Solo

...in other words, a fully "re-made" babe....yes, I think that would work

yes


.... you mean the gnosis in what the work represents ?

the "single one" I read as Thomasian "mystic community" of the spirit.

GT(23) I shall choose you, one of a thousand, and two of ten thousand, and they shall stand as a single one

What I care to divulge about my own gnosis is happily paraded on this board.


Yes, the connection between mystical transports, "revelations" and temporal lobe (,and other brain locales,) "events" is more or less a medical cliche today. If you are really interested in the relationship between the mystical and physiological you can start with Neurotheology (or via: amazon.co.uk). There are some interesting articles in the book by Michael Persinger. Check it out, it's really fascinating stuff.


I guess the closest interpretation of that I know would be Bob Dylan:


Once upon a time you dressed so fine
You threw the bums a dime in your prime, didn't you?
People'd call, say, "Beware doll, you're bound to fall"
You thought they were all kiddin' you
You used to laugh about
Everybody that was hangin' out
Now you don't talk so loud
Now you don't seem so proud
About having to be scrounging for your next meal.

How does it feel
How does it feel
To be without a home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone?

Jiri

gnosis92

I don't have a problem with the jesus-mythicist view, and i recognize that if you choose not to believe in the credibility of Mark & Q & Paul, then I have no other leg to stand on. Personally I accept what they say. It makes sense to me. But I recognize there are some who don't. I have no incontravertible evidence independent of the NT to substantiate the NT. I am well aware that Josephus Signs Gospel, second century figures like Celsus may provide some substantiation but it is not incontravertible.

I am under the impression that some Jesus mythicist want evidence for Jesus "beyond all reasonable doubt", which clearly does not exist since you can doubt anything, or find reasons to doubt anything, where as for me, the preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence is good enough. The only conceivable way, given the documents we currently have, that the standard of beyond all reasonable doubt could be met would either be new manuscript discoveries such as the nag hammadi library and dead sea scrolls, or new archaelogical discoveries, such as the pool of siloam decribed by GJohn, Pilate inscription, or Caiphaus bone box.

I spoke to Peter Kirby directly a couple of years ago, and then he accepted Jesus historicty, not sure as of right now. He had a website Did Jesus Exist, which disappeared (early christian writings is still up) and if he doesnt persuade you then there is no way I could, as I have not done primary source reading other than NT, some gnostic gospels, and other fragments such as TF. Anyway, if you doubt that Tacitus at least knew what he says, there's no way i could convice he knew at least as much as what he says.
if i say i know that some people following some UFO (honestly don't remember the name) committed suicide so they can be in a UFO behind a comet, by drinking kool aid or something, and if you doubt I know what I say I know , and if I then die, there's no way for me to come back from the grave to show I know at least what I say, if not more. since luke states he is writing a historical narrative, you can of course doubt what he clearly says he is doing, you can doubt what he says is his intention, and that despite what he says he's actually writing historical fiction. i dont have any way to satisfy your doubt. i don't personally see any value in having that kind of doubt when attempting to understand antiquity, but if you feel these doubts help you understand early christian history i'm fine with that.

anyhow elaine pagels wrote beyond belief, and has a chapter comparing thomas with john. for example, she interprets doubting thomas as a rebuke to the thomas community that thomasines are faithless. i have no doubt you doubt her exegesis if you were to read it. to me it makes sense. it makes sense to me that GThomas reference to james the just "for whose sake heaven and earth came into being", paul's reference to james, "the lord's brother", josephus reference to james, the brother of jesus called christ, the NT epistle of James, NT gospel James, and the ebionite claim they are following James, are all refering to a historical James, and probably the same James, "brother of the lord", with clear and convincing evidence, but if you want to doubt you are free to do so.

gnosis92

well i started this thread specifically for thomas discussion. i'm not sure what you said about this particular saying elsewhere but if you provide me a link i'll b happy to follow it read it and comment on it.

i think mystic community or mystic communion (he who drinks from my mouth shall be as i am) would work.

yes i mean that the infant 7 days old represents creation in genesis 7 days old, so god is in effect asking his own creation for wisdom and finds wisdom in his own act of creating and pronouncing what is holy.

i interpret be-passersby in the context of "he who has known the world has known a corpse. the world is not worthy of he who has known the world. and blessed are the solitary and the elect for they shall discover the kingdom from whence they came and which they return"

that if you are a gnosis-mystic, you know this material world is not the ultimate reality, so during the time you are in this material world, you pass by making observation, taking note, until you reach your journey which is the return to hte living father.

in other words, let's say you have an interview for an important job. on your way to the job, you see all kinds of spectacles from crashed cars to vendors hawking their wares. you pass-by them, taking note, until you reach your destination.

