Printable View
Hi there Pompey Bum apologies for my abruptness I did not mean to talk like that.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I think the whole debate about nakedness just does not sit right with me. The idea that clothes are less important is more then silly.
This is a valid point as far as it goes. An esoteric teaching could suggest that the Christian message is not open to all, although it could also mean that there are degrees of discernment among those already saved--something many orthodox Christians would accept. But the question may not even apply here, since we are dealing with an anonymous claim about a text that seems to have been reworked by a gnosticizing editor. The unredacted text (if it pre-dated the Synoptics) may have reflected the influence of Jewish wisdom tradition in the historical Jesus' teachings--these teachings being poured into the mold of canonical orthodoxy over time. This idea of Jesus as a wisdom teacher (among other things) is not especially radical. His Biblical sayings are also things to be puzzled out. Why is the Kingdom of God like a mustard seed? What does it mean to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves? Or for the dead to bury the dead? These conundrums do not imply salvation only for the knowing few.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
The conservative/traditional view is that the sayings in Thomas were merely extracted from the Gospels, reworked in a gnosticizing context, and presented as an esoteric teaching by an early (and not particularly orthodox) sect. Of course, it is also possible that Thomas and the some of the Gospels shared a sayings source. I think we need to remain critically detached from the passions potentially generated by these conflicting views. Neither challenges the simple message of Salvation through Jesus Christ.
Oh, don't worry about it. Your viewpoint is always valued. That saying was only using the idea of clothes in a symbolic sense. It probably meant the flesh, which it claimed was only a kind of garment for the soul (in other words, not who you really are). The group that used this text had a low opinion of the body. They thought it was a kind of poverty that the soul needed to learn to reject. That is why the saying talks about stripping. But it isn't really talking about clothes.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
"conundrums do not imply salvation only for the knowing few."
True enough, and there are many reasons why historical sayings might have been obscure to their original hearers and even more so to us. But my point was not that there are obscure comments in the work, rather that, from the outset, the thing was intended to be obscure. That may have been only the view expressed by the editor, and may not have been the intention of the original collector(s) of Jesus' wisdom teachings. However, in the form that we have it, this work (unlike canonical Christian narratives that also include the wisdom teaching) is presented as being esoteric or elitist, which is not consistent with the idea that salvation is equally available to all. That, I think, would be sufficient reason for the fathers of the Church not to admit it to the canon, regardless of whether or not the sayings themselves had been altered to present a view that came to be reckoned as unorthodox.
From his name alone, I suspect that Manichaean tends towards a dualist belief, and I too find a form of dualism to be the simplest reconciliation of the fact of evil with the concept of a benevolent God. However, I would not consider the text under scrutiny to offer any clue as to what Jesus thought on that subject, simply because the unredacted text, however and wherever it was collected, was probably reworked (a polite term for deliberately corrupted) by a gnostic editor. If we call this unknown "Thomas the Gnostic," there is no reason to reject this work from the canon of Gnostic scriptures, quite the contrary. We should remain aware that (given that Gnosticism and Christianity are two separate religions) it is a Gnostic document rather than a Christian one.
Thank you for your thoughts, which I know to be wise and faithful. It seems to me that the sayings of the historical Jesus were intended to stimulate moral growth among his followers. In the first several centuries after the Crucifixion, they were used in various ways by early Christian groups laying claim to his moral authority. What became Christian orthodoxy rose slowly and was not generally recognized as such until the 4th century. So it not historically accurate for us to say that proto-Orthodox figures like Irenaeus of Lyons (for example) belonged to the Christian religion while gnosticizing groups like the Gospel of Thomas community belonged to the Gnostic religion. That sort of division becomes meaningful eventually (although speaking of a gnostic religion would still be more accurate than the Gnostic religion) but it not at such an early date. What we can say is that what came to be orthodox soteriology is less elite than Thomas'. You make this argument and I fully agree (in fact, I pointed it out a few pages back when we were discussing the Gospel of John). I believe, however that Jesus' wisdom sayings are well worth considering in their own right; and we can easily abstract these from their later contexts in Thomas and the canonical Gospels. It's never too late to grow from what Jesus actually said to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
I'll let M. speak for himself. All I know is that, like me, he was raised in the faith but managed to find God anyways. :) (I'm being glib and probably impious--it was God, of course, who found me). I too am a duelist. Shall we say pistols at dawn?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
There is a misunderstanding here. The unredacted document is hypothetical--whatever sayings source the editor of the Gospel of Thomas actually redacted. What you seem to be describing is an alternate view in which the Gospel of Thomas was produced by extracting Jesus' sayings from the Canonical Gospels and interpreting the sayings in a gnosticizing context (as you say, corrupting them). That is also hypothetical. It was once widely taught but has fallen from academic favor. The Gospel of Thomas is usually thought of as a bit older now (but that is just an informed opinion). Thank you again for your response. I'll consider our differences. So let's hold off on the pistols for now. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
"What you seem to be describing is an alternate view in which the Gospel of Thomas was produced by extracting Jesus' sayings from the Canonical Gospels and interpreting the sayings in a gnosticizing context."
