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

Re: [GTh] Thomas Kernel

Expand Messages
  • BitsyCat1@aol.com
    ... John Inquires Thomasine Gnosis? I m not sure Thomas is Gnostic at all. How can you define a Thomasine Gnostic if the literature is Wisdom literature. The
    Message 1 of 30 , Mar 22, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 3/22/05 6:29:39 AM, tom@... writes:


      > Gnostic push to what Thomasine Gnosis must be about.  The use of scripture
      > to acquire transcendence, the kind Heracleon, Clement, and Origen talk about.
      >
      >

      John Inquires

      Thomasine Gnosis? I m not sure Thomas is Gnostic at all. How can you
      define a Thomasine Gnostic
      if the literature is Wisdom literature.

      The Gnostic influence negligible reduced to tweaking in places.

      I presume that Origen and others used the New Testament also to achieve
      Transcendence.

      What makes Thomas different?

      Before claiming a Thomasine Gnosis, one would have to prove Thomas is
      Gnostic.

      Regards,
      John Moon
      Springfield,Tenn 37172


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Michael Grondin
      ... I don t see that he s in the middle of the Gnostic push (ugh) in GosThom. He s mentioned, but not in a particularly favorable light. You re a long way
      Message 2 of 30 , Mar 22, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Tom Saunders writes:

        > I think what is getting me is that Matthew does not mention the Gnostic
        > agenda directly, but the texts of Thomas, Mary, Pistis Sopia, Stromata, Ap
        > of Peter, and others put Matthew right in the middle of the Gnostic push
        > to what Thomasine Gnosis must be about.

        I don't see that he's "in the middle of the Gnostic push" (ugh) in GosThom.
        He's mentioned, but not in a particularly favorable light. You're a long way
        from making the point here. You'd have to show that the other texts you
        mention are examples of "Thomasine Gnosis", and then you'd have to explain
        why the prototype of "Thomasine Gnosis" doesn't present Matthew in a more
        positive way.

        > The idea that Matthew was in Egypt from the 70's to the 90's, and didn't
        > somehow become directly involved with Alexandrians would be more
        > questionable, than the other way around.

        Who says Matthew was in Egypt from the 70's to the 90's? The Egyptian Coptic
        Church claims Mark as its founder, but doesn't mention Matthew, to the best
        of my recollection. So where are you getting this from?

        > ... why is Matthew in text after text as one of the 'select' Apostles with
        > knowledge of apostasis (Resurrection), when we know some of these texts
        > like Thomas were around before Mark or Matthew died?

        Not only do we NOT know that, but many scholars would deny it - regardless
        of when these two evangelists died (which we don't know either, BTW.) It's
        true that Matthew is mentioned in several texts we would call "gnostic", but
        so is Peter, and HE isn't regarded as any kind of a "gnostic" role-model. So
        where does that leave your theory? As to "knowledge of apostasis", I'm not
        sure what you're getting at there. Theoretically, all twelve witnessed the
        evidence of the resurrection, so it can't be the case that certain ones were
        selected for inclusion in "gnostic" texts because THEY had done so and
        others hadn't. You need to give this more thought.

        > Mike thank you for pointing out Leloup's flaws. Is his reference to
        > Philip in Acts, as the 'Philip' correct?

        Of course.

        > ( "A Hebrew who makes someone else a Hebrew is called a proselyte." Would
        > this be like a "Day with Kay Arthur?" Good 'slam' Gphil....! It is like
        > the 'blind leading the blind' thingy and I never saw it before you pointed
        > it out.)

        In spite of the fact that I thought what I was saying was clear as day,
        you've apparently succeeded in misunderstanding it. The LeLoup translation
        is INCORRECT at that point. It's not a case of GPhil "slamming" anybody -
        it's a case of either LeLoup or the English translator(s) of the French
        having made a mistake.

        Mike Grondin
        Mt. Clemens, MI
      • BitsyCat1@aol.com
        ... John Observes That would be Mark ( John-Mark),In Alexandria. Mark is considered the Originator of the Coptic Church. He is did apparently did found the
        Message 3 of 30 , Mar 23, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 3/23/05 6:44:29 AM, tom@... writes:


          > Matthew is philosophically essential to the Thomasine transition, by virtue
          > that we can see the influence of this text in the body of Thomas. Clement's
          > statement about Apostles being skilled Craftsmen in all the areas of human
          > gifts (Str. Bk 6) puts Matthew in the Craftsman-Pneumatic class of individuals.
          > Jack Kilmon's references in past posts reference Matthew and Mark ending
          > their days in Egypt.  (A little help here!)
          >
          >

          John Observes

          That would be Mark ( John-Mark),In Alexandria. Mark is considered the
          Originator of the Coptic Church.

          He is did apparently did found the Markan school there in Alexandria.

          Presumably, though it may be difficult to prove. The students of the
          school would have transmitted the Markan tradition.
          Alexandria would for many years have been far more important to the
          emerging Church than Rome.
          There was no established Roman Church, or Monolithic organization
          coming out of Rome. The Bishops in theory would have been essentially equal, during
          the formation of the early church.

          The Bishops of Alexandria would have held great power and influence.

