Re: [GTh] The rule of the Shepherds
> In general, your series of three notes more properly belongs on the[SP]:
> JesusMysteries list, where data is routinely manipulated to fit a theory.
> I try and go where the data and logic leads me - and not be blinded by theWell, JesusMysteries is certainly the place for folks who aren't "blinded"
> conceptual filters that are derived ultimately from the Gospel of Mark.
by ANY "conceptual filters" at all - including not only GMark, but a variety
of historical sources that run counter to the latest conspiracy theory. As
an example, see below.
> > Although there's some interesting insights in your presentation, Ibelieve
> > that almost all of your conclusions are mistaken (including yourfavorite
> > fantasy - that Simon Peter was a woman).[SP]:
> You misrepresent me - I do not believe that there was any person calledhis
> Simon Peter. It is Mark who makes the equation of Peter with Simon,
> probably because he is trying to place the original leader of the Jesus
> movement, Cephas/Peter, into a list of the Twelve which does not include
> name. My identification of Cephas/Peter with the Magdalene is based ondata
> not fantasy - connections between the two in the gospels and connectionsOK, so your view isn't that "Simon Peter" was a woman, but that
> between the 'rock' and the 'tower' in multiple sources outside of the
"Cephas/Peter" was. This from some "connections" that you've focussed on and
mulled over and written about so often that they've become self-evident
truths to you. As you know, of course, this view contradicts what Paul says
about Cephas in 1 Cor, particularly 9:5, where he writes of Cephas having a
wife. I haven't gone to your website, but I'm sure you have a ready
explanation for this contradiction. Whatever it is, however, I hardly regard
it as being led by "data and logic" to dismiss clear evidence in favor of
some ambiguous textual "connections" which have to be tortured into saying
what one wants them to say. Rather, I'd say this is being led by the X-Files
view of Christian history.
Of all the claims you make about the Parable of the Tenants, I believe the
most important one you wish to make is that the death of the "Son" doesn't
take place on earth. This is an important article of faith among some
Jesus-mythers: that the supposed person Jesus is a totally-fictional Markan
character derived from a myth. As you say, I'm vehemently opposed to this
view, and quite certain that the "vineyard" in the parable cannot
legitimately be regarded as being a mythical heavenly realm, nor that "the
son" can legitmately be thought of as having been killed _outside_ the
vineyard (hence, arguably, outside the world, as you lately suggest).
Mt. Clemens, MI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: [GTh] The rule of the Shepherds
> Of all the claims you make about the Parable of the Tenants, I believe the
> most important one you wish to make is that the death of the "Son" doesn't
> take place on earth. This is an important article of faith among some
> Jesus-mythers: that the supposed person Jesus is a totally-fictional
> character derived from a myth. As you say, I'm vehemently opposed to this
> view, and quite certain that the "vineyard" in the parable cannot
> legitimately be regarded as being a mythical heavenly realm, nor that "the
> son" can legitmately be thought of as having been killed _outside_ the
> vineyard (hence, arguably, outside the world, as you lately suggest).
> Mike Grondin
> Mt. Clemens, MI
I fully share your rejection of Jesus-myth speculations.
But I think it possible though unlikely that the Gospel
of Thomas could have transferred things from earth
to the heavenly realms.
Something like this occurs in some versions of
Manichaeanism (the Jesus patibilis the cosmically
suffering Christ) and there are parallels in some forms
I would be surprised if such ideas were around before
the late 2nd century CE but on some dates of Thomas
this would still permit Thomas to be influenced by them.