"However or wherever" indicates that I have no view on the path or date by which any sayings of Jesus come to be in the Gospel of Thomas, or on when the Gospel of Thomas crystallised into its present form. I suspect that attempts to determine whether it crystallised before or after St Mark's Gospel are driven more by religio-political concerns than neutral literary analysis. Since the gospels date from at least forty years after the crucifixion they all depend heavily on second-hand material whether held in memory or on parchment. The exact date on which any of them could be described as defined is a question of great interest but little importance, (certainly not important enough for pistols let alone any higher stakes.) Each of the evangelists selected and interpreted the material as best suited his purpose, so I was over harsh in using the term "deliberately corrupted."
Well, it would be awfully hard to deliberately corrupt something (or merely to interpret it to suit one's theological aganda) before it was actually written. :) This was the question about which I cautioned scholarly detachment. Ancient historians learn to live with ambiguity. Theologians deal in absolute truths. Both propositions require some patience.
Coptic Saying 38.
Jesus says, "Ofter you have desired to hear these sayings of mine, and you have no one else from whom to hear them. And there will come days when you will seek me and you will not find me."
In the context of this saying, it displays both a desire on the part of the seekers who look for understanding and the pivotal role that Jesus plays in providing this understanding.
Is it a disillusionment with traditional Jewish teaching, or more I guess a frowned upon attempt at an expansion of thinking on the earlier creed? Perhaps you also have to consider if this was an earlier form of Hellenism containing a governing idea of a spontaneity of consciousness, as opposed to Hebraism with its strictness of conscience.
Either way it seems that a conclusion arising from this saying is that as seekers come to understand the sayings, there will no longer be the need for a Jesus in human form, because they will no longer be dependent upon these sayings.
Finally, I cannot help but have noted and appreciated, ( apart from pistols at dawn,) the lively and interesting discussions upon last weeks Saying and would like to comment as follows:
1. Thanks for that insight W into whether salvation can be by work, faith or grace. It helps me recognise more clearly in the individuals I have come across in my lifetime, some of the main characteristics of these three components. Not that I think one is motivated in this less religious age on the concept of "salvation."
2. There seems to be some questioning as to whether I am dualistic in my religious beliefs, or even a Gnostic as such! I've never really asked myself where I formally stand. I was raised in the Roman Catholic faith and am comfortable in it. However I am prepared to question many aspects. Hence perhaps my interest in (a) Any phenomenon which can be explained by two opposing principles, and (b) The feasible idea that humans are divine souls trapped in the ordinary physical or material world.
As Joseph Addison once noted, "Thus I live in the world, rather as a spectator of mankind, than as one of the species."
Coptic Saying 39.
Jesus says, "The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge; they themselves have hidden them. Neither have they entered, nor have they allowed those who want to enter, to do so. As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves."
This saying seems to stereotype the characteristics of the "Pharisees and scholars." A bit surprised no mention of "hypocrites," so prevalent in Matthew.
But still a bad press holding the keys to a knowledge they have not understood themselves, nor enabled others to acquire it.
There is also an irony in the advice to keep a low profile in spiritual seeking; ( mild and non confrontational like a dove, and stealthy like a snake.) The figure of Jesus seems not to have followed his own advice in this instance.
