Gospel of Thomas

[davidmartin]

Originally Posted by django

It is interesting that Judaism (not forgetting that Jesus was an observant Jew) doesn't trivialize the body, for to trivialise it "is a slight to the King [God] because humanity is made in the likeness of God’s image and Israel are God’s children." A Jew's resemblance to God is more than just spiritual, they believe that their bodies reflect the Divine Image, and therefore deserve reverence and respect. Christianity has retained this reverence in the body as a temple concept.

Growing up in Jewish religious culture I can understand why Jesus might consider his body to be a temple, but I can't understand why he would ever refer to the flesh as poverty, or consider flesh to be cursed for any reason. Either Jesus is schizophrenic, or these are not his words.

I'm not sure what Jesus is an observant Jew means. He was a reformer, the answer to that has to be yes, since Christians do not follow the law or even observe circumcision. If you say, well that was Paul changing things... then Paul's gospel is different from what Jesus taught
I think the only way to reconcile things is that Jesus was not a traditional type of Jewish rabbi

"Cursed is the flesh that depends on the soul, