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

[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! ).

[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! ).

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 .

[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?