GT(23) I shall choose you, one of a thousand, and two of ten thousand, and hey shall stand as a single one

i interpret in the same way---it could be 1+2 =3 "as a single one" three as some kind of thinking on the trintiy. GT23 is similar to Gjohn says "you did not choose me but i chose you to go and bear fruit fruit that will last"

y do u think jesus says here "i choose you" and rather than "you choose me"? don't we choose the living jesus, rather than the other way around?

Doug Shaver

I suppose there are some who do, but since I have given no hint that I think that way, why even mention it?

Not me. There are many things I cannot possibly doubt.

My evaluation of any writer's credibility is not a matter of choice. I will believe him or not according to what I know or think I know about him. Because of the relevant evidence, I find Paul credible in some areas and not others, I find Mark not at all credible, and I have no opinion on Q because that document does not exist so far as anyone knows.

I have heard of the Signs Gospel but am otherwise unfamiliar with it. I'm pretty sure, though, that Josephus didn't write it.

The value is not in the doubt. The value is in the critical thinking that engenders the doubt.

I believe that in the Christian community in Jerusalem around the middle of the first century CE, one of the leaders was a man named James. I believe he might not have been one of a group of men referred to as "brothers of the lord" for reasons no longer ascertainable. I do not believe that Josephus himself referred to that man as "brother of Jesus called Christ."

Whether I doubt has nothing to do with what I want.

Solo

I think, the "I choose you" has to do with "election", ("I give my mysteries to those worthy of my mysteries") no doubt a great source of pride and spiritual mana for the gnostics.

Of course, he reveals himself to those who "seek" (GT 2).

Jiri

guy_683930

This verse you are referring to (GOT verse 114) as being sexist (verse 113 is not accused of being so, it's pantheistic) is about as sexist as in Paul's writings about the head of every man being Christ and the head of the woman being the man (1 Corinthians 11:3), so perhaps Paul knew of teachings similar to GOT.


-Guy

gnosis92

lee strobel and that "expert" he was interviewing makes no mentnion of paul nor of the canaanite woman referred to as a dog but "a woman makes herself manly enters the kingdom" prove GOT is a fake

gnosis92

i did not put a comma between josepheus and signs gospel, but no josepheus did not write the signs gospel. signs gospel

if you can provide evidence that mark is unreliable historically, (and matthew and luke probably did regard mark to be reliable historically, and are believed to have written their own respective gospels 10-20 years after the fact) then that would be strong evidence for jesus mythicist hypothesis. i decided to list this as a seperate post.

Doug Shaver

I will do that, just as soon as you show me one undisputed fact that implies its reliability.

Where do you find, in Matthew or Luke, any expression of the author's opinion about Mark?

gnosis92

mark states pontious pilate, john the baptist, and caiaphas were person of history and contemporary to jesus (and one another).

paul spoke of jesus "on the night he was betrayed" and mark identifies judas as the one who betrayed jesus (i am fully congizant that you can argue mark was dependent on paul, or since paul did not identify jesus' betrayer by name, we cannot be certain paul is speaking of the same person as mark, namely judas. however, paul was speaking "of the night he was betrayed" as instituting the last supper, and mark describes jesus betrayal prior to his arrest, so it is highly probable they are speaking of the same event) paul also said he met cephas and james in person, and mark writes of peter and james as jesus desciples as does the thomas gospel and john's.

luke does not say "my name is luke, and i am writing this to a guy named theophilus about the historical accuracy of what has happened, and i have here this gospel, called mark's gospel, and you see i think it's a trusted historically verified source of history on jesus, as i live just 10 years after it was written. there's this oral tradition which is still alive, which verifies mark so i can substantiate marks account with an independent oral tradition."


however, luke 1:1 implies he utilized other sources, which we know mark is one of them, he states his purpose to theophilus is to provide an accurate history of events about jesus and the early christian movement, and the fact he used mark as one of his unnamed sources implies he trusted it as a historical source, and luke wrote probably 10-20 years after mark was written.

it remains unclear whether luke knew of john, but if he did know of john, and rejected it as a source, the fact he incorporates mark & Q, but not john, implies he had some way of accepting mark and Q as accurate but not john. some thomas like sayings are in luke too.

if mark and thomas were written independently of one another, several statements in thomas and mark overlap, representing independent attestation from independent sources.