[gthomas] Re: GThomas as post-Easter
- The first thing I would like to suggest to Joseph here is this:
Please, when you are selecting what to include in your quotations, refrain
from including who said what unless you write it yourself. It becomes very
confusing when you include references to the second person when it was not
written by you yourself. Sure I could count the ">"s to figure it out but
I could do this without references included in the quotations of who said
what, and I would be less confused about who said what if I knew that I had
to count the ">"s. Remember that there are others reading besides yourself
and your opponent.
>Yes, but have you ever heard of legends that are built around larger thanI am sorry but most of what you include as evidence to support your
>life people? Can you imagine the possibility of exaggerations?
post-cross 'yeshu' hypothesis derives from sayings and scenarios that are
most feasibly not only exaggerations but utter fiction.
>By your view Yeshu was a superman, right? A wondrous miracle worker whoI do not find any assumptions in Kevin's argument that his view of Jesus is
>could bring the dead back to life? What's the big deal about a flogging and
>nailing for a superman?
of a 'superman.' But I find much indication in your arguments of a Jesus
that can't be killed that you believe him to be a superman.
>I personally know a yogi who has gone into samadhi underwater, and spentNot only is your Yogi friend a charlatan but so also is your team of
>five days under water, all the time being tested by a team of medical and
'medical and scientific observers." You, my friend, have fallen victim to
your own readiness to believe in tricks and spectacles. The mere reference
to 'medical and scientific', yet suspiciously anonymous, observers does not
give credit to this story. Nor do any of your implications that yours is a
'scientific' theory sit well with me. Yours is no more 'scientific' than
any other New Testament hypothesis and if science is concerned with
predictability of phenomena or the likely hood of phenomena to occur, then
yours is even less scientific than conventional scholastic theories. It is
possible that life exists on Mars for instance. Simply because no life has
been found or because there is no evidence that such a planet could even
sustain life does not mean it is impossible, and many scientific
postulations have been made concerning the possibility of microscopic
organisms to exist in such harsh environments. But 'scientifically'
speaking it is unlikely that life exists on Mars...so unlikely, that it
would be 'scientifically' safe to assume that the planet is lifeless. In
the same manner it is likely that Jesus died on the Cross.
>Violence and power, however, is corrupt. So a guard, or Pilate, for thatFiction. It was probably a vote for the Gentiles that the writers included
>matter, could be corrupted.
>Indeed, in the 4G, a guard refers to Yeshu as the son of God. Wouldn't
>such a guard take Yeshu down early?
such a sympathetic Roman ear. Neither were the Roman guards likely to
disobey commands since there were extremely stiff penalties for 'treason'.
No simple slap of the hand when it came to the Romans.
Another point I would like to bring up is the whole, Messiah='Cultural' and
Non-Messiah='Counter-Cultural' idea. I neither understand how any of this
relates to a post-cross Jesus.
First, If most Jewish people of that time would deny being the
Messiah and would deny associations with one who claimed to be the Messiah,
how then would it be 'counter cultural' for Jesus himself to deny such a
tabooed title also? The belief that Jesus WAS the Messiah would run
against the cultural grain. So what is so 'counter-culture' about a Jesus
who did not make such a claim? In Buddhist 'culture' (tradition) if a
person makes the claim that he is the Buddha then that person should be
killed (i.e., that person is not a friend to the Buddhist tradition).
>Many of the unique GOT sayings are counter-cultural. To cite but a fewI will take this to an even more disturbing plane to show just how
>2. ". . . . When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are
>disturbed, they will marvel . . . "
> The suggestion here is that the meaning of the GOT passages in
>unconventional. The choice of language seems a little reminiscent of the
>promises offered by LSD enthusiasts in the sixties.
non-counter-cultural this saying is. The most disturbing understanding
there is, is to know that the miraculous can be found only in, and
exclusively to, the mundane. You see, the most disturbing thing to drug
users is that the mundane, everyday, and ordinary possesses so much wonder.
They are comfortable only when they are having 'weird' experiences and most
of the ones I know would be horrified to find that the very reality they
have rejected is the only one that contains the wealth they seek.
>5 Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden fromWe are invited to loosen the grip of the conventional and so also to loosen
>you will be disclosed to
> Again, we are invited to loosen the grip of the conventional
>world, so that we might see what is actually there.
the grip of our tendency to rebel against what we dislike. There is no
counter-culture to this saying. If there were, it would invite us to see
everything we hate and oppose about what is in front of our face.
>14 Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves,The inner-self you speak of is a nasty little bugger if that is what is
>and if you pray, you will be
>condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.
> Clearly counter-cultural. The emphasis is on the inner-self. The
>conventional view is challenged.
challenging culture. I for one would rather know a 'self' that has nothing
to do with such petty challenges, but a 'self' that knows only peace. It
is not at all difficult for me to find the part of me that 'challenges' and
I wish it were just as easy to find that part of myself that knows only
>18 The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?"Which 'conventional' view of the Eschaton are you referring to? The Jewish
>Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for
>the end? You see, the end
>will be where the beginning is.
>Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know
>the end and will not taste
> The conventional judgment day view is tossed on its ear.
one of the time? The early Christian View? Are you referring to Judgment
or Armageddon or the Parousia or what? If you are not referring to the
Jewish ideas of the End then what Christian views are you assuming to be
'conventional' at the time the Gospel of Thomas was written? I personally
doubt that any 'conventional' view had even formed among the many and
divergent Christian communities. If the Apocalypse of John was written
latter than the Gospel of Thomas as many believe, then the modern
understanding of the Christian concept of the End Time will be irrelevant
to how it was understood when this was written.
>70 Jesus said, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you have willWhat do you mean "Modern Thinking"!!! This was written in a time that was
>save you. If you do not have
>that within you, what you do not have within you [will] kill you."
> This is very modern thinking. Again, I am reminded of Walt
>Whitman. What is within you -- what will save you -- is beyond culture.
not at all modern. Just because it reminds you of Walt does not mean the
text is therefore consistent with Walt's views. This is ridiculous and I
cannot believe I am even replying to this post. Logion 70 is extremely
complex and rather ambiguous and to say it is 'modern thinking' is
ludicrous for two reasons. First it is ludicrous because it was thought by
someone who is definitely not 'modern'. Second, it is ludicrous because
you assume that we know just exactly what you mean when you say 'modern
thinking'--as if there were some commonality of thought that all us
'moderns' understand to be indicative of our time in history.
There is much that I sympathize with you on. But I fail to understand what
is so 'gosh darn' important about arguing for a Jesus that survived the
crucifixion. I sympathize with counter-culturalists and those who doubt
the conventional 'wisdom'. But If a person stops there, to be forever at
odds with convention, then they are just as consumed by its prominence as
they would have been if they never doubted at all.
As the great 'Master Therion' says:
Doubt even if thou doubtest thyself.
Doubt even if thou doubtest all.
It seems sometimes as if beneath all conscious doubt
there lay some deepest certainty. O kill it! Slay the snake!..."
--Aleister Crowley, The Book of Lies.
>> And what has "the church" to doYes, Buddhism. Many a problem do I have with that religion. No, that's
>>with 52? I get the feeling from you, both from
>>this and from other things you have said, that you
>>have had some negative experiences in the past within
>Not really. Its good to be flexible. Traditional religion also has its good
>side. I learned a lot as a Buddhist monk. The modern Catholic Church also
>does a lot of good. I sometimes teach world religion at a Catholic school.
not true. Many a problem do I have with western interpretations of that
religion. It explains much.