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

Re: [GTh] Out of Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • Tom Saunders
    Thomas Bond writes: Do you mean temple cult or the community cult? I would say that in first century Judaism/s, submitting to community rules and
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 12, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Thomas Bond writes:

      Do you mean temple cult or the community cult? I would say that in first century Judaism/s, submitting to community rules and participating in the community's cult was part and parcel of girding one's loins against the world and keeping a person from harm.

      Thomas, thank you for such a good discussion.

      Using the term cult is a little dangerous but I think reading between the lines we see this kind of community organization described in Acts. At the core of the Christian movement was the effect of the spirit bearer, or 'pnuematophori.' In the words of Kenneth S. Latourette, "Though the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus, came the moral transformations which were so marked in the Christian fellowship."

      Ananias and Sapphira were such spirit bearers. We do not know much about this process but we know from Paul's letters that the Holy Spirit effected people differently giving them different gifts. ( 1 Corin. 12-, Romans 12:3-8. Gal. 5:22-23.) This is a kind of 'yoke' on the backs of community members. Especially when the death of Ananias and Sapphira demonstrate it can be deadly for those that bear it. Where is the forgiveness?

      Peter has justified or rationalized the deaths in a way that cannot be glossed over so well today. Prosecutors today would probably not by into the cause of death, "the Holy Spirit left them." It might work in Oklahoma.

      To be a spirit bearer in the Jerusalem community would mean that you assume the cloak of the spirit and wear it like Cebes said we wear the soul. Peter is demanding absolute submission to community and the binding of the Holy Spirit with the followers. Thomas says, "do not be concerned from day until night with what you shall wear."

      Neither Acts nor Thomas, is going to trash another Apostle. It is bad business, and it portrays Jesus, or the Kingdom of God as "divider." I think this is the motivation that kind of makes Acts a "fluff piece." Acts does not mention details about conflicts because nobody wants to 'judge' or divide the new kingdom.

      Tom Saunders
      Platter Flats, OK

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Michael Grondin
      ... and cult ... robbers. ... ... rules and ... one s loins ... To which might be added that the houses mentioned in Thomas are all either metaphors
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 13, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > Thomas Bond writes:
        >
        > In general, I do not see any incompatibility between "submit to community
        and cult"
        > and "gird your loins against the world, and protect your house from the
        robbers." ...
        > I would say that in first century Judaism/s, submitting to community
        rules and
        > participating in the community's cult was part and parcel of girding
        one's loins
        > against the world and keeping a person from harm.

        To which might be added that the "houses" mentioned in Thomas are all either
        metaphors themselves or occur within the context of parables. There's
        nothing to suggest actual private ownership of lands or houses on the part
        of the Thomasines. In fact, ascetism and abnegation from the world would
        seem to imply that one gets rid of as many ties to the physical world as
        possible. There still remains, however, the question of whether Thomas
        represents a more individualistic - as opposed to collectivistic - ascetic
        Christian ethic. It seems that one could adduce evidence on either side from
        the text, but aside from that, we know that some monastics preferred to live
        off by themselves, while others ('cenobites') gathered into communities
        governed by a "community rule". And clearly, monastics ("single ones") are
        in view within Thomas. Whether that means that Thomas (or parts of it) is
        individualistic, or (secondly) later than Tom Saunders speculates, is up for
        grabs.

        > Regarding Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 (also Barnabas, a few verses
        > before): the issue was not one of relinquishing private ownership of
        property.
        > Peter rebukes Ananias for saying that he sold property and gave all the
        profit
        > to the apostles, when in fact he did not.

        That's certainly the way the issue is framed, but the author clearly implies
        that folks who owned land and/or houses and who wished to join the community
        were _expected_ to sell their property and give the _entire_ proceeds to the
        community. Which means that it wouldn't have been acceptable for Ananias (or
        anyone else) to say that he had sold his property for X amount, but was
        turning over only part of the proceeds (X-Y) to the community. Thus, the lie
        was only part of the offense. The clear implication is that if someone had
        "held back", but told the truth about it, the holding back would in itself
        be an offense against the spirit, and cause for rejection of communal
        membership.

        > There are some "summaries" in Acts (e.g., 2:41-47) that
        > seem to refer to communal ownership of property.

        As well Acts 4:34, which immediately precedes the Ananias story.

