In a message dated 9/30/04 2:39:02 PM, tom@...
> 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.
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
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
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.
Springfield, TN 37172
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]