  "Psychic God' would mean in the Gnostic schema, as one with
the mind, or Wisdom of the Mind, psyche.

The use of the terms faith and hope appear to be paralleled in the Gospel of
Phillip.  " Faith receives, love gives. No one will be able to receive without
faith. No one will be able to give without love........."A harvest is gathered
into the barn only as a result of the natural action of water, earth, wind and
light. God's farming likewise has four elements - faith, hope, love, and
knowledge. Faith is our earth, that in which we take root. And hope is the water
through which we are nourished. Love is the wind through which we grow.
Knowledge, then, is the light through which we ripen."

The reference to farming and the barn may be distant parallels to Thomas 63.,
and 45. The storehouse or barn here are in reference to the mind, and your
status in terms of living in the kenoma. The terms, house, barn, and storehouse
pretty much all refer to the capacity of the mind and personal capacity in the
environment, and preparation for the Pleroma.

7. This is the ending sentence to the prayer and seems very much self
explanatory and very attached to the description of the process of gnosis, in
the goal of becoming Pleromic, or 'blessed elect.' The reference to the 'mystery
of your house' seems to be a reference for understanding the prayer itself as
part of the Gnostic process, within the words of the text.

The "Prayer of Paul" is very related to the "Apocalypse of Paul" in that the
prayer seems to be for the process of becoming one with the other Apostles,
Pneumatic.  This is the main theme of that work, which seems to be describing
that transition.

There are no doubt more parallels that can be made to the "Prayer of Paul."
However I have tried to show with just a few parallels how one Nag Hammadi text
is related to others by the process of understanding Gnostic transition, as
related to bonding with the Holy Spirit, 'Wisdom.'  It is this process and the
elements of reference to it that are identifiable as uniquely Gnostic, and not
common to the Orthodoxy.

Tom Saunders
Platter, OK













[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Johnmoon,

"Only in that he {Paul} thought that Gnosis could be attained through Baptism
into
The Death and Resurrection of Jesus.( Gnosi in Baptismo), could he be called
Gnostic"

True. I am still toying with how to separate and distinguish different types of
Gnosticism.  Paul is troubling in that he is referenced with the Gnostic texts,
and in orthodox texts he has gnostic tendencies.  Figuring out how he fits into
Alexandrian Christianity leaves some hard questions, because much of his beliefs
are mixed or confused with Orthodox dogma.  Some of his letters are forgeries,
and the references to Gnostic ideas in his work are not clear.

Paul does recognize the gifted or Craftsmen that are vital to recognizing that
there was Gnosticism, and Pneumatics.  Whether Paul understood the full concept
of the Gnostic two baptisms I would have to question.  I am referring here to
the Nag Hammadi text Baptism A, and B. pg. 481-488.

Baptism A, states in its content that it is perhaps a symbolic act for the
forgiveness of sins, and progression to the Aeon. 'Gnosi in Baptismo' here is
one thing, in the next baptism its another....

Baptism B, talks about transition from the carnal into the spiritual, from the
physical into the angelic, where "we are brought from the seminal bodies, into
perfect (pleromic) bodies of perfection."  Baptism B, can be characterized as
the process of gnostic transition or transcendence. It can be linked to
Phillip's assertion of the living resurrection. It is tropical to references of
the Pneumatic as to the Gnostic process one undergoes, after 'metennoia.'  It is
the 'spirit of wisdom' melding with Holy Spirit.

Paul was recognized for something like this kind of transition, even by the
orthodoxy.  The problem is he may not have inspired trust of, or never met with
Thomas, Phillip, Mary, Mathias, or Levi.   He never went to Alexandria according
to the map routes I have of his journeys, and according to what history we have
on him, he spent his time with Luke, Peter, James, and a few others.  His work
does not reflect a Baptism B, "hooking up with Sophia," using Jesus wisdom.
Except the 'Prayer of the Apostle Paul' in the Nag Hammadi.

Those of you who do parallels so well, and much better than I do them, will see
a direct literal connection to Paul's prayer, (pg 27 NHL) and Baptism B.  Either
the proto- Orthodoxy butchered Paul's letters so that none of them stand out as
'that' Gnostic, or they are all forgeries, except the NHL prayer, and texts.  If
the prayer was Paul's, he was Gnostic in the Alexandrian sense.  He would have
been considered a Craftsman by all standards.  Clement mentions him, but as I
recall right now without looking through all the 'Books of Stromata,' the
references do not reveal much.

The Ap. of Paul, NHL, pg. 258, is an ascension myth, very much like a creation
myth.  "The Tripartite Pretennoia" is this kind of work.  I would classify them
as symbolically artistic works directed at the structures and process of gnosis.
Paul either knew the works in the NHL texts, or he did not.

