gnosis92

i apologize as i was responding to your post but i'm not saying pagels wrote in second century or that paul is second century.

"I agree that it's probably second century, but I would not use that argument. I think there is plenty of evidence for first-century Christian gnosticism in Paul's writings."

"elaine pagels did write gnostic paul. why do you think it's second century? i'd like to think it's early first century. in many instances GOT does parallel the NT, his version of the logia are simplier and more primitive."

my response in context of above is, elaine pagels wrote a book titled gnostic paul a couple of years ago, but as it is extremely technical with lots of greek words i couldn't get much past the first page. so what i am suggesting is that certain aspects of paul's letters have points of contact with gnosticism, so dating GOT as gnostic and second century strikes me as questionable at best. GJudas & other gnostic gospels are dated second century on account of this.

as for dating it into the second century, have u heard of index fossiling? if u c a fossil with a trilobyte then the rock must be around 300 million years old.
well if a text has gnostic themes like GOT, GPeter, Gmary, Gphilip, GJudas, then it must be dated second century, says ehrman & co. marcion and valentius were 2nd century gnostics. it's a common argument i reject.

the other statements i've made are thread-openers. as for the historicity of jesus we can talk about that in some other thread, although i'm mostly interested in discussing contents and interpretation of GOT, and GOT w/NT in this thread. in the other thread i conceded that while i have no way of independently verifying mark's non-extraordinary claims (independent of mark's text) matthew and luke obviously regarded mark as historically reliable, they wrote close (50-60 years) to x's putative existence, and the fact they allege it, it is not extraodinary, it fits within what we know about second temple judea, many documents from antiquity have been lost, the culture of x' immediate followers was largely oral and illiterate and apocalptic, that we know something of preliterate cultures and their oral traditions from cultural anthropology history and sociology, and that there is a clearly documented movement called xianity is really all enough to establish it as what *probably* happened. (the closest we might come to as an independent substantiation of mark would be Q Thomas Paul, John, signs gospel, cross gospel, gospel of peter, which all speak of a HJ, which is not in itself an extraodinary claim. lots of corpes from antquity represent people who once lived and existed but which we know nothing about. do we have any writings from the people of pompei, before they were burried? yet we know they exist, their corpses is still under volcanic ashes)

Doug Shaver

I agree. That is what I meant when I wrote: "I think there is plenty of evidence for first-century Christian gnosticism in Paul's writings."

That looks like a non sequitur to me. To begin with, "gnostic" is not a dating classification. If you ask about the dating of a document, gnostic is not a relevant answer. More to the point, though, the existence of Christian gnosticism during the first century can in no way be a logical reason to question a second-century dating for the Gospel of Thomas. All it can do is establish a possibility that Thomas was written during the first century. That is, until such time as you can present additional evidence that Thomas must have been among the very first gnostic Christian documents to have been written.

If that is their only reason for so dating those documents, then I would reject it, too. But I would be very surprised if that were in fact the extent of their argument.

I think that assumes a lot of facts that are not in evidence. It is not obvious to me that any of the gospel authors thought they were writing history.

No, but neither is it the only fact relevant to a determination of whether any of their claims is true.

To the extent that it does fit, it is evidence that the author was familiar with second-temple Judea. That doesn't mean his work was not fiction.

That explains nicely why we don't have as much evidence as we wish we had. We can make no inferences, though, by speculating on what those documents would tell us if they had not been lost. Evidence that does not exist cannot prove anything, no matter the reason for its nonexistence.

As an argument for anything, that assumes the conclusion. It assumes that there was an x who had some followers.

I don't say it is extraordinary. I say there is good reason having nothing to do with its ordinariness for doubting that it is a true claim.

