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

Re: [GTh] A Diversion

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    Tom- I appreciate your responding directly to some of my criticisms of your claim that the Gospel of Matthew was gnostic (in your sense of the term.) I really
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 22, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Tom-

      I appreciate your responding directly to some of my criticisms of your claim
      that the Gospel of Matthew was gnostic (in your sense of the term.) I really
      do think that this claim is not only mistaken, but badly mistaken, and ought
      to be dropped as soon as possible, so that we can devote our attention to
      claims that have some plausibility, but be that as it may, let's look at the
      three areas where you think GMatt is more friendly to your definition of
      gnosticism than the other canonical gospels. The claim you made in a
      previous note was this:

      > ... Matthew ... does not conflict with the sense of Gnostic structures of
      > sprit, and soul.

      Now I confess that I misunderstood your wording here. When I think of
      "structure", I think of such things as the Platonic tripartite division of
      the soul - that is, of its internal structure (as presented in various
      ancient theories). What you evidently had in mind was ideas about what the
      spirit and soul DO, or rather, were thought to be capable of doing. With
      that in mind, then, I would somewhat alter my response, but would still
      maintain that if GMatt isn't inconsistent with what you count as gnostic
      ideas about "soul" and "spirit", then neither are the other canonical
      gospels. You mention, for example, GPhil's idea of "resurrection" before
      physical death as a uniquely gnostic idea about the spirit/soul. I think I
      could argue that, but that would be tangential to the argument about GMatt,
      so I'll save that for another day. Here, I'll simply say that, even if one
      grants the above claim, you haven't given any reason to suppose that GMatt
      is any different in its ideas about the soul or spirit than the other
      canonicals. You do, however, present two other areas where you think GMatt
      differs from GLuke, e.g.:

      1. Extrinsic vs. intrinsic

      > I do not think of Luke as gnostic. There are too many instances where
      > Luke sees God and spirit as an external force to humanity that can exhibit
      > free will outside the intrinsic framework of man. The sayings of Thomas
      > (3, 22, 77) suggest that spirit and God are not extrinsic or foreign to
      > the existence of mankind and nature. Matthew seems less conflicting in
      > this view. ... The parallels of Matthew and Thomas do not relate any
      > magic or the kind of extrinsic spirits seen in Luke. It would be more
      > correct to say that Matthew and Thomas, and the Gnostic Gospels do not
      > conflict the same way. Luke is a different story.

      This is a bad argument, in more ways than one. The fact (if it is a fact)
      that the parallels to GMatt found in GThom have a certain character does not
      at all go to show that GMatt itself in its entirety has this same character.
      In other words, you are projecting onto the entire Gospel of Matthew certain
      characteristics which you think are present in the GThom parallels, and
      ignoring non-paralleled material. But in assessing GMatt, it's illegitimate
      to draw conclusions from the small set of material paralleled in GThom.
      There are parallels also to GLuke, and yet you don't draw the same kind of
      conclusion from that. Rather, you look at the whole of GLuke. Similarly, you
      need to look at the whole of GMatt. When you do that, there's no significant
      difference between GMatt and GLuke with respect to intrinsic/extrinsic. That
      this is so, is shown from your second area, which is a particular instance
      of the first:

      2. Demons

      > Luke's explanation for the 'casting out of demons' from Mary Magdala, is a
      > good example of this conflict in the conception of spirit. Luke's demons
      > (including Acts) are witchcraft like entities with a will of their own,
      > fully operational in the kenoma. The Gnostic view is that evil is
      > intrinsic, and a part of the human nature, as related in Th-45, and Mary.

      One of the problems with this reasoning is that - as mentioned in my earlier
      note - GMatt ALSO has demons, evil spirits, etc. From a brief check, I might
      mention GMt 7:22, 8:16, 8:28, 9:32, 10:1, 10:8, 12:22,24,28,45, 15:22, and
      17:18. To which can be added the famous scene of the devil tempting Jesus in
      chapter 4. So if "the Gnostic view is that evil is intrinsic", then GMatt is
      about as far from a "Gnostic" view as one can get. Certainly at least as far
      from it as is GLuke.

      (Needless to say, I also disagree with your characterization of various
      Thomas sayings, but here I want to remain focused on GMatt.)

