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

Re: [GTh] Timelessness Saying 59-60 A parable

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    ... The number of may have been s and perhaps s are infinite. What s needed is some positive indicators. There s nothing in Thomas to suggest that the
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 19, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      John Moon writes:
      > Well, he [the Samaritan] kills and eats rather than submitting to What
      > may have been to the Thomasine Jesus as a perversion or corruption
      > of the Temple system.( Not only a put down)

      The number of "may have been's" and "perhaps's" are infinite. What's needed
      is some positive indicators. There's nothing in Thomas to suggest that the
      authors had any interest in the Temple system.

      > But Since the Samaritan is not going to Sacrifice at The Temple he is
      > essentially defying the Temple priesthood and Saying he may kill eat and
      > have a relationship to God (Outside of the Temple System).

      Well, it would have been unusual for a Samaritan to sacrifice at the temple,
      but yet he is said to be headed toward Judaea, so the implication seems to
      be that he IS going to sacrifice the lamb at the temple.

      > He is a Samaritan in Type. Perhaps like the Good Samaritan that acted
      > out of his heart rather than The Levite, or Priest who past by? The Saying
      > is simply saying that the Samaritans have the right of it.

      There's no indication that this Samaritan is a "good Samaritan", unless the
      sacrifice of a Paschal lamb at the temple makes him so. But that's contrary
      to your suggestion, which makes him "good" because he ISN'T going to
      sacrifice at the temple. Problem is, why is he said to be headed to Judaea
      if not to do exactly that?

      > The Father Creator is not in One spot i.e. the Temple. He is
      > everywhere.(> see 77) , etc.

      Yeah, right, but again there's no indication that the authors of GThomas had
      any interest in the symbolism of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb. But that
      gets into your next suggestion:

      > There is another possibility. The Lamb could be the living one.
      >
      > Unless we slay and eat of the Living One (I.e. the Lamb) we shall
      > not live. and we shall become corpses which in turn shall be eaten

      This seems totally contrary to what GTh says about "the Living One".

      > Considering that The Canonical Jesus proclaims to be the Lamb of God.
      > And that analogy goes back into the old Testament (Behold the Lamb of God
      > that Taketh away the sins of the word) Isaiah The Lamb therefore may be
      > Jesus himself.

      Then why does Jesus advise his disciples in #60 to AVOID being killed and
      eaten like the lamb? I think that in GThomas, Jesus is specifically NOT
      regarded as a Paschal lamb symbol. Remember, the Paschal lamb was sacrificed
      so that others (originally, the Hebrew slaves in Egypt) might live, and this
      doctrine is totally absent from GThomas.

      > IM not so sure I would agree that The Samaritan Saying is not a
      > Parable of some sort. I.e. I am the Lamb I am Slain Take and Eat.( The
      > Samaritan does) do ye likewise.

      No. The disciples aren't advised to act like the Samaritan. Rather, they're
      advised to avoid being the lamb.

      > And again it is Jesus favorite character the Samaritan to whom that
      > is revealed. Which could mean (To the Thomasines) it is NOT revealed to
      > Judeans, but rather to The Thomasines.

      It's an exaggeration to say that the Samaritan was "Jesus favorite
      character". In the case of #60, he takes the place of the world - the
      "thief" that tries to invade the self's internal "kingdom" to deaden the
      spirit, and consume the self, so that there's nothing of the self left
      spiritually "alive" for eternity.

      Mike Grondin
      Mt. Clemens, MI
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.