Nice Squirrel

Remember Christitanity was an underground sect at the time. Doors had to be gaurded.

gnosis92

i've interpreted the statement that what is secret about the gospel of thomas is its meaning, which requires searching. although i suppose what u say could also be true.

gnosis92

peter kirby wrote a book "did the gospels have any historical intent"
here http://www.christianorigins.com/ but the intro 2 luke clearly shows the gospels did intend to be writing actual history. while i suppose u could come with some obscure examples of jewish writings first century ce, most jews regarded the accounts of the ot to be history, and apparently so did the early first jewish-xians did as well.

when i say x had followers, i think it was tacitus who wrote of xians being burned in rome under nero. if we take his word for it, then x did have followers, not necessarily direct followers.

i like 2 use quick key so obviously if u want me 2 spell it out then i will:

i don't have a clear recollection if ehrman gives other arguments but i do clearly recall that the reason certain documents r dated in the 2nd century, where they bear no other marks of their dates, they contain gnostic ideas or themes, such as the gospel of mary magdalene, acts of thomas, etc., so as a result they are dated 2nd century at the earliest.

Solo

This what wiki says:

The number seven was the general symbol for all association with God, and was the favorite religious number of Judaism, typifying the covenant of holiness and sanctification, and also all that was holy and sanctifying in purpose. The candlestick had seven lamps, and the acts of atonement and purification were accompanied by a sevenfold sprinkling. The establishment of the Sabbath, the Sabbatical year, and the year of jubilee was based on the number seven, as were the periods of purification and of mourning.


On second look, and in the view of the "7" days (it did not click first), the "infant" here really is not an infant, but someone who has just been through the "resurrectional experience", a new jesus-babe ("babe in Christ" to Paul, "born-again" in Johanine churches)...the whole infancy imagery was originally an allusion to the "newness of life", a feeling that is overwhelming in some temporal lobe "events".

Jiri

gnosis92

i agree the infant need not be a literal infant but a born-again person through the holy spirit. it could also mean though a literal infant, as contrasted to an old person. so in essence we have:

a person old in days (a person who has only secular worldly experience) won't hestitate to ask an infant 7 days old (a born-again new-babe through the holy spirit, through the union with the sacred, understanding with sacred wisdom the sacred number 7, implies an act of humility) about the place of life (which is sacred wisdom) and that person will live (live with divine wisdom and grace and truth) for many of the first (representing worldy secular wisdom) will be last (secular wordliness as an impediment to divine wisdom) and will become a single one (representing complete unity with the divine)

7 days could represent asking god on day 7 is to know in genesis he rested, so the place of life is rest and reflection on divine creation - the sacred past as now. hence

a person old in days (a person who has only secular worldly experience) won't hestitate to ask an infant 7 days old (a born-again new-babe through the holy spirit, recounting the 7 sacred days which god created the world in gensis implies an act of humility) about the place of life (on day 7 god rested and prounounced his creation holy) and that person will live (it is in rest and reflection as god rested on day 7) for many of the first (representing worldy secular wisdom) will be last (secular wordliness as an impediment to divine wisdom) and will become a single one (representing the act and whole of creation & a sacred experience of one's own creation in relation to all of creation)

since god created the world in 7 days, the infant could be the world he created.

a person old in days (old testament god??) won't hestitate to ask an infant 7 days old (his own creation which he said was good - quite possibly christ) about the place of life (alluding to the the vanity of vanities) and that person will live (god realizes it is the act of creating that gives meaning) for many of the first (representing the old testament deity arrogance) will be last (god does not get this wisdom until after he creates, which is humility) and will become a single one (representing god-creation pantheism)


do u have anything to add or any ideas of ur own gnosis? i interpret temporal lobe events as some kind of epileptic seizure?

how do u interpet "be passers-by" (some translations be wanderers)

gnosis92

nice interpretation. here's my gnosis on that passage:

in the canonical a follower asks x if he can first bury his father, and x replied follow me let the dead bury their own dead. a lot of atheists like to debunk this as saying x was a huge jerk wouldn't let a man whose father had died to bury it.

ive interpreted dead as those who a seperated from spirituality and follow me represents the NOW, the present mindfulness.

a follower asks x if he can first bury his father, and x replied follow me (that is to say, experience the sacred spirituality now) let the dead (dead representing those indifferent to spiritual wisdom) bury their own dead (dead here represents both physical death and spiritual death).


so i took that saying to say, if u r worthy of his secrets/mysteries u will be mindful of the present NOW to the extent u won't even stop to think what is hapenning to your hands (represented by what hte left hand not knowing the right hand doing, can only know through reflection) this mindfulness is not past reflection but current experience of the divine mystic.

