The Gospel of St Thomas (Christ's own Gospel?)

[Melancholia]

Those of you who have seen the movie Stigmata will have an idea of what it is i am talking about. The gospel of St Thomas was discovered in Egypt in 1946. This gospel is beleived by the majority of bible scholars to be the words of Jesus Christ himself scribed by Didymos Judas Thomas.

Three issues i would like people to address when discussing this firstly.

1) The validity of the scrolls, do you believe this to be Christ's Gospel.
2) The impact this scroll has upon the structure of the Church, More specifically the following extract " Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
3) Whether or not you feel this specific scripture has a place in the teaching of christianity?


I personally do believe these scrolls are the words of Christ, historcal evidence places the age of these scrolls at just over 2000 years and was written in a Aramaic.

These Scrolls Would have a very negative impact upon the Christian Churches in our world, otherwise the Vatican would not have gone to such lengths to have then discarded and regarded openly as "heresy"

Finally I am very undecided as to whether or not they have a place. They are the words of christ however some of the ideas that come though within the scroll are VERY controversial ones most notably...

114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven

Most interested in what you have to say....

[Melancholia]

Seriously no views anyone?

[subterranean]

Hey,

Maybe you can posted a link to this text, as perhaps there aren't many peeps around here who ever read/heard about it (including me)?

[Melancholia]

Sure not a problem....

Here is one link

spiritual.com.au/articles/theosophy/gospel_stthomas.htm

[greenburke]

The gospel of Thomas is one the collective Gnostic Gospels.

In 1945, group of ancient documents dating from approximately A.D. 350, predominantly Gnostic in character, were discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt (Note 1)

Among these documents were the so-called 'Gnostic Gospels': the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of the Egyptians, and the Gospel of Truth.

Even what is probably the earliest gnostic document, the Gospel of Thomas, seems to have come from a period after the New Testament books were already recognized as authoritative and widely circulated.
The Gospel of Thomas Portrays a Second-Century Gnosticism. The Gospel of Thomas is influenced by the kind of Gnosticism prevalent in the second century. For instance, it puts into the mouth of Jesus these unlikely and demeaning words: "Every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

The simpler sparse phrases found in the gospel of thomas depend on the four original gospels.

A one-sentence description of Gnosticism: a religion that differentiates the evil god of this world (who is identified with the god of the Old Testament) from a higher more abstract God revealed by Jesus Christ, 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, a religion that preaches a hidden wisdom or knowledge only to a select group as necessary for salvation or escape from this world.

Gnostics were not Christians, their views and "gospels" differ much from the Bible.

[kaka]

I'm completely bewildered by the statement in the first post to the effect that

>>>>> This gospel is believed by the majority of bible scholars to be the words of Jesus Christ himself scribed by Didymos Judas Thomas. <<<<<

My own impression has always been that, to say the least, the "Gospel" of St Thomas is seen as fraught with problems. As far as I'm aware there's no mention of the Resurrection anywhere in it, for example. I honestly don't think it enjoys the kind of status suggested in the first post.

Edited to add this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

[Diadem]

....................

[emily655321]

I had never heard of the Gospel of Thomas as being the words of Jesus, any more than are the other gospels. The Gnostics were a highly fundamentalist sect of early Christians—even in the very beginning, ideas on which way was the "right way" differed widely. What are today commonly known as the Gnostic Gospels are just the latest in a series of discoveries of ancient scrolls not included in the New Testament by the Bishop Jerome of Dalmatia (340-420 C.E.), and are only connected to the Gnostics because they continued to use them in their worship after other Christian sects had discarded them in favor of those with which we are more familiar today. The Gnostics did not write the Gnostic gospels, just to be clear. The four gospels in the New Testament, along with its other books, were just a few of dozens if not hundreds of Christian writings which circulated in the early years of the religion. Other lost manuscripts include those in the Apocrypha, the Christian Apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the writings of the Church Fathers. None of the writings predated the death of Jesus—in fact, historical evidence suggests that none of the authors can be said to have known Jesus personally. There is also one historian's insight on the reading of Christian texts from a modern perspective:

...Caution is called for in examining first century Christian literature. This caution is made necessary by the fact that during this era, it was not considered wrong to write your own material and ascribe it to someone else, someone you consider your philosophical mentor, in whose name and style you are writing. Indeed, not only was this a common practice, but it was actually a skill taught in the schools of the day. This practice has made modern scholarship enormously difficult in dealing with who actually wrote the New Testament books and when.

bidstrup.com/bible.htm
This is taken from an absolutely fascinating essay that I would urge everyone to read without prejudice. It attempts (quite successfully) to piece together the historical facts of the stories in the Bible and of the historical figures and events involved in the formation of the Judeo-Christian religions and canons (orthodox texts).

Since many of the historical facts do not uphold standard Christian teaching of the history, I sadly expect some Christian readers to disregard it entirely, if not label it secular propaganda. Especially due to the author's unfortunate indulgence in voicing his personal atheistic opinions throughout. But the facts themselves are there, so I'm still posting the link in the hope that you'll give it a read, if only for the sake of intellectual curiosity. Especially history geeks! :D (I'm raving about it, because it's just so awesome to see all the facts laid out and all the names and dates and movements to which you don't commonly find access. You can dismiss it when you read it if you want, but please read it, because I think it's really cool. Geek rant over.)

[kaka]

Emily, you say the gnostics were "fundamentalist". In what sense?

[emily655321]

I suppose they couldn't have been "fundamentalist," could they, since there was no Bible in existence to interpret literally (that being the definition of "fundamentalist")? :p Well, I'm afraid it was a slip of the tongue; what I meant to say was "extremist," and I'm used to hearing the two words used interchangeably. Please pardon my mistake.

The sense in which I meant "extremist" was that they believed all earthly things to be inherently evil, because they believed Jaweh, the creator god of the earth, to have been evil (and, incidentally, the snake in the Garden of Eden they believed to have been a liberator and symbol for good). They believed Jesus was sent from the "good" God, who was remote from earthly things and did not communicate with mankind. They believed the only way to liberate their souls from the evil of the physical world was to mistreat and torture their own bodies to show that they were against it. Which is, by my standards, pretty extreme.

Thank you, kaka, for pointing out my error. I didn't mean to cause confusion.

[kaka]

Thanks for your reply, Emily. I always think of "fundamentalism" as a specific movement that first arose about one hundred years ago - a movement that went far beyond simply 'interpreting the scriptures literally'. There was a wider agenda ... People who interpret scripture literally have been around for some centuries; fundamentalism is much more recent.

[greenburke]

the gnostic gospels weren't written in the first century.

[Diadem]

Actually, many believe that Gnostic Christianity pre-dated Orthodox Christianity.

And, the comment about "extremist" is rather absurd and biased.

[Mililalil XXIV]

I'm completely bewildered by the statement in the first post to the effect that

>>>>> This gospel is believed by the majority of bible scholars to be the words of Jesus Christ himself scribed by Didymos Judas Thomas. <<<<<

My own impression has always been that, to say the least, the "Gospel" of St Thomas is seen as fraught with problems. As far as I'm aware there's no mention of the Resurrection anywhere in it, for example. I honestly don't think it enjoys the kind of status suggested in the first post.

