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

99 Sheep

Expand Messages
  • Tom Saunders
    Hi Frank, The Greek hand numbering system is something I was not aware of, so it does make a lot of sense. It is good to have a group with members with a
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 28, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Frank,

      The Greek hand numbering system is something I was not aware of, so it does make a lot of sense. It is good to have a group with members with a wider knowledge about those things, who can add to the discussion.

      I've recently re-read a number of Nag Hammadi works and I remember a reference to the sign of the cross, regarding the right and left hand which I can't find right now. In Allogenes there is another hand reference, "Individual on the one hand, they are together 'on the other hand, since she is an existence of theirs, and she sees them all {also] truly existing. She contains the divine Autogenes." ( I think I'll read them again....)

      I think looking at the rest of the Nag Hammadi for parallels is becoming as important as looking at the N.T. parallels. Hopefully one of the Bible programmers will put the Nag Hammadi on disc with some cyber-tools and we can see all kinds of new things.

      I know you and I agree that there well could have been a collection of parables before any gospels, and this could have been either inclusive of a proto-Thomas, or Q, as well as just a list of parables. Seeing that we have kernel text status for GThom sayings and parables is exciting. I don't know that we can kill Q off yet, but I think we are starting to show the GThom at least in part is as old as Q.

      I guess we need to look at the other parables and see what we can find..........

      Tom Saunders
      Platter, OK














      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Tom Saunders
      Hi Andrew and David, I kind of suspected that Iranaeus would use the Jewish forum of the Gnostic creation myth to attack the Christian version. Using Achamoth
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 30, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Andrew and David,

        I kind of suspected that Iranaeus would use the Jewish forum of the Gnostic creation myth to attack the Christian version. Using Achamoth instead of Sophia may point to how Iranaeus argued heresy, and at the same time convoluted the Christian version. Maybe it is not such a good thing to look for Gnostic answers from Orthodox viewpoints.

        I would argue that the Father-Son argument for the Gnostics is solved (or started) by the "Apocraphon of James' which states the "Father is the Son." Perhaps the GThom's, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being," means look to the Nag Hammadi James. The Father-son arguments of the 4th Century may not reflect upon when the Gospel of Truth was written.

        The A. of James and the Gospel of Truth are both in the Jung Codex. It might stand to reason that the texts are based upon the same theory of the Pleroma. So may all of the Nag Hammadi texts be based upon a coherent theory of the Pleroma. Does anyone see a 'slip-up' in the other tractates?

        Tom Saunders
        Platter, OK

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