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

Re: [GTh] Re: Gnosticism

Expand Messages
  • Michael Mozina
    Thanks for your comments Maurice. I m not sure I had a specific point in mind, I just tossed some ideas out there to get some feedback. I certainly couldn t
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 3, 2003
      Thanks for your comments Maurice. I'm not sure I had a specific point in
      mind, I just tossed some ideas out there to get some feedback. I certainly
      couldn't hope to prove any of these ideas through the data I've seen to date
      at least.

      I guess my basic question stems from the notion that it does APPEAR to me
      from the work of Steven Davies and others, that Mark and other synoptic
      writers drew from the materials found in Thomas. ASSUMING (and we all know
      that's dangerous) that these writers actually DID draw from a preexisting
      Thomas, the "rational" (IMO) explanation for this is that this document was
      already circulating and had "credibility" within the various communities at
      that time. The "best" reason I can think of as to why this document was
      respected is that it is in fact an "authentic" document of actual quotes
      from Jesus that were written down by an apostle that spent time on the road
      with Jesus the man.

      *IF* that is so (a leap of faith to be sure), then I can't help but be
      curious as to WHY this document wasn't included in the cannonization
      process. It would APPEAR that there is an explanation here *IF*
      Thomas/Judas (whomever) believed that HE TOO was capable of MESSIANIC LIKE
      KNOWLEDGE as well, and others shunned him for the idea. It kind of ties in
      with the less than flattering portrayal of Thomas in the gospels, and might
      explain the part that Thomas claims he can't pen down for fear of ridicule.

      Now please understand that I realize this is PURE, UNADULTERATED speculation
      at this point, but it does seem to fit all the pieces of the puzzle pretty
      well, and it SEEMS logical to me. I have no way of demonstrating any of
      this other than logical speculation and stringing together tidbits of
      information. I'm quite aware it's ultimately nothing more than a theory,
      albeit an interesting one from my perspective at least.

      Anyway, I appreciate your feedback and any other ideas that come to mind.
      Thanks.

      Michael Mozina
      Mt. Shasta, CA
    • Michael Grondin
      ... Mike- I can t find it on the Jesus Mysteries list. I m trying to subscribe to the Johannine list in order to answer his essay, but it was posted last
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 4, 2003
        [Michael McLafferty]:
        > Turns out it was "Jesus Mysteries" where I saw it [Lupia's essay] again...

        Mike-

        I can't find it on the Jesus Mysteries list. I'm trying to subscribe to the
        Johannine list in order to answer his essay, but it was posted last April,
        and they may not allow such a late response. Lupia also published his
        vitriolic views (though in shorter form) back in April, 2001 on the
        Synoptic-L list. When my attention was drawn to that several months later, I
        signed up for that list and sent a response which can be viewed at:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/message/6429

        Lupia didn't respond. As I said in my earlier note here, Lupia has an axe to
        grind. He's a rabid right-wing Roman Catholic who wants to discredit GThom
        in any way possible so that scholars won't take it seriously, so that in
        turn the canon will be regarded as the only legitimate early Christian
        "voice". He makes a number of translational mistakes, but more importantly,
        he interprets Thomas sayings in a twisted way that says more about him than
        about Thomas - and as I say in the above note, he fails to realize that the
        very same twisted interpretations can be constructed for canonical material.
        I can't really express how angry and frustrated I am that his poisonous
        excrement is still floating around unanswered, but if I ever catch up with
        that SOB, I'd like to have a few words with him. <g>

        Mike Grondin
        Mt. Clemens, MI
      • Michael Grondin
        ... No problem, Mike. I did in fact hesitate to accept your note at first, because it would direct members to what I felt was a thoroughly disreputable view,
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 4, 2003
          [Michael McLafferty]:
          > I'm sorry to have propagated it on your list. I didn't know you felt so
          > strongly, and wasn't aware of your unanswered response to him.

          No problem, Mike. I did in fact hesitate to accept your note at first,
          because it would direct members to what I felt was a thoroughly disreputable
          view, but it seemed best to let members read it, since you had referred to
          it earlier. I'm still interested in whether Lupia has posted to the
          JesusMysteries list. You said he had, but I can't find it there. Please let
          me know one way or the other (offlist probably preferrable). As to the
          John-Lit list, I have been accepted to membership there since my last note,
          and my first note to that list has been posted. It's titled "Challenge to
          Lupia", and can be found at:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/message/3376

          I want to make it clear that this is not just an issue of whether Lupia's
          "theory" (if you can call it that when one starts out with the intention of
          discrediting the text by "proving" that it was authored by enemies of
          Christianity) is correct or not. Of course, it's incorrect AFAIC - and badly
          so. What makes me mad, however, is that he's dishonest about it. He pretends
          to be impartial, but he isn't. Worse yet (if that's possible), his method of
          discrediting the text is to come up with far-fetched and repulsive sexual
          innuendos that make one cringe to even read them. Reminds me a bit of what
          the old heresiologists used to do - the "icing on the cake" of an attack on
          a non-orthodox sect was to claim that its members were guilty of sexual
          lasciviousness. (This was sometimes true, but more often than not, it was
          just vicious hyperbole on the part of the heresiologist.)

          I'll let you know of further developments, if it seems worthy of list
          attention.

          Mike G.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.