The First Synod of ATS: The Gospel of Thomas

reply to post by vethumanbeing


Charles already brought that up...

There was clearly an anti-female thing going around at that time... Thoughout biblical times, before and after women haven't had equality... and there are lots of references in gnostic material that say "make the female into male"

Then again, perhaps in the afterlife we are not male or female...

how about a vague reference...

Matthew 22?

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Plus gnostics relied heavily on Paul... who wasn't a fan of women either...

If you read Mary's "gospel" peter had issues with her as well, basically calling her a liar

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
reply to post by Akragon

 

Still waiting for any meaningful discussion of The Book of Thomas; TICK TOCK. (or is that the point). The last (114) of the book states: Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." What is this a joke; I can see in now on the Colbert Report (breaking news, Jesus secretly a Masogynist and caves to false self chosen apostle/disciple peer pressure; unfortunately his TRUE peers crucified him).

edit on 11-4-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

Personally, I think this relates to reincarnation, and that we incarnated as both male and female before we reach enlightenment, or "gnosis."

I really don't see much difference between the claim that Jesus said this about Mary and about sexual transformation, when so many male Christians refer to themselves as the "Bride of Christ" by being part of the "church". The "church" that Christians believe that Jesus designated to Peter, the rock, not James the Just.

The Essenes were often referred to as "Pythagorean Gnostics" and part of their rituals consisted of the gathering assemblies of angels, who, they claimed ministered to them. Paul hated these people, calling them puffed up and proud and warned others that if the angels contradicted Paul's words, then they shouldn't be listened to.

It must be remembered that this period of history was particularly brilliant. The Roman Empire of that day was filled with minds well-schooled in the philosophy of Plato, Pythagoras, Aristotle and Zeno. The religious and philosophical systems of Egypt, Chaldea, Persia and India were known to many scholars. The work of Apollonius had greatly augmented the already existing interest in the philosophies of the Far Fast. Thousands of students were pouring out of the great Schools of Alexandria and Ephesus each year, and all of them were armed with knowledge.

Just south of the city of Alexandria, perched high upon a lofty plateau overlooking the blue waters of Lake Mareotis, there had lived for centuries before the Christian era, a group of men and women who passed their lives in study and meditation. They were a branch of the Pythagorean Essenes, and were known as the Therapeutae.

Philo Judaeus has written a lengthy description of them in his essay, On the Contemplative Life. He says:

"These Essenes are called Therapeutae, either because they profess the art of healing superior to that in use in cities (for that only heals bodies, whereas the latter heals our souls as well), or else because they have been schooled by the sacred laws to serve that which is better than the Good, purer than the One and more ancient than the Monad(2)."

www.wisdomworld.org...

Originally posted by Akragon


Plus gnostics relied heavily on Paul... who wasn't a fan of women either...

That is not entirely accurate, he was critical of some women, but as evidenced by Priscilla, who along with her husband, Aquila, accompanied him everywhere, as well as Thecla, reputedly his student, and considered by the Eastern church as 'equal to the Apostles', it is clear that he was not as wholly biased, and dismissive of women as Peter clearly was.

Originally posted by dulce5cinco
What if Nuclear war is being instigated to make sure no one gets to see the documentary Sirius, produced by the people, called for by Dr. Steven Greer?

I already have their satellite radio, it's pretty sweet.

Akragon

And I agree the trinity isn't biblical... but how do you explain this?

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


You're essentially saying Jesus didn't say what is written in the biblical gospels...

I do not dispute the Great Commission, nor the reasonableness of the Trinity being inferred from things Jesus taught. What I challenge is that Jesus taught the Trinity in so many words.

Compare Acts 1: 4-5. There we see Jesus, on the point of Ascension, discussing baptisms, and all three persons of the Trinity are made salient (Jesus speaking, Father and Holy Spirit are mentioned), but Jesus is not depicted as reciting the now-familiar Trinitarian baptismal formula.

I do not deny that the familiar formula is early, but I think it is Second Century, while I think that the originals of both Matthew and Luke-Acts are First Century. Or, if the formula is in the original Matthew, then I think it is not yet the universal church formula. Either way, I don't think it is reliable that Jesus said those words, in that form, while on Earth.

