Fw: [GTh] Skinner's Interview with Davies
- --- In email@example.com, "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
> Steve wrote to Bob:
> >It's hard to have opposing views to Thomas because first you have to
> >create some sort of point of view for Thomas and then you have to
> >oppose the one you created.
> Somewhat oversimplified, I'm afraid.
>The implication is that Thomas hasThat's not so much an implication as a correct summary.
> no point of view, and so one has to be created for it.
> this derives fromNo. This derives from reading Thomas. I don't find a point of view
> a mistaken idea that narrative has some necessary connection to POV.)
there. I think people can find a variety of points of view there, and
it's not nonsense to assume that those points of view were held by
various people who compiled Thomas, nor is it nonsense to think that
those points of view are being brought to various sayings by us.
> Agreed that it hasn't much of a POV, but what there is is cherce (toI've heard the line before, but what movie about about what lady?
> paraphrase a classic movie line).
> The death of Jesus wasn't part of a divine plan to atone for anything,No... Thomas is [not] AGAINST the resurrection in the flesh, it just
> there was no resurrection in the flesh, and salvation doesn't lie in
> mere belief. Not just that there's no mention of such doctrines, but
> that what's there provides a contrary ideology.
has nothing to do with it. It's not against repeating the Nembutsu
or sacrificing goats to Legba either, it just doesn't mention them.
Salvation lies in figuring out what the list of sayings is communicating,
we hear at the outset of Thomas, but as I wrote in my skinner interview
http://pejeiesous.com/ I don't think that the Thomas people themselves
thought they understood the text.
What would you say the contrary ideology is?