9282Re: Digest Number 563 (seminar lowlights)
- Mar 7, 2004--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "eyeambetty" <eyeambetty@y...>
> Hi Gerry,judgement
> i've been following your blow by blow of the seminar you attended,
> YIKES! very disheartening, but it seems your keen sense of
> and perception had already caught wind before you even arrived, eh?without
> it seems to be expected these days, i can barely turn on NPR
> hearing some interview, or story somehow(distantly ordistastefully)
> related to these manuscripts, usually to incorporate into someLOL I'm still amazed that even a few people were able to read
> already exhisting adgenda.
through those posts of mine. While I did strive to capture the mood
of the experience along with the content, I hope the event wasn't as
disheartening to you via my blow-by-blow reporting as I found it with
my ringside seat.
I'm not sure what to make of that NPR coverage; our reception down
here is pretty spotty, so I usually only catch it when driving to
Virginia. Ever since Cari mentioned those print articles and
especially since the release of "The Passion," television has been
saturated with supposed documentaries and specials. I'm curious (if
you should recall any programs in particular) whether those on the
radio impressed you as more of the liberal bias that Stephen
mentioned. So far, that Fresh Air interview is the only thing I've
heard, and other than his apocalyptic view supposedly supported by
Thomas, Ehrman's background is of the mainstream persuasion. I
suppose what I'm getting at is that it would be interesting to
observe if both traditionally conservative and liberal media are
witnessing a conventional Christian revival, even with regards to
these non-canonical texts. Could be that orthodoxy makes strange
> no kidding, you would think they would have the good sense, ifindeed
> they were considering a potential Gnostic interpretation, tocompare
> and contrast it with the more obvious Gnostic texts included in theYa know, I had never read that _Time_ article until I got out there.
> stated collections. but, it surely seems that the lectures were
> designed to promote this Ehrman fellows book centered around those
> particular manuscripts.
Even though the lecture coordinators had sent out information packets
beforehand, we each had some additional reading material waiting for
us on arrivalthe "Lost Gospels" article among them. Do you think
it's some strange coincidence that it opens with a quote from the
Gospel of Peter and ends with the Gospel of Thomas? A number of
Ehrman's essays seem to focus on those two books, and that was also
the same order in which he covered them in person. Bizarre. I think
I smell a conspiracy brewin' somewhere. ;-)
As for comparing and contrasting those texts, even that can get
dicey. The woman who sat next to me was completely new to the
subject, and it was evident that she was having some difficulty
taking in any of this other than from her traditional point of
reference. That just makes for a tough row to hoe. She had a book
with her that she had checked out of the library, and was thinking
about purchasing one of her own, but a lot of it just didn't make
sense to her. Well, the book included only four texts, one of which
was GTh. Nice enough for beginners, I figured, but the last of the
four was the Apocryphon of John! I just couldn't believe that such a
work had been included in something that looked like it was geared
for novices. She was already struggling with the numerous angels
mentioned therein which contributed in the creation of Man.
Naturallysince *her* god didn't need any help in creating anything.
She also pointed to the picture of Rosamonde Miller (donning robe and
chalice) in that "Lost Gospels" article and questioned the fact that
her group worships Sophia. Well, in truth, the article doesn't say
anything about them "worshiping" anyone, but merely states that the
Palo Alto group's "Sunday Eucharistic service honors Sophia." In my
mind, there's a big difference, but as other people saw it, Miller
might as well have had horns sprouting from her head.
> Gerry, this reminded me of a passage i recently read, in the booki'm
> still plodding thru by G.R.S. Mead,"Fragments of a Faith Forgotten".of
> first, let me say, in regards to a post recently from Terje about
> this author, whom he says "did not shy away from interposing the
> concepts of Karma, Dharma, "Reincarnation" and other concepts out
> Hinduism/Buddhism without any consideration that not everyone knewentirely
> that originally the terms he "translates" is connected to an
> different worldview..."message 9232, to which i wholeheartedlyagree.
> he certainly is liberal in using the concepts withinhowever,
> Hinduism/Buddhism to assist in explaining Gnostic concepts.
> here is a very adept scholar, who with very little to work withthe
> besides fragments imbedded with Patristic writing, and i believe
> Askew and Bruce Codice's quite beautifully breathes such life intosays:
> Gnosticism. regardless of whether he is Gnostic himself, it's not
> apparent, but he has the utmost reverance for the tradition and
> the "Gnostic Doctors".
> anyway, the passage is at the end of a chapter on Valentinus, it
> "The Gnostics were ever changing their nomenclature; the god of one
> system might even be the devil of another! He who makes a
> concordance of names merely, in Gnosticism, may think himself lucky
> to escape a lunatic asylum; he, on the contrary, who seeks the idea
> behind the name will often find himself in a realm of great beauty
> and harmony of thought. Men like the Gnostics have ever had
> intuitions of a real state of being, of definite and precise realms
> of consciousness; yet each has caught a glimpse of the reality, as
> all men must so long as they are imprisioned in a body. If the
> Gnostics exhausted the philosophy and religion of their time in
> striving to find a decent vestment for the naked truth, as they
> thought they saw it, who shall blame them? Though they contradict
> another, in the view of the word-hunter, they do not contradictopens
> themselves for the follower of ideas. the idea is the key which
> the mysteries of the Gnosis, and those who refuse to use thisliving
> key must be content to have the treasury closed against them."Thanks so much for sharing that, Betty. Not only had I not read it
before, but I've been disappointed that I never did get a copy of
Mead's take on the Pistis Sophia. As for the interpretation, I'm not
at all opposed to exercising caution where warranted and appreciating
value where we find it. I don't think I even need to second Mike's
motion on closing that casethe above passage effectively pounds the
gavel for us.
> 28. Jesus said, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and infind
> flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not
> any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity,came
> because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they
> into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the worldMakes you want to brew up a world-sized pot of coffee with aspirin
> But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, they
> will change their ways." Gospel of Thomas.
> one can only hope.
chasers, doesn't it?
> yes, the freedom to renegotiate from moment to moment onesconcepts,
> without the safety net of set beliefs, allows for the seeminglydeath-
> defying flexiblity you spoke of earlier.That's actually the part of the film _Dogma_ that I enjoyed the most
the Apostle's insistence that it's better to have ideas than
beliefs. I'd hate to have someone be able to undermine the
cornerstone of my philosophypotentially bringing my whole world
tumbling down around me.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>