Edited to add this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas
That is true. Besides those at the falsely so-called "Jesus Seminar", the only other "scholars" I have seen to say the "Gosp of Th." are the seminar's fans.

[Nymo]

This gospel is beleived by the majority of bible scholars to be the words of Jesus Christ himself scribed by Didymos Judas Thomas.

I personally do believe these scrolls are the words of Christ, historcal evidence places the age of these scrolls at just over 2000 years and was written in a Aramaic.

They are the words of christ however some of the ideas that come though within the scroll are VERY controversial ones most notably...

I often see myself in others. I often see I am confused and I often do not see what is in front of my eyes.

spiritual.com.au/articles/theosophy/gospel_stthomas.htm

“The Gospel of St Thomas” If the meaning of this title was to be more accurate it would read, “The Gospel According to St Thomas” My other self hears the ideas which Christ reveals in St Thomas’s words, yet perhaps he ought to consider the interpretation of others that separates the accuracy. Even the links that are provided only lead to others who believe they have their own gospel.

I love my other self as I love myself become in him I see whom loves us all. Go to him my other self for understanding; not to others who are merely interpreters of their own gospel.

[XXdarkclarityXX]

Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven." :eek:

Wow. Now, what I hope this means is that since men were better than women in Jesus' time that Jesus meant he was going to make Mary better, hence "making him a man". If that's NOT it, then it's just another reason why Christianity is screwed up. I don't care if this book got canonized or not, it's still a Gospel.

[Cephas]

:eek:

Wow. Now, what I hope this means is that since men were better than women in Jesus' time that Jesus meant he was going to make Mary better, hence "making him a man". If that's NOT it, then it's just another reason why Christianity is screwed up. I don't care if this book got canonized or not, it's still a Gospel.

Did you ever hear that to read the bible you must not take it litterally, there can be many interpretations. And if women were not considered equal to men in that time so what? Did God choose it to be so? No The peopel chose it, just liek they are choosing not to follwo God's will today. And he says he would make her a man, meaning more in the way of knowledge becaus ewomen were not given a proper education, you should review the facts before sending up accusations

[Whifflingpin]

"I don't care if this book got canonized or not, it's still a Gospel."

No it's not.

1) The fact that it has not been accepted into the canon of Christian scriptures shows that Christians in general do not accept the opinions expressed in it, so whatever it says cannot tell you anything about Christianity.

2) More technically, assuming that Kaka was correct in saying that there is no reference to the Resurrection, it is not a Gospel, because the good news ("god spel" in Anglo Saxon) is the news of the Resurrection.

[Mililalil XXIV]

:eek:

Wow. Now, what I hope this means is that since men were better than women in Jesus' time that Jesus meant he was going to make Mary better, hence "making him a man". If that's NOT it, then it's just another reason why Christianity is screwed up. I don't care if this book got canonized or not, it's still a Gospel.
Someone earlier in this thread mentioned the idea of the Vatican hushing the matter of this writing. There was also a comment to the effect that there must have been some reason why it was rejected so early on. The fact is that it was not considered to belong to the Catholic Christian Religion - or why is not the Talmud in the New Testament?
The word "Catholic" was from the beginning used to speak of what Christians every where held universally in common - so, when a novelty was invented, it was always conspicuously innovated in a corner, broken off from the Catholic Community in a limited sphere. For this reason, because the consensus everywhere was at odds with a heresy confined in origin and area to one newly developed sect, the word "Catholic", meaning that which unified all, or "Universal", came to be an important term to the Church.
Here is a good example in another context:
a Jones family comes to America from Wales; all of them remember who the members of the family that came to America were, and share certain family traditions; suddenly on teen leaves the family, but keeps their name, and disowns all the past - but the uniformity of all his relatives through many states, in Wales, and in other lands some of them have branched out to makes his peculiarity all the more obviously a modernism.
The movie Stigmata misrepresents not only the transmission of the socalled "Thomas Gospel", but even changes some of the wording of that very writing.

[Mililalil XXIV]

"I don't care if this book got canonized or not, it's still a Gospel."

No it's not.

1) The fact that it has not been accepted into the canon of Christian scriptures shows that Christians in general do not accept the opinions expressed in it, so whatever it says cannot tell you anything about Christianity.

2) More technically, assuming that Kaka was correct in saying that there is no reference to the Resurrection, it is not a Gospel, because the good news ("god spel" in Anglo Saxon) is the news of the Resurrection.
There were doubtless many that took it upon themselves, as Luke said, to publish accurately the Gospel - but there is no record of any Church ever using the Gosp. Th., not even in the case of the ancient St. Thomas Christian community (otherwise at least some shred of the work should have been found among them in over 1900 years - but they have no testimony as to the text to hand down to anyone).

[Theshizznigg]

Man this has got Gnosticism written all over it.

Ahh, gnosticism, a word describing several cults of Christianity, like the Cathar's who believed sex between man and woman was bad, and so encouraged sodomy as a resolution to those do weak willed. Hence our modern word, Bugger, comes from Bugyars, who were Cathars.
Or that Russian cult that believed the only way to purifiy ones souls was to commit dastardly sins first, so they'd have huge orgies then hold mass afterwards.
Gnosticism stands for a group, cult that do not neccessarily believe in the biblical foundations, but their own creeds. Also Gnosticism was originally someone who believed that knowledge and not faith was the way to Christ.

Now that I've got that cleared up, lets get a few thing straight here.
God has been very kind to us, he gave us an innumerable gift called the bible. I do not believe that there are any books in the bible that shouldn't be there, simply by the acts of God.
This is his message he wants to give to you.
So we must be wary of any Christian book outside the bible, that doesn't not adhere to the absolutes of the bible.
We also must be wary of certain religious forms that take precedence over the bible, in importance.
I think Wycliffe said it best, when he wanted a bible that everyman could read, understands, and that he adhered to the ideal that so long as you have faith and a bible, you needn't have church, creed, religion, following, or anything else.

As for the other Christian texts, their are plenty of them.

The Books of Enoch, Noah, Adam, Giants, Caedamons writings, Solomons Psalms, Solomons Proverbs, so on and so forth.
Sacred-text.com is a good site for them.

While I earnestly read these texts, I always remember that if it doesn't match the ideals in the Bible, then I will take the bibles ideals before I take the texts.

War Out.

Shizz

"Oh, Oh, Oh yeah, Oh Yeah, Oh, Oh, Oh, OH!!!!! YEAH!!!!!!!"
- OH Henry announcer practicing in the mirror. (Sick minded Chidlren :lol: )

[paula08]

Those of you who have seen the movie Stigmata will have an idea of what it is i am talking about. The gospel of St Thomas was discovered in Egypt in 1946. This gospel is beleived by the majority of bible scholars to be the words of Jesus Christ himself scribed by Didymos Judas Thomas.

Three issues i would like people to address when discussing this firstly.

1) The validity of the scrolls, do you believe this to be Christ's Gospel.
2) The impact this scroll has upon the structure of the Church, More specifically the following extract " Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
3) Whether or not you feel this specific scripture has a place in the teaching of christianity?


