Anhang Bill writes (in response to my confusion about his name):
>Are you, Mike Grondin, or Grondin Mike; sort of obvious, aint it??
Well, yes, it's obvious to me, but that's largely because 'Mike' (and
'Bill') are familiar first-names in my cultural context, whereas 'Anhang'
is not. I also understand that in some cultures it's traditional to give
the last name first, so I didn't know whether to trust the order of names
in your "from" line or not. The confusion could have been eliminated if you
had signed your notes at the bottom, but you don't do that. I suppose I
could have ignored the whole matter, but I like to clear up little
mysteries like this as I go. Hope you don't mind - no insult intended.
> A bad temper is a form of falsehood.
The so-called "Sayings of Jesus" are an even worse falsehood. I do tend to
get very angry when somebody (a person named 'Mike Rigby' in this case)
plagiarizes other people's stuff, modifies it, and passes it off as
original. Even worse, Rigby attributes it to the "Holy spirit". This is
charlatanism pure and simple. I don't think it's possible to be too harsh
with such a person. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, there's some rather harsh
stuff in early Xian writings about those who "mislead the children", which
is essentially what Rigby has done.
As to the concept of "beatific vision", it has been said by others (and
rightly so) that, although this may be one of many different concepts
mentioned in early Xian writings, there's no indication that it plays any
more of a major role in GThom than umpteen other religious concepts.
Whether or not it plays a major role in your own personal life, or in the
lives of others at the current time, is irrelevant to this list.
>... for those requesting it ... I will email one particular Beatific Vision
>account plus Jesus speaking multilingually, as indeed Generic Jesus (the
>primal identity of us all) is indeed able to play its own game ...
Thanks, Anhang, for giving a clear example of the kind of stuff that should
NOT be on this list. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the above
passage. Making fun of it would be just too easy - I think I'll just let it
speak for itself.
>And remember, dear Grondin, Mike, this Thomas list allows for "A certain
>amount of general (non scholarly), discussion will be encouraged,
>particularly if this discussion sheds any light on the text of GThomas.
Indeed, I am aware of that section of our charter, which was, if I am not
mistaken, intended to open a small pathway, not a 6-lane super-highway. Be
that as it may, however, I fail to see wherein the concept of "beatific
vision" sheds any particular light on GThom - with the possible exception
of one saying. (If you can find that saying, Anhang, you will at least have
made the start of a case.)
As to me being an "enforcer", I don't think Paul will let me have that
title formally. Besides, there are others on this list who are not about to
let me or anyone else silence any viewpoint which they think is worthy of
being heard. What's going on, IMO, is that several contributors are
struggling with the idea that this is primarily a scholarly list, not a
religious one. You don't have to be a scholar, but you should try to
approach the subject in a scholarly way - which means that you treat the
subject (in this case GThom) as an object of study, not as a religious
inspiration in your own personal life. You can regard the thing as inspired
on your own time, just not here on the list.
With charity to all,
Resources for the Study of NH Codex2
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com