To those worthy of my mysteries, I tell my mysteries (tell is present tense, the mysteries are mystical union of the self with the divine). Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing (like a moth burned by a flame, the hands represent ignoring bodily or world matters to be focused on the divine flame -- a moth ignores that its right wing is on fire as it focuses exclusively on the fire)".

gnosis92

i agree with that. how do u interpret 69? we may have differing interpretations

-- i interpret 69 that like the buddha, wisdom is knowing that suffering is a part of existence. u & i r using 2 different translation: my translations:

blessed r those who have truly suffered, for they have known the father in heart.

marcion believed the god of x is a completely different god than the bloodthirsty murderous genocidal tyrant deity of the jews, as did the gnostics. marcion believed x revealed a new god of pure love, and the jewish god created this material world as a prison. so for those have suffered, not just any kind of suffering but truly suffering, what simone weil called divine affliction, they turn their souls to the true god of love, who reaches out through suffering to confort us from the false god of hte jews who torments us.
it is when this false god of the jews torments our physical bodies, that when we truly suffer, our hearts turn to this god of pure love, revealed through x, feels our suffering through compassion and love, and to know this is to feel divine bliss - hope.

a simplified account of marcionism & gnosticism: before we were born we were angels in love with the true god of love, and this god of love loved us. the jewish god is a sadist who created physical bodies for us and imprisoned us, so he could take delight in tortuing us like a sadist. x came from teh true god to remidn us of our divine origins, and to liberate us from the grasp of the sadist. those who respond to x's message can return home to the heavenly father. those who ignore x's message remains with the sadist. the physical suffering the sadist inflicts on us makes those who respond to x's message realize that the physical body is not ultimately real, it is the spiritual soul that is real.

incidentally the johanine gospel can be read with this framework, minus the occasional references to the OT (possibly orthodox corruption of scripture) and even the pauline letters. marcion claimed he got his ideas from reading (or misreading) Paul.

(i am sympathetic to marcion and to gnosis btw)


as for 35:

It is not possible for anyone to enter the house of a strong man (the archons, what paul calls the wisdom of the world which crucified the lord of glory, "for our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against the rulers, the principlalities of this dark world") and take it by force unless he binds his hands (undermine the principles of unjust rule, oppression); then he will be able able to ransack his house....(once the yoke of oppression is undermined, then what the strong man, representing the ruling class, was hording becomes freely available)

there's also this odd parable which has violence in its theme

the kingdom of the father is like a noble who tested his sword; he tested it, and went out and killed someone.

Doug Shaver

Suit yourself. When I write, I like for the readers to pay attention to what I have to say, not to how cleverly I can encode it. But, different strokes and all that.

I am aware of Peter Kirby's opinions on Jesus' historicity. I've been to his site many times. I am also aware that he has done a great deal of relevant research.

I know you're not one, but you're talking like an inerrantist. The author of Luke was not writing as a representative of "the gospels." Whatever he had to say applied to his gospel and his alone.

There is no compeling reason to take Luke's introduction at face value. I have read many works of fiction written as if they were reports of historical investigations.

I fail to see how that constitutes evidence for the intentions of the authors of the New Testament.

OK, but I'm not taking his word for it. The only thing he might have known was that during Nero's reign, there were people in Rome claiming to be followers of someone executed by Pontius Pilate. But I doubt he knew even that.