I personally do believe these scrolls are the words of Christ, historcal evidence places the age of these scrolls at just over 2000 years and was written in a Aramaic.

These Scrolls Would have a very negative impact upon the Christian Churches in our world, otherwise the Vatican would not have gone to such lengths to have then discarded and regarded openly as "heresy"

Finally I am very undecided as to whether or not they have a place. They are the words of christ however some of the ideas that come though within the scroll are VERY controversial ones most notably...

114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven

Most interested in what you have to say....



This is just another false gospel attributed to Christ. It is most contrary to the true Gospel which has proven its authenticity by Catholic Church Tradition and the miracles of its canonized saints. This is also the theology of several times condemned Catholic priest Teilhard DeChardin.
Many gospels were written but discarded by the Church before the Bible was completed. Obviously this is one that may have been discarded because it contained heresy and opposes everything Catholic.
The Poem of the Man God is another set of books that contradicts Scripture. As a Catholic I find them demonic because they paint an entirely different and disrespectful picture of Christ.
Two interesting books I've read reccently are The Plot Against the Church by Maurice Pinay (available from Catholic Treasures and The Remnant ), which shows the history of the Catholic Church and its constant fight against the descendants of those who crucified Christ. Another is What Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II by brothers Michael and Peter Dimond. Both are fascinating reading and contain many surprises for those who have eyes to see... Paula

[weepingforloman]

:eek:

Wow. Now, what I hope this means is that since men were better than women in Jesus' time that Jesus meant he was going to make Mary better, hence "making him a man". If that's NOT it, then it's just another reason why Christianity is screwed up. I don't care if this book got canonized or not, it's still a Gospel.

It's a Gospel written by people outside the faith commonly referred to as Christianity, and one rejected by all within that faith. I wouldn't judge the theory of evolution by the most bizarre science fiction I could find, would you?

I read a few of the sayings from that linked site, and most of them are incomprehensible. Others are simply ridiculous. The "one above [heaven] will pass away"? Really?!? God will die? Permanently?!? The very foundation of existence, in His incorporeal, immortal form, will die? That makes sense, right?

[Orionsbelt]

Couple of comments... might help clear up some of the symbolism. The snake, because of the shedding of skin, was often seen in the ancient world a sign of birth/re-birth. Hence the snake brought the gift of birth to eve, the female, in the garden. This idea is still reflected today by the fact symbol of life on the side of an ambulance and in the medical community showing the two inter-twined serpents. Traditionally female then represent birth, nature, material.

The Gnostics saw the physical world, created by a false god, as a bad place. The ideal was to be purely spiritual, this was seen a light, and male. The notion is similar to the Ying/yang in eastern thought. Reference to becoming more male would mean becoming more spiritual. Apologies to contemporary sensibilities. Sophia is also a Gnostic female reference with very positive vibes.

Based on the dates I think the gospel of Thomas may in fact be genuine. It is certainly interesting. Don't forget that the middle east around this time was a boiling mass of philisophical/theological thought. There were a lot of people from all over the world constantly passing though with ideas and customs. In some ways a very cool time to be living.

[weepingforloman]

The dating has little to do with the veracity. The idea of matter being purely evil (which the Gnostics inherited from the Manichees) is utterly nonsensical. God Himself took on flesh, so how can it be evil?

Oh, and it might have been a cool time to be living... if you don't mind starvation, poverty, and a lifespan of thirty years.

[Orionsbelt]

The dating has little to do with the veracity.


I'm glad you feel this way. I was a little worried that I might have gotten things mixed up 2000 years later. :p

[weepingforloman]

I mean that, if I write a book claiming that evolution was caused by the Mystic Moth-god Morek 7 right now, that doesn't mean it is representative of the modern theory of evolution.

[Dark Star]

The sense in which I meant "extremist" was that they believed all earthly things to be inherently evil, because they believed Jaweh, the creator god of the earth, to have been evil (and, incidentally, the snake in the Garden of Eden they believed to have been a liberator and symbol for good). They believed Jesus was sent from the "good" God, who was remote from earthly things and did not communicate with mankind. They believed the only way to liberate their souls from the evil of the physical world was to mistreat and torture their own bodies to show that they were against it. Which is, by my standards, pretty extreme.

This is a complete contradiction of the beliefs of Gnostics that I've met and their explanation of historical Gnostic teachings, so I'd like a source on this.

[Orionsbelt]

Found this link. Lots of info. THE FAQ talks about two schools of thought. One based on .... I'll say a more personal spiritual approach. The other the double god structure of the universe thing.... How's that for a brief summary?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

[Dark Star]

It's a Gospel written by people outside the faith commonly referred to as Christianity, and one rejected by all within that faith. I wouldn't judge the theory of evolution by the most bizarre science fiction I could find, would you?

I read a few of the sayings from that linked site, and most of them are incomprehensible. Others are simply ridiculous. The "one above [heaven] will pass away"? Really?!? God will die? Permanently?!? The very foundation of existence, in His incorporeal, immortal form, will die? That makes sense, right?

And by contrast, a person that knows nothing about Gnosticism would ask a Gnostic about the meanings of the metaphors in that Gospel rather than simply making assumptions about them such as it means 'God will die' since they probably have an explanation for this sort of thing. If one is reading a Qur'an people always insist that you find something by (or speak to) an Islamic scholar about it to help clarify the things you don't understand rather than making base assumptions; the same applies to reading the Bible from the point of view from an outsider and I fail to see why it would not apply to a Gnostic gospel.

[weepingforloman]

My point is that Gnosticism is incompatible with Christianity. It may make sense in their framework, but not in ours.

[Granny5]

I am a Christian but I am not Catholic so I'm not limited to what the Vatican thinks is "gospel" or not. I received the Gospel of Thomas for my birthdday last year and have read it, though not studied it. What I got from reading it one time was that we should look inside ourself for God. That God lived in us all and it was up to us to find that part of ourselves. I have no need to pick each line of this or any gospel apart like some do the Bible. I read both and learn whatever I can from them. It's my own personal interpetations that matter to me and my God.

[weepingforloman]

OK, I'm not Catholic either. But most established churches (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) reject the Gnostic Gospels.

You and "your God?" If you have a God that is only yours, then it is not a God, but rather a construct you yourself have made. God is real, God is external. God has a defined reality. You cannot make God, you can only find Him (or rather, let Him find you).

[Granny5]

OK, I'm not Catholic either. But most established churches (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) reject the Gnostic Gospels.

You and "your God?" If you have a God that is only yours, then it is not a God, but rather a construct you yourself have made. God is real, God is external. God has a defined reality. You cannot make God, you can only find Him (or rather, let Him find you).

to each his/her own. God is mine if I so choose. It's only a discussion.
May the Peace of the Lord be with you.

[weepingforloman]

The same to you of course.

But I disagree wholeheartedly with you on your first line.

[Granny5]

The same to you of course.

But I disagree wholeheartedly with you on your first line.

Thank goodness we all have free will or we'd all think alike. Wouldn't that be a bore. I am a member of the Episcopal Church and we are encouraged to keep searching and learning and growing.