          There is a long established tradition and history of John-Mark being
          in Alexandria, a tradition
          which I have never seen anyone attempt to disprove, or disagree with in any
          meaningful way.

          All the early writings seem to accept this as fact.

          Regards,
          John Moon
          Springfield,Tenn 37172


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • sarban
          ... From: To: Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas Kernel John Observes That would
          Message 4 of 30 , Mar 23, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: <BitsyCat1@...>
            To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 1:32 PM
            Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas Kernel



            John Observes

            That would be Mark ( John-Mark),In Alexandria. Mark is considered the
            Originator of the Coptic Church.

            <SNIP>

            There is a long established tradition and history of John-Mark being
            in Alexandria, a tradition
            which I have never seen anyone attempt to disprove, or disagree with in any
            meaningful way.

            All the early writings seem to accept this as fact.


            Andrew Observes

            The problem with the tradition of John-Mark in Alexandria is that
            our earliest witness is Eusebius (apart from the Mar Saba letter
            containing 'Secret Mark').

            In fact the whole early history of Christianity in Alexandria is
            extremely obscure.

            In Eusebius's list of bishops of Alexandria after Mark the first to
            be other than a mere name is Demetrius who became bishop
            around 189 CE.

            Andrew Criddle
          • Michael Grondin
            ... No, Mike did not add to what John Moon had written. Mike s note was posted first, and without knowledge of what John wrote. Also, Mike s point was
            Message 5 of 30 , Mar 23, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Tom Saunders writes:

              > John Moon asks....
              >
              > Mike adds.....

              No, Mike did not "add" to what John Moon had written. Mike's note was posted
              first, and without knowledge of what John wrote. Also, Mike's point was
              essentially unrelated to John's. Unfortunately, John's note provided you
              with an excuse (albeit illegitimate) to bury my specific questions in your
              voluminous response to him.

              > Thomas by its structure and form is a Contemplation tool of descending,
              > ... The legend of Pythagorean numbers from one to ten is ascending,
              > from ten to one is descending. Thomas by its form of 114 sayings has to
              > be a descending tool, from 114 to one, the monad. Thomas is a methodology
              > based upon Jesus being the monadic force in the text.

              The characterization of Thomas as "descending" because it's composed of
              Jesus sayings is a sophomoric non sequitur. One might as well say that it
              goes from one up to 114, and is thus "ascending". This "analysis" in terms
              of "ascending" and "descending" is in fact a baseless pseudo-analysis.

              > Jack Kilmon's references in past posts reference Matthew and Mark ending
              > their days in Egypt. (A little help here!)

              I'm afraid there's no help for you. I've reread Jack's note of March
              18th, and although he mentions Matthew and Mark, he doesn't claim that
              Matthew was in Egypt. As far as I can see, that's a result of your own
              pronounced proclivity to jump to a conclusion. (So much ground to cover;
              so much jumping to do!)

              > Synoptics are 'primers' for Thomasine Gnosis.

              Oh, that's all they were. Well, then, so much for the synoptics! Apparently,
              the whole world of early Christian writings is about to be consumed by
              "Thomasine Gnosis" in your imagination. Makes one wonder why Thomas was
              considered heretical, huh? But I'm being uncharitable. This is probably just
              a typically misleading way of saying something else. Unfortunately, the
              prose shortcomings probably aren't worth unravelling, since they're but
              one symptom of the sloppiness that pervades the whole. But why
              let the facts and careful reasoning get in the way of a good story, eh?

              Mike Grondin
              Mt. Clemens, MI
            • BitsyCat1@aol.com
              ... John Observes I read the response and Im pretty sure it didn t address my point. Other than to admit that there were other documents which were already in
              Message 6 of 30 , Mar 23, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 3/23/05 12:40:24 PM, mwgrondin@... writes:


                > No, Mike did not "add" to what John Moon had written. Mike's note was
                > posted
                > first, and without knowledge of what John wrote. Also, Mike's point was
                > essentially unrelated to John's. Unfortunately, John's note provided you
                > with an excuse (albeit illegitimate) to bury my specific questions in your
                > voluminous response to him.
                >

                John Observes

                I read the response and Im pretty sure it didn't address my point. Other
                than to admit that there were other documents which were already in the Canon,
                which the early church fathers used
                to attain transcendence.

                I dont believe after all that, that Thomasine Gnosis, ..that particular
                term, is any clearer.

                I believe that Thomasine Gnosis is a Modern term. It is unrelated to the
                original writing of this or any other document. Certainly not first century,
                or for the late daters 2nd and 3rd.

                Its a term that has come about by observing that historically other
                groups may have used Thomas
                or a Thomas Kernel, in their beliefs.

                The problem in this.

                No one could know this until 1. Thomas was found, 2 Then extensive work
                done on Comparing and translating it. 3 Then comparing it both to synoptics and
                other documents of various centuries.

                That's significant.

                That makes the idea of Thomasine gnosis a new one. For only after all
                those things had occurred
                could the term then be coined.

                There may have been groups that claimed A GNOSI, or special knowledge.
                They may well have had
                similar documents.

                But coming behind them and calling that Thomasine Gnosis, is not a
                valid point.

                No one in those groups or at the time of writing of Thomas held any
                such view.

                That is the point.



                Regards,
                John Moon
                Springfield<tTnn.37172


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