• @MossyHabitat
    link
    English
    26 months ago

    Would you be willing to provide more info regarding the sect you’re referencing, for instance the name? I have a fascination with “original” gnostic/apocryphal beliefs, but this one is extremely intriguing & I want to learn more.

    • @kromem
      link
      English
      26 months ago

      You probably already know about it, you might just not know that you know about it.

      The core of the Gospel of Thomas is pretty clearly a response to Lucretius which then used Platonist concepts of the demiurge and eikons (essentially archetypes) to build on top of the Epicurean foundations regarding a belief in a physical body that would die and a mind/soul that would die with it.

      You can see how the Naassenes by the 4th century are still interpreting the seeds parables using the language of Lucretius’s indivisible seeds (writing in Latin he used ‘seed’ in place of the Greek atomos), while at the same time talking about the original man creating the son of man and then likening their ontological beliefs to the Phrygian mysteries around spontaneous first beings described as coming to exist like a tumor.

      Saying 29 of Thomas even straight up calls the notion of the spirit arising from flesh (Lucretius’s evolution) to be a greater wonder than flesh arising from spirit (intelligent design) before criticizing the notion of the dependence of the spirit on the physical body in either.

      If you want to look into this more, I recommend reading the following texts in parallel with each other:

      • Lucretius, De Rerum Natura (50 BCE)
      • Unknown, Gospel of Thomas (~50 to ~350 CE)
      • Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutations of all Heresies book 5 (3rd century CE)

      Adding Lucretius into the mix as you look at the other two works will be the biggest “ah ha” you could probably have when interpreting Thomas and remnant beliefs preserved among the Naassenes. In particular, pay close attention to sayings 7, 8, 9 for a surprise, noting that 8 is the only saying after another beginning with a conjunction and that in both the parallel metaphors of Habakkuk 1 and Matthew 13 a human is a fish and not the fisherman.

      • @MossyHabitat
        link
        English
        26 months ago

        If this was Reddit I’d give an award or whatever they push now. Amazing, thank you.