Gospel of Thomas

[davidmartin]

Originally Posted by django

But why do you think the GoT is saying this, when it says in black and white "Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will acquire a sin, and if you pray you will be condemned, and if you give alms, it is evil that you will do unto your spirits." In the GoT He doesn't suggest doing anything in a different way, he just associates these activities with sin, with being condemned, and with doing evil to yourself. What exactly prompts you to read anything further into these sentences? Do you think Jesus suddenly requires the reader/listener to think cryptically, and risk getting it wrong if they go for a literal interpretation, when he speaks very plainly in the NT? No one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket or in a cellar...

Well, I read further because they aren't acceptable taken literally :)
But I would say Jesus doesn't speak plainly in the NT all the time its only because we are so used to them there.
I think the GoT does challenge and the points it challenges on need challenging

[django]

Originally Posted by davidmartin

Well, I read further because they aren't acceptable taken literally :)
But I would say Jesus doesn't speak plainly in the NT all the time its only because we are so used to them there.
I think the GoT does challenge and the points it challenges on need challenging

I'm glad you read further, because then these issues can be discussed on a level playing field. I meant Jesus speaks very plainly about prayer, fasting and alms in the NT, he leaves no doubt as to his attitude towards these 3 things specifically. He also speaks plainly about other issues, such as his attitude towards the Pharisees, the importance of seeking the Kingdom, etc.

I agree though he doesn't always speak plainly about everything, many times he uses parables to the public. But very often (always?) Jesus explains his parables to the disciples, so we can get a good sense of his style of parable in the NT, and the sort of explanation that is given to the disciples.

So some of my questions would be, when he is using parables in the GoT, why doesn't he explain them to 'Thomas' so that his disciple will understand clearly? Or if Thomas does know what they mean, why doesn't he write this information down? Why leave everything so obscure and so open to misinterpretation?

And my earlier question was legitimate, why do you or anyone else not take the GoT's prohibition on prayer, fasting and alms directly, what is the clue to you that they don't mean what they say?

[sky]

Originally Posted by davidmartin

Well, I read further because they aren't acceptable taken literally :)
But I would say Jesus doesn't speak plainly in the NT all the time its only because we are so used to them there.
I think the GoT does challenge and the points it challenges on need challenging

I personally enjoy being challenged because it encourages me to look deeper rather than follow like a sheep.

I think people take one Logion and expect to understand it which is impossible for most, you have to read and re-read all of the Gospel to get use to the mindset of the writer, to get a taste of seeing things differently than what we are use to.

Obviously some will read it and immediately understand, others will struggle and then dismiss because it challenges there usual way of thinking and that alone can be uncomfortable.

Step out of the box and you can find some amazing teachings that mainstream Religions would prefer you not to know as it takes away their power.

[sky]

Originally Posted by django

I'm glad you read further, because then these issues can be discussed on a level playing field. I meant Jesus speaks very plainly about prayer, fasting and alms in the NT, he leaves no doubt as to his attitude towards these 3 things specifically. He also speaks plainly about other issues, such as his attitude towards the Pharisees, the importance of seeking the Kingdom, etc.

I agree though he doesn't always speak plainly about everything, many times he uses parables to the public. But very often (always?) Jesus explains his parables to the disciples, so we can get a good sense of his style of parable in the NT, and the sort of explanation that is given to the disciples.

So some of my questions would be, when he is using parables in the GoT, why doesn't he explain them to 'Thomas' so that his disciple will understand clearly? Or if Thomas does know what they mean, why doesn't he write this information down? Why leave everything so obscure and so open to misinterpretation?

And my earlier question was legitimate, why do you or anyone else not take the GoT's prohibition on prayer, fasting and alms directly, what is the clue to you that they don't mean what they say?

' And my earlier question was legitimate, why do you or anyone else not take the GoT's prohibition on prayer, fasting and alms directly, what is the clue to you that they don't mean what they say? '


You can say the same about bible, it's how you perceive things....
If you read more Logions you will see that the prayer, fastings and alms giving teaching refers to the ' Intent ' not the actual ' Action '

[davidmartin]

Originally Posted by django

I'm glad you read further, because then these issues can be discussed on a level playing field. I meant Jesus speaks very plainly about prayer, fasting and alms in the NT, he leaves no doubt as to his attitude towards these 3 things specifically. He also speaks plainly about other issues, such as his attitude towards the Pharisees, the importance of seeking the Kingdom, etc.

I agree though he doesn't always speak plainly about everything, many times he uses parables to the public. But very often (always?) Jesus explains his parables to the disciples, so we can get a good sense of his style of parable in the NT, and the sort of explanation that is given to the disciples.

