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

Re: [GTh] Response to Andrew

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    ... I asked you *specifically where* you had encountered the word prunikus . You didn t answer the question; please do so. Secondly, even if you had seen the
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 18, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      [Tom Saunders]:
      > So my use of the word epistemology or theory of knowledge is "prunikus?"
      > I am using the term to mean 'faulty' and using it as slang gleaned from
      > its more formal definition:
      > Prunikus: "Whore" Sophia is sometimes referred to as "Pistis Sophia
      > Prunikus". The fallen Sophia. In some Gnostic works Sophia is considered
      > fallen because outside her perfect self in the pleroma, she has 'fallen'
      > to the earthly, hylic state as an entity.

      I asked you *specifically where* you had encountered the word 'prunikus'.
      You didn't answer the question; please do so. Secondly, even if you had seen
      the word 'prunikus' used to mean 'whore', that doesn't justify your turning
      the noun into an adjective and *giving it an entirely different meaning*
      (i.e., 'faulty')! This is intellectual sloppiness of the first order.
      Unfortunately, if the below is any indication, you seem inclined to defend
      and continue on with this pattern of conceptual ineptitude:

      > "You've made claims in the past about the nature of the Thomas parables
      > that haven't turned out to be justified." [MG]
      > Thank goodness I am not under the horrid burden of having an academic
      > reputation to protect, and ain't scared to make them kind of mistakes. On
      > the other hand sometimes I'm not that wrong, or not that "prunikus."

      Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. No, you aren't "scared
      to make them kind of mistakes". You make them constantly. One would think
      that this would lead you to be more cautious and careful about making grand
      claims about the relationship between gnosticism and Christianity, but no.

      > What I think is that the parables are there to teach the 'prunikus'
      > (Sophistry) faults of the existence in the kenoma, the imperfect state
      > outside the perfect existence in the pleroma. Especially significant are
      > Sayings 63, 64, and 65. If the Thomas parables were first this 'theory of
      > knowledge' about the kenoma is real Jesus stuff, more like the way
      > Jesus related them. Prunikus? Sophic? Gnostic?

      The Thomas parables aren't about epistemology, and they aren't gnostic in
      any meaningful sense. If you believe otherwise, please provide some
      justification for these views, instead of merely repeating them and then
      drawing erroneous conclusions from the misinterpretations.

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