The saying has parallels in John (7:33; 7:34; 7:36; 13:33), where it foreshadows the Crucifixion. A similar saying is used twice in Luke, once (5:35) in a generally similar way and once (17:22) in what seems to be an Apocalyptic context. I can't see how either context would lend itself to what Thomas is trying to do. Perhaps it is simply an exhortation to internalize the wisdom of the sayings.Quote:
Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN
This is a parallel with Jesus' famous Commission of the Twelve in Matthew 10:16: Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. On the surface, Thomas is using the saying in a similar way, although his notion of wolves may be different. Scholars and Pharisees would have been two kinds of Jewish authorities at the time. These figures are being criticized for not following a wisdom tradition as the Thomas community does (they will not help you and they will mislead others). It's not clear, though, that this advice is being given to missionaries as is in Matthew 10:16. The metaphor of sly serpents is striking since snakes were sometimes associated with gnostic traditions. But the overall meaning of the saying seems similar to the version in Matthew: be ready to outwit the wolves without becoming a wolf yourself. For the record, Matthew 10:16 is an important saying to me--something of a life verse, I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN
We now move onto the Coptic version of the Gospel of Thomas, which consists of 114 sayings and were discovered hidden in jars in the desert near Nag Hammadi.
Additional dimensions to this find are that this is only part, ( or in this case, the Second Tractate) bound into the second codex ( or book.) This codex in fact seems to bear witness to a comprehensive diversity of interests, of those producing this work.
The full codex contains the following:
1. The Apocryphon of John (Tractate 1), a revelation dialogue between the Saviour and the disciples about the creation, human condition and the salvation of humanity.
2. The Gospel According to Philip (Tractate 3), a collection of short discursive treatments of primarily Valentinian Christian sacramental theology.
3. The Hypostasis of the Archons (Tractate 4), a revelation dialogue that interprets the first six chapters of Genesis.
4. A Treatise Without Title on the Origin of the World (Tractate 5), an exploration of the nature of the cosmos, the nature of humanity, and the end of both.
5. The Expository Treatise on the Soul (Tractate 6), a narrative describing the fate of the soul in the world.
6. The Book of Thomas the Contender Writing to the Perfect (Tractate 7), a revelation dialogue between Jesus and his twin brother Thomas.
Current judgement seems to be that this collection into one codex does not necessarily indicate that they were considered to be similar or related. What is agreed is that this Coptic version presents the most complete extant text of the Gospel of Thomas.
The Coptic Version of the Gospel of Thomas.
Tractate 2.
Saying 3.
Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, "Look the (Father's) imperial rule is in the sky," then the bird's of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, "It is in the sea, then the fish will precede you. Rather the (Father's) imperial rule is inside you and outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."
My first impression is that this early Christian writing problematizes leadership. The narrative already invests the reader with a kind of full authority to find the community's interpretation of the sayings. Now there appears a seemingly new empowerment, (perhaps even at variance with the community's understanding.)
True leadership directs the seeker inward to a new understanding of self, and outward to a new understanding of the world in which God's imperial rule is manifest.
This very much seems to reflect what was an ongoing debate among early Christians about authority and power. (an apocalyptic rule of God / the church community itself / personal value judgement ?)
The self-knowledge aspect reflects the connection to the Father, not as an external adoption by a distant heavenly entity, but as a Father who is present and vital.
It is certainly refreshing to see the thinking on poverty in a spiritual sense; especially in today's social climate where there is such an emphasis on material wealth, and an obscene gap between the haves and have nots.
The Coptic Version of the Gospel of Thomas.
Saying 4.
Jesus said, "The person old in days won't hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live. For many of the first will be last, and will become a single one."
Out of the mouths of babes? Once a man, twice a child? The simplicity of situations and life as seen through the eye of a child? These immediately come to mind. It seems that children constitute a consistent sub-theme of a wide assortment of early Christian groups, perhaps with good reason.
This saying revolves around a reversal of conventional expectations: that children should be led by adults, children need guidance. It even goes that step further by an implication that an elder will indeed "live" as a result of being led by a child. The child leads towards life, not knowledge alone.
The beginning and the end will be inverted, the former will find themselves the latter, the older will become the younger: a unification of the polarities old and young, elder and child, first and last. Divergence, difference and distinction will ultimately meld into singularity, union, and solidarity.