[PrinceMyshkin]

OK, I'm not Catholic either. But most established churches (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) reject the Gnostic Gospels.

You and "your God?" If you have a God that is only yours, then it is not a God, but rather a construct you yourself have made. God is real, God is external. God has a defined reality. You cannot make God, you can only find Him (or rather, let Him find you).

Your use of "established" is more apt perhaps than you think, since every established church is like every other established institution, in that it has its "mission," its vested interest, its concern to out-succeed the competition.

And I submit that you have it backwards when you write "If you have a God that is only yours, then it is not a God, but rather a construct you yourself have made." It might equally or better be said that If you have a God that is anything but yours and yours alone, then it is probably not a God, but rather a pastiche of all the God-concepts you were taught by your parents, your peers, the theologians you read.

Insofar as you are unique, it is inconceivable that your God would coincide exactly with that of anyone else, not least the necessarily generalized 'God' of every or any church.

[weepingforloman]

Let's step outside of personal prejudices and philosophies for a moment. (And I use the term prejudice for its denotation, not its connotation).

If there is a God who is like what is generally considered a God (i.e. eternal, omnipotent, the creator of the world, super-uber-duper-intelligent), that God would have very definite reality. After all, humans are real and if they have a creator, such a being would be at least as real, if not realer. Therefore, what each human imagines God to be is not what God is... Rather like the situation that would arise if I made the claim that you were a cheese connoisseur, a five hundred pound behemoth, and a teetotal based on nothing but my personal wish for you to be so.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Let's step outside of personal prejudices and philosophies for a moment. (And I use the term prejudice for its denotation, not its connotation).

If there is a God who is like what is generally considered a God (i.e. eternal, omnipotent, the creator of the world, super-uber-duper-intelligent), that God would have very definite reality. After all, humans are real and if they have a creator, such a being would be at least as real, if not realer. Therefore, what each human imagines God to be is not what God is... Rather like the situation that would arise if I made the claim that you were a cheese connoisseur, a five hundred pound behemoth, and a teetotal based on nothing but my personal wish for you to be so.

"If" is the only word in this account that has relevance. If all that follows it here has any basis in reality then indeed you are right.

By the way, I checked out the link you have been promoting. Have you looked at the article I proposed to you?

[Granny5]

Let's step outside of personal prejudices and philosophies for a moment. (And I use the term prejudice for its denotation, not its connotation).

If there is a God who is like what is generally considered a God (i.e. eternal, omnipotent, the creator of the world, super-uber-duper-intelligent), that God would have very definite reality. After all, humans are real and if they have a creator, such a being would be at least as real, if not realer. Therefore, what each human imagines God to be is not what God is... Rather like the situation that would arise if I made the claim that you were a cheese connoisseur, a five hundred pound behemoth, and a teetotal based on nothing but my personal wish for you to be so.

Are you a physic? I know a lot about cheese, have a very serious weight problem and drink only tea.

If someone knows exactly what I believe God to be, exactly what is in my heart, then that someone may say I am wrong. Otherwise, why would one automatically decide I am wrong based on two or three sentences? Doesn't the Bible say something about calling someone a fool putting one in danger of hell? (Matthew 5:22 KJV)

[PrinceMyshkin]

My point is that Gnosticism is incompatible with Christianity. It may make sense in their framework, but not in ours.

Indeed Christianity may not fit in your framework, by whatever name you call it: The Pauline Church, perhaps?

As Karl Marx said about his self-styled followers: "Moi, je ne suis pas marxist!"

The little that is known of the historical Jesus the Notzri differs substantially from the elaborations, additions, emendations, the pummeling, massaging and politically motivated compromises that his teachings have been subjected to over the years.

Believe as you wish, but judge not that you be not judged.

[weepingforloman]

Are you a physic? I know a lot about cheese, have a very serious weight problem and drink only tea.

If someone knows exactly what I believe God to be, exactly what is in my heart, then that someone may say I am wrong. Otherwise, why would one automatically decide I am wrong based on two or three sentences? Doesn't the Bible say something about calling someone a fool putting one in danger of hell? (Matthew 5:22 KJV)
I don't know what you think of God, of course. But I think, in the abstract, the use of the term "my God" is dangerous. Obviously I lack the information necessary to know whether or not I agree with your understanding of God. But I believe that both of us are doubtless missing most of what God is.


Indeed Christianity may not fit in your framework, by whatever name you call it: The Pauline Church, perhaps?

As Karl Marx said about his self-styled followers: "Moi, je ne suis pas marxist!"

The little that is known of the historical Jesus the Notzri differs substantially from the elaborations, additions, emendations, the pummeling, massaging and politically motivated compromises that his teachings have been subjected to over the years.

Believe as you wish, but judge not that you be not judged.
I believe that you may misuse that phrase. Judge not people, judge not subjectively, but objective judgments on beliefs and on specific actions must be made. I am permitted to tell you, if you commit murder, that what you have done is wrong, I am not permitted to tell you that, as a consequence of your murder, you are therefore condemned utterly, or that you are therefore the worst human being alive. I trust you see the difference, you seem quite intelligent.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I believe that you may misuse that phrase. Judge not people, judge not subjectively, but objective judgments on beliefs and on specific actions must be made. I am permitted to tell you, if you commit murder, that what you have done is wrong, I am not permitted to tell you that, as a consequence of your murder, you are therefore condemned utterly, or that you are therefore the worst human being alive. I trust you see the difference, you seem quite intelligent.

The only difference I see is that you may have an annotated copy of the scriptures while in the copy I have it says, plainly, "Judge not that ye be not judged." Of course we are free to imagine that at the foot of the mount a county fair was in progess where the annual chilli competition was being held, and Jesus was advising people not to judge any one chilli superior to another, but you'd probably agree with me that that's improbable.

Although virtually each of you elicits the personalized Jesus that best suits you, I think it behooves one to take the plain surface of the words first before we begin to see beneath or behind them. It means judge not others; judge not their hearts, their souls, their core beliefs,

[weepingforloman]

I believe that you are reading in yourself: judge not their core beliefs? Christ Himself repeatedly said "O unbelieving generation!" "O wicked generation!" He called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers." Christ was not a unitarian. Judge not their hearts/souls, that's what I said. Like I said, we do not judge people, only actions and beliefs (i.e., if I am a Christian, I must judge other faiths to be wrong-- I don't care if you disagree, that's how Christianity works).

[earthboar]

I really hate responding to posts 4 or 5 pages out, knowing nobody has the patience these days to read more than the first couple of pages. But, here goes. The best exegesis I have read on the Gospel of Thomas, written supposedly by Thomas Didymus (Thomas the Twin, Jesus' twin?) is by Elaine Pagels, in a book called "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas".

As with all her books, Pagels is unconventional and interesting. The Gospel of Thomas is exactly 114 sayings of Jesus. They are believed to be possibly the oldest, most authentic words of Jesus. The other canonical gospels are narratives told third-hand by other people (the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John probably didn't really write the books we now know by those names, nor did Thomas Didymus, in all likelihood, write the Gospel of Thomas...but, who knows? No one alive today!). The Gospel of Thomas, quite distinctly, are sayings, kind of like the sayings in the Tao Te Ching, or the proverbs of Confucius.

