Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

12902Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Is the Gospel of Thomas Gnostic?

Expand Messages
  • Michael Leavitt
    Dec 16, 2006
      Lance Owens is the priest in Salt Lake city for the Ecclesia Gnostica,
      BTW. Old friend of mine.

      lady_caritas wrote:
      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@...> wrote:
      >
      >>
      >> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "marc harris" <satyr666_2003@>
      >> wrote:
      >>
      >>> Hi All
      >>>
      >>> Well if you have read the gospels, in this case the gospel of
      >>>
      > Thomas.
      >
      >>> It shows a deep and profound mystical insights which you come to
      >>> through intuitively understanding them and not trying to take in
      >>>
      > the
      >
      >>> information on face value reading. Ive found many deeper meanings
      >>>
      > in
      >
      >>> these gospels and also recommend to check out the Gnostic Bible.
      >>> Understanding the underlying meaning of whats being conveyed by
      >>>
      > Jesus
      >
      >>> what is really important.
      >>>
      >>>
      >>
      >>
      >> I very much agree that seeking to understand the original meaning
      >>
      > of a
      >
      >> given text is of paramount importance, but I have to question some
      >>
      > of
      >
      >> the ostensibly "intuitive" insights into that meaning that some
      >>
      > people
      >
      >> are wont to promote. If the racist agenda of one poster last month
      >> (regarding a non-Gnostic text) wasn't enough to convince anyone,
      >>
      > take a
      >
      >> look around the Net at the gamut of perspectives one can find
      >>
      > regarding
      >
      >> interpretations of The Gospel of Thomas. People can be found from
      >> virtually every persuasion who wish to claim it as their own. If we
      >> consider "intuition" to be direct perception of the Truth, and some
      >>
      > of
      >
      >> these "interpretations" are radically at odds with one another,
      >>
      > then it
      >
      >> seems clear that some of these "insights" are misguided at
      >> best—delusional or outright deceptive at worst. How does one
      >> differentiate?
      >>
      >> Gerry
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      > It goes back to "those who have ears attuned to hear it" according to
      > Lance Owens in his essay, "The Gospel of Thomas and Hermeneutics of
      > Vision," in which he discusses an "anagogical, visionary
      > hermeneutics."
      >
      > http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gth_hermen.htm
      >
      > And, although I might question some of his ideas, such as the
      > historicity of Jesus, Owens does provide an argument that considers
      > the traditions and setting in which this work was written. IOW,
      > although those "attuned ears" may not only have been the provenance
      > of the ancients,... OTOH, it is certainly questionable as to whether
      > The Gospel of Thomas was intended to mean anything anyone wants it
      > to, even if there should be different levels of interpretation
      > possible.
      >
      > Lance Owens talks about revelatory experience and "an experience of
      > transcendent vision which leaves upon heart and tongue the savor of
      > Divine communication." I would submit that this vision couldn't help
      > but involve or affect the brain or neurology in the process, also.
      > In today's society, there often tends to be what I consider a rather
      > unnatural disconnection between the "mind" and "heart," as if one
      > must choose between an ultra-analytical, insensitive, logical
      > approach and an effusive, emotional, mindless type of mystical
      > experience. In fact, some would even draw arbitrary lines of battle
      > against one or the other extreme when it comes to search for "truth."
      >
      > I find this unfortunate and personally prefer to think of "revelatory
      > experience" in terms of a marriage of logic and mysticism. And it
      > seems some ancients did, too.
      >
      > We might not be able to describe a publicly available, neatly wrapped
      > formula required for the interpretation of The Gospel of Thomas, but
      > Lance Owens, in a way, does open a familiar can of worms as to
      > whether the necessary visionary acuity for transformation by this
      > gospel is obtainable by all or a few.
      >
      > Cari
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 40 messages in this topic