The Nag Hammadi Codices Conspiracy: The Gospel of Thomas

The most complete available version of Thomas is from Nag Hammadi, but unfortunately, it has obvious later accretions, which need to be scraped away. There does, however, appear to be a "core" Thomas that may be roughly contemporary with the canonical Gospels.

The Jesus Seminar is a mainstream liberal group of scholars, and they tend to call Thomas "The Fifth Gospel." So, it's kind of precious to say that it has been ignored by TPB in Biblical scholarship. The Seminar also made a crack at separating the core from the accretions, the fruit of which is available here,

www.webpages.uidaho.edu...

Their method is disputable, but it probably gives you some idea, I believe, about what the earliest Thomas might have been like, or at least parts of it.

I agree with SorensDespair that it was uncanonical because

Then who would need the Church...?

Although the killer verse, I think, is 113 (rated as pink by the Seminar, Jesus probably said something like this)

... the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it.

Talk about not needing a Church.

RPG

You also agree that a current and universally accessible kingdom was a problem for including Thomas in the canon. As to Jesus as the Messiah being "left out" of Thomas, we don't really know whether it was. If our most complete text has accretions, then it may have omissions as well. In any case, one interpretation of Jesus teaching a present-tense Kingdom is that Jesus is saying that the Messiah has arrived.

As to Mark, a few things need to be straightened out:

Chapter 16 is generally thought to be OK through verse 8, and that may have been about where the original ended. If your Bible doesn't document at least two versions of what, if anything, comes after 16:8, or at least some acknowledgement of the problem, then you might want to buy a new, more modern Bible.

Mary and Jesus' brothers are mentioned at Mark 3: 31.

There is no birth narrative in Mark. However, the "empty tomb" is in all versions of Mark 16. Since Mark probably comes later than Paul's genuine epistles, which do have the Resurrection, the reference is obvious.

Mark's Jesus doesn't require baptism and faith, as you say. This makes sense, since Jesus wasn't a Protestant or any kind of Christian at all.

Mark's Jesus doesn't say that you can do miracles; he says that his disciples can - but even that comes in the part of chapter 16 which you've righteously disputed. It's probably an addition based on, say, 2 Corinthians 12: 12, but the disciples are depicted as actually working miracles in Mark 6: 13, during Jesus' lifetime.

Mark's Jesus does say the two commandment thing, at 12:28-32, but he is quoting the Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy 6: 4-5 and Leviticus 19: 18. In other tellings of the tale, it is the other person who tells this to Jesus. Either way, the teaching wasn't peculiarly his.

and the rest is one way of saying it.

reply to post by eight bits


That doesn't mean anything because biblical scholars are saying that Mark 16 is a forgery (added on later).

I knew something was suspicious about this chapter because it claims that the virgin Mary got possessed by 7 demons and the man in white tells Mary that Jesus will meet her at Galilee but Jesus doesn't he deserts her and go to heaven instead... Also Jesus proselytize saying preach to the whole world and baptize everyone, even though he didn't speak like this through the whole gospel.

Through out Mark, the main thing that Jesus keeps pointing out that he doesn't like, is their "Lack of faith". He says that it was him who healed them but their faith! And if you have faith without a doubt, you can even move mountains.

The main things which he taught in order to get to heaven were:

- Love God with all your heart and know that he is ONE God (not three)

- Love your neighbor as yourself

Jesus says "Why call me good, there is no one good but GOD".

Jesus tries to convince a man to give away his money but he refuses and then Jesus says "Oh, how hard is it for a rich man to go to heaven", his disciples question "How can anyone get to heaven then" and then Jesus says "With man [myself] it is impossible but with God [The Father] all things are possible.

Satan is seen as is in the old testament - only mentioned a few times in Mark

In the original MARK, There was no:

- Resurrection

- Need for proselytizing

- Virgin Birth

- Eternal Hell

Jesus was indeed called "The SON of God" but never God himself in this gospel.


Jesus was all about having great FAITH and loving others as yourself in Mark and forgiveness. This is all he cared about, and when people went against him for preaching this new understanding - Jesus called them hardhearted.