They are worth the read.

By the way, I notice the distinct hegemony of an "us" and "them" in some of these posts. Gnosticism is precisely what Jesus taught, being one himself. To all the Gnostics out there who also call themselves Christian, do so joyfully, for you are the lucky ones who get it.

Another book that makes the Gnostic gospels accessible in common language is Marvin Meyers' "The Secret Teachings of Jesus". That book also includes a copy of the Gospel of Thomas, and gives an understandable cosmology of creation according to the Greek-Coptic Gnostic Christians.

And, yes, Christian Gnostics were Christian. There were many forms of Gnosticism. There were Jewish Gnostics, Zoroastrian and Persian Gnostics, Manicheans, Valentianians, Sethians and some others. The roots of Gnosticism go back to the earliest biblical traditions, and even occur outside of the Judeo culture. Gnosticism did not arise after Jesus, but rather, Jesus' ministry developed under the already existing influence of Gnostic thought. So, to say that Gnosticism is somehow incompatible or mutually exclusive of being a Christian is not an honest evaluation of Christianity or Gnosticism.

Also, where this question of judgment is concerned, it is a fact there are very judgmental Christians who have a low tolerance for difference of theology, and there are Christians who accept variations in belief without judgment. It is a matter of interpretation of notoriously ambiguous scripture and doctrine--all of which were written and re-written by mere people. Someone else's judgment that I may not be a Christian is simply that person's opinion, and nothing to lose sleep over. Even where large groups of people share an opinion and become obnoxiously expressive, it is a well-known fact that whole populations can be wrong about something they perceive as "truth". If this forum were properly moderated in accordance with the rules of the opening thread, then this should not be an issue here.

[Redzeppelin]

1. The calling a "fool" remark from the Gospels doesn't carry the proper intensity for our time period. The nearest equivalent in today's language for the original language would be "stupid b-----d" or "f------g jerk" (The Divine Conspiracy, Dallas Willard, p.154). A bit different than calling someone foolish, don't you think?

2. You may make Jesus/God into whatever shape you like - provided that the "personal" vision of Him coincides with what scripture tells us of Him. Anything else creates a non-God - an entity of our own creation which really is simply ourselves as God.

3. The "judge not" comment is relentlessly misused; "judge" in this usage refers to judgment in terms of eternal damnation. We're allowed to judge behavior and evaluate choices/actions here on earth (provided we've removed that 2x4 before commenting on your "speck"); we're just not allowed to decide who goes to hell (a good thing! :D ).

[earthboar]

1. The calling a "fool" remark from the Gospels doesn't carry the proper intensity for our time period. The nearest equivalent in today's language for the original language would be "stupid b-----d" or "f------g jerk" (The Divine Conspiracy, Dallas Willard, p.154). A bit different than calling someone foolish, don't you think?Some of us are of the opinion (myself being one) that the word fool works as it should in the context in which it was written. Not everybody speaks in such profane, brutish colloquial expressions. If the scriptures were to be written in the decadent language of "Naked Lunch," for instance, it is likely they would be more widely read in certain circles and completely abandoned by most.


2. You may make Jesus/God into whatever shape you like - provided that the "personal" vision of Him coincides with what scripture tells us of Him. Anything else creates a non-God - an entity of our own creation which really is simply ourselves as God.Who says? Always ask this question, as it leads to liberation from conformity to man's will, rather than God's will. And, what scriptures are we talking about? The original topic is the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gnostic Gospels are a sub-topic. In the context of the original post, the scriptures we are talking about do not appear in the popular canon. That does not mean, however, they are not considered by some, myself included, of being less divinely inspired. To those who read them, we simply consider many, many gospels and revealed texts to have been left out by mistake and human error.


3. The "judge not" comment is relentlessly misused; "judge" in this usage refers to judgment in terms of eternal damnation. We're allowed to judge behavior and evaluate choices/actions here on earth (provided we've removed that 2x4 before commenting on your "speck"); we're just not allowed to decide who goes to hell (a good thing! :D ).It has been said that religion was invented to allow men to exercise their bigotry. Eternal damnation in regard to Gnostic theology (in keeping with the original topic) means returning to earth time and time again, because of personal attachment, a need for power,wealth, SUVs, the trophy wife, upwardly mobile social status, job promotion, whatever motivates you to remain here. Freedom is the release of the spirit to the original paradise from which the spirit came. The Gnostics generally saw humankind as being made of two parts. First, there was the body, formed by the Demiurge, Yaldabaoth. Then, the holy spirit was breathed into the body. In effect, humans are bound to the material world, a world created by a child-like god, who was not evil, but subject to temper tantrums. The objective is to be released from enslavement by Yaldabaoth's hypnotic spell, but most will not be released any time soon. A proper balance of respect to the heavenly father and the demiurge would be that life is something like a trip to Disneyland, where we would enjoy it, but would want to go home at the end of the day.

The lesson of Jesus, the Gnostic was that we are all gods. Heaven is present instantly, for those who know. Jesus never called himself "God". In fact, he often spoke in distinguishing terms of "the Father" and himself. Jesus was no more the Son of the Heavenly Father than any other mortal, and that was the important message. His sudden realization of being a holy entity, when the spirit descended like a dove, was nothing less than what was available to any other person.

The miracles and magic performances attributed to him, including the resurrection were posthumous additions to market a certain theological position. The beauty of being a Gnostic Christian is that we don't have to rely on a performance of miracles to be at one with the teachings of Christ.

[weepingforloman]

Okay, magic is by far the wrong term. And we do not "depend" on Christ's miracles, only on His death. That, not the miracles, is the central point of the Gospels (the ones in the "popular" canon).

[earthboar]

Okay, magic is by far the wrong term. And we do not "depend" on Christ's miracles, only on His death. That, not the miracles, is the central point of the Gospels (the ones in the "popular" canon).Firstly, I'm unconvinced that a miracle is not a magical act.

Beyond that rather futile argument over semantics, I'm trying to keep to the original thread topic, which in this case is the Gospel of Thomas or Apocalyptic Teachings of Jesus as Told to Thomas Didymus, and this is a subject that I take special interest in. Keeping that in mind, and knowing something about the difference between the Gnostic Christians and the patristic variety of Christianity, the Gnostic Christians did not necessarily hold any special sacred reverence for the death of Jesus. The Gnostic Christians were not "saved" by the death of Jesus (they did not see it as a sacrifice that redeemed them of their sins). There is a whole distinction between the psychics and the pneumatics, where the former were only ready for the literal word of the scriptures, while the pneumatics had gnosis, which was the deeper meaning of Jesus' sayings. For more on this, you can try to get your hands on a copy of "The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters" by Elaine H. Pagels, which explains in great detail the two-tiered path of Christian exegesis.

The Gospel of Thomas beautifully captured the Gnostic Christian point of view in that it was the sayings of the living Jesus, his own words, his teachings that would save them, rather than the what or why of his death. Whether the Gospel of Thomas was actually a Gnostic Gospel is debated, but certainly it was among the 52 tractates of the surviving Nag Hammadi codices. Being saved, from a Gnostic perspective--the pneumatic understanding of Christ's teaching--is something that happens immediately, as heaven is a state of mind, and not something we go to if we're good.