        > Two things come to mind, however: (1) the summaries in Acts
        > utilize other language that falls within the "friendship" topos; and
        > (2) 1QS, a text which likely reflects the organization of a voluntary
        > association, speaks of merging property with the "community,"
        > but also (in the penal code) requires that, if a person fraudulently
        > uses the money of the community, it must be repaid from private funds.
        > I.e., "having all things common" does not necessarily imply a rejection
        > of private ownership of property. It seems to me that what we see in
        > Acts parallels the kind of social obligation found in Hellenistic v!
        > oluntary

        The HTML formatting evidently caused this last line to be garbled. (This
        happened to me some time back when I temporarily switched from plain text to
        html formatting.) You meant "Hellenistic voluntary associations"? OK, let's
        take 1QS first. I think the implication you draw from that may not be
        warranted. There's a distinction to be made between "property" and "private
        funds" that may better account for what's in the text. "Property" would
        include houses and lands - the two items specifically mentioned in Acts as
        being sold to benefit the community. On the other hand, there's nothing said
        about the community member having or earning other private monies (from
        which the penalty mentioned in 1QS would presumably be paid).

        As to the friendship topos and Hellenistic voluntary associations, I have to
        confess ignorance about that. Can you elaborate on instances of voluntary
        associations wherein prospective members were expected to sell their houses
        and lands in order to gain membership?

        Finally, I have a "big picture" question. The account in Acts of communal
        living accords well with the designation of the Jerusalem community as "The
        Poor", but how does that connect exactly with J's purported teaching?
        "Blessed are the poor" and "Sell everything you have and follow me" are
        certainly there, but so is a lot of other stuff. Yet, when the apostles were
        on their own, this seems to be the central message that they drew from the
        teachings - in spite of the fact that Jesus himself apparently didn't give
        any thought to establishing any such community. What do you make of all
        this?

        Mike Grondin
        The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
        http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm
      • David C. Hindley
        ... disunity) in the Roman world, and a Christianity that is closely alligned with Judaism (which would give Christianity tenure), though by the time Acts was
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 13, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Thomas Bond says:

          >>Luke presents a Christianity that is not a cause for problems (i.e.,
          disunity) in the Roman world, and a Christianity that is closely alligned
          with Judaism (which would give Christianity tenure), though by the time Acts
          was written Judaism had lost many of the priviledges of religio licita it
          had once enjoyed.<<

          If I remember correctly, excepting for the conversion of the voluntary
          Temple tax into an obligatory Roman poll tax after 70 CE, the other Jewish
          privileges were not *legally* infringed upon. Whether general social
          attitudes towards Judaism became more negative or at least more suspicious
          or envious I don't know for sure, but would guess yes.

          What specific privileges are you referring to?

          Also, "religio licita" or "illicita" is kind of a modern scholarly
          construct, isn't it? I believe that these terms describe a technical *legal
          standing* that is inferred from rather scanty or much later evidence.

          Respectfully,

          Dave Hindley
          Cleveland, Ohio, USA
        • Michael Grondin
          ... either ... Thomasines should view the aspect of wealth and ownership. As you state it, I wouldn t agree with it either. But the point you refer to
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 14, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            [Mike]:
            > To which might be added that the "houses" mentioned in Thomas are all
            either
            > metaphors themselves or occur within the context of parables. There's
            > nothing to suggest actual private ownership of lands or houses on the part
            > of the Thomasines. In fact, asceticism and abnegation from the world would
            > seem to imply that one gets rid of as many ties to the physical world as
            > possible.

            [Tom]:
            > I would not agree on the point that there is nothing to suggest how
            Thomasines should view the aspect of wealth and ownership.

            As you state it, I wouldn't agree with it either. But the "point" you refer
            to doesn't seem to be in the quoted material or anywhere else in my note. I
            think you've seriously misunderstood and misstated "the point" you thought I
            was making.

