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
      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]
    • 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 2 of 30 , Mar 23, 2005
        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 3 of 30 , Mar 23, 2005
          ----- 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 4 of 30 , Mar 23, 2005
            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 5 of 30 , Mar 23, 2005
              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.