This is a big distinction, one I can appreciate because it gives more importance to the man's life than it does to the manner in which he may have died. It also puts heaven as a state of mind contemporaneous, or parallel with life. We can slip in and out of heaven while bound by the flesh--a concept distinctly reminiscent of yoga.

[Demian]

Some of us are of the opinion (myself being one) that the word fool works as it should in the context in which it was written. Not everybody speaks in such profane, brutish colloquial expressions. If the scriptures were to be written in the decadent language of "Naked Lunch," for instance, it is likely they would be more widely read in certain circles and completely abandoned by most.


The words of Jesus have been toned down a bit throughout the centuries. For instance, when Jesus called the Pharisees a "den of vipers'" in one instance the earliest Greek translation actually read "slimy bastards". Of course even this is pretty tame compared to most of the metaphors in the Old Testament.

[Granny5]

earthboar, I've read somewhere that the 40 days Jesus spent in desert were spent with the Essenes. (I've forgotten where, may have been while doing a research paper in college.) Do you have any thoughts on this?

[brdwmortality]

Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."



Wow. Now, what I hope this means is that since men were better than women in Jesus' time that Jesus meant he was going to make Mary better, hence "making him a man". If that's NOT it, then it's just another reason why Christianity is screwed up. I don't care if this book got canonized or not, it's still a Gospel.

"When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter the kingdom."

It is not about man being better than woman or anything of the sort. It's about making yourself more than just the body of a "man" or "woman" it's about discovering who and what you are as a being. Just discovering yourself. Call it off topic if you will but if anyone has read Stranger In A Strange Land by Robert Heinlein then you've read all the arguements I want to make. I'm not a religious person, eg..I'm agnostic. Going off of the experiences I've had Quantum Physics has a lot of answers. The Universe is connected, it is all made of the same source. God is everywhere and everything. We (existence) are God. Going from that we all have the same potential to affect anything and everything. If you want something, simply pursue it. It is the pursuit that nets you the prize, not your desire. Other than that be happy. You only have one life, it can end at a whim...unless you find the world to be a carcass...

Sorry for breaking any rules if I have.

[weepingforloman]

Firstly, I'm unconvinced that a miracle is not a magical act.

Beyond that rather futile argument over semantics, I'm trying to keep to the original thread topic, which in this case is the Gospel of Thomas or Apocalyptic Teachings of Jesus as Told to Thomas Didymus, and this is a subject that I take special interest in. Keeping that in mind, and knowing something about the difference between the Gnostic Christians and the patristic variety of Christianity, the Gnostic Christians did not necessarily hold any special sacred reverence for the death of Jesus. The Gnostic Christians were not "saved" by the death of Jesus (they did not see it as a sacrifice that redeemed them of their sins). There is a whole distinction between the psychics and the pneumatics, where the former were only ready for the literal word of the scriptures, while the pneumatics had gnosis, which was the deeper meaning of Jesus' sayings. For more on this, you can try to get your hands on a copy of "The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters" by Elaine H. Pagels, which explains in great detail the two-tiered path of Christian exegesis.

The Gospel of Thomas beautifully captured the Gnostic Christian point of view in that it was the sayings of the living Jesus, his own words, his teachings that would save them, rather than the what or why of his death. Whether the Gospel of Thomas was actually a Gnostic Gospel is debated, but certainly it was among the 52 tractates of the surviving Nag Hammadi codices. Being saved, from a Gnostic perspective--the pneumatic understanding of Christ's teaching--is something that happens immediately, as heaven is a state of mind, and not something we go to if we're good.

This is a big distinction, one I can appreciate because it gives more importance to the man's life than it does to the manner in which he may have died. It also puts heaven as a state of mind contemporaneous, or parallel with life. We can slip in and out of heaven while bound by the flesh--a concept distinctly reminiscent of yoga.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, not only by many Buddhists/Hindus/Jews/Muslims that I know or have spoken to, but also by Christians (most notably C.S. Lewis), Christ's teachings were the same as all the great moralists, from Socrates to Siddartha Gautama to Moses to Confucius to Muhammad (for the most part). To say that you are saved by the teachings of Christ rather than by anything He actually did is roughly equivalent to claiming salvation based on your personal knowledge of the Analects.
Oh, and magic is VERY different than miracle. Magic depends on the manipulation of some unknown or obscure force, miracle is simple exercise of authority over nature. God created nature, Jesus is God, hence, nature obeys Jesus.

[Odin12]

Greetings,

To change the fighting, which is not over the GoT or any scripture in general, I would like to introduce myself. My name is Stuart Brady and I have been a Roman Catholic all my life.

I still believe the Church in principle is right. The Church is "infallible" in the sense that while the men running it, Pope all the way down to Lay Persons, will error and Sin. The Church will suffer. However the Holy Spirit/ God in action will guide it to the more righteous/ Godly path. The Church is an institution of Man prescribed by Our Lord in the form of Man Christ. Yet with an understanding of GoT ,the episode of Christ giving Peter the Keys to the Kingdom makes more sense. In all truth sense the Kingdom has arrived. It is all around us and inside of us, quite literally anything gained on Earth is gained in the Kingdom and Vice Versa.

My Understanding of GoT has risen my Spirituality from Faith to Knowledge. I know God exist because I see him at all times. When my spirit leaves this Earth, hopefully, it doesn't go to some arbitrary Heaven. It rejoins the Father where all things are possible for all time. From the beginning to the End there are Infinite possibilities in the Kingdom/ Rejoining of the Father, which of course the Father is the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Sin wrongs God because Sinful actions keep you from rejoining God/ entering the Kingdom. GoT has helped me understand why Sin is Sin. Actions such as Anger or impure thoughts always perplexed me. If I didn't act on them why were they Sins. With the understanding that Sin keeps you chained to this realm, i.e. your soul doesn't want to leave and refuses to rejoin God/ the All. Christ saying nothing Unclean may enter Heaven makes sense. God would not want anything unclean/ still holding on the the mortal plane to rejoin Him/the All.

In all Truth I hope in time the Vatican will accept GoT as Cannon. I would not classify myself as a Gnostic because it is perceived as one possessing "secret" knowledge not available to everyone. I know this to be untrue but there are the other parts that are perceived to be Gnostic, i.e. God of Earth, God of the All etc.

Until such time as the Vatican realizes that the Words of Christ, even with Gnostic redaction does not take away from the importance of the Church I will happily label myself as a Heretical Catholic.

One last point the Church should embrace the Gospel because it even adds to the significance of the Eucharist in my view. The saying of the Lion eating the man becoming Human and the man eating a Lion having the Lion become Human. ( I know I got it backwards but I am paraphrasing.) Eating the Body and Drinking the Blood of the All in human form only helps bring you to oneness with the All.


Looking forward to continuing with our journey to returning to the Light as Children of the Light,

Stu "The Heretic" Brady

woops!!! Ignore that second line you all were not fighting....

