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

Re: [GTh] Thomas Kernel

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.