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

Re: Digest Number 563 (seminar lowlights)

Expand Messages
  • eyeambetty
    Hi Gerry, i ve been following your blow by blow of the seminar you attended, YIKES! very disheartening, but it seems your keen sense of judgement and
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 7 4:29 AM
      Hi Gerry,
      i've been following your blow by blow of the seminar you attended,
      YIKES! very disheartening, but it seems your keen sense of judgement
      and perception had already caught wind before you even arrived, eh?
      it seems to be expected these days, i can barely turn on NPR without
      hearing some interview, or story somehow(distantly or distastefully)
      related to these manuscripts, usually to incorporate into some
      already exhisting adgenda.



      >Gerry wrote:
      > I mean, considering all the titles in the NHL, this barely
      represents
      > two percent of the total. When you further factor in that of that
      > slim fraction, the book is likely to be subject to orthodox (or
      even
      > apocalyptic!) interpretation while a Gnostic understanding is
      almost
      > relegated to a tangential aberration, then it's clear why anyone
      who
      > associates the NHL with *some* sort of Gnostic relevance would find
      > the description of the lectures misleading.
      >


      no kidding, you would think they would have the good sense, if indeed
      they were considering a potential Gnostic interpretation, to compare
      and contrast it with the more obvious Gnostic texts included in the
      stated collections. but, it surely seems that the lectures were
      designed to promote this Ehrman fellows book centered around those
      particular manuscripts.





      > Gerry wrote:
      > As for the divinity of Jesus, I wouldn't weigh in with a verdict
      one
      > way or the other without getting a key to the evidence room and
      > thoroughly examining exhibits Alpha through Omega. There are just
      > too many possible scenarios regarding the nature of Jesus and/or
      > Christ for me to put all my eggs in one basket. This flexibility
      is
      > one of the things that attracted me to Gnosticism. Where accounts
      of
      > the crucifixion exist, there are variations, but regardless of the
      > differences from one text to another, there is still something
      > vitally common to all of them which separates them from non-Gnostic
      > traditions. Given that underlying similarity in the metaphorical
      > meaning, I've always found the Gnostic message to be far more
      > important than the messenger.


      Gerry, this reminded me of a passage i recently read, in the book i'm
      still plodding thru by G.R.S. Mead,"Fragments of a Faith Forgotten".

      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 of
      Hinduism/Buddhism without any consideration that not everyone knew
      that originally the terms he "translates" is connected to an entirely
      different worldview..."message 9232, to which i wholeheartedly agree.
      he certainly is liberal in using the concepts within
      Hinduism/Buddhism to assist in explaining Gnostic concepts. however,
      here is a very adept scholar, who with very little to work with
      besides fragments imbedded with Patristic writing, and i believe the
      Askew and Bruce Codice's quite beautifully breathes such life into
      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 says:

      "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 one
      another, in the view of the word-hunter, they do not contradict
      themselves for the follower of ideas. the idea is the key which opens
      the mysteries of the Gnosis, and those who refuse to use this living
      key must be content to have the treasury closed against them."



      > Gerry wrote:
      > A 1970's mini-series captured the problem I'm getting at. In _The
      > Word_, the Christian faithful were faced with a newly discovered
      text
      > which "proved" that Jesus didn't die on Golgotha. Avoiding
      spoilers
      > for anyone interested in watching it, I'll simply say that it
      offers
      > an interesting glimpse of how people can rationalize their faith,
      and
      > where they will draw a line regarding what they're willing to
      > believe . . . and disbelieve.
      >
      > While looking up a film with a related plot, I saw that one
      reviewer
      > wondered why there should be such a fuss if Jesus were shown not to
      > have been resurrected——dying as any other mortal man.
      According to
      > him, cognitive dissonance theory should strengthen the followers'
      > beliefs. At a personal level, that could still be the case, but
      > given the Church's insistence for centuries that He *was* divine,
      it
      > would be hard for someone not to feel duped. Maybe I'm simply not
      > playing it out correctly in my head, but it seems like the majority
      > of believers would be devastated; if there are any psychologists
      > among us, feel free to chime in.



      28. Jesus said, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in
      flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find
      any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity,
      because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came
      into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world
      empty.

      But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, they
      will change their ways." Gospel of Thomas.

      one can only hope.