The Nag Hammadi writings are not in the Christian mainstream but represent a peculiar school which is commonly called Gnostic, which suggests that they claim to carry on a secret teaching supposedly confided by Jesus himself to one or a few select followers. Under the circumstances, these Gnostic Christian writings emulate the established Christian Gospels as closely as possible, with a smattering of changes and additions to hint at their particular doctrines.

There is nothing particularly special about the Gospel of Thomas, nor the Gospel of Judas which was published a few years ago and has a similar provenance, except that they represent the beliefs of a small, ephemeral, heretical sect that briefly existed a thousand miles from the Holy Land and about two centuries separated from the life of Jesus.

RPG

As I said in my post, it's what comes after verse 8 that's a problem, not the chapter as a whole. "Forgery" doesn't seem to be an issue. One of the endings, the longer canonical one, is clearly a summation of later gospels and Acts, so may well have never been intended to be mistaken as original. The shorter ending is very short, and says almost nothing.

Recall that the authors didn't believe there would be anybody around to read them more than a thousand years later. Neither ending shows any attempt to mimic the style of the rest of the chapter. I suspect, then, that "forgery" is your word, and not that of "biblical scholars" in general.

The Mary who is said to have been possessed by 7 demons is Mary Magdalene (16: 9), not Jesus' mother. The encounter with the man occurs in the invariant early verses, is with all three women, and the meeting in Galilee is for Peter and the disciples. The women are to convey the message to Peter and company, not go to Galilee themselves. Jesus is depicted as speaking to the disciples before his ascension, in both popular endings which mention the ascension.

The belief that is required in Mark, at 11: 23, is that the mountain will actually move. Based on the preceding and following verses, this seems to be rooted in faith about God, not about Jesus specifically. That makes sense, since the scene is a gathering of Jews, not of Protestants.

Compare also the story that begins at 9: 14, right after the Transfiguration. This really isn't about belief in Jesus. Mark 11: 23 is also one of the few times that Paul echoes something Jesus would be quoted as saying, see 1 Corinthians 13: 2 (presumably written before Mark, so who's echoing whom is debatable).

The Resurrection is mentioned as a raising in the invariant Mark 16: 6. Since this is after Paul, the mention suffices. That there is no interpretation of the event in Mark would be a fair statement, that it doesn't appear in Mark is simply false.

I am unsure why you express surprise that the entire Nicene creed isn't covered in one Gospel. But you're right, the Nicene creed is based on the whole New Testament, probably with some patristic input, not just the earliest Gospel.

The Nicene Christian community divides over what it takes to "get to Heaven," which isn't a Jewish spiritual goal in the first place. It is unsurprising that any story written about a Jewish preacher would have little to say about the subject, or that the Jewish preacher wouldn't endorse one set of Christian recipes over another.

It's not that I dispute your interpretation of Jesus' character as depicted by Mark, but all that you said is within the range of Jewish teaching at the time. The dsitinction of the Marcan Jesus within the many competing conceptions of the time about what it meant to be a Jew is that Jesus is a disciple of John the Baptist, whose ministerial message was personal repentance. I think that explains a lot, but other views are possible.


Shoonra

You might want to check out the pdf link in my previous post. The Nag Hammadi Coptic translation of Thomas was found among mostly Gnostic material, but compared with some of what it was found with, isn't especially Gnostic. It is also not even remotely comparable with the Gospel of Judas.

In particular, there seems to be a core Thomas that is complementary with the four canonical Gospels. In the pdf, that would be roughly what's in pink or red., which can be read in about five minutes. Maybe some of the blue is core, too, but what's in black can pretty much be skipped over.

That red or pink stuff plainly isn't Gnostic. It could easily be mid-First Century, and is very probably no older than some of the canonical epistles.

The Christian mainstream is a pretty fractious place . The Jesus Seminar is soaking wet, and they love Thomas. The Fifth Gospel isn't canonical, but read critically, it is mainstream.

In order to understand the gospel of Thomas, one must understand his mind while being a disciple of the Messiah.

He was not known as the first 'doubting thomas' for nothing. Even though touched by the Messiah to follow, he still had his doubts. He was a skeptic. And who in ATS does not know what skeptics are like?