Earthboar while I like most of your points I have one major sticking point. We are not God or god's till we return to the All/ God. When we do of course we will be Son's of Man, we will be part of the Son of Man. However Christ was the All in human form. Until we return we are not.

That is just my opinion.

[slob212]

As a non-Practicing Roman Catholic, and maybe even to a certain degree Atheist, I found the St. Thomas Gospel quite interesting.

Coming from a family where 6 members now have their Doctorates in Theology, I spent a lot of time listening to the different discussions and arguments concerning the Teachings of the Bible, to include all the addendum's.

Being the non-conformist in the family I decided to go a step further than the rest, not that my education can compete with them at any level, I had to see what the competition had to say on the subject of Religion and God ( regardless of Name ).

In all my readings, discussions and research, they all say the same, Know Yourself, Respect Yourself and Love Yourself. Of course this is simplified to the absolute basics, mainly due to the fact that I have no desire to enter into a Theological Argument here of anyplace else on the Internet.

Personally I can see no reason why the Vatican would try or attempt to block the St. Thomas Gospel, it holds true to the teachings of Christ, One God, Love yourself, Love your Neighbor.....

Now to my Atheist points of view,
I have not attempted to pick apart each of the saying in the St. Thomas gospel, or even attempt to decipher the meanings of each quote, to be perfectly honest, when I breezed through it the first time I was getting the impression it was somebody´s idea of a bad joke. Jesus and His pals hanging out, drinking a few, talking about women, sex, and so on. Call me the victim of a Godless World.

In closing, if these statements can be attributed to St. Thomas as the words of Jesus, regardless of the backlash, they should be included in the Bible, the Bible was given to us by man, ( not by GOD, as stated in a previous post, there is no GOSPEL according to GOD ) it was written by man, and more than likely perverted and misinterpreted many times over the years and translations.

A man much wiser than me once said, `` Religion is like Lifts in your shoes, if you need it in your life to help you live a correct and peaceful life, Fine, but lets not try to nail Lifts on the Neighbors feet.´´ ( George Carlin )

[The Mad Monk]

In my view, we see the processing of world of information through many different colored glasses based on our positive or negative life experiences. Put on a pair of 200 AD glasses, when life was short, brutal, and barbaric. Men ruled, by force, where intellectual development was more of a curiosity in the day to day lives of people. Understand, God chose this period of time for a reason. Understand where we are now. Life is not so brutal, and intellectual pursuits have brought about the development of the modern world. Now when you read a piece of literature, any piece, remember it has been translated, and see the words for the images you feel they really represent. The easiest way is to go to a third world country, and actually witness the day to day struggles of the common people. To actually see a starving child, and his parents, who are witnessing the physical death of their child, to get a grasp of any of the words written in the period of Jesus Christ. So learn compassion, understanding, love, and become a better human being in dealing with your fellow man, thanks!

[JDPPOE45]

I really havn't had the chance to read any of the text on these scriptures besides whats been posted on here. as of now I have no prob. with it being the gospel of christ. It does however run with the belief of the holy spirit being alive in you and being part of jesus, but thats been argued over too. If somone would lead me to a site that i can read these scriptures im sure ill have more to say .:iamwithstupid:

[dafydd manton]

Hardly canonical, full of contradictions, therefore no more relevant than the Da Vinci Code - and about as reliable.

[Dark Star]

Interesting to see that this thread is still alive a couple of years later. At this point I have no interest in a religious debate or anything of that sort, and intend to remain civil, so I just wanted to throw in a comment to recommend a book on Gnosticism as a whole which should provide a greater understanding of the subject.

Stephen A. Hoeler's Gnosticism is considered the 'standard' introduction to this subject, and it would do good for anyone interested to look into it. A lot of good information there, and of course, some theological opinions (which are irrelevant to me personally) that one can choose to agree or disagree with.

[andrewoberg]

@Dark Star: Is your handle related to the stunning Grateful Dead song?

@Others--especially those defending Gnosticism: Are there really still Gnostics out there? I was under the impression that they had all died out or been absorbed into other sects by the 3rd century (and necessarily so by the time the Council of Nicea met). Was there a long-standing underground Gnostic church? Or is it a modern revival of the ancient faith?

[Dark Star]

@Dark Star: Is your handle related to the stunning Grateful Dead song?

Yes, in part. A bit off topic, but which recording are you thinking of? The one off of Live/Dead?


@Others--especially those defending Gnosticism: Are there really still Gnostics out there? I was under the impression that they had all died out or been absorbed into other sects by the 3rd century (and necessarily so by the time the Council of Nicea met). Was there a long-standing underground Gnostic church? Or is it a modern revival of the ancient faith?

Yes, there are Gnostics out there and the religion is growing. As for the historical issue...I've seen claims of Gnosticism going underground and surviving through the ages, but my understanding is that the modern movement is in fact a revival of the ancient faith rather than anything having direct ties to a secret group of gnostics passing down the secrets through the years, or something along those lines. You would be surprised at the current flowering of and attempt to re-construct ancient, formerly dead religions. Kemeticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemeticism), for example.

[andrewoberg]

Yes, in part. A bit off topic, but which recording are you thinking of? The one off of Live/Dead?

Any recording of Dark Star is stunning, imo. The one on Live/Dead is indeed breath-taking, but that one was tinkered with in the studio. For pure live recordings, I guess my favorite would be from The Complete 1973 Winterland Recordings.


Yes, there are Gnostics out there and the religion is growing. As for the historical issue...I've seen claims of Gnosticism going underground and surviving through the ages, but my understanding is that the modern movement is in fact a revival of the ancient faith rather than anything having direct ties to a secret group of gnostics passing down the secrets through the years, or something along those lines. You would be surprised at the current flowering of and attempt to re-construct ancient, formerly dead religions. Kemeticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemeticism), for example.

I suspected as much, but am still a bit surprised. Has mainstream Christianity really become so tasteless to the faithful? On the other hand, maybe it's been headed in that direction for some time now, thinking of all the fundamentalist groups and whatnot...

Any new cults of Mithra?:svengo:

[Dark Star]

Any recording of Dark Star is stunning, imo. The one on Live/Dead is indeed breath-taking, but that one was tinkered with in the studio. For pure live recordings, I guess my favorite would be from The Complete 1973 Winterland Recordings.

I haven't listened to Winterland in a very long time (I only have the DVD), I should go dig something up.


Any new cults of Mithra?:svengo:

I realize this is intended at least partly as sarcasm, but Zoroastrianism is making a comeback, most strongly in Iran.

[andrewoberg]

I haven't listened to Winterland in a very long time (I only have the DVD), I should go dig something up.

Let me know what you find! You could also check the Archives or one of the trader sites for other versions. I probably have a couple dozen "Dark Stars" in my collection.


I realize this is intended at least partly as sarcasm, but Zoroastrianism is making a comeback, most strongly in Iran.

Yes, that was fully sarcastic.:nod: Very interesting about Zoroastrianism, though. I know Persia/Iran is the ancient home of that religion, but thought that Islam had almost an exclusive hold on the faith of modern Iranians.