      > Gerry wrote:
      > At any rate, this gets to the heart of what I was feeling during
      > those closing moments of the seminar. Having spoken with Ehrman
      and
      > heard further elaboration on his personal views, I almost couldn't
      > help but feel sorry for him. Here's someone whose life has very
      much
      > been influenced by Christianity, and for him, it struck me as if it
      > were no more than a counter-revolutionary Jewish movement that
      simply
      > *died*——along with its leader——almost two thousand years
      ago. It's
      > little wonder that religion seems to have failed him——that he
      would
      > be agnostic when he witnesses the ongoing cruelty and injustice in
      > the world around him, and that even the "benevolent God" of the
      > apocalyptic sectarians is too impotent to do anything about it.
      >
      > On the other hand, I can't imagine how any new discoveries would
      > unhinge my own beliefs. The religious "connection" I feel isn't
      tied
      > to dogma, or faith, or a personal savior alleged to have existed
      > exclusively in one form or another, if he existed at all.
      >

      yes, the freedom to renegotiate from moment to moment ones concepts,
      without the safety net of set beliefs, allows for the seemingly death-
      defying flexiblity you spoke of earlier.

      betty
    • Mike Leavitt
      Hello eyeambetty ... It should be made clear, this was no hidden adjenda for Mead, he was Madam Blavadsky s secretary, and was merely viewing the gnostics
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 7 11:58 AM
        Hello eyeambetty

        On 07-Mar-04, you wrote:

        > 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 of
        > Hinduism/Buddhism without any consideration that not everyone knew
        > that originally the terms he "translates" is connected to an
        > entirely different worldview..."message 9232, to which i
        > wholeheartedly agree. he certainly is liberal in using the concepts
        > within Hinduism/Buddhism to assist in explaining Gnostic concepts.
        > however, here is a very adept scholar, who with very little to work
        > with besides fragments imbedded with Patristic writing, and i
        > believe the Askew and Bruce Codice's quite beautifully breathes such
        > life into 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
        > says:

        It should be made clear, this was no hidden adjenda for Mead, he was
        Madam Blavadsky's secretary, and was merely viewing the gnostics
        unconsciously from a Theosophical world view.

        > "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
        > one another, in the view of the word-hunter, they do not contradict
        > themselves for the follower of ideas. the idea is the key which
        > opens the mysteries of the Gnosis, and those who refuse to use this
        > living key must be content to have the treasury closed against
        > them."

        Despite this, he had real insight, and the book is valuable, this
        quote rests my case.

        Regards
        --
        Mike Leavitt ac998@...
      • floyd788@webtv.net
        Hi, Mike, I just finished reading your dissertation on knowledge of the many things you have gleaned. You really have done your homework. It was a long post,
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 7 4:06 PM
          Hi,
          Mike, I just finished reading your dissertation on knowledge of the many
          things you have gleaned. You really have done your homework. It was a
          long post, but I enjoyed every bit of it. I am rather new to the
          internet. I bought a webtv because I am frugal. My wife calls it right,
          but it's like everything else <> garbage collector-sanitation engineer,
          janitor- custodian, etc. I hate to rush, but I've several more E-mails
          to return. Keep up the good work and we will all know a little more.
          Take care, my friend.

          Love floyd
        • Gerry
          ... judgement ... without ... distastefully) ... LOL I m still amazed that even a few people were able to read through those posts of mine. While I did
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 7 5:11 PM
            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "eyeambetty" <eyeambetty@y...>
            wrote:
            > Hi Gerry,
            > i've been following your blow by blow of the seminar you attended,
            > YIKES! very disheartening, but it seems your keen sense of
            judgement
            > and perception had already caught wind before you even arrived, eh?
            > it seems to be expected these days, i can barely turn on NPR
            without
            > hearing some interview, or story somehow(distantly or
            distastefully)
            > related to these manuscripts, usually to incorporate into some
            > already exhisting adgenda.



            LOL I'm still amazed that even a few people were able to read
            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
            bedfellows.



            > no kidding, you would think they would have the good sense, if
            indeed
            > they were considering a potential Gnostic interpretation, to
            compare
            > and contrast it with the more obvious Gnostic texts included in the
            > stated collections. but, it surely seems that the lectures were
            > designed to promote this Ehrman fellows book centered around those
            > particular manuscripts.