From the way the gospel of Thomas was written, you would realized that it was note-taking like, akin to what a college student would write while the lecturer was explaining away in class. There was no context to it.

And thus, it would be foolish to accept notes as a set of teachings to be passed on, without context.

However, as it is, there can be no doubt that those written were the words spoken by the Messiah, and in order to understand what he meant, one would have to find corresponding material to the situation where those words were spoken. Some are self-explanatory and easily understood in that gospel itself, but for others, one would need to read the gospels by the other apostles for a clear understanding of the situations.

And one critical aspect we mankind must know, is to understand why the Messiah had 12 disciples, not 10, not 13, or no one, etc. There is no numerological significance, other than each is to be a witness to the acts of the Messiah, to express as how they felt in written form, so that later generations can verify and account the events that happened in the 1st century.

He knew each and everyone of the 12 disciples even before they were selected, for each of them had a role to play, individually, and as an unit after the Messiah's ressurection, so that later generations may discuss, debate and learn to progress/evolve.

reply to post by Michael Cecil

And chief among those Sayings in the Gospel of Thomas which clearly demonstrate that the Christian theologians have no real Knowledge of the Teaching of Jesus at all—and, thus, are guilty of, at least, ‘theft by deception’—are the following:

1) Saying #11: “On the day when you were one you became two. But when you become two what will you do?”;
which is echoed in Saying #72:

“He turned to his disciples and said to them ‘I am not a divider, am I?’” Commentary: Every esoteric Teaching of either the Eastern or the Western traditions is intensely concerned with the origin of the duality; since the duality is understood as being the origin of division, evil, conflict, violence and bloodshed.

"I am not a divider." Good words from a good man. This is why he was against Organized Religion. Religion is one of the big dividers of mankind. I explored this thought in a thread a few years ago.
Mankind and the Great Divide
Christianity and Islam cannot claim they do not divide, in fact, they do. Us and Them. There is no middle ground, folks, you are with us, or you are with Satan, and that's all there is to it. This is all based of course, on their book. None will admit all of the translations and changes it has gone though, nor will any of them do any research on the origins of words or stories found in the book. Any earlier books or texts are "lies," "myths," or "works of the Devil." I don't know a great deal about Islam, but my take on the extreme version is quite like this, either or. Don't these two book religions realize the heartache and bloodshed they have caused with this "belief system?" Right now, at this moment, Christianity is at war with Islam. Where does it end? When you destroy the world?

reply to post by autowrench


Sigh...I guess my efforts may had gone to waste.

The saying that was pulled out was taken out of a one line note by Thomas. One cannot comprehend what is going on with that one line.

A bigger picture when that question was asked could be:-

#72: A [person said] to him, "Tell my brothers to divide my father's possessions with me."

He said to the person, "Mister, who made me a divider?"

He turned to his disciples and said to them, "I'm not a divider, am I?"

So, what does that tells you? Is the Messiah then the estate probate for that man?

But a bigger issue on the 'division' spoken by the Messiah would probably be:-

#55 Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me."

Many atheists in the modern world today will claimed that christians are to hate their families. BUT the truth was, the Messiah was only speaking of the times that the disciples were living then. Do remember, it was the day of roman empire with compliant jewish leaders who bows to the romans, and a nation of jews whom either had not accepted the Messiah or heard of him yet.

It would be comprehensible thus that many in power of influence and those influenced not to upset the applecart, enslavement way of life then, by the appearance of the Messiah, to lead and guide mankind's generations back to our Creator.

Thus, there will be many, espacially the patriachs of families and sibilings, would be against one of their own following the Messiah, either out of lack of conscience or just plain ignorance.

this is not the first case of misinterpretation of the scriptures, nor will be the last. Thus, my suggestion to all is to just pick up the book and read, as you said, and try to understand, and where incomprehension happens, discuss and debate with others, so that more understanding may be gained, rather than to live this life in ignorance or with judgements made with foolish ignorance and belligerance.

reply to post by arpgme

Jesus was indeed called "The SON of God" but never God himself in this gospel.