One other possibility is he knew and wrote about Christianity to conform with a
protocol of his day.  He may also have known the Gnostic texts or perceptions
but knew to keep them secret. When Paul was Saul he killed a lot of Christians.

Tom Saunders
Platter, OK


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tom Saunders writes:
> The works of Paul in the Nag Hammadi Library have important parallels ...

There are no works of Paul in the Nag Hammadi Library.

Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

Tom Saunders writes:

> Either the proto-Orthodoxy butchered Paul's letters so that none of them
> stand out as 'that' Gnostic, or they are all forgeries, except the NHL
> prayer, and texts.

(c) Neither of the above.

Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 3:14 AM
Subject: Re: [GTh] Parallels to Paul's Prayer


>
> Tom Saunders writes:
> > The works of Paul in the Nag Hammadi Library have important parallels
...
>
> There are no works of Paul in the Nag Hammadi Library.
>
> Mike Grondin
> Mt. Clemens, MI
>
>
There are certainly no genuine works of Paul in the Nag Hammadi
library. However there are 2 works (falsely) attributed to Paul.

The 'Prayer of the Apostle Paul' and thr 'Apocalypse of Paul', both are
developments of ideas in Paul in a 'Gnostic' direction.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew Criddle writes:
> There are certainly no genuine works of Paul in the Nag Hammadi
> library. However there are 2 works (falsely) attributed to Paul.

Well, I knew that, of course. And at first I considered the possibility that
the phrase "the works of Paul" was just another of Tom's god-awful
miswordings. But from reading that note and the other on Paul that he sent
in, it became apparent that Tom really is laboring under the misapprehension
that "The Prayer of Paul" was genuinely Pauline, but that the letters widely
regarded as genuinely Pauline have in fact been heavily edited by
"orthodoxy" to remove "gnostic" stuff that Tom wants to believe (for the
sake of his pet theory) was there originally. You and I and most of our
members know, of course, that this is hogwash.

Mike Grondin

In a message dated 10/4/04 11:30:22 AM, mwgrondin@... writes:


> Well, I knew that, of course. And at first I considered the possibility
> that
> the phrase "the works of Paul" was just another of Tom's god-awful
> miswordings. But from reading that note and the other on Paul that he sent
> in, it became apparent that Tom really is laboring under the misapprehension
> that "The Prayer of Paul" was genuinely Pauline,
>

JOhn notes

        It is very, very difficult to show that even a Pauline original
writing Is in Thomas, or visa versa.

       The number of steps in order to do such a thing, goes into the
following

        Verifying first that the Written words were Paul,...often times
unprovable, or debatable.
        Once you have done that you are still only able to establish a chance,
or percentile that
say Thomas is quoted by Paul, Or Paul by Thomas.

        Now having mentioned that it is very difficult.

         I should point out that proving a saying that is not Paul's and an
unknown author? One you could not check a sampling of Greek or other works which
were of the same author?

         The odds of proving such a thing would be astronomical.

          It would always end up being a supposition.

           That is to prove a non Pauline source, using Pauline works as
basis, are in Thomas or visa versa
      Is untestable and unprovable, by that method. I fail to see the logic in
that method.

             To do anything with the Words, you must first prove their Pauline
origin.

              That is not as easy as you would think,


Regards,
           John Moon
           Springfield,Tenn 37172



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Andrew,

"There are certainly no genuine works of Paul in the Nag Hammadi library.
However there are 2 works (falsely) attributed to Paul.  The 'Prayer of the
Apostle Paul' and thr 'Apocalypse of Paul', both are
developments of ideas in Paul in a 'Gnostic' direction."

I agree with the idea that these are works attributed to Paul, and were not
actually written by him.  This could be the case for some of the work attributed
to Paul in the NT. This is some of what Clement says about Paul...
"There is no fear of God before their eyes."  Paul says: "The law was instituted
because of transgressions, till the seed should come, to whom the promise was
made." Then, as if in explanation of his meaning, he adds: "But before faith
came, we were kept under the law, shut up," manifestly through fear, in
consequence of sins, "unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed; so
that the law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ," (Bk 1)

"Similarly with Paul "the All-virtuous Wisdom" says, "He, that heareth me shall
dwell trusting in hope." For the restoration of hope is called by the same term
"hope." To the expression "will dwell" it has most beautifully added" trusting,"
showing that such an one has obtained rest, having received the hope for which
he hoped." (Bk 2)

"Paul, in the Acts of the Apostles, is recorded to have said to the Areopagites,
"I perceive that ye are more than ordinarily religious. For as I passed by, and
beheld your devotions, I found an altar with the inscription, To The Unknown
God." (Bk2)

"Let not alms, and faith, and truth fail thee, but hang them around thy neck."
In the same way as Paul, prophecy upbraids the people with not understanding the
law. "Destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace have they
not known." (Bk 2)