            Ya know, I had never read that _Time_ article until I got out there.
            Even though the lecture coordinators had sent out information packets
            beforehand, we each had some additional reading material waiting for
            us on arrival——the "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.
            Naturally——since *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 book
            i'm
            > still plodding thru by G.R.S. Mead,"Fragments of a Faith Forgotten".
            >
            > 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
            of
            > Hinduism/Buddhism without any consideration that not everyone knew
            > that originally the terms he "translates" is connected to an
            entirely
            > different worldview..."message 9232, to which i wholeheartedly
            agree.
            > he certainly is liberal in using the concepts within
            > Hinduism/Buddhism to assist in explaining Gnostic concepts.
            however,
            > here is a very adept scholar, who with very little to work with
            > besides fragments imbedded with Patristic writing, and i believe
            the
            > Askew and Bruce Codice's quite beautifully breathes such life into
            > 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
            says:
            >
            > "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
            one
            > another, in the view of the word-hunter, they do not contradict
            > themselves for the follower of ideas. the idea is the key which
            opens
            > the mysteries of the Gnosis, and those who refuse to use this
            living
            > 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 case——the above passage effectively pounds the
            gavel for us.



            > 28. Jesus said, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in
            > flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not
            find
            > any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity,
            > because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they
            came
            > into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world
            > empty.
            >
            > But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, they
            > will change their ways." Gospel of Thomas.
            >
            > one can only hope.



            Makes you want to brew up a world-sized pot of coffee with aspirin
            chasers, doesn't it?



            > yes, the freedom to renegotiate from moment to moment ones
            concepts,
            > without the safety net of set beliefs, allows for the seemingly
            death-
            > defying flexiblity you spoke of earlier.
            >
            > betty



            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 philosophy——potentially bringing my whole world
            tumbling down around me.

            Gerry
          • Mike Leavitt
            Hello eyeambetty ... I mean he was not trying to theosophize the Gnostics, just that he was so embedded in Theosophy he looked at all Philosophy with
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 7 8:15 PM
              Hello eyeambetty

              On 07-Mar-04, you wrote:

              > Hello Mike,
              >
              >
              >> Mike wrote:
              >> It should be made clear, this was no hidden agenda for Mead, he
              >> was Madam Blavadsky's secretary, and was merely viewing the
              >> gnostics unconsciously from a Theosophical world view.
              >>
              >
              > M. Blavadky's secretary? wow, that is a fascinating bit of
              > information. Mike, may i ask, why you say "viewing the gnostics
              > *unconsciously*..."?

              I mean he was not trying to theosophize the Gnostics, just that he was
              so embedded in Theosophy he looked at all Philosophy with Theosophical
              specticles. It was unconscious, not some kind of not to well hidden
              agenda. His book on the world soul shows the same perspective, for
              instance. To him Theosophy was a universal philosophy, applicable to
              everything, and this pervaded his approach to Gnosticism, but did not
              blunt his insight into it.

              Regards
              --
              Mike Leavitt ac998@...
            • eyeambetty
              Hello Mike, ... M. Blavadky s secretary? wow, that is a fascinating bit of information. Mike, may i ask, why you say viewing the gnostics *unconsciously*... ?
              Message 6 of 14 , Mar 7 8:52 PM
                Hello Mike,


                > Mike wrote:
                > It should be made clear, this was no hidden adjenda for Mead, he was
                > Madam Blavadsky's secretary, and was merely viewing the gnostics
                > unconsciously from a Theosophical world view.
                >

                M. Blavadky's secretary? wow, that is a fascinating bit of
                information. Mike, may i ask, why you say "viewing the gnostics
                *unconsciously*..."?



                > > "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
                > > one another, in the view of the word-hunter, they do not
                contradict
                > > themselves for the follower of ideas. the idea is the key which
                > > opens the mysteries of the Gnosis, and those who refuse to use
                this
                > > living key must be content to have the treasury closed against
                > > them."

                Mike wrote:
                > Despite this, he had real insight, and the book is valuable, this
                > quote rests my case.


                i completely agree, i am thoroughly enjoying, and devouring the book.
                it has been very helpful in visually outlining, historically, the
                stream of what Mead calls a "Living Tradition".

                betty
              • floyd788@webtv.net
                Hi Betty, I hope you won t feel that I am butting into your E-mail conversation with Gerry, but that s exactly what I m doing. I ve been in this group about a
                Message 7 of 14 , Mar 7 10:04 PM
                  Hi Betty,
                  I hope you won't feel that I am butting into your E-mail conversation
                  with Gerry, but that's exactly what I'm doing. I've been in this group
                  about a week now and I want to learn all I can from y'all. I'm getting a
                  good amount now as I read your post to Gerry. Y'all must have been doing
                  this for along time. I hope you won't think me rude for the
                  interruption. I was a Christian until recently, ( less than a year ).
                  I'm looking for people like you, who has had more experience than I have
                  Well. I've talked enough for now. Y'all take care and be safe.

