Would Jesus be considered a zombie upon rising from the dead

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live

Would Jesus be considered a zombie upon rising from the dead?

Total votes: 45

Posts: 14662
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:22 pm

Post by Angstrom » Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:06 pm

Homebelly wrote: The Apocrypha are a group of texts that lie out side the cannon for any number of reasons. One of those reasons might be that the text contains overt gnostic imagery that is linked to gnostic philosophy.
In this regard the gospel of Thomas is absolutely a gnostic text.
The earlier quote in this thread about the Sophia and the King of Kings is about as gnostic as it gets.
in the case of the 'Sophia of Jesus Christ" this is certainly the case and that is considered a particularly way-out Gnostic text. I only quoted that because it illustrates how wild the early church was.

In the case of the "Gospel of Thomas" you can call it Gnostic, but for the modern church that is used to effectively label something as 'not worth reading' or 'heretical.
'Gnostic' is such a broad classification, it encompasses everything that wasn't the Roman/Pauline top-down (accepted) view. "Thomas" is only slightly different from the canonical texts, and in the differences it is not overly Gnostic in fact it is often considered to predate the canonical versions
Stevan L. Davies provides statistical evidence that the lack of order with the synoptics shows that Thomas was most likely not reliant upon the canonical Gospels and probably predated them.[12] A number of authors argue that when the logia in Thomas do have parallels in the synoptics the version in Thomas often seems closer to the source. Theissen and Merz give sayings 31 and 65 as examples of this.[11] Similary Earl Doherty argues that when the Gospel of Thomas does parallel Q or the New Testament, it shows a less developed, more "primitive" or "original" form than the latter.
That it is interpreted as 'Gnostic' says a lot about the modern church and how the non-canonical texts need to be categorised.

My core point is - although Paul made his version much more state oriented and the Jewish based model is much more weird and anti-state ... unifying all the non-roman texts under the label of 'Gnostic' and then marking them as 'Heretical' is simply an accident of history. The power of the Roman empire and various Synods took their canonical texts and massaged them to prove various points.

Although Thomas was left out of canon, this also saved it from centuries of editing by politically minded Bishops. This means that firstly it shows how some gospels may have read before they got edited, secondly it shows what got edited out.

Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:23 pm

Post by craftycurate » Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:00 am

Angstrom wrote:
craftycurate wrote: I think the original comment was about first century Gnosticism, which as you say was very broad, but each strand of it did emphasize secret knowledge, rituals and practices, by which one could attain to spiritual enlightenment.
I'll repeat again.

Gospel of Thomas is not a Gnostic text, it is part of the 'Apocrypha'
I assume you have actually read the Gospel of Thomas? try it you might like it.
It's very Christian.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Polebrid ... homas.html
Then let me repeat again too - the Gospel of Thomas is clearly a Gnostic text, in one definition of the word, but not in the sense you mean. The very first line are classic indicators of a "Gnostic" text - they read:
These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded. 1 And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." (emphasis mine)
But there is scholarly confusion over the definition of "Gnostic" and that's where we're disagreeing.

If we mean by Gnostic the belief that people have a divine capacity within themselves and that they can come to understand that the Kingdom of God is already upon the earth if they can come to perceive the world that way then Thomas is Gnostic.

But if you mean Gnostic in the more particular sense i.e. the religion upon which the Nag Hammadi Coptic texts of the 1945 discovery are based, a religion that differentiates the god of this world (who is the Jewish god) from a higher more abstract God, a religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil physical body then no, Thomas is not Gnostic.

So if the scholars can't agree, what hope is there for us :wink:

As for them being Christian ... examining the specific 114 sayings in the GofT reveals a strange mixture of sources, some sound like the teaching of Jesus in the canonical Gospels, but some more akin to Greek dualistic ideas of matter\spirit which were quite at odds with Jesus' teachings.

And the GofT does not appear in the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, which consists of 1 Esdras, 1,2,3 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Baruch, Epistle of Jeremy, Prayer of Manasses, Additions to Daniel, Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Additions to Esther.

Back to Ableton for me I think :wink:
Core i7 2.3GHz|Win7x64|8GB|1.5TB & Core 2 Duo T7200, XP Pro SP3,
Nio 2|4, Edirol PCR800, NanoKontrol , Komplete Synths + Reaktor 5, Cameleon, Alchemy, FabFilter 2 suite
http://www.myspace.com/richardlyallmusic http://craftycurate.blogs.com

Posts: 4094
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:50 am

Post by fishmonkey » Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:47 am

aahhh, ya gotta love these scholarly skirmishes...

in the end it's pretty clear that the powers that be and wanna be always seek to control and "refine" thinking and ideas... we are surrounded by it 24/7...

to me it comes down to being open and checking out as much stuff as possible, and finding out for yourself what washes and what doesn't... and also understanding that your own opinion and experience will (hopefully) evolve over time...

btw, i think the Gospel of Thomas is great... obviously it's far more radical than conventional Christian theology these days, and unfortunately most Christianity these days is all about providing simple rules for people who are struggling with an increasingly complex and bewildering world...

fundamentalism (of any kind) is one of the most predictable and saddest predilections of the human race...

Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:28 am

Post by misteron » Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:58 am

liveISlife wrote:Would Jesus be considered a zombie upon rising from the dead?

Posts: 1012
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 7:11 pm
Location: PDX

Post by continuous » Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:25 am


Posts: 4336
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: la

Post by knotkranky » Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:46 pm

would jesus be considered a zombie after the resurrection thingy?
Only if you didn't know what a zombie was.


Posts: 2838
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by pulsoc » Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:46 pm

knotkranky wrote:
would jesus be considered a zombie after the resurrection thingy?
Only if you didn't know what a zombie was.

'"Zombi" is also another name of the Voodoo snake god Damballah Wedo, of Niger-Congo origin; it is akin to the Kongo word nzambi, which means "god".'


Posts: 645
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:16 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Post by rasputin » Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:57 pm

Homebelly wrote:Baring in mind the time of the year and the nature of this thread,,
forge wrote: christ you're up early
Is that a stab at Irony?

:wink: :lol:
I think you nailed it.

/ho ho ho
Live 9.1 <> occasionally Reason 4.0.1 <> Reaper.latest! <> Windows 7 on a bespoke Intel Q6600 <> ASUS P5E <> 8GB RAM, M-Audio Delta 2496 and that's it.

Posts: 17422
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:47 am
Location: Queensland, AU

Post by forge » Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:09 am

rasputin wrote:
Homebelly wrote:Baring in mind the time of the year and the nature of this thread,,
forge wrote: christ you're up early
Is that a stab at Irony?

:wink: :lol:
I think you nailed it.

/ho ho ho
he he....atually it was a bit of double entendre as well ..... knowing that he was in NZ and the time it was here I realised that indeed he was up early.

Post Reply