Mark 3
. . . but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”

Jesus is saying to his critics that the spirit by which he cast out demons was of God, saying in effect that he had authority over them, including Satan himself, which would be a god-like thing, meaning such a person with that authority would be virtually God.
Mark 11
. . . the chief priests and the scribes and the elders came to Him, 28 and began saying to Him, “By what authority are You doing these things, or who gave You this authority to do these things?”

Jesus refers back to John and asks where his authority came from. If it came from God and it was fulfillment of prophecy, then the one he was announcing as coming was YHWH, and Jesus is identified as the one John spoke of, making Jesus, YHWH.
Mark 12
“David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; so in what sense is He his son?”

Here Jesus explains how the Messianic "Son of David" is actually YHWH.

reply to post by Michael Cecil

4) Saying #84: “Jesus said, ‘When you see your likeness, you rejoice. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest, how much will you have to bear!’”.

Commentary: The “likeness” or the ‘image’ that Jesus is referring to at the beginning of this Saying is the “likeness” or ‘image’ of the ‘fallen’ consciousness, which consists of an image of a “self” which exists in ‘space’ (originating in the ‘movement’ of self-reflection); an image which is extended in ‘time’ by the postulation of the thought of the ‘thinker’, the ‘mind’, the ‘soul’, etc. “…your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest” refers to the violent and chaotic images and archetypes of the ‘unconscious’, the experience of which is referred to as the “individuation process” in Jungian and archetypal psychology (that is, “how much you will have to bear!”).

Michael, would you mind elaborating on what you said about the archetypes:

"your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest” refers to the violent and chaotic images and archetypes of the ‘unconscious’, the experience of which is referred to as the “individuation process” in Jungian and archetypal psychology"

This sounds interesting but what do you think is truly meant by this? The explanation is kind of vague.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by arpgme

 

Jesus was indeed called "The SON of God" but never God himself in this gospel.

Mark 3
. . . but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”

Jesus is saying to his critics that the spirit by which he cast out demons was of God, saying in effect that he had authority over them, including Satan himself, which would be a god-like thing, meaning such a person with that authority would be virtually God.
Mark 11
. . . the chief priests and the scribes and the elders came to Him, 28 and began saying to Him, “By what authority are You doing these things, or who gave You this authority to do these things?”

Jesus refers back to John and asks where his authority came from. If it came from God and it was fulfillment of prophecy, then the one he was announcing as coming was YHWH, and Jesus is identified as the one John spoke of, making Jesus, YHWH.
Mark 12
“David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; so in what sense is He his son?”

Here Jesus explains how the Messianic "Son of David" is actually YHWH.

edit on 21-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I know not what your intentions are and why the deliberate attempt to MISINTERPRETATE Mark 11.

This is the actual text as written in Mark chapter 11, from v27 to v33

27 They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. 28 “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?”
29 Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!”

31 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 32 But if we say, ‘Of human origin’ …” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)

33 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.”

Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

Thus, no where did the Messiah call forth John to answer.

35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’[h]

37 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”

The large crowd listened to him with delight.

Again, no where did John answered on the Messiah's behalf. But the saddest thing you had done is to allude that the Messiah claimed to be God. This is beyond horror. No where, no where did the Messiah claimed he is God. Please, please, do not blaspheme.

reply to post by jmdewey60


There's a difference between having The Holy Spirit in you and actually BEING God - The Holy Spirit. Doing something BY God or IN THE NAME OF God, is not the same as actually BEING God.

Also, so what David called him Lord. How does that make him God? They also called Moses Lord do you believe that he was God now too?

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Again, no where did John answered on the Messiah's behalf.

Well, no, since at this point in the story, John had already been killed.
You are effectively calling all Christians blasphemers because there is in Christianity this doctrine of Trinity, making Jesus, God, except maybe Jehovah's Witnesses who do not call themselves Christians anyway.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

There's a difference between having The Holy Spirit in you and actually BEING God - The Holy Spirit. Doing something BY God or IN THE NAME OF God, is not the same as actually BEING God.

Also, so what David called him Lord. How does that make him God? They also called Moses Lord do you believe that he was God now too?