Saying 40.
“Jesus said, “A grapevine has been planted apart from the Father. Since it is not strong, it will be pulled up by its root and will perish.”
My first impression is that the grapevine could refer to at least two different phenomena:
1. The world at large. This would suggest a sort of dualism between creation under divine authority and creation by some other authority. It also seems to come across as rather exclusive; a problem so prevalent in different religions across generations.
2. Another religious community. Another sect whom the community finds unacceptable? Whoever the weak ones are, this saying condemns them to destruction as being weak and vulnerable. Not exactly Christian love and tolerance is it?
In a lot of the other sayings, one can discern links, or familiar grounds with the canonical gospels. This one to my mind has a blinkered approach, seeking credence by associating it as spoke by Jesus.
The Gospel of Thomas.
aaaaa
How about the Gospel according to St. Philip? Mary M. and Jesus appear to have a promising relationship.
Then said Daniel to Melzar [the steward], whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants. So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days. And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat.—Daniel i., 11 to 17.
Saying 46. (7.11.21.)
Jesus said, “From Adam to John the Baptist, among those born of women, no one is so much greater than John the Baptist that his eyes should not be averted. But I have said that whoever among you becomes a child will recognize the Father’s imperial rule and will become greater than John.”
This saying seems to update the hierarchy among human beings; separating as it does, the old dispensation and the new. John the Baptist was the apex of the old system, and includes those “born of women,” a description which emphasizes the natural birth of those religious figures. However, whereas this may very much have been the case with John and with the Prophets, it certainly did not apply to Adam.
The narrative on the averting of one's eyes suggests that this was the accepted posture or gesture of a less powerful person in the presence of divine or more powerful figures. Historically n many cultures this is very understandable and is invariably something taught in early age. Perhaps though an exception in incentive might have been taken in countries such as Japan & Korea, where the choice of not bowing, or averting one’s eyes, might have resulted in one’s head being chopped off by sword.
But returning to the main body of the text, the saying by Jesus regards the children displaces the old dispensation.
“Becoming a child” replaces the system inaugurated under the sign “born of woman.” It is a kind of rebirth that makes the old person someone new and better.
I was also struck by the fact that this saying, was not, (as in so many instances in the Gospel of Thomas), in contradiction to Canon Testament, which is bursting with so many references to children and their qualities. For example; Matthew 18:2-6.
“And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
The main message seems to revolve around being “humble,” which one could interpret as being: respectful, obedient, almost even fatalistic by placing yourself in the hands of others, whether they be; a deity, parents, or those that deserve our respect.
Saying 49.
“Jesus said, Blessed are those who are alone and chosen, for you will find the Father’s domain. For you have come from it, and you will return there again.”
This saying opens up a whole can of worms and one can understand that out of all the early Christian writings some were very much not in tune with the orthodox thinking of other Gaspels.
It marks the seekers of truth under two distinct headings: those who are alone and those who are chosen. And it pronounces the blessing only upon those who are both alone and chosen. So much for the universality of man and redemption!
Also note that those designated as “you” now understand themselves as having their origin in the Kingdom, and as having their goal to return to the Kingdom. Shades of reincarnation akin to Buddhist doctrine.
I saw a link between the previous saying and a contribution I made nearly a year ago when I explored the saying in Genesis 6: “the sons of God and daughters of men”. It’s an Old Testament theme, where “the Nephilim” were seen as the offspring of sexual relationships between the sons of God and daughters of men.
There is much debate as to the identity of the “sons of God,” possibly fallen angels who mated with human females or possessed human males who then mated with human females. These unions that resulted in the offspring, “the Nephilim”, were described, somewhat strangely as “heroes of old, men of renown”. If as described in these latter glowing terms, there would appear to be a touch of Gnostics philosophy as in the Gospel of Thomas, incorporating a “spark of the divine” into sections of mankind?
