Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: The meanining of the Christ?
- Hello Kurt,Forgive me for being so dense today, but I can't for the life of me figure out what the"it" is you keep referring to in your first two paragraphs. Do you mind being a bit more specific for me?As to G of T representing an elitist movement, it seems to me that they are represented as a rather exclusive bunch. However, tagging them as elitist may be stretching it. Yet if they were, like 17th to mid-18th century Calvinism, of the belief that one was either chosen or not -- irregardless of one's past or future behavior or efforts -- then, yes, that sounds pretty elitist to me. But I don't want to wax anachronistic. Their (the Thomist community) elitism may have had as much to do with a cautiousness of character as a method of perceiving who was or was not imbued with the capacity to receive their teaching, which is more practical than belief alone (Calvinism tried, rather unsuccessfully, to develop a sure-fire method of determining who among them were the chosen of God and who were not).Tom U.Tom U.
--- On Sun, 4/11/10, kurt31416 <kurt31416@...> wrote:
From: kurt31416 <kurt31416@...>
Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: The meanining of the Christ?
Date: Sunday, April 11, 2010, 6:38 AMHi Tom, perhaps that struggle between the disciples (The Gospel of Thomas?) and Paul, homogenized in the Christian New Testament, keeps it open.
Perhaps it's technology building stronger armies and economies than religion, thereby breaking up the Roman Catholic church that brooked no dissent.
Do you consider the Gospel of Thomas elitist too? It has 14 parallels to the Dialog of the Savior according to Funk, more than to anything other than the Synoptics and James. And none to Mary as far as I know. (And all but one of the parallels are in Matthew too. The odd man out is Thomas 37 that talks about getting naked, but that's another story.)
--- In gnosticism2@ yahoogroups. com, "f8s42nutsun" <f8s42nutsun@ ...> wrote:
> Hello D,
> I'd have to ask you "which Jesus?" Paul's Jesus? The Jesus
> of the author of the prefacing poetry in the Gospel of John?
> The Valentinian Jesus? The Gospel of Thomas's Jesus?
> I.m.o., depending on the source, we are confronted with
> differing essences and missions impinged upon the various
> characterizations or person (maybe both, i.e., 'cause who can
> empirically rule out the existence of a historical Jesus?) of
> Jesus, reflecting different needs (individual and community)
> and struggles of the soul, so to speak.
> As this is a gnostic discussion group (my name is Tom, by the
> way, and it's good to be here, yada yada yada, blah blah blah)
> I'd have to say from my reading that a similar dilemma
> applies to the Nag Hammadi corpus. A "gnostic" Jesus seems
> just as elusive as a NT Jesus. The Jesus of The Dialogue of
> the Savior is exceedingly elitist compared to the Jesus of The
> Gospel of Mary Magdalene. It's uncertain if G of T is even
> gnostic to begin with (even Elaine Pagels has backed off on
> "gnostic" being a legitimate category, preferring for the most
> part to lump one and all in the rather benign category "early
> Christianities, " which I find disconcerting, being a big fan of
> her The Gnostic Gospels), but, in answer to your question, it
> does seem to represent and demonstrate "a metaphorical
> representation of the journey" of a rather exclusive, if not
> elite, community of seekers along the lines you seem to
> Let me share something from my "factoids" file.
> Depending on the source there are between 22 and 38
> thousand extant Xian denominations. There are 7957
> verses in most Protestant New Testament translations.
> This equates with, at minimum, 2.6 Xian denominations in
> this world for every one verse of said book. Which is also at
> minimum about 100 new denominations a year since the
> birth of Jesus according to Matthew's reckoning, though to
> accurate, the vast majority of this diversity occurs after the
> Reformation. Obviously that changes the math
> considerably. Where this stacks up with other ancient and
> contemporary religions I haven't a clue, but I suspect Xian
> diversity beats them all. My point being that there was
> something in the nature of Xian dissemination that has
> left it seemingly forever prone to being a religion of
> exceeding plurality in all facets, from founder(s) to
> Tom U.
> --- In gnosticism2@ yahoogroups. com, "D." <nazgno@> wrote:
> > As a student of religous history I have studied many gnostic traditions. I have found a possible meaning of Chrst in ancient Eypgtian theology along with many others. I have one simple question that I would appreciate opinions concnerning.
> > In ancient Egyptan "Christian Mytholgy" it was understood that the myth of Osiris. Isis and Horus was symbolic and metaphoric for the life of each human. That each human had to endure these things to reach enlighgtenment and release from this world. Reference(the writings of The Bet Emet Minisries on line). my question is this. Is it possible that the telling of the Jesus story should be taken as the same thing, a metaphorical representation of the journey of every person? The "story" Jesus being much more a roadmap for success and not as much an historical figure? All serious opinions appreciated.
- Hey Regeneratia
Just a quick note, Lady Cari has decided to no longer administrate this group and has unsubbed to follow other interests.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, regeneratia <no_reply@...> wrote:
> nice to see you here, Cari (M).
> In the old days, we discussed with Old bear on a different board. Do you remember that?
> --- In email@example.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@> wrote:
> > Hello, Brian. D. Tackett offered various points that could provide fodder for discussion. Unfortunately, D. left the group recently (before you posted), and so any opportunity for direct discussion with D. right now on this list is not possible.
> > Cari
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "brian" <humbleservant1god@> wrote:
> > >
> > > hello d. tackett, is that your first time reading the bible?
> > >
> > > --- In email@example.com, "D. Tackett" <nazgno@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I read the Bible today and I must admit that I was unimpressed. It's scholarly value was nill and it's authorship unknown. I can choose to accept whatever I wish and bash everything and everyone else. That is the wonder of mankind. We have ego driven thinking that clouds our Divine origin. Our minds are molded by masses that wish to have loyal followers to their thoughts. It is enough to make me think, why try? We look to the written words of men as if the truth exist only there. We call those that don't agree with us foolish and wrong. Most persons will argue to prove that we are the only ones that are right. How foolish is this? The truth is in our deepest center and we know it not. Peace to all
> > > >
> > >