      Mike Grondin
      Mt. Clemens, MI
    • Michael Grondin
      Tom, I appreciate your turnaround on GMatt. As to using extrinisic/intrinsic as a dividing line between gnosticism (small-g variety, which is what you re
      Message 2 of 21 , Sep 23, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Tom,
        I appreciate your turnaround on GMatt. As to using extrinisic/intrinsic as a
        dividing line between gnosticism (small-g variety, which is what you're
        talking about) and orthodoxy, I don't think it's going to work. Here are
        some of your remarks:

        > In Thomas, Mary and Phillip, spirit is intrinsic to the functions of the
        > mind, and can be seen as natural functions within the power of the 'ruling
        > faculty' and the 'carnal spirit,' using my favorite Clement model ...
        > ...
        > This seems to me to be a good standard for the conception of what is
        > natural, and what might be thought of as supernatural, in regard to spirit
        > and how it can be defined on the basis of 'what it does.' This is where I
        > am seeing the major differences between the Gnostic texts, and the NT
        > Gospels.
        > ...
        > Spirit ... can be seen in the canonicals and John, as a supernatural
        > force, extrinsic to the self, in some cases, and may even be portrayed as
        > having a form that possesses free will, and talks like "Legion" I think
        > Gnosticism devoid of the supernatural belief in the nature of 'extrinsic'
        > spirits (concentrations of energy) shows an understanding unique in the
        > Gnostic texts.

        Clearly, you equate "intrinsic" with "natural" and "extrinsic" with
        "supernatural". The distinction is relatively clear, but it seems to me that
        neither the canonical gospels nor the Gospel of Philip plunk down for one
        side to the exclusion of the other. In fact, they all seem to view "spirit"
        (whether good or evil) as BOTH intrinsic and extrinsic. Consider the
        following selections from the Gospel of Philip, and see if you don't agree
        that, if anything, the HS is usually made to sound basically extrinsic:

        "The rulers thought that it was by their own power and will that they were
        doing what they did, but the Holy Spirit in secret was accomplishing
        everything through them as it wished."

        ""The Father" and "the Son" are single names; "the Holy Spirit" is a double
        name. For they are everywhere: they are above, they are below; they are in
        the concealed, they are in the revealed. The Holy Spirit is in the revealed:
        it is below. It is in the concealed: it is above."
        (this passage is particularly clear that the HS is BOTH)

        "Those who have gone astray, whom the spirit begets, usually go astray also
        because of the Spirit. Thus, by one and the same breath, the fire blazes and
        is put out."

        "For it is because of this that the whole place stands, whether the good or
        the evil, the right and the left. The Holy Spirit shepherds everyone and
        rules all the powers ..."

        "There are some who say, "We are faithful" in order that [...] the unclean
        spirits and the demons. For if they had the Holy Spirit, no unclean spirit
        would cleave to them."

        "Through the Holy Spirit we are indeed begotten again, but we are begotten
        through Christ in the two. We are anointed through the Spirit."

        I don't know how you understand these passages, but to me they seem to
        invoke both extrinsic and intrinsic notions - just as we find in GJohn's
        famous "born again" passage and other canonical writings. All Christian
        writers seem to treat the HS as basically an extrinsic force, that humans
        can choose to partake of, just as air is basically extrinsic, but it gets
        taken into the lungs, and for a period of time this inhaled patch of air
        might be thought of as intrinsic - except that the "air" of the HS seems to
        remain an active and activating force when taken in by the individual. There
        may be a more subtle difference that you haven't put your finger on yet, but
        this particular distinction doesn't seem to do it.

        Mike Grondin
        Mt. Clemens, MI
      • Michael Mozina
        [To Tom and Mike] This has been an very interesting and extremely informative conversation from the outside looking in. I thank you both. I would also point
        Message 3 of 21 , Sep 26, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          [To Tom and Mike]

          This has been an very interesting and extremely informative conversation
          from the outside looking in. I thank you both.

