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

Re: [GTh] Re: Gnosticism

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Aug 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      [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 2 of 9 , Aug 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        [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.