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

Re: The Gnostic Flavor of the 2nd Masada Speech

Expand Messages
  • George
    Dear Lady Caritas, I m certainly moved by the persuasive discussion comparing one alleged event of group suicide with another alleged event. But I have to
    Message 1 of 48 , Apr 2, 2003
      Dear Lady Caritas,

      I'm certainly moved by the persuasive discussion
      comparing one alleged event of "group suicide" with
      another alleged event.

      But I have to wonder if some academics are in such
      a hurry to eliminate the historical relevance of the
      discussion, that they forget that there is *still*
      theological relevance.

      Do you maintain that the views on instant "translation"
      of the soul to paradise (as opposed to sleeping until
      the End of Days and a general resurrection) was actually
      the viewpoint of Josephus, rather than of the Sicarii?

      If so, then we *still* have the same basic issue!

      Where did Josephus originally inform himself with
      the views that he so cleverly wants to ascribe to the
      Sicarii? Since Josephus was once himself a Zealot
      (and Hippolytus equates Zealot with Sicarii), is he
      implicitly demonstrating how their mindset has influenced
      his? Whether he is intentionally or unintentionally
      revealing this, it matters only to a small degree.

      The views are articulately presented. And for the
      purposes of examining the gnostic or proto-gnostic
      content of the Masada speech, we are still left with
      a fairly coherent presentation.

      Certainly you don't want to dismiss this systematic
      treatment, simply because it represents Josephus rather
      the Sicarii general, right?

      George
    • Mike Leavitt
      Hello lady_caritas ... Always, it is a limitation of the language, any language. And one can get so hung up in the history, one forgets about practice. My BA
      Message 48 of 48 , Apr 6, 2003
        Hello lady_caritas

        On 06-Apr-03, you wrote:

        >> My Bishop makes good points here, but it just makes the historian's
        >> task more difficult, not less desirable, and it makes his goals
        >> more circumscribed, perhaps.
        >>
        >> Regards
        >> --
        >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
        >
        >
        > I would agree, Mike. Historians offer us contextual information for
        > our discussions.
        >
        > You also mention in Post #7467, "If we don't know where we came
        > from, we don't know where we are going. Gnosis may be now, but it is
        > not in a vacuum."
        >
        > Again, agreed, of course gnosis is not in a vacuum. We live in a
        > temporal world and gnosis is comprehended within that environment.
        >
        > I suppose my point was to say that your comment, "If we don't know
        > where we came from, we don't know where we are going," could be
        > viewed with more than one meaning.
        >
        >
        > Cari

        Always, it is a limitation of the language, any language. And one can
        get so hung up in the history, one forgets about practice. My BA was
        in Classical and Medieval History, my MA is in Psychology, so I guess
        that puts me squarely in both the historical and the practice camps,
        actually not a contradiction as I see it.

        Regards
        --
        Mike Leavitt ac998@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.