What do you make of the argument that Judaism's concepts of an afterlife and evil god/devil came from their contact with Zoroastrianism while in Persia?

[Dark Star]

Yes, that was fully sarcastic.:nod: Very interesting about Zoroastrianism, though. I know Persia/Iran is the ancient home of that religion, but thought that Islam had almost an exclusive hold on the faith of modern Iranians.

You would think so, but apparently both Atheism and Zoroastrianism are on the rise in Iran. People seem to be becoming disenchanted and either exploring their past or looking to have a future. Not going further into that it since it heads into political territory, though.


What do you make of the argument that Judaism's concepts of an afterlife and evil god/devil came from their contact with Zoroastrianism while in Persia?

It sounds like a sensible argument to me, but I have not done research on this particular subject in a couple of years so it's not something I could competently debate at this point. Too bad, a few years back I could have pointed out some books on this subject. Now I can't remember any of them.:svengo:

[andrewoberg]

It sounds like a sensible argument to me, but I have not done research on this particular subject in a couple of years so it's not something I could competently debate at this point. Too bad, a few years back I could have pointed out some books on this subject. Now I can't remember any of them.:svengo:

Yeah, it's funny how quickly we forget things once we stop using them. My undergraduate senior thesis was on Gnosticism, but that was over ten years ago now. I actually re-learned a lot reading this thread. Yikes!:eek:

[LMK]

There is so much that I would like to delve into, but I will not highjack the thread. The OP asked the following:

1) The validity of the scrolls, do you believe this to be Christ's Gospel. Yes, but I am not a sola scriptura reader, so inspired, repeated through time verbally and then copied and recopied, translated into different dialects/languages.
2) The impact this scroll has upon the structure of the Church, More specifically the following extract " Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." This is not a new concept. Look at John 1:1-5 " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." This is where the 'word incarnate' or 'the word made man' comes from.
3) Whether or not you feel this specific scripture has a place in the teaching of christianity? I think all texts have a place; however, one need be careful how one exposes it to others as well as the exegesis presented with it.

[Lady_AnnaMarie]

I wrote a really long explanation to the quote of Jesus (#114) and it disappeared.

I am new on here and don't know what happened to it?

Any help? I know next time I will copy it before I hit "post" that's for sure!

Thanks,
AnnaMarie

[Lady_AnnaMarie]

Hello and I am glad that I have found this group. I am hoping to learn more and also hopefully share some things with you from MY travels.

Pertaining to the question posed about the line:

114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
Well, MY take on this is a problem with translation, as always is, and that we need remember "traditions" and "customs" of those times. I do believe I remember that back in Jesus' time, women were not allowed into the temples. So it appears that Jesus disagreed with this "custom" and was to disguise Mary as a man to that she could enter the temple with Christ and His disciples. (Which I also believe the translation for "Heaven" in this sense is to mean "Temple" or some place of worship where only men are allowed.) Also, some think that Jesus made Mary one of His disciples!

Also, even in our times now, in the Middle East, woman are banned to expose any of their "form" as a woman - they are to hide the fact they are women by their clothing. They cover their hair, their face, etc. Woman are banned to enter places of worship where only men may go. So these "customs" are still being honored, to a big degree, in our 21st Century.

I do NOT believe that Christ is telling all of us to get sex-change operations in order to enter Heaven! Heavy common sense is needed in translating these Scrolls in their Aramaic language.

So, there is my 1st post. Sorry, if someone already said this - I admit to NOT reading all the too numerous pages of posts regarding this issue.

I do have another question, besides wanting feedback on my idea of this line #114, that is; where can I find the full and latest translation of the entire Scrolls? I would really appreciate reading them in their entirety.

One more thing. The movie Stigmata changed my life. It came to be the final piece I needed to end my "trek" of finding myself. It was/is a very powerful movie that moved me and my son in ways I cannot even express. It exposed ideas that I have had thoughts of since childhood. It, the movie, and especially the Scrolls, brought my beliefs of God, Jesus, The Disciples, Heaven and the Church, all into a light that made sense to me, finally! I found peace with it all.

That's it for now. Hope to hear some feedback on this! Thanks for reading me.

AnnaMarie

[SeekWithYourI's]

I think the idea that woman should become men is misleading. I think the idea was more about dealing with men and dealing with women. I guess that there was quite a separation of the sex's at that time and one text would not have been accepted and a womens version doesn't exist. The premises dose though I believe.

[MyVoice]

I am joining this forum because I have always appreciated my ability to read and have developed some skill in writing. It is my intention to take part in interesting discussions as I may, with an especial interst in the Gospel of Thomas, which is the subject that originally drew me here. The written word is not only a beautiful reality, but it is also a vehicle for thought and ideas, philosophy and a means by which our loves can be expressed. I have a Ph.D. ABD (all but dissertation) and I have been looking for work for six years. If that does not inspire a need for intrinsic beauty, I do not know what would. I hope to learn from other members of this site as well as, hopefully, leave some seeds for thought for others. Let us feast on a banquet of collaborative expression. After years of working to create a new voice, I have decided to identify with my voice and use it creatively and usefully.

[BigBobT8491]

[QUOTE=Melancholia;119319]


Melancholia; you have to remember it was the time of male thinking and doing. Women were literally second class citizens. How many times have you heard of a male being stoned for being a gigolo? Yet a woman who spoke out , criticized or committed adultery were, and frequently. Jesus spoke to appease his closest followers (disciples) as he had a difficult task in performing his mandate to create a new way of thinking in changing the sometime very harsh Jewish mindset (beliefs). So in saying "Look, I will guide her to make her male" could have simply meant her way of thinking in the day when her thoughts should have been in line of the men, "so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males" {[resembling] is a key word here} could have simply meant once again following the precepts and politics of the day, of male dominance over all, God created Adam and from Adam woman. Also in the translation Jesus' true intention may have been lost in the interpretation while translating from Aramaic to the first language translation base on to the next and that could be a folly in itself. Just look at modern translations from English to French to German and then Japanese. Error prone? Yes! Translations from a dead language is a guess at best. If you listen to what Jesus taught to the multitudes and apply that to his private words with his disciples, he could have said; "Look, I will guide her to be one of us (a disciple) so that she may become a living spirit resembling all of you (disciples)". This would sound like Jesus speaking. Remember he spoke to the crowd preparing to stone an adulteress, saying "Let you who have not sinned cast the first stone". Jesus revered woman as the spring from which all man comes". In my mindset that is very high on the ladder of importance.

I do believe that all should hear or read the first hand words of Jesus (Gospel of Thomas), rather than centuries old translation and retranslation of we have been taught. The scrolls used to defined Catholic Bible (a political document), was designed to bring new followers in to a new faith (Christianity by mans definition), a faith to appease the old beliefs and conversion of non-Christian practices. Once accomplished and then practiced for centuries, it led Christians to polarized in their way of thinking. Now is the world of the 21st Century it is time to let the individual find meaning of their own, and let common sense prevail.

May the blessings of our Lord reign upon you.

[Meeku]

I know this is an old thread but i hope this can be of some use to someone!

Here is the Saying in question:
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female

This saying is actually mentioned in the bible Galatians 3:28-29 which says:

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.