If, however, we are talking of fallen angels, was the motivation one of attempting to pollute the human bloodline in order to prevent the coming of the Messiah. God had promised that the Messiah would one day crush the head of the serpent, Satan (Genesis 3:15). The fallen angels in Genesis 6 thus were possibly attempting to prevent this and make it impossible for a sinless “seed of the woman” to be born. What then followed, it could be argued, was that the Nephilim were one of the primary reasons for the great flood in Noah’s time. “The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.” So, the Lord said, ‘I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them’”
What followed was the flood of the entire earth, killing everyone and everything other than: Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark. All else perished, including one would suppose the Nephilim. Or is there a twist in the tale; that it is possible that some traits of the Nephilim were passed on through the heredity of one of Noah’s daughters-in-law? What we must keep in mind is that originally the term “sons of God” denoted beings that were brought into existence by the creative act of God.
Such were the angels, and in the Old Testament the title refers to angels. Men are not “sons” until they are redeemed and born again in the New Testament sense. The angels in heaven do not marry, nor are given in marriage. But, the “sons of God” in Geneses 6:1-4 were no longer in heaven, having left their own place, and came seeking after an unapproved alliance with the daughters of men.
Finally, there is a school of thought that thinks in terms of modernist angels; spiritual placeholders, reminders that something has been lost, even if it is difficult to know exactly what this is. Unrealized manhood perhaps?
Well, I never studied the Old Testament, I hardly read it, but one association your post suggests to me is with the Greek mythology, with their sons and daughters of gods and goddesses frequently mixing with the merely humans. Could there have been an influence?
Very likely my friend. The themes from one culture to another can easily be picked up and incorporated.
Saying 50.
Jesus said, “If they say to you. “Where have you come from?” say to them, “We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established and appeared in their image.” If they say to you, “Is it you?” say “We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.” If they ask you. “What is the evidence of the Father in you?” say to them, “It is motion and rest.”
One might surmise that the faith expressed in the sayings was meeting a degree of both scepticism and perhaps even hostility. as it strove to establish itself in early Christianity. Thus, this saying was both a presentation and response to outsiders and not seekers.
There are to my mind three explanations regarding the main concept of “light” as written in the saying.
First, the light from which the seekers had come is a place where light created itself; a sort of primordial place where light preceded any other creation. One notes immediately that this is at variance with Genesis where God created light.
Second, in the saying, light established itself in that place; suggesting perhaps that the light permanently set at bay the darkness; as for light to be established it needs to stand in opposition to darkness.
Third, the light is projected into the image of the seekers.
In the final part of the saying “rest and motion” involves proof of the relationship of the elect with the Father. Motion correlates to the activity which the sayings promote; whilst the goal of such activity is rest, or the disengagement from vain activity in the world. Both motion and rest mark the seekers as those who have the Father within them.
The whole concept of light and darkness I find interesting. Does light in this context reflect wisdom, and darkness as evil?
In the established Church canon, we have John 9:5 during the miracle of healing the blind, with Jesus saying “When I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” Definitely a force for good.
There is also in theology something called “divine light”: an aspect of divine presence and specifically an ability of angels or even humans to express themselves communicatively through spiritual means, rather than through physical capacities.
Saying 51.
His disciples said to him, “When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?” He said to them, “What you are looking forward to has come, but you don’t know it.”
From this saying Jesus would appear to say to the disciples on the first question that they had missed the point, because the “rest” belongs not to the dead, but to those that have begun to interpret the sayings. (i.e., The rest is for the living, not the dead.)
Likewise in the second part this does not apply to future events.
I find it interesting that this saying emphasises the immediate and present state of fulfilment offered to the seekers in this Gospel, that life can be realized fully before death. So much for the concept of purgatory and worrying about the Final Judgement!!
It is also worthy to note that Jesus in this Gospel in presenting himself as living in the community underscores that the present moment, not the past and not even the future, has a greater value.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN
Why do you think blessing one means cursing others?
You are blessed, and so am I. Why would one being blessed mean that others are not?
Very faulty. But thank you very much for the posts.
In any case, thanks (I guess)???? for posting this. I read the whole thing today. There's a few or quite a lot but certainly the only "Gnostic" I ever met was one of the cruelest and most vindictive people I ever met in my life. And -- verse 114 is insane, and quite clearly so, and also quite clearly out of place in the whole thing. but again, "Thanks."
Just strolling by...
"Also note that those designated as “you” now understand themselves as having their origin in the Kingdom, and as having their goal to return to the Kingdom. Shades of reincarnation akin to Buddhist doctrine."
