Re: [GTh] Thomas Kernel
- 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 wasJohn Observes
> 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.
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 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
But coming behind them and calling that Thomasine Gnosis, is not a
No one in those groups or at the time of writing of Thomas held any
That is the point.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]