          I would also point out that what we know of quantum mechanics and our new
          understanding of the concept of "energy" flowing through all forms of
          "matter", makes the labeling of "spirit" as "supernatural" premature. It
          may in fact turn out that SPIRIT the most NATURALY thing in "reality".
          Science is revealing a great deal though QM that help explain comments like
          "in the end, you will know that I am in you, you are in me, and we are all
          one in God." The HOLY SPIRIT seems to be that SEA OF ENERGY that permeates
          all things solid, in influences us all.

          Anyway, that's my two cents from the peanut gallery. :)

          [Michael Mozina]
        • Jim Bauer
          Mike, Could you please clarify for us exactly where you got your degree in quantum physics? I mean, it s been 30 years since I studied physics, but just
          Message 4 of 21 , Sep 29, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Mike,

            Could you please clarify for us exactly where you got your degree in quantum
            physics? I mean, it's been 30 years since I studied physics, but just
            off-hand, I'd say that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking
            about.
            >
            > I would also point out that what we know of quantum mechanics and our new
            > understanding of the concept of "energy" flowing through all forms of
            > "matter", makes the labeling of "spirit" as "supernatural" premature.

            Technically, energy IS matter; they're just different aspects of the same
            thing, as stated in Einstein's famous equation,
            E = MC2. Spirit not being supernatural would require there actually being
            evidence that the mind-body problem can be solved other than
            materialistically, & if you read something like Dennet's _Consciousness
            Explained_ you'll see that this may be premature. I'm not going to argue
            this anymore, though. As with your statement that Jesus was trying to teach
            his audience quantum physics, it seems that, as with Tom's concept of gnosis
            & Grondin's objection that he was seeing it everywhere, you see QM
            everywhere. Or can you give me a detailed mathematical account of exactly
            where this "sea of energy" can be found?

            Jim Bauer
          • Stephen
            ... this ... by ... is ... The idea of an inferior god arose from Jewish Gnostics interpreting the book of Genesis and probably took place hundreds of years
            Message 5 of 21 , Sep 29, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              > Mike Grondin writes -

              > Paul writes of the groaning pains of the birth of such a new world. But
              this
              > talk of a new world, and of the old world dying and and passing away, did
              > not in their minds indicate that the old world was created by mistake, or
              by
              > an inferior heavenly being. It was the more Hellenistically (and
              > polytheistically) inclined Gnostics who drew this conclusion. So if I'm
              > correct that this is both a defining characteristic of what I call "big-g
              > Gnosticism" and a dividing-line issue between them and the orthodox, then
              > the lack of this feature in Thomas casts seemingly insurmountable doubt on
              > the claim that it was (big-g) Gnostic. (What I call "small-g gnosticism"
              is
              > a different story, but then that was pretty much everywhere in the early
              > church.)

              The idea of an inferior god arose from Jewish Gnostics interpreting the book
              of Genesis and probably took place hundreds of years before the supposed
              time of Jesus. The first creation was made by the Elohim and involved
              Wisdom (the Spirit of God) separating from the Elohim and moving over the
              waters. In this first creation man was made hermaphrodite in the image of
              the Elohim (God the father/Wisdom) -

              -------
              And God [Elohim] said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'.
              [.] So God [Elohim] created man in his own image, in the image of God
              created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:26-27)

              In the day that God [Elohim] created man, in the likeness of God [Elohim]
              made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called
              their name Adam, in the day when they were created. (Genesis 5:1-2)
              -------

              The first creation was spiritual and perfect. The second creation was the
              work of Yahweh Elohim alone when he remade man out of dust. It was Yahweh
              who separated the female from the male. It was Yahweh who forbade Adam to
              eat from the Tree of Knowledge representing Gnosis. It was Yahweh who
              expelled Adam and Eve from Eden -

              ------
              And Yahweh Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good
              and evil: and now he might put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of
              life, and eat, and live for ever: (Genesis 3:22)
              ------

              The Gospel of Thomas is concerned with rectifying the damage done by Yahweh
              by returning man to a hermaphrodite state of spiritual completeness - the
              kingdom of heaven - which is the same as the rest of the seventh day. For
              example see 11, 22 and 114. The light within a man of light in saying 24 is
              the light of the original creation. And saying 18 is more explicit -

              -------
              The disciples said to Jesus: Tell us how our end shall be. Jesus said: Have
              you then discovered the beginning, that you seek after the end? For where
              the beginning is, there shall the end be. Blessed is he who shall stand in
              the beginning, and he shall know the end and shall not taste of death.
              (Thomas 18)
              -------

              None of this makes any sense unless the people who wrote and used Thomas
              believed, like Paul, that Yahweh was the inferior God. The god they
              worshiped was the unbegotten father of saying 15. This is made explicit in
              4 where the man aged in days (Yahweh) asks the child of seven days about the
              place of life and lives - a reference to the redemption of Yahweh.