                  Love, floyd
                • eyeambetty
                  Hiya Gerry, ... (if ... alright, you caught me exaggerating a wee bit, shame on me... actually besides the Fresh Air interview, there was a panel discussion, i
                  Message 8 of 14 , Mar 9 1:40 AM
                    Hiya Gerry,


                    >
                    > 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
                    > bedfellows.

                    alright, you caught me exaggerating a wee bit, shame on me...
                    actually besides the Fresh Air interview, there was a panel
                    discussion, i think on Talk of the Nation. i also recall another
                    Fresh Air interview with a fellow who had just written a book, he was
                    talking about Jewish mythology and the Kabbala, unfortunately, i
                    rarely get a chance to sit still long enough to hear things at
                    length, only little snippets. all this was surrounding "The Passion",
                    NPR seemed to be leaning towards voicing the outrage, and profiling
                    the types of people whom this film would resonate with, and the
                    reasons why. all this against a backdrop of Haitian revolt, Gay
                    Marriages, and the jaw-dropping number of catholic priest who have
                    molested their congregations children, you know, real people
                    suffering and stuggling in the face of adversity, right now.
                    i think perhaps the importance or any understanding of the non-
                    canonical texts gets lost and swallowed up in the context of these
                    media driven soundbites, they are just seen as points of interest to
                    add to the bigger story, in this case, as one Jewish theologian put
                    it, a catholic snuff film. oohh stop me...


                    Gerry wrote:
                    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. ;-)



                    or very effective PR.


                    betty
                  • eyeambetty
                    ... was ... Theosophical ... to ... not ... thank you kindly, Mike. betty
                    Message 9 of 14 , Mar 9 1:49 AM
                      > Mike, may i ask, why you say "viewing the gnostics
                      > > *unconsciously*..."?
                      >

                      > I mean he was not trying to theosophize the Gnostics, just that he
                      was
                      > so embedded in Theosophy he looked at all Philosophy with
                      Theosophical
                      > specticles. It was unconscious, not some kind of not to well hidden
                      > agenda. His book on the world soul shows the same perspective, for
                      > instance. To him Theosophy was a universal philosophy, applicable
                      to
                      > everything, and this pervaded his approach to Gnosticism, but did
                      not
                      > blunt his insight into it.

                      thank you kindly, Mike.

                      betty
                    • eyeambetty
                      Well, Hello to you Floyd! ... conversation ... group ... getting a ... doing ... year ). ... have ... i am a newcomer myself, i listened for quite awhile and
                      Message 10 of 14 , Mar 9 2:40 AM
                        Well, Hello to you Floyd!


                        floyd wrote:
                        > Hi Betty,
                        > I hope you won't feel that I am butting into your E-mail
                        conversation
                        > with Gerry, but that's exactly what I'm doing. I've been in this
                        group
                        > about a week now and I want to learn all I can from y'all. I'm
                        getting a
                        > good amount now as I read your post to Gerry. Y'all must have been
                        doing
                        > this for along time. I hope you won't think me rude for the
                        > interruption. I was a Christian until recently, ( less than a
                        year ).
                        > I'm looking for people like you, who has had more experience than I
                        have
                        > Well. I've talked enough for now. Y'all take care and be safe.
                        >
                        > Love, floyd

                        i am a newcomer myself, i listened for quite awhile and only recently
                        have been participating in discussions. it's certainly not rude to
                        join in, gotta start somewhere, eh?
                        what has brought you here?

                        take care, as well.
                        betty
                      • Gerry
                        ... was ... Passion , ... to ... LMAO No, I m not about to stop you——I hadn t heard the snuff comment, either. Something like that really wakes me up
                        Message 11 of 14 , Mar 9 6:09 AM
                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "eyeambetty" <eyeambetty@y...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > alright, you caught me exaggerating a wee bit, shame on me...
                          > actually besides the Fresh Air interview, there was a panel
                          > discussion, i think on Talk of the Nation. i also recall another
                          > Fresh Air interview with a fellow who had just written a book, he
                          was
                          > talking about Jewish mythology and the Kabbala, unfortunately, i
                          > rarely get a chance to sit still long enough to hear things at
                          > length, only little snippets. all this was surrounding "The
                          Passion",
                          > NPR seemed to be leaning towards voicing the outrage, and profiling
                          > the types of people whom this film would resonate with, and the
                          > reasons why. all this against a backdrop of Haitian revolt, Gay
                          > Marriages, and the jaw-dropping number of catholic priest who have
                          > molested their congregations children, you know, real people
                          > suffering and stuggling in the face of adversity, right now.
                          > i think perhaps the importance or any understanding of the non-
                          > canonical texts gets lost and swallowed up in the context of these
                          > media driven soundbites, they are just seen as points of interest
                          to
                          > add to the bigger story, in this case, as one Jewish theologian put
                          > it, a catholic snuff film. oohh stop me...



