Re: GThomas (Shahina)
- Joe Baxter responded to Antonio Jerez:
>I am not afraid to admit my ignorance about much of this world. So why notI've been two years on this list and I have come to the point where
>share with us the point or points you wish to make that relate to the
>subject. Conclusory swipes are not helpful to those of us, in dire need, as
I don't find it the least useful to get into prolonged discussions with
beginners who start from ground zero on a new subject like Second
Temple Judaism. The beginners are therefore welladvised to read at least
a minimum of the relevant litterature before they get into discussions
with the scholars on the list. There are many people on this list, myself
included, who will certainly help with advise about what kind of litterature
to start with.
- On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 17:49:53 +0100, antonio.jerez@... writes:
>Ian Hutchesson commented on Tom Simms:[... Snip ...]
>>Get real, Tom. Either respond to what the person actually says or shut up.
>Amen to all of that, Ian.Apparently both of you believe in a personal god who
takes part in your daily lives and in the actual resur-
rection of Jesus by god.
I don't. That's MY presupposition dealing with the
It does look increasingly certain that Tom
>has had his head pickled in the sands of the egyptian deserts forIn Egypt, I THINK people today don't have the Ancient
Beliefs, I see no evidence for them so doing, but I
DON'T KNOW for sure.
>At least he hasn't become more clearheaded the yearsPure Bile. I must have struck a nerve.
>I've known him.
>Tom reminds me of a linguistics professor we have here in townIn the 1980's, and before the full publication of the
>by the name of Alvar Ellegard. This man has for the last ten years
>been propagating in books, articles and conferences that Jesus
>was never crucified by Pilate - instead he lived about 150 years
>earlier and was in reality the Teacher of Righteousness at Qumran.
Dead Sea Scrolls, this was a popular and well supported
view. Right now, our sister List, Orion, is still
debating the issue and in particular the matter of the
>Increadibly enough a lot of people here in Sweden have been payingInteresting that you would go public in such an academic
>attention to this drivel. Now he threatens to publish another book in
>the Anglo-saxon countries. Since I am fed up with the man I decided
>to call the regional daily newspaper a few weeks ago and asked them
>to interview me about the historical Jesus and the professors nonsensical
>ideas. Surprisingly they immediately hooked up on my idea. Next Wednesday
>there is going to be a whole page in Goteborgs-Posten about me and my
>Jesus studies. One of my more controversial assertions will probably be
>that Sweden is an exegetical backwater - until now there hasn't been a
>historical Jesus research worth the name. Unfortunately the swedes have
>so far mostly had to be content with the mad ramblings of people like Ellegard
>or the theories of pseudohistorians at the theological institutions connected
>to the Universities. Among those pseudohistorians I count professors like
>Birger Gerhardsson and Harald Riesenfeldt.
backwater. My text, _Behind The Bible_, has been in print
since 1990 and has sold to five continents. Just now I have
finished the last arrangements with Amazon.com and it will
be on their list before the end of this present month.
Now if you and Ian would please tell me 1. what is god; and
2. how he raised Jesus from the dead; and, 3. got him to
heaven, and do so in non-theological terms explicable in
today's physics and cosmology, then I'll shut up.
Now, if you offer that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul,
James or any others of that time believed that God raised
Jesus from the dead and then raised him to heaven is what
happened, I can't disagree they did so. I don't accept what
they believed happened is an historical reality. The his-
torical reality is that they believed so. Just what do you
believe happened that made the people named believe so?
I expect that because Seneca reports it was allegedly
witnessed, the Emperor's peculiar gait being the point of
certification, that you, Antonio, and you, Ian, believe took
place the ascension of Claudius to heaven on his deifictaion
in 54 CE. If you do, I have for your purchase some wonder-
ful shore lots here, available for showing only by appoint-
>B___ w_____ (being pure hypocrisy, sheilding his venom)Otherwise, hogwash, Antonio and likewise, Ian,
> Now if you and Ian would please tell me 1. what is god; andDearest of Toms,
> 2. how he raised Jesus from the dead; and, 3. got him to
> heaven, and do so in non-theological terms explicable in
> today's physics and cosmology, then I'll shut up.
I thought we were dealing with analyses of biblically related texts, not
life the universe and everything.
But if you insist on such off topic questions, let me join in:
What colour underpants are you wearing today? Are they too tight for you?
Did you change them this morning?
Perhaps if you get back on track, I will too! We are dealing with texts and
what those texts say, whether you or Bob or anyone else understands that or
As to what you want to know, I can only pass on texts on this list, so read
Job chapter 38 following.
>Antonio Jerez wrote:I have after all read some of your statements
>>>I think you have a lot to learn, both about the origins of the Quran
>>>and the New Testament.
>earlier on Crosstalk, and I must confess that so far you haven't shown muchothers
>knowledge about what kind of literatures the NT is and in what way the ancient
>Jews went about doing Midrash, Pesher and Haggadah. You are definitely not
>alone on the list in having this problem. Joe Baxter, Tom Simms and a few
>are also in dire need of taking a beginners course on this subject.Joe's reply:
I am not afraid to admit my ignorance about much of this world. So why not
share with us the point or points you wish to make that relate to the
subject. Conclusory swipes are not helpful to those of us, in dire need, as
There is no talk about Jesus surviving the ordeal on
>the cross and thereafter walking along with his normal body all the way toAgain the Ahmadiyya
>Kashmir. That is pure Ahmadiyya guesswork. You could just as well guess that
>he flew to Mars.
>are in the world of phantasy and guesswork.Joe's reply:
Your ridicule is really not helpful. If you have a point, stick to the
evidence. The Amadiya do not suggest that Yeshu got down from the cross and
walked to Kashmir. Nor is their view guesswork. There is a very old Asian
tradition, and many records concerning Yuzu Asaph. If your point is
correct, dealing directly with the evidence should be helpful.
In truth, it is the scholars, not the lay folk who are at fault here. Their
arrogant confidence that Yeshu died and that the post-resurrection
experiences were mass hallucinations has its own aura of ignorance. Only the
overly educated could confidently believe such things and dismiss contrary
points of view as trips to Mars.
Keep in mind my friend, the church destroyed many of the texts. But for some
incredible good fortune, we wouldn't know about GThomas. We lost 2000 lines
of GHebrews. What else was destroyed? Do you think these manuscripts were
destroyed because they agreed with the 4G? Simply stick to the evidence and
be a little more humble to the possibility that the truth may be very
different than what you have imagined. We have no reporting of what happened
to most of the Apostles.
>I've been two years on this list and I have come to the point where"Jesus said, 'Those who know all, but are lacking in themseves, are utterly
>I don't find it the least useful to get into prolonged discussions with
>beginners who start from ground zero on a new subject like Second
>Temple Judaism. The beginners are therefore welladvised to read at least
>a minimum of the relevant litterature before they get into discussions
>with the scholars on the list.
Gospel of Thomas 67