              The Jewish Gnostics did not need to look to Hellenistic philosophy for this
              view of Yahweh - it is in their scripture.

              Stephen Peter
              www.bridalchamber.com
            • Ken Wright (Freeserve)
              Jim Energy is not matter! Don t be daft! E = MC2 does not in anyway suggest that energy is matter, but that matter potentially has energy. Technically,energy
              Message 6 of 21 , Sep 29, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Jim

                Energy is not matter!

                Don't be daft!

                E = MC2 does not in anyway suggest that energy is matter, but that matter
                potentially has energy.

                Technically,energy IS NOT matter, but all matter potentially has energy.

                Ken
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              • BitsyCat1@aol.com
                ... John Asks Dt 6:4 Hear,O Israel:The Lord our God is one Lord. Isaiah45:22 46:9 I am God there is none else. Mathew 12:32 One
                Message 7 of 21 , Sep 29, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 9/29/04 9:08:05 PM, stephen@... writes:


                  > None of this makes any sense unless the people who wrote and used Thomas
                  > believed, like Paul, that Yahweh was the inferior God.  The god they
                  > worshiped was the unbegotten father of saying 15.  This is made explicit in
                  > 4 where the man aged in days (Yahweh) asks the child of seven days about the
                  > place of life and lives - a reference to the redemption of Yahweh.
                  >
                  > The Jewish Gnostics did not need to look to Hellenistic philosophy for this
                  > view of Yahweh - it is in their scripture.
                  >

                  John Asks

                  Dt 6:4 Hear,O Israel:The Lord our God is one Lord.
                  Isaiah45:22 46:9 I am God there is none else.
                  Mathew 12:32 One God and no other

                  You say the Jewish believed in Lesser God?

                  From the responses I hear every day from Messianic lists, and others.

                  I would say you are mistaken,

                  It seems to be clear that Yeshua Bar yosef, even if he believed
                  himself the Messiah, believed in
                  One God,
                  I ascend to your God and my God Jn 20:17

                  Would you like to offer proof, of that.

                  The division, in Thomas does not indicate a high Gnosticism.
                  Division of Spirit, IS not a Separate God.

                  Division becomes Gnostic in the complex explanations of
                  Apochraphon of John and other later books.

                  I dont see the Spirit of God, or angels as being inherently
                  Gnostic but rather of the Pharisee sect.
                  One of the Two Grand divisions of Judaism, Saducees and
                  Pharisees.

                  Are you suggesting that the Pharisees were all Gnostics?

                  They believed in Angels and Spirits. I dont however see them
                  as Gnostics.

                  Regards,

                  John Moon
                  springfield,Tenn,37172



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Michael Grondin
                  To the membership- As interesting as a discussion of modern physics might be, it s outside our scope, and has to be ended. We can perhaps avoid future tangents
                  Message 8 of 21 , Sep 29, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To the membership-

                    As interesting as a discussion of modern physics might be, it's outside our
                    scope, and has to be ended. We can perhaps avoid future tangents of this
                    kind by scrupulously avoiding any consideration WHATSOEVER of whether the
                    ideas expressed in our subject texts were true or false.

                    Mike Grondin
                  • Michael Grondin
                    Stephen, ... What on earth makes you think that Paul had such a belief? ... in ... the ... I think not. You re ignoring 4.3, which gives the moral of the story
                    Message 9 of 21 , Sep 29, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Stephen,

                      I was generally with you up until your next-to-last paragraph:

                      > None of this makes any sense unless the people who wrote and used Thomas
                      > believed, like Paul, that Yahweh was the inferior God.

                      What on earth makes you think that Paul had such a belief?

