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

Gnostic differences

Expand Messages
  • Tom Saunders
    Thank you all for your responses to my questions about the Pistis-Sophia. I just got Crossan and Reed s book, Excavating Jesus. The text is about
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 14, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you all for your responses to my questions about the "Pistis-Sophia."

      I just got Crossan and Reed's book, "Excavating Jesus." The text is about reckoning archeological finds with exegetical discoveries. It leaves out the "James the Just" discovery, but it is easy to add that to his list.
      I expect to be able to add some good posts based upon the material.

      I just finished "Resurrection" by Hank Hanegraaff. He makes a good case for the resurrection the first half of the book but then....there was the chapter on the GThom. He violates his own premise of 'scriptural harmony' by singling out saying 114, violating his own premise that scripture should be aligned with the premise of the entire text. He also states that the GThom is a second century invention, which we know is not so. 'WE' know better. (At least I think we do)

      It occurs to me that it is the difference in beliefs over the mechanics of the resurrection and virgin birth, regarding the mystical aspects of these occurrences, that distinguishes the differences in Gnostic sects. The GThom is not innocent in the presentation of mysticism regarding the transition of men as matter, to post matter, not to forget pre-matter states of the 'light.' But, by not mentioning what must have been controversial from the beginning of the Christian era, regarding these states, and miracles, it probably remained neutral in the heated arguments. (I think this aspect is by design of the author. He's my hero.)

      From the inception of the Apostle's Village, to 110 C.E. the impact of the questions regarding the actual model of the transition from material to non-material states of man, seems to have been the catalyst for creating secularism. I would include the state of women as part of the whole of this concept. The differences in Gnosticism reflects this to a great extent. But is was not Thomas that explained the phenomena, so it could only get in the way of the Orthodox church in 400 A. D. and before. Because it could not help their cause, and could pose a lot of questions, some sects would have rejected Thomas, and did.

      Different secular groups of early Christians seem to be focused on particular beliefs surrounding the resurrection, and mechanics of the miracles. Could the GThom have generated followings in this mixed bag of secular beliefs? Was it more likely accepted as a companion text?

      Tom Saunders
      Platter Flats, OK

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.