Other views are possible, of course.

Note that this comparison would be an example of something I mentioned in an earlier post: the two accounts depict Jesus using similar words and ideas, but he is saying two different things in the two tellings (literally the difference between "Get out there and do it" versus "Wait here for further guidance"). One of the two, then, needs at least a footnote, and in a rough coding (as red, pink, blue and black is a very rough coding), one of them had better be black, IMO.

adj

Jesus tricked the Romans into crucifying Simon of Cyrene, not him.

If I may add something which isn't news to you, but might be helpful to other readers just tuning in, the basis for the "Gnostic" theory is Basilides of Alexandria's discovery of a grammatical peculiarity in Mark, the Alexandrian Gospel of choice.

If you read the Passion, then there is no mention of the proper name Jesus after 15: 15 (Jesus is scourged) until 15: 34 (Jesus recites the opening of Psalm 22). With a little wit about "Jesus breathing his last," then grammatically, you could resolve all the third person singular masculine pronouns surrounding the Crucifixion as referring to Simon of Cyrene, who takes up "his" cross at 15: 21. You may also recall that Jesus had advised someone to take up his cross and follow.

Obviously, I am not proposing this as a justified reading of Mark's Passion. I am just explaining the apparent origin of the belief. The belief is described as "Gnostic" because Basilides was a Gnostic, and the reading is attributed to him. Other Gnostics may have believed other things.

vethumanbeing

The last (114) of the book states:...

Pure Gnostic invention. The last even remotely possibly authentic saying of a historical Jesus is 113. Verse 114 isn't just in black, it's in black with an explanation. Jesus might as well be being quoted as saying "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is next up as his Prophet - don't go away!" as far as ease of recognition of another religion's interpolation.


Akragon

Paul... who wasn't a fan of women either...

I see we disagree about that, too. Fortunately, we have our hands full with what Jesus might have said, and verse 114 isn't even close.
-

reply to post by eight bits


Yes, and all three Person s of the Trinity are present at the baptism of Jesus.

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
reply to post by Akragon

 

Still waiting for any meaningful discussion of The Book of Thomas; TICK TOCK. (or is that the point). The last (114) of the book states:

As EightBits has pointed out, it is almost universally accepted that 114 is a late addition, late even for the Gnostics -- they were fairly liberal in their view of women (particularly when compared to the Jewish cultural view,) so there is some speculation that it was added by a non-Gnostic to discredit Thomas, though I'm not really sure how that would work.

As with saying #1, I can conclusively state that Jesus did not say #114.

reply to post by windword


I think it has something to do with the Spirit. The Spirit (invisible) is the Father or "male", the World (visible) is the Mother or "female". Father Consciousness and Mother Earth are two sides of the same coin.

Any woman who makes themselves male (of the Spirit) gains eternal life, because the material world (female) is perishable, but the Spirit (male) is eternal.

At least that's how I see it.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Does that make sense?

Are you asking from a Gnostic perspective? If so, sort of -- in the mythos, the material world arose as a result of Sophia (one of the higher gods, called Aeons,) and her... well, womanly worries might be a bit much, but essentially that's what it was -- she fell out of God's grace and her fears that resulted from that resulted in creation. So they didn't see the earth as being female, but there was a connection. (Some Christian Gnostics viewed Sophia as being what orthodox Christians believed was the Holy Spirit.)

reply to post by adjensen


I'm asking from a general perspective.

As I see it, Sophia is basically a code name for the physical world or Earth. Sophia means "wisdom", we gain wisdom through our experiences within the physical world, so Sophia (the world) gives us her wisdom through our experiences. Ever wonder why older people are considered "wise"? Because they have experienced more than others.

Sophia is the true Bride of Christ, the wife of the Father, a.k.a. the Mother. Without Mother Earth, Father consciousness would have nothing to experience or wisdom to be gained. In my opinion...

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Sophia is the true Bride of Christ, the wife of the Father, a.k.a. the Mother. Without Mother Earth, Father consciousness would have nothing to experience or wisdom to be gained. In my opinion.

Well, that's classic dualism, so it would probably fit in okay. As I recall, opinions of Sophia varied, and she was considered the source of the Divine Spark, that bit of divinity in humans that drove them to seek out the Gnosis in the first place.