                      > The god they
                      > worshiped was the unbegotten father of saying 15. This is made explicit
                      in
                      > 4 where the man aged in days (Yahweh) asks the child of seven days about
                      the
                      > place of life and lives - a reference to the redemption of Yahweh.

                      I think not. You're ignoring 4.3, which gives the moral of the story -
                      namely, that "MANY first will become last", and no one will have a
                      preferential place based on age (this message was more radical and
                      controversial in a time and place that revered age than it appears to be to
                      us.) That the moral of the story is GENERAL indicates that the author didn't
                      have in mind a specific person or being, such as "the ancient of days" of
                      Dan 7 (if that's what you're thinking). Sorry, but I don't see any
                      plausibility at all to this suggestion. (And it is a piece of speculation,
                      of course - not an indisputable matter of fact - in spite of the confident
                      tone with which it's uttered.)

                      Mike Grondin
                      Mt. Clemens, MI
                    • Stephen
                      John, I certainly did not mean to imply that all or most Jews believed in an inferior God. Rather that a small Jewish Gnostic sect did make this conclusion
                      Message 10 of 21 , Sep 30, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        John,

                        I certainly did not mean to imply that all or most Jews believed in an
                        inferior God. Rather that a small Jewish Gnostic sect did make this
                        conclusion based on Genesis some time before the Christian era, and that
                        this sect gave rise to Christianity and the Gospel of Thomas. This belief
                        would have blasphemous to Jews but then Thomas 13 indicates a secret
                        knowledge that was blasphemous. It is because of the blasphemy that we
                        should not expect the idea of an inferior God to be explicit in the earliest
                        Christian writings. At these early times the church is mainly based among
                        the Jews and could not afford to be seen as blasphemous. It is the later
                        Gnostics who have the freedom to express the idea openly because they are
                        not in danger of being stoned.

                        The Spirit of God in itself is not a high Gnostic concept. However in
                        Genesis the spirit of God is introduced right at the beginning and long
                        before Yahweh is mentioned. I would suggest that this gave rise to the idea
                        that the Spirit of God (Wisdom) is superior to Yahweh and even responsible
                        in some way for the creation of Yahweh. Also the division of male and
                        female in the garden of Eden is explicitly the work of Yahweh and we know
                        from the Gospel of Phillip that this division was seen as introducing death
                        into the world.

                        Stephen Peter



                        John Asks

                        Dt 6:4 Hear,O Israel:The Lord our God is one Lord.
                        Isaiah45:22 46:9 I am God there is none else.
                        Mathew 12:32 One God and no other

                        You say the Jewish believed in Lesser God?

                        From the responses I hear every day from Messianic lists, and others.

                        I would say you are mistaken,

                        It seems to be clear that Yeshua Bar yosef, even if he believed
                        himself the Messiah, believed in
                        One God,
                        I ascend to your God and my God Jn 20:17

                        Would you like to offer proof, of that.

                        The division, in Thomas does not indicate a high Gnosticism.
                        Division of Spirit, IS not a Separate God.

                        Division becomes Gnostic in the complex explanations of
                        Apochraphon of John and other later books.

                        I dont see the Spirit of God, or angels as being inherently
                        Gnostic but rather of the Pharisee sect.
                        One of the Two Grand divisions of Judaism, Saducees and
                        Pharisees.

                        Are you suggesting that the Pharisees were all Gnostics?

                        They believed in Angels and Spirits. I dont however see them
                        as Gnostics.

                        Regards,

                        John Moon
                        springfield,Tenn,37172
                      • sarban
                        ... From: Stephen To: Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] A Diversion ...
                        Message 11 of 21 , Sep 30, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Stephen" <stephen@...>
                          To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 12:42 PM
                          Subject: Re: [GTh] A Diversion


                          > John,
                          >
                          > I certainly did not mean to imply that all or most Jews believed in an
                          > inferior God. Rather that a small Jewish Gnostic sect did make this
                          > conclusion based on Genesis some time before the Christian era, and that
                          > this sect gave rise to Christianity and the Gospel of Thomas. This belief
                          > would have blasphemous to Jews but then Thomas 13 indicates a secret
                          > knowledge that was blasphemous.