So some of my questions would be, when he is using parables in the GoT, why doesn't he explain them to 'Thomas' so that his disciple will understand clearly? Or if Thomas does know what they mean, why doesn't he write this information down? Why leave everything so obscure and so open to misinterpretation?

And my earlier question was legitimate, why do you or anyone else not take the GoT's prohibition on prayer, fasting and alms directly, what is the clue to you that they don't mean what they say?

this is a good point
i think back in the day the brethren would know the meanings and be the ones to explain them and maybe it would have just made it too long to write down in those days when it was expensive to copy documents.

i mean that saying can't be taken literally because another GoT saying says "If you have money, don't lend it at interest. Rather, give [it] to someone from whom you won't get it back"
that looks like charity

ps i don't think its really possible to understand Jesus without the ideas circulating in the early church, like Grace and others just as a side note
although the GoT does make Jesus apppear like a great wisdom teacher, that interpretation is condemned in the GoT!

[django]

Originally Posted by davidmartin

this is a good point
i think back in the day the brethren would know the meanings and be the ones to explain them and maybe it would have just made it too long to write down in those days when it was expensive to copy documents.

This doesn't really make sense, the explanation of the NT parables was written down and copied many times despite it making the gospels longer and therefore costing more.

Originally Posted by davidmartin

i mean that saying can't be taken literally because another GoT saying says "If you have money, don't lend it at interest. Rather, give [it] to someone from whom you won't get it back"
that looks like charity

Some of the GoT is legitimate (approx. 50%), and can be found in the NT, such as "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil." Luke 6:35

Why would the GoT be so internally inconsistent? In the NT, his answers are internally consistent, he always says it is good to give alms, and specifies how to do it correctly, why make it into something negative in logion 14? What on earth is gained by this??? To learn to ignore his direct negation so as to remain consistent with all other references in the GoT and NT to alms giving?

Originally Posted by davidmartin

ps i don't think its really possible to understand Jesus without the ideas circulating in the early church, like Grace and others just as a side note
although the GoT does make Jesus apppear like a great wisdom teacher, that interpretation is condemned in the GoT!

Where is the interpretation that he is a great wisdom teacher condemned in the GoT?

[davidmartin]

The 'wise philosopher Jesus' It's condemned here
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."
Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."


i mean if God came down to earth he wouldn't sound like a normal bloke

[ActualityOfBeing]

The nature of reality is equanimity. Value & meaning...and more relevantly - power - are of thinking. So that which believes itself to be a separate individual would be interested in omitting The Gospel of Thomas. Also, of course, someone who knows this, and yet disregards this nature, also has a vested interest.

[django]

Originally Posted by davidmartin

The 'wise philosopher Jesus' It's condemned here
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."
Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."


i mean if God came down to earth he wouldn't sound like a normal bloke

This is an example of the gnostic slant that the GoT takes. In the NT, when Jesus asks Peter "Who do you say I am?" Peter says you are 'the Christ' (in Mark) or 'the Messiah' (in Matthew), and Jesus agrees with this.

But there is no Christ or Messiah in the GoT, as Grant and Freedman state: "the Old Testament and its eschatology have been eliminated; Jesus is no Messiah but 'like a righteous angel,' 'like a wise philosopher,' or simply incomparable," and Thomas has become his equal.

If Thomas was now equal, would you think it reasonable that he would be able to equally perform the healings and miracles that Jesus did? There is no mention of an extraordinary Thomas in any recorded text.

[davidmartin]

Originally Posted by django

This is an example of the gnostic slant that the GoT takes. In the NT, when Jesus asks Peter "Who do you say I am?" Peter says you are 'the Christ' (in Mark) or 'the Messiah' (in Matthew), and Jesus agrees with this.

But there is no Christ or Messiah in the GoT, as Grant and Freedman state: "the Old Testament and its eschatology have been eliminated; Jesus is no Messiah but 'like a righteous angel,' 'like a wise philosopher,' or simply incomparable," and Thomas has become his equal.

If Thomas was now equal, would you think it reasonable that he would be able to equally perform the healings and miracles that Jesus did? There is no mention of an extraordinary Thomas in any recorded text.

ah now this is an interesting statement
Although the word 'Christ' or 'Messiah' doesn't appear its obvious Jesus is anointed in the GoT and able to confer that anointing to others. So he's fulfilling the role of Christ who baptises with the Holy Spirit
I see the becoming equal as simply the same thing you find in John 'that they may be one as we are one'.
im not saying its the whole picture of Jesus. its missing some key ingredients if you ask me but still something to find value in