The First Synod of ATS: The Gospel of Thomas

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
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.)


I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that everything on a fundamental level has an opposite, e.g. hot and cold, big and small, male and female, etc., so tiny physical differences don't really apply in my opinion. We're spiritual beings, not physical ones.

If there is a father, there has to be a mother, right? Have you ever met a child with a father and no mother? So why does Jesus never mention a Motherly aspect of God? He never once mentions a "Mother" at any point in the bible. I find that kind of strange personally, seeing as everything has an opposite (esoterically).



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?


I don't know how you can even begin to compare a dog and a tree, they have absolutely no connection to each other so that's a moot point.



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.


You're thinking in a very confined and restrained sort of way, you aren't looking at the big picture. If an apple is matter then there is anti-matter. In fact, any kind of matter has anti-matter as its opposite, just like every action has an equal and opposite reaction and every cause has an effect.

You can't just ignore the duality that is inherent in nature, because it is most definitely there. Stop thinking small-scale and start seeing the big picture




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.


Shame on China then.

I'm not saying they are the sole source of all the wrongs in the world, I'm just saying they've been a huge part of those wrongs throughout history.
edit on 13-4-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by adjensen
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.)


I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that everything on a fundamental level has an opposite, e.g. hot and cold, big and small, male and female, etc.,

And I think that you're wrong in thinking that duality is a necessary perspective. What is cold, really? The opposite of hot? No, in terms of physics, cold is the absence of heat. Small is the absence of mass, when compared to big. Female is the absence of a "Y" chromosome.

That's how Christians and Jews view the world -- evil is not the opposite of good, it is the absence of good. Cruelty is not the opposite of mercy, it is the absence of it.

And, again, the reason for that perspective is that God has no opposite, no counter.


If there is a father, there has to be a mother, right? Have you ever met a child with a father and no mother? So why does Jesus never mention a Motherly aspect of God? He never once mentions a "Mother" at any point in the bible.

Well, he certainly refers to Mary as his mother, but on the subject of God, did God "give birth" to the universe? Or did he create it? The latter, obviously, and there is no need for a partner to do that.




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?


I don't know how you can even begin to compare a dog and a tree, they have absolutely no connection to each other so that's a moot point.

I was pointing out that "young and old" are not characteristics that impart oppositeness in themselves -- the puppy is young, the tree is old, but they are obviously not opposite.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 



In regards to your ongoing discussion with adjenson and Nut, in relation to whether the Essenes were Gnostics or not; I would like to add the following…


Most Scholars are of the opinion that the “Dead Sea Scrolls” were written by the Essenes. There is much debate on the historical accuracy of this assertion, and although not exactly set in stone, there does however appear to be more evidence for, than against.

Between the 2 Essenes groups, the Ossaeans and the Nazareans, the later were more prominent. Jesus himself of course, was from Nazareth and would have been known as a Nazarene.

Anyway, getting back to your discussion, there is strong Scholarly evidence which suggests, that the Essenes may have been the forerunners, of the Christian Gnostic movement.



"a pre-Christian Judaism of Gnostic character [gnostisierendes Judentum] which hitherto could be inferred only from later sources is now attested to by the newly discovered Dead Sea Scrolls


(R. Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 1951, p. 361).

Source


Many similarities have been drawn between the Essenes, and a Jewish sect called the Therapeutae. The Therapeutae lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which just so happens to be the birth place of the Coptic language.

History shows us that “Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria”, was purportedly founded by St Mark, sometime in the middle of the 1st century AD. The Gnostic Valentinus who was ironically educated in Alexandria in his youth, was to later teach in the that very same city, in 134 AD.

Historians date the Gospel of Thomas somewhere bewteen 40 and 140 AD, so I can only assume they are torn between whether or not it was written during the time Valentinus lived (100-160 AD), or from another source, sometime before St Mark arrived in Alexandria.



- JC



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Originally posted by eight bits
adj


Even though I am an orthodox Christian, I consider the suppression and destruction of these texts by the church to be a tragedy, a crime against history. These texts testify to the thought, the passion and the dreams of a people whose story deserves to be told. They were wrong, there is no doubt in my mind, but that doesn't make them any less human, or any less worthy of study.

Any break in continuity of copying explains the disappearance of ancient text. Loss of interest is what happened to Gnosticism, in my opinion. The contrast between core Thomas and the accretions tells the tale. To the extent that verse 114 says anything at all, it compares unfavorably with the telling of the Tiresias myth in the Odyssey. Tiresias had his struggles to reach us, but he did so comfortably enough. Verse 114's survival is little short of a miracle, that such an artless expression of an unelaborated cliche reached us at all - a lucky graffito.


To say that they were suppressed, (not you) because they 'couldnt possibly be true' is only saying 'in context to other writings'. Throw out the other writings as litmus strip tests; allow another book to be printed and distributed in conjunction to (sound familiar? the Old and New Testaments combined). There was enough to be be worried about in the banned texts to vanish them by someone somewhere. Lets disregard the fact that 12th century monks did much of the scribing and were edited as to what they could see, and could not reproduce. There was enough of the supernatural elements in Enochs writings to have him banned (the rest heresy). Why not publish all of the others, and how is it a publishing Co. (Simon and Schuster, Knoft, Penguin) does not step up and recreate history. Thiis history should be ours to decide for in interpretation; perhaps book sales would not be profitable. Personally, I like the hickups '114' that bubble to the surface of lies upon lies to reveal what? A Question of Authenticity to all Scripture.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
And I think that you're wrong in thinking that duality is a necessary perspective. What is cold, really? The opposite of hot? No, in terms of physics, cold is the absence of heat. Small is the absence of mass, when compared to big. Female is the absence of a "Y" chromosome.