"All other things buy out of the shambles, asking no questions," with the
exception of the things mentioned in the Catholic epistle of all the apostles,
"with the consent of the Holy Ghost," which is written in the Acts of the
Apostles, and conveyed to the faithful by the hands of Paul himself. For they
intimated "that they must of necessity abstain from things offered to idols, and
from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, from which keeping
themselves, they should do well." It is a different matter, then, which is
expressed by the apostle: "Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not
power to lead about a sister, a wife, as the rest of the apostles, as the
brethren of the Lord and Cephas?" (Bk 4)

"But we have not used this power," he says, "but bear all things, lest we should
occasion hindrance to the Gospel of Christ;" namely, by bearing about burdens,
when it was necessary to be untrammelled for all things; or to become an example
to those who wish to exercise temperance, not encouraging each other to eat
greedily of what is set before us, and not to consort inconsiderately with
woman. And especially is it incumbent on those entrusted with such a
dispensation to exhibit to disciples a pure example. "For though I be free from
all men, I have made myself servant to all," it is said, "that I might gain all.
And every one that striveth for mastery is temperate in all things." "But the
earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." For conscience' sake, then, we
are to abstain from what we ought to abstain. (Bk 4)

"We must know, then, that if Paul is' young in respect to time -- having
flourished immediately after the Lord's ascension -- yet his writings depend on
the Old Testament, breathing and speaking of them. For faith in Christ and the
knowledge of the Gospel are the explanation and fulfilment of the law; and
therefore it was said to the Hebrews, "If ye believe not, neither shall you
understand;" that is, unless you believe what is prophesied in the law, and
oracularly delivered by the law, you will not understand the Old Testament,
which He by His coming expounded." (Bk 4)

  "Divinely, therefore, Paul writes expressly, "Tribulation worketh, patience,
and patience experience, and experience hope; and hope maketh not ashamed."  (Bk
4)

"Akin to this is what the holy Apostle Paul says, preserving the prophetic and
truly ancient secret from which the teachings that were good were derived by the
Greeks: "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them who are perfect; but not the wisdom
of this world, or of the princes of this world, that come to nought; but we
speak the wisdom of God hidden in a mystery." (Bk 5)
Most instructively, therefore, says Paul in the Acts of the Apostles: "The God
that made the world, and all things in it, being the Lord of heaven and earth,
dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped by men's hands,
as if He needed anything; seeing that it is He Himself that giveth to all
breath, and life, and all things." (Bk 5)

"It remains that we understand, then, the Unknown, by divine grace, and by the
word alone that proceeds from Him; as Luke in the Acts of the Apostles relates
that Paul said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too
superstitious. For in walking about, and beholding the objects of your worship,
I found an altar on which was inscribed, To the Unknown God." (Bk5)

"He distinguished the most excellent of the Greeks from the common herd, in
addition to "Peter's Preaching," the Apostle Paul will show, saying: "Take also
the Hellenic books, read the Sibyl, how it is shown that God is one, and how the
future is indicated." (Bk 6)

"For instance, Paul circumcised Timothy because of the Jews who believed, in
order that those who had received their training from the law might not revolt
from the faith through his breaking such points of the law as were understood
more cam ally, knowing right well that circumcision does not justify; for he
professed that "all things were for all" by conformity, preserving those of the
dogmas that were essential, "that he might gain all." (Bk 6)

'And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It
was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies
arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the eider, as, for instance,
Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the
interpreter of Peter." (Clement Stromata, Bk. 7) {Acts 13-7.  who was with the
proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of understanding. The same called unto him
Barnabas and Saul, and sought to hear the word of God.}

Similarly with Paul "the All-virtuous Wisdom" says, "He, that heareth me shall
dwell trusting in hope." For the restoration of hope is called by the same term
"hope." (Bk 7)

There seems to be a similar understanding in the Clememt work to the terms faith
and hope as can be read in the Gospel of "Phillip. "Faith receives, love gives.
No one will be able to receive without faith. No one will be able to give
without love........."A harvest is gathered into the barn only as a result of
the natural action of water, earth, wind and light. God's farming likewise has
four elements - faith, hope, love, and knowledge. Faith is our earth, that in
which we take root. And hope is the water through which we are nourished. Love
is the wind through which we grow. Knowledge, then, is the light through which
we ripen."

I am afraid that the above will cause more questions than answers as far as
Paul's real stance on Gnosticism. There can be little doubt that Paul's
adherence to Jewish law will make his perception of the Gnostic transition seem
different from other perceptions. The concepts of Law, and Word, in Gnostic
thought are difficult to align with the process of bonding with Wisdom. (gnosis)

Tom Saunders

Platter, OK













[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]