Re: Gospel of Thomas not Gnostic???
>>Wel, please tell everyone how is your thoughts changed.<<<Well Ernst, there are things concerning my own leanings that I said
for the sake of controversy (more or less) when I first joined this
club, that around the time of writing this paper I said more for the
sake of categorization, and I now say _almost_ completely seriously.
I have become more convinced of a genuine traditional Gnostic
relation exhibited by some later groups, and far less convinced of
the same in other groups that I once assumed to be Gnostic (like the
Cathars, which I assume answers you other question as well). The list
goes on, but it seems too much to outline in a single post.
>>>Underline please "in a capacity that we have come to think asOh, you are correct there. That is what all study of historical
> "Gnostic"" Again, this seemed to me that you are working
> backwards from present. (thus projecting the present thought
> back). IMO<<<
Gnosticism is, so I'm not sure why the statement would surprise you.
IF we were talking about the past _from_ the past, we would be
talking about the present. It is you who have insisted on the
importance of the historical perspective, so when I talk to you I
aknowledge that view.
>>>You mean laity as in case of priests and such or laity in case ofdon't
> scholars? For the latter I'm not laity but rather semi-laity. I
> have just a passing interest in the subject but try to be as my job.Niether do you have a degree specifically dealing with the subject,
> For the formar, who knows I might become a priest some day.<<<
and work on it as a profession. You and I are still laity. There is
also lay clergy, so holding that position does not guarentee
expertise in ones profession. However, while it could happen Ernst, I
have a hard time seeing you as a priest ;)
The rest of your post deals with the relation between exoteric and
esoteric. You already know my view on all that, so it seems
unnecessary to repeat.