A person could read an awful lot into that.

reply to post by adjensen


We live in a dualistic world don't we? Everything has an "opposite", so why would there be a Father but no Mother? That's something that Christians should really think about for a minute. Why does Jesus never mention a Mother in the bible?

I think a huge part of why the world is the way it is today is because of religions like Christianity purposely leaving out teachings of Mother nature from their books.

Why would they leave out those teachings? Because if they didn't, people would respect Earth a whole lot more and they would have been against killing Mother nature for profit. Those in power can't lose their profits can they? If they taught that Mother nature was an integral part of God, they would not have been able to profit off of it.

What do we see today? Those in power bleeding the Earth dry of its natural resources, pollution, deforestation, etc. Those are the ill-effects of religion only teaching one half of the whole in my opinion.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
We live in a dualistic world don't we? Everything has an "opposite", so why would there be a Father but no Mother?

How does everything have an opposite? That's, essentially, claiming that nothing is unique. Who, for example, is your opposite? What is the opposite of an apple? The opposite of Friday?

Father and mother are not opposites, they are parts of a whole. None of the Abrahamic religions are dualistic for the fundamental reason that God does not have parts, and he has no counter.

I think a huge part of why the world is the way it is today is because of religions like Christianity purposely leaving out teachings of Mother nature from their books.

Why would they leave out those teachings? Because if they didn't, people would respect Earth a whole lot more and they would have been against killing Mother nature for profit.

While that may be the case with some religions, others are very much supportive of the view that we are stewards of God's creation, and we're supposed to take care of the Earth, not wreck it.

Here, for example, is what the Catholic Church has to say on the matter:

Respect for the integrity of creation

2415 The seventh commandment [thou shalt not steal] enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals. (Source)

Jesus said, "Everyone who seeks should continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will be troubled at the contemplation of Truth, but when he has passed through the time of trouble, he will be astonished at the brightness of the Light, for the Way of Truth is the Pathway to the Eternal Godhead, and the price of the beatific vision is the wringing of the soul. The person who desires to rise above all things must descend below all things, for the way to the heights passes through the depths of anguish, which generate the fires of Life. The person who has suffered and found Life is blessed."

This is your journey inside and the shocking truth is your actions and behavior, all the things that brought you here to this cross roads in your life. Your wrong doings will flood you and bring you down and humble you and cause great sorrow because of the unknowing hurt you held on others. You will be amazed at the simple path one must take to reach heaven, the true path that was seeded by Christ and one must follow and believe. When one succeeds the trials and has gained his soul and has humbled his very being the dark will be visible that once resembled light, and he is blessed.

Jesus said, "I am the door; the person who enters by me will find Eternal bliss. I am the bed; the person who lies on me will enter perpetual rest. I am the Light; the person who sees by me will view all things."

The cycles ended with Christ, because he became the door and the bed the light of truth and laid down the golden path to heaven.

Watching the crowds wandering in the marketplace, Jesus said to Mary Magdaline, "Look at them; they are sheep without a shepherd, for they refuse to hear my voice. The Good Shepherd calls to them, but they reject his barn, wandering in darkness until they are consumed by the wolves and the bears."

This Jesus talking about the material world and all things that belong to it, they toil and make war for they put material things before life itself. They way of the money changer brings a false light and pierces you with griefs and a sense of hopelessness, the way through the darkness is Yeshau but they fear the light because of what they do in the dark.

The Gospel of Thomas is a good read but like all others, you must know them by the fruit of which they speak.

reply to post by Akragon


I'm a committed Christian, and I've read the gospel of Thomas a few times.

I have no trouble whatsoever believing that much of what it contains is directly thhe result of encounters with the living Jesus of Nazareth.

I've been 'baptized in the Spirit', and in truth, in many parts of the Gospel of Thomas, I get a keen sense of the manifest presence of the Lord when reading through the words on the pages. I am thus satisfied that (at least in large part), it is a genuine & sincere, truthful account (possibly handed down orally) of the words of Christ.

