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

Re: Gospel of Thomas not Gnostic???

Expand Messages
  • ErnstStrohregenmantelrad
    First, I would like to thank those who responded. My reason for posting the post was two fold. First to try to point out that stating GTh = Gnostics without
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 7, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      First, I would like to thank those who responded.
      My reason for posting the post was two fold. First
      to try to point out that stating "GTh = Gnostics"
      without any consideration is premature. Many will not
      hesitate calling the GTh as Gnostic document without any
      hesitation. This is understandable since a beginner�s book
      such as Pagels' "Gnostic Gospels" quotes extensively
      from it. However, I must apologize for not making my
      post very clear. I should have stated that the GTh is
      not Gnostic in origin. I am very sure many Gnostics
      such as Valentinus considered the GTh as their
      scripture. Which brings my second reason: the ever so
      demarcation the term "Gnostics" "Gnosticism". As I stated the
      GTh may had its origin in "esoteric" adaptionalists.
      Now, are we to extend the demarcation of "Gnostics" to
      include these groups? If we did, then without hesitation
      we could call the GTh as Gnostic in origin. But, I
      am of the opinion that it is better to call then as
      "pre-" or "proto-Gnostics" (again for the lack of better
      term as of yet) My feeling is that we ought to reserve
      the term "Gnostics" to those of full blown
      cosmological speculation in the 2nd century. I am not saying
      that "Gnosis" that these "Gnostics" professed did not
      manifested till that time. I am sure that Gnosis was there
      long before the 2nd century. That is why I choose the
      term "esoteric" adaptionalists. If we ought to take
      the position that the GTh is Gnostic then we also
      must see the possibility, that Jesus is a Gnostic
      (well, you might say "that is the whole point") because
      the GTh ultimately could be traced back to Jesus� own
      words. But if we keep calling any documents (e.g. the
      Odes of Solomon) with sort of "Gnosis" undertone as
      Gnostic where shall we draw the line? <br>Now, Let me
      explain the term "esoteric" adaptionalists. I designated
      this term to a group of Christians (They could be
      Jewish-Christians but necessary) who adhere to "adaptionalist"
      speculation on Christology and used Gnosis as soteriology.
      They did not see Jesus as Logos or had any elaborate
      speculation of later "Gnostics" such as Valentinus. IMO, this
      group thought that Jesus was a man who was adopted by
      God to be the Son of God though Gnosis. There is no
      crucifixion or Jesus as the redeemer because it was not
      needed. (This beg the question that elaborate cosmology
      was added later) This means these "esoteric'
      adaptionalists were not docetists like Basilides who saw Jesus
      as Logos who come to redeem man and installed on man
      "Gnosis" but rather Jesus, the man, who himself had Gnosis
      and got adopted into the Kingdom of God. This
      "esoteric" adaptionalist notion fits right in, IMO, with the
      writing on the GTh. Of course, the GTh fits right in with
      the later Gnostic thought because I believe that
      later Gnostics like Valentinus are the synthesis of
      this "esoteric" adaptionalists with (non-Judaic)
      Hellenistic mystery religion (thus the death and resurrection
      motif and other cosmological speculations were
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.