            As to the rest of your "big picture", Tom, I have to say that it's highly
            speculative, and not particularly well-grounded in historical and textual
            details. Too many mistakes in factual matters (such as your earlier mistake
            in identifying Philip the Evangelist with Philip the Apostle), too many
            misunderstandings and equivocations, too many jumpings to conclusions. I
            think the lesson in all this is that one probably shouldn't attempt a "big
            picture" until one has a good grasp of most of the relevant detailed
            historical evidence - and that takes many years of study. If I'm not at the
            point yet (and I don't think I am), then you aren't either. In general, it
            seems to be a good rule of thumb to match the size of one's hypotheses to
            the extent of one's actual competence in relevant matters textual and
            historical. Ironically, while this may seem quite a come-down from our
            inherent ambitions, it often (maybe even always!) turns out that important
            hypotheses are rooted in - and revealed by - what appear to be unimportant
            details. (You yourself have done some of this, but I think you're too
            anxious to move on to the big picture to give proper attention to the
            details.)

            Mike Grondin
            Mt. Clemens, MI
          • BrerFrase@aol.com
            In reply to Mr. Bond, Mr. Grondin poses this provocative big picture query -- ====================================================
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 15, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              In reply to Mr. Bond, Mr. Grondin poses this provocative "big picture" query
              --
              ====================================================
              <<
              Finally, I have a "big picture" question. The account in Acts of communal
              living accords well with the designation of the Jerusalem community as "The
              Poor", but how does that connect exactly with J's purported teaching?
              "Blessed are the poor" and "Sell everything you have and follow me" are
              certainly there, but so is a lot of other stuff. Yet, when the apostles were
              on their own, this seems to be the central message that they drew from the
              teachings - in spite of the fact that Jesus himself apparently didn't give
              any thought to establishing any such community. What do you make of all
              this?

              Mike Grondin
              The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
              <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm>>">http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm>></A>
              ===========================================================

              My question --

              Anyone going to tackle Mr. Grondin's provocative query?
              If not, why not?


              TIA

              F. Hubbard



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • BitsyCat1@aol.com
              In a message dated 03/17/2003 6:29:55AM, tom@cherokeetel.com writes:
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 17, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 03/17/2003 6:29:55AM, tom@... writes:

                << What exactly did I miss that Phillip wasn't Phillip, >>

                Acts 6:5, Then Acts 8:5 to 14 (Now when the apostles who were in Jerusalem)
                The Philip in 6:5 and into 8:5 on is not an Apostle Philip
                He is the Philip chosen in Acts 6:5( A Hellenist) Note also in 8-14 that this
                is in Samaria and that Peter and John are then sent from Jerusalem to Samaria.
                Then in Act 8-25 they return to Jerusalem.( Peter and John)
                Presumably back to the Apostles village (You mention).
                He is also the one caught away on 8-39 and into Caesarea.Acts 8-40

                Regards,

                JOHN MOON
                Springfield, Tenn. 37172
                johnmoon3717@...
              • Tom Saunders
                Thank you John Moon. In an effort to establish a structure of observation for proposing theory I have run across and slightly modified a list that was used in
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 18, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thank you John Moon.

                  In an effort to establish a structure of observation for proposing theory I have run across and slightly modified a list that was used in an argument against Creationism. Science vs. non-science. It occurred to me that this list might help formulate better arguments.

                  The list is as follows:

                  Observation
                  Hypothesis
                  Testing
                  Debate
                  Rational Conclusion

                  Please feel free to expand on the elements of this list and the possible uses it could serve in determining proofs (likelihood) concerning the factual, textual, and historical study of the GThom.

                  Could I use the above set as an outline to argue a historical, and textual argument for placing the Apostle's village in the Southern part of the city at the foot of the Mt. of Olives? What other uses might this list have in studying Thomas?

                  Tom Saunders
                  Platter Flats, OK


                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: BitsyCat1@...
                  To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:26 AM
                  Subject: Re: [GTh] Out of Jerusalem

                  In a message dated 03/17/2003 6:29:55AM, tom@... writes:

                  << What exactly did I miss that Phillip wasn't Phillip, >>

                  Acts 6:5, Then Acts 8:5 to 14 (Now when the apostles who were in Jerusalem)
                  The Philip in 6:5 and into 8:5 on is not an Apostle Philip
                  He is the Philip chosen in Acts 6:5( A Hellenist) Note also in 8-14 that this is in Samaria and that Peter and John are then sent from Jerusalem to Samaria.
                  Then in Act 8-25 they return to Jerusalem.( Peter and John)
                  Presumably back to the Apostles village (You mention).
                  He is also the one caught away on 8-39 and into Caesarea.Acts 8-40

                  Regards,

                  JOHN MOON
                  Springfield, Tenn. 37172
                  johnmoon3717@...


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