I will have to re-read it in light of wanting to make a better contribution to this 'ATS Synod thread', but for now I would only want to add that if any parts of the gospel do not convey authentic sayings (I believe I'm able to discern such these days, owing to long experience & spirit-gifting), then I speculate that errors may have accrued through the process of Chinese Whispers during the original transmission of the work/ during the later collation of the work (if collated from oral history, it was probably researched by an early Christian with a journalistic bent - maybe his name was Thomas, and thus later copies by later scribes recorded an assumption that he was the original disciple from among the twelve.)

Proto-summary: Read carefully, with discernment active & in light of what is known to be genuine, prayerfully before the Lord, and there is blessing/ wisdom to be found in the Gospel of Thomas...

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I could write a dissertation on why you are so very wrong about so very much, but for now I would just want to mention that in Christianity, the manifest presence of God is entirely fulfilling in a 'parent-child' sense.

We describe God as Father, for He is the active source of all creative authority, active as opposed to passive (male/female, typically) - His concerns as relates to sentient life are generally considered masculine in their administration, at least from our human perspective (justice, mercy, rulership & commissioning, etc).

Many Christians describe the role of the Spirit as that of the 'less-male' side of God - the Shekinah presence which overshadows a believer caught up in ecstasy. God is not male and female - He is beyond ordinary descriptors, with fatherhood (strength, authority, etc) being greater than any father, and with motherhood (tender care, loving acceptance) more gentle than any mother. Jesus referred to God as Father because He is prime over all such labels as we would attribute to the variations of the sexes, and being thus as He is the active creative force, to humanity is primarily experienced or known as a male force.

Taking it a bit further, the entirety of the Cosmos has a (somewhat passive) feminine nature, bringing forth life womb-like upon its canvas; though with the creative impetus, the spiritual drive, being from the Creator beyond the Cosmos, it simply makes more sense that He is known as Father.

Acts 17:28
New Living Translation (NLT)

28 For in him we live and move and exist. As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

reply to post by adjensen


I don't follow how everything having an opposite means nothing is unique. My "opposite" would be a female, the opposite of an apple would be the seed. The opposite of Friday is kind of ridiculous, we're speaking of natural terms not man-made ideas.

You must have missed the last line of my post. I said that Christianity only teaches one half of the whole, the whole (One) being a mixture of the Father and Mother called life. The two are One, but distinctly different. You can understand that in the same way that you believe in the Catholic Trinity.

As for the Catholic apology, actions speak louder than words. The church has been a HUGE part of history and you see where that has gotten us so far.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

I don't follow how everything having an opposite means nothing is unique. My "opposite" would be a female

How is your opposite "a female"? Which female? You are a unique individual, so your opposite would also be a unique individual, not a whole gender.

Unless you have the soap opera stereotypical evil twin, you have no opposite.

the opposite of an apple would be the seed.

No, a seed is the source, and a part, of an apple, it is obviously not its opposite.

As for the Catholic apology, actions speak louder than words. The church has been a HUGE part of history and you see where that has gotten us so far.

And what, pray tell, was the state of non-religious ecological protection prior to the 20th Century?

reply to post by adjensen


How about my soul mate? I haven't found her yet but I'm sure she's out there. They do say that "opposites" attract.

A seed is to an apple as young is to old. Do you believe that young and old are not opposites?

I don't know the answer to that question, but I know pollution has only gotten worse since the 20th century and is as bad today as ever before.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

How about my soul mate? I haven't found her yet but I'm sure she's out there. They do say that "opposites" attract.

They do say that, but personal characteristics does not make someone "your opposite", unless you have completely opposite physical characteristics and completely opposite views on every subject (in which case, I would strongly recommend not marrying them, lol.)

A seed is to an apple as young is to old.

Again, that is one characteristic, but having two opposite characteristics does not make two objects opposites. Is a puppy the opposite of a 1,000 year old redwood tree?

Do you believe that young and old are not opposites?

They are, and I never said that there were no opposites -- I simply said that your statement that everything has an opposite is not true.

I don't know the answer to that question, but I know pollution has only gotten worse since the 20th century and is as bad today as ever before.

One of the most polluted countries in the world is China -- how religious are they?

I'm not saying that religion is perfect, I'm just saying that you can't lay all the world's evils at its feet. You can like the Catholic Church or not (or other churches, there are others that are ecologically friendly,) but at least they're trying to do something positive.