Re: [GTh] Response to Andrew
- [Tom Saunders]:
> So my use of the word epistemology or theory of knowledge is "prunikus?"I asked you *specifically where* you had encountered the word '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.
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 parablesEven a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. No, you aren't "scared
> 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."
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'The Thomas parables aren't about epistemology, and they aren't gnostic in
> (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?
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.
Mt. Clemens, MI