I don't know about reincarnation, but a pre-mortal and post-mortal Kingdom is a tenet of my Christian faith :)
Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor
Hi NikolaiI & tailor STATELY.
I must confess that it came as a surprise to actually get two responses in one day to this thread. For what seems like ages, many individuals had visited it on Lit Net Forums, but any input on their parts had been non-existent.
In the early days when I started the thread back in September 2017, the aim was to explore and give a personal commentary on one of the earliest writings in the development of Christianity.
Luckily in those days, giants walked the earth and the likes of Pompey Bum and others were there to guide and contribute. After that, it became more or less an exercise in self-indulgence into which I could dip from time to time.
Anyway, let me respond to the points you have raised.
NikolaiI please note that Saying 49 as I read it, seems to give a blessing to the “chosen,” but there is no mention of a “curse” on the rest. It does not follow logically that blessing one, means cursing others. It only goes so far as to make a distinction between two groups.
I personally agree, (leaving the Saying to one side,) that we are both blessed. If I understand the concept of Gnosticism correctly, they make reference to man possessing what they term “a divine spark.” The contradiction, (of which there are many in these writings), seems to be that only the seekers and finders obtain this. An implication perhaps, that it's implicit in all men, but only ignited in the seekers.
Like yourself, my own experience of cruelty in so called men of faith leaves one wary; and that includes a number of religions. At the current juncture, the sight of Putin attending an Easter service is to me repugnant; encompassing as he does the total repository of evil on a mortal scale, by his actions in Ukraine and elsewhere.
Saying 114. You are way ahead of me, but I did a quick check. It seems on the face of it like nonsense. But one of the things that I have had to learn in looking at these sayings is “What are they really trying to say, by mixing up specific beliefs with inappropriate examples?”
tailor STATELY
Yes, this saying seems very much akin to the concept of reincarnation in the Buddhist doctrine.
What do you mean by a pre & post mortal Kingdom? Is it a fixed entity, with mortal life as a brief interlude? If so, I can understand it.
Best wishes to you both for the weekend.
M.
It is a hateful lie ;)
If you see 20 Buffalo, and one ostrich, obviously the ostrich is our of place.
I'm not interested in correcting you or helping or teaching you. ❤❤
Keep doing what you're doing.
Of course I'm ahead of you. And of course I didn't read what you wrote. 2 things are all I will say:
There is a place for all liars in hell,
And a lying tongue hates those it crushes.
This "gospel" is pure B.S. obviously.
And hateful.
You can see the fruit and if you see a Gnostic, run. Or fight.
(New thread.)
Don't you just love a keyboard warrior?
I love a Nihilist!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a piece of work!!!!!!!!!!!
"Jesus said, we'll make her a man, then she can go to heaven"
Abomination!
Psychosis!
Pure hell!
Get out of here! ❤
As I believe - (bear with me this is just a thumbnail intro) first of all we on earth are all beings on a journey with a veil of forgetfulness of our pre-mortal existence: in our pre-mortal state we were intelligences of spirit without bodies dwelling with Heavenly Father who had a perfected body/war in Heaven on who should implement Heavenly Father's plan/we who chose to follow Heavenly Father's plan came to earth to receive bodies and experience life and learn/die - becoming spirits once more (our Savior becoming a perfected being with a body after His death to live with Heavenly Father)/await the Judgement/re-united with "our perfected bodies" after the Judgement/receive our Kingdom either unto immortality or Eternal Life (further progression): Here's a simplistic map of our progression... https://emp.byui.edu/AllredP/Plan%20...ion%20copy.jpgQuote:
What do you mean by a pre & post mortal Kingdom? Is it a fixed entity, with mortal life as a brief interlude? If so, I can understand it.
The poet Wordsworth pondered pre-mortality in his famous "Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood" https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poe...arly-childhood
Some explanation of our pre-mortality... https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/...-life?lang=eng
Hope this helps a little. After 18 years in the gospel I'm still learning much :)
Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor
Much obliged tailor.
Will read today.
M.
Thanks tailor.
It was very interesting reading what you sent me yesterday. I'd never come across the subject of pre-mortal existence. Got me thinking about the whole concept of: consciousness, memory and awareness.
Best wishes.
M.
There is no need to discuss that here.
Run out of lamp posts have we?