I wouldn't say that viewing the world as dual is "necessary", I see everything as one myself, but we can't deny the pattern of nature.

But aren't cold and hot part of the same gradient? You can't have one without the other, we wouldn't be able to figure out how cold something is unless we have something hot to contrast it. Hot and cold are opposite ends on a scale, just like male and female or big and small.



That's how Christians and Jews view the world -- evil is not the opposite of good, it is the absence of good. Cruelty is not the opposite of mercy, it is the absence of it.

And, again, the reason for that perspective is that God has no opposite, no counter.


I don't believe God has a counter either because "he" is all that is, though he has both positive and negative (male and female) aspects about him because God consists of everything.



Well, he certainly refers to Mary as his mother, but on the subject of God, did God "give birth" to the universe? Or did he create it? The latter, obviously, and there is no need for a partner to do that.


The universe being created implies it had a beginning, I don't believe the universe had a beginning, I believe it has always been.

As far as a partner not being needed, I totally disagree. What would life be if there was no world to experience or if there was nothing to experience the world? It wouldn't be much of anything if you have one without the other.



I was pointing out that "young and old" are not characteristics that impart oppositeness in themselves -- the puppy is young, the tree is old, but they are obviously not opposite.


I never said they were opposites, you are trying to imply that I did. The two cannot be compared even as opposites. You're still not seeing the bigger picture.
edit on 13-4-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   
If a person has experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit, then the Gospel of Thomas is truly enlightening. I understand how people tend to depend on scholars for their information and how the phrase "secret sayings" are a complete turnoff to some but the fact of the matter is the entire bible is full of secret things, things hidden from the foundation of the earth and Jesus himself clearly stated that he spoke in parables to the multitudes, so not everyone understood what he was saying.

Thomas is an esoteric text but so is the Gospel of John. In fact, John's gospel reveals all the mysteries of Christ in a very methodical way. And let me just add, that when you figure out where the mysteries begin and end in John's gospel, then and only then will you understand saying 18 in Thomas:

'18. The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?"
Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death." '

It is the Holy Spirit who gives revelation and opens our eyes spiritually to discern.

For God to come live INSIDE us, our bodies have to be prepared and that is where the mysteries come in. And if a person experiences all the sacraments, then it becomes undeniable that they have experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The end result of your faith is Christ living inside you. Tackling how he accomplishes such a feat is fundamental in understanding Thomas.
edit on 15-4-2013 by Myrtales Instinct because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Originally posted by Joecroft
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 



joecroft
In regards to your ongoing discussion with adjenson and Nut, in relation to whether the Essenes were Gnostics or not; I would like to add the following…
Most Scholars are of the opinion that the “Dead Sea Scrolls” were written by the Essenes. There is much debate on the historical accuracy of this assertion, and although not exactly set in stone, there does however appear to be more evidence for, than against.
Between the 2 Essenes groups, the Ossaeans and the Nazareans, the later were more prominent. Jesus himself of course, was from Nazareth and would have been known as a Nazarene.
Anyway, getting back to your discussion, there is strong Scholarly evidence which suggests, that the Essenes may have been the forerunners, of the Christian Gnostic movement.


This is my opinion as well. One of the reasons for Jesus being able to become a trusted officiate/child member of Qumran was because he was a Nazarene. I am convinced the Essenes were the harbringer of the modern day Gnostic movement exterminated; but time capsuled to reappear at/within an appropriate time 1947ish AD.


Joecroft
Many similarities have been drawn between the Essenes, and a Jewish sect called the Therapeutae. The Therapeutae lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which just so happens to be the birth place of the Coptic language.
History shows us that “Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria”, was purportedly founded by St Mark, sometime in the middle of the 1st century AD. The Gnostic Valentinus who was ironically educated in Alexandria in his youth, was to later teach in the that very same city, in 134 AD.


This does not surprise me. Jesus lived in Alexandria as a boy with his parents, at 7 they left. The presumed reason is that he was being too scrutinized or pinpointed as perhaps being the annointed one prophecy fulfulling (his skills his birthright were coming into undue attention). Languages spoken Greek, Coptic, written, Hebrew.


Joecroft
Historians date the Gospel of Thomas somewhere bewteen 40 and 140 AD, so I can only assume they are torn between whether or not it was written during the time Valentinus lived (100-160 AD), or from another source, sometime before St Mark arrived in Alexandria.


The Book of Thomas written between 40 and 140AD? Its not inconcievable, and there is the other one; The Book of Thomas the Contender. The resurrected Jesus's twin brother 'Judas Thomas's' testimonial. It just becomes more fun.


edit on 16-4-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


You can reference my thoughts here: LINK 1 THOMAS

And Here: And Here



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Akragon
 


You can reference my thoughts here: LINK 1 THOMAS

And Here: And Here


Thank you my friend, you thoughts are always a welcome contribution to any of my threads...

Part two in this series is on the board now

www.abovetopsecret.com...






new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join