Re: [GTh] Re: SOM in GOT 86
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Glen Jackson" <jeff@...>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: SOM in GOT 86
> The way I would define Gnosticism is it is a religion that
> * holds there is a higher reality of perfection;
This is also true of orthodox Xian religion
> * holds that the material world is the creation of a defective spirit
which is equated with the Jewish God that traps some divine
> light in flesh; and
In the Gnostic religion this is supposedly due to some form of "emanation,"
ie. as presented in "The Hypostasis of the Archons." Yet Xians also
believed in an emanatory spirit in the form of the Logos
> * holds that a messiah figure (equated with the Christian Jesus) came from
the higher reality to give man knowledge (gnosis) of
> where his divine light really came from so that he can escape the evil
world of matter.
For the Gnostic J was a "saved savior" while for the Xians he was fully God
and fully Man (Son of Man?) There is quite a bit of difference in these
beliefs between orthodox Xianity and orthodox Gnosticism.
You wrote in re GThom86:
>This interpretation has three things going for it, in my view. First,<SNIP>
>it reveals GTh 86 to be pithy and powerful, two characteristics
>generally attributed to Jesus' aphorisms. . .
>Second, it echoes a common theme in Thomas, that of conflictingAnd I wrote in re a portion of your letter which ended with the above that I
>internal natures, the pre-Fall identity vs. the post-Fall identity.
>Third, if indeed Jesus was a mystic/teacher, you would expect that he
>would teach what for mystics everywhere is almost a truism: To find
>peace or "rest" you must identify with what is most divine in yourself
>and disconnect from everything that is not. So I see the Jesus of
>Thomas as more interested in this kind of "rest" than in the comfort
>of having a home or shelter.
found 'little to agree with' in it. I read in too much of a damn hurry for which
I apologize. I am in reasonably close agreement with all three of these
propositions and they are certainly worth noting. But in disagreement with the
snipped portion I fail to see how the excellent points you have made apply to
your interpretation of SOM as 'mankind' and not mine of SOM as a self reference
of Jesus as human being, his aphoristic self, to Jesus as prophet, who spreads
the word of the HS. Think about it. Its something of a gestalt.
Best wishes, Odell
Prof. Geology Em., W&L