                          <SNIP>

                          > The Spirit of God in itself is not a high Gnostic concept. However in
                          > Genesis the spirit of God is introduced right at the beginning and long
                          > before Yahweh is mentioned. I would suggest that this gave rise to the
                          idea
                          > that the Spirit of God (Wisdom) is superior to Yahweh and even responsible
                          > in some way for the creation of Yahweh. Also the division of male and
                          > female in the garden of Eden is explicitly the work of Yahweh and we know
                          > from the Gospel of Phillip that this division was seen as introducing
                          death
                          > into the world.
                          >
                          If these ideas were part of pre-Christian Judaism one would
                          expect some evidence of them in early esoteric and mystical
                          Judaism.

                          But this really isn't so. We have ideas like that of Metatron the
                          'little Yahweh' in the Hekhalot literature, but Metatron is
                          subordinate in the sense that he faithfully carries out God's
                          commmands rather than inferior in the sense of an independent
                          lesser divinity.

                          There are many strange ideas in early esoteric Judaism but it seems
                          to lack any idea of two quasi-independent deities, either equal or
                          with one inferior to the other..

                          Andrew Criddle
                        • BitsyCat1@aol.com
                          ... John notes While in some sense Paul may be Gnostic. I dont think he saw Iesu Christe as a lesser God, or that there was even a lesser God. It appears in
                          Message 12 of 21 , Sep 30, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 9/30/04 2:39:02 PM, tom@... writes:


                            > Thomas is no doubt the 'hub' of Jesus knowledge you apply in the process of
                            > gnosis, bonding with "Wisdom."  Pre- Christian Gnosticism, and later forms
                            > of Gnosticism, deviate frrom the process of this bonding outside the scope of
                            > what is in the Gnostic Gospels.  Mary, Thomas, and Phillip, do not deviate
                            > the process of gnosis, outside the scope of the rational human mind.  No
                            > magic.  The basis for the context of these texts directly relates to the gnostic
                            > process, relative to Thomas. 
                            >
                            >

                            John notes

                            While in some sense Paul may be Gnostic. I dont think he saw Iesu Christe
                            as a lesser God, or that there was even a lesser God.

                            It appears in many instances Paul saw Jesus as an Angelic being, Who was a
                            little lower than the angels. Not as God himself, but a messenger of Yahweh.

                            Only in that he thought that Gnosis could be attained through Baptism into
                            The Death and Resurrection of Jesus.( Gnosi in Baptismo), could he be called
                            Gnostic.

                            Christ crucified flies against all later Gnostic beliefs. That is a
                            doecetic Jesus that was not
                            really material, or perhaps some divine play for our benefit.

                            In Hebrews It appears to be the word, of God that is the divider. Sharper
                            than a double edged
                            sword.

                            If such a belief existed, One would think that Philo of Alexandria
                            would have embraced it rather than giving the long explanations of why, the LOGOS
                            was NOT separate.
                            Saying it is only Mans perception, that makes it appear as a triune
                            deity. But still One deity.

                            I would say Paul also adapts this premise in saying the Parts are part
                            of the Greater whole.
                            Within the emerging Christian Church..

                            There may very well be a Gnostic Branch of Judaism. Within what I
                            would call Low Gnosticism
                            the seeking of Wisdom.

                            But time and again Paul addresses that the Wisdom of God is
                            foolishness to men,..Note Wisdom
                            is always derived From God,
                            Not another God in wisdom.

                            Is it being suggested perhaps that The Jewish, theologians and
                            Philosophers, in separating the concepts of Logos and Spirit, and other aspects,
                            Then set the stage for the development of these aspects to become literal beings
                            in later Gnosticism?

                            That premise might be understandable, as a beginning to gnosticism,
                            or proto -Gnostic development.

                            Regards,
                            John Moon
                            Springfield, TN 37172






                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Michael Grondin
                            ... (c) Neither of the above. Mike Grondin Mt. Clemens, MI
                            Message 13 of 21 , Oct 3, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Tom Saunders writes:

                              > Either the proto-Orthodoxy butchered Paul's letters so that none of them
                              > stand out as 'that' Gnostic, or they are all forgeries, except the NHL
                              > prayer, and texts.

                              (c) Neither of the above.

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