                          LMAO No, I'm not about to stop you——I hadn't heard the "snuff"
                          comment, either. Something like that really wakes me up in the
                          morning. :-)

                          As for the exaggeration, no shame there. We'll just chalk it up to
                          hyperbole——an effective, rhetorical strategy! You're in good company
                          as far as wondering about how the profound continues to be lost amid
                          the profane of the current media hype. Rather than suggesting that
                          orthodoxy has made strange bedfellows then, maybe I'll contend that
                          the conservative and liberal obsession of late simply has to do with
                          extremism all around. Whether Mel Gibson is claiming to be a
                          mouthpiece for the Holy Spirit, or Tim Robbins acts as one for Susan
                          Sarandon, it amounts to little more than fundamentalist propaganda
                          being force-fed to the masses, who, evidently, can't make a decision
                          for ourselves.

                          Case in point, I just now had to tear myself away from the computer
                          when I heard Mary Magdalene mentioned on the TV in the other room.
                          Looks like the Today Show is running a special segment on Jesus this
                          week near the top of the second hour. Anyway, Ann Curry pointed out
                          two viewpoints currently in the popular spotlight: Gibson's
                          portrayal of Mary in "The Passion" (which basically minimizes the
                          connection between her and Jesus); and their overly speculated
                          relationship in _The Da Vinci Code_. Once again, Elaine Pagels was
                          brought in to represent the voice of reason, suggesting that the
                          truth might be found somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.
                          Unfortunately, that middle-of-the-road approach often lacks the
                          sensationalism of imagining either a harlot being stoned to death or
                          the Savior's offspring being spirited away to Europe.

                          People need to believe in something, though. Whether we believe in
                          the faith of our fathers, or believe it's time to have another beer,
                          or simply believe we've had enough of all this, this need to believe
                          may be our undoing if extremist distractions continue to saturate out
                          thoughts.



                          > Gerry wrote:
                          > 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. ;-)
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > or very effective PR.
                          >
                          >
                          > betty



                          "Very effective" indeed. It was pointed out that these professors
                          aren't paid for their participation in this program's lectures, but
                          it was certainly a grand opportunity to promote the sale of their
                          books.

                          Gerry
                        • lady_caritas
                          ... this ... out ... extremes. ... or ... beer, ... believe ... out ... Well, looks like someone else is tired of all the inaccuracies, too, Gerry: Jesus
                          Message 12 of 14 , Mar 9 6:25 AM
                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Case in point, I just now had to tear myself away from the computer
                            > when I heard Mary Magdalene mentioned on the TV in the other room.
                            > Looks like the Today Show is running a special segment on Jesus
                            this
                            > week near the top of the second hour. Anyway, Ann Curry pointed
                            out
                            > two viewpoints currently in the popular spotlight: Gibson's
                            > portrayal of Mary in "The Passion" (which basically minimizes the
                            > connection between her and Jesus); and their overly speculated
                            > relationship in _The Da Vinci Code_. Once again, Elaine Pagels was
                            > brought in to represent the voice of reason, suggesting that the
                            > truth might be found somewhere in the middle of those two
                            extremes.
                            > Unfortunately, that middle-of-the-road approach often lacks the
                            > sensationalism of imagining either a harlot being stoned to death
                            or
                            > the Savior's offspring being spirited away to Europe.
                            >
                            > People need to believe in something, though. Whether we believe in
                            > the faith of our fathers, or believe it's time to have another
                            beer,
                            > or simply believe we've had enough of all this, this need to
                            believe
                            > may be our undoing if extremist distractions continue to saturate
                            out
                            > thoughts.


                            Well, looks like someone else is tired of all the inaccuracies, too,
                            Gerry:

                            "Jesus Demands Creative Control Over the Next Movie"
                            http://onion.com/news/


                            ;-)
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.