My core argument is that the prophecy was to have a messenger to go before the Lord to prepare the way. Mark starts out in the fist verse explaining that the prophesied messenger was John the Baptist, and he fulfilled the role of the one to announce the coming of The Lord, otherwise known as YHWH, commonly referred to as, God.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Well, no, since at this point in the story, John had already been killed.
You are effectively calling all Christians blasphemers because there is in Christianity this doctrine of Trinity, making Jesus, God, except maybe Jehovah's Witnesses who do not call themselves Christians anyway.

No. The ONLY blasphemer here is you. One issue at a time. You had been found propounding a devious lie and yet you continue to brash your way through, having absolutely no conscience to make a sincere apology for your error, which would have done great harm to those whom depended on spoonfeeding and not check facts.

As for the trinity, comprehend that the Messiah came into our world for the sole purpose of redeming the stiff necked jews, caught in vicious cycle of dependence on the despicable romans, corrupt leaders, and dogmatic beliefs and guidance of the theologians that would only hurt the next generations.

The Messiah was the ONLY way for the jews to seek redemption, not the corrupted rabbis that they had, and thus the trinity evolved. The Messiah is not God, not seek to be one, but only as a means for the jews to seek redemption and return to our Creator.

And as for gentiles-non jews, he was surprised that they too would have faith in our Creator as by the greek woman who pleaded for help to save his daughter, in a time and era when the belief in our Creator was replaced by the might and brutality of rome.

And through her faith were the non-jews worldwide taught civilisational teachings, so that they may know our Creator, to progress and evolve. The Messiah stands ready always to intercede for mankind, for his love for humanity is as boundless as our Creator's, and thus, he the first amongst equals of fellow human brothers and sisters, a brother whom we call for in our hour of need, as is his concern for us when we face difficult issues in life, if we but pray, so long as what we seek for hurts and harms no one, or is not against the path that our Creator had destined for us. Many a miracle had happened since his appearance on our planet.

Do spend more time reading the book on your free will, so that you may understand more, for the path to our Creator, whom love us all, is open to all mankind.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

so long as what we seek for hurts and harms no one, or is not against the path that our Creator had destined for us. Many a miracle had happened since his appearance on our planet.

Your post, to me, just looks like propaganda to make veiled threats to coerce people to join your cult and that seems rather satanic to me, and what is this bit about "intended by the creator"? You mean eating pork and drinking alcohol and having gay sex?

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Sigh...I guess my efforts may had gone to waste.

No, the message was taken clear enough for me. I know the man was sent down here to bring together, not to divide as the Christians always do. I have read through the Gospel of Thomas, it is not a new thing to me.

Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me."

OK, let's look at that one. Love and Honer they Father and Mother is Biblical, is it not? Doesn't mean your Earthly Father and Mother, means your Divine Father and Mother. Carry your cross means simply to carry the load you have chosen to bear in this cycle, do what you are destined to do. I suppose I am still was out of context?

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

“He turned to his disciples and said to them ‘I am not a divider, am I?’”

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Thomas said to them, ‘If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of those stones and burn you up.’”

Maybe Jesus told Thomas that he was Satan. Isn't that possible or why else would his fellow disciples want to stone him?

When you read the Bible with a closer eye, you will notice a lot of question marks (?) after statements, which can be read as the opposite of what is being said. They say God is not the author of confusion, so why would he speak to people in riddles and not be straightforward?

Jeremiah 7:22-23:

For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

King James Version

Is Jeremiah telling the truth, did God never ask for burnt offerings or sacrifices?

If so, how can Jesus be the ultimate sacrifice, as so many Bible scholars claim?

After reading the Old Testament it became apparent to me that the different authors of each of the books were not all following the God who they claimed created the universe. If we look at the universe, our planet, and our bodies, we see that its creator developed a precise, stable, and well thought out system. I don't see why he would approach humans in a very different manner. All of the information received by those ancient figures came from supernatural beings or angels who claimed to represent the Creator God.

It leads us to ask the question, can humans discern the true nature of spiritual beings?

If a supernatural being or alien appeared to you, could you tell if it was good or evil simply by what it told you or what it did? I suppose it would entirely depend on whether you felt its actions were a blessing or a punishment from your own point of view.

Jesus teachings to Thomas opens a whole new door to possibilities.

There is much more of the mystic and broader view of the universe than the narrow teachings we are given in the four books of gospel in the mainstream bible.

