7827Re: [Gnosticism2] re: "Pure Gnosticism"
- May 23, 2003--- In email@example.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
>"putting forward" any other system of contrived divisions regarding possible
> James, you have misunderstood my point. I'm not really interested in
"chapters" in the book, or in the ordering of the logia themselves. As none
of us wrote the gospel, none of us can vouch to what degree the ordering of
the sayings has changed from the time of the original composition. All I
was pointing out was that there is enough evidence to consider that SOME
degree of rearrangement took place along the way. Stevan Davies even
recognizes this in the same article to which you recently posted a link:
>and this may indicate that each has undergone alterations in sayings-order
> "None of the four chapters has all of these elements in perfect sequence,
independent of alterations made in the others."
>grouping of the logia remains unknown to us. While speculation as to how it
> Of course, it may also indicate that the criteria used for any original
MIGHT have been done could prove interesting, such ideas are by no means
concrete. Regardless, my reservations about looking for such an order
within the Gospel of Thomas were hardly "baseless."
It is immaterial how many edits the one complete text we have has gone
through. All that is required is that the editors understood the manner in
which the text was constructed and held to those designs. Order exists
within the text. Deny it if you will, but I have already demonstrated the
manner in which reverse order is reflected with the terms within certain of
the sayings. Reverse order has been worked into the text on at least one
> >>Earth is the lowest of the three. Matter is base. It is of lessercomplexity than either Spirit and Soul. However it is inarguable that Body,
Spirit, and Soul were consistently grouped together as three aspects
possessed by man. Where only one or two are mentioned the missing terms
become conspicuous simply due to their absence.<<
>parts of Man's nature, I would strongly disagree that Matter was held by
> While I would agree that Matter, Soul and Spirit were seen as the three
Gnostics in the high regard which you like to claim.
Matter is base, it is clay, it is shit and decayed bodies and rife with
> >>Whoa! Two huge assumptions are being made here. The first is theassumption that an analogy can be made between colors and the terms body,
spirit, and soul. The second assumption is really immaterial as it depends
entirely on the acceptance of the first . . . What I have a hard time
understanding is why, when we have three perfectly concise terms, we should
choose to switch them for colors? <<
> Whoa there, yourself, Cowboy. LOL The only reason I even made theanalogy was because you continue to demonstrate a confusion of the Greek
terminology. For instance, you write this:
>>The mind thinks in words, words are formed from breath, breath is
> So . . . how much of one's breath is Pneuma, and how much is Carbon
One's breath is Pneuma. The quantity of Carbon Dioxide depends on whether
you are talking about inspiration, or expiration.
> >>Joy to the flesh that depends on the spirit; joy to the spirit thatdepends on the body.
>is the mind which focuses upon the material.<<
> Which is to say that the body that depends on the mind is in luck. And so
>psychic middle ground-other times it seems connected with the Spirit.
> And that's another problem area. Mind is sometimes equated with the
Either way, I'd be curious to see which other Gnostic sources proclaimed it
a "joy" for a person to focus on the "Material."
It is not joy for a person to focus on the material. We are discussing the
mind. A mind that focuses on the material comes to understand how the world
works. With this knowledge the mind enables the soul to be less hampered by
the restrictions of the material world.
> Seriously, James, such speculation is not within the realm of this group'sfocus. If I'm not mistaken, this has already been pointed out recently.
Has it? Oh yes, when I dared to suggest that the tetractys originated with
Pythagoras himself. I'm not the one who brought up Pythagoras. And besides
now I am not discussing Pythagoras, but Thomas. Anyway, the text itself
backs up everything I have put forth. It is the text which has terms within
the sayings in reverse, it is within the text itself. It is the text which
tells us that there are hidden meaning contained within the text and that we
should apply ourselves to the task. So let us suppose that the text was
designed to be read in reverse order. Are we to refuse to do so simply
because we are uncertain that the text which we have has not undergone some
alteration? We say, yes the text does give some indication to containing a
reverse ordering but to examine it any further is a waste of time. How can
we possibly suggest such a thing without first examining the matter for
ourselves? Is that how discoveries are made, is that how knowledge is pushed
But anyway, let's move on.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>