I have a friend who wrote a wonderful book that includes his understanding of Gospel of Thomas.

He says that the Tao Te Ching and the Gospels According to Thomas can be fully understood when read from the Subjective view i.e. non-duality and metaphysics.

"These books require a reading from a "subjective" point of view wherein they make a consistent metaphysics. The Gospel of Thomas is difficult to comprehended by the Western set of mind that views "things" as separate objects "out there" in the world.

It might be well to note that LaoTse preceded Jesus in history by about five centuries. The scholar can follow the Gnostic Idea from East to West to its birth as a doctrine of Love in the first century A.D.—only to have all but traces of its original subjectivism removed from worldly view within the first 500 years of its history.

Interestingly, this is what both Jesus and LaoTse said would happen—and the prophets before them. However, both men say, in nearly identical terms, that in the final days of linear time "There is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed, and there is nothing covered that shall remain without being uncovered."

Here is an excerpt from his book titled The Child Within Us Lives! by William Samuel

SUBJECTIVISM AND RELIGION

To the objective view, there is God and a sinful mankind struggling to return to God's grace. To the subjective view, there is God and God's Self-Awareness appearing as all possible individual states. The “return” is leaving the bonds of objectivism to re-embrace the Original Child, the subjective “Mind of God”—to let the Awareness be us which is also the Christ Truth. Then, if we are willing to continue, we find and live the balance. Here, the objective world is understood, not denied. The balance is a step beyond subjectivism, just as the subjective idea is a step beyond the objective view of things. But, listen, listen: The Child within can be found anywhere along the line at any moment! When the Child is found, we go quickly to the balance of things.

SUBJECTIVISM AND THE BIBLE

The blind caterpillar has one opinion about a particular leaf on which it walks. But how much more expansive that view becomes when the caterpillar is a sighted butterfly! Exactly so, the subjectivist has an expanded view of the Bible, considerably beyond the confining, restricting, legalistic interpretation given it by fundamentalist, objective churchdom. The winging butterfly's statements and actions relative to the Bible-leaf may seem an abomination to the caterpillars still digesting the letter of the leaf. Just as quantum mechanics seems to make a mockery of objective physics (but doesn't, really), exactly so, dawning subjectivism seems an insane mockery of religion to some religionist, especially those who think they are seeing and interpreting the Bible with the only possible view.

But just as the subjective states of mind seem superior to the limited views of objectivism, so does the view of the rediscovered and resurrected Child within (This is the third position, the “It is a mountain again” position) come as an infinitely superior view to those held by the churchman, scientist or metaphysician!

My metaphysical friends have always been nonplussed by the thought that there could be a position beyond the GOD IS ALL position. Indeed, there is. God is beyond all concepts and all “positions.” Later, we will cover this ground in detail. Meanwhile we remember that there is the third position, quite beyond metaphysics as it presently appears in the world. “finally, it is a mountain again.” Here we know what to DO concerning the mountains of life—and find ourselves capable of moving them."

( the above paragraphs were excerpted from The Child Within Us Lives! by William Samuel)

-------------

I think you will find Mr. Samuel's statements to 'ring true' to you when you read his work. He helps us understand how to read the Gospel of Thomas from the subjective Quantum View rather than the separated-sense view.

Its a wonderful book, he wrote it in 1986, and it is profoundly prophetic to read it now in these days we are in. Its a book that points to what we 'need' to understand in order to get through these days unscathed and balanced.

You can read more about him and there are more free excerpts from his books at: www.williamsamuel.com

I think many of you will be very glad you found him and his work! His message is one of genuine Self-discovery, liberation and Truth and Understanding.














Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
Thomas is the main Man in my humble opinion! He was the one who brought the real teaching to India an he was excepted very well by the Hindus, even today there are Thomas Churches opposite Hindu Temples in the South of India....I think He was the one who coined the phrase,,,"Know Thyself an youll be Free!"

edit on 12-9-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE because: (no reason given)

Some say that you cannot truly know yourself until you die. I disagree, in that one cannot truly know oneself until one has experienced all there is to experience.

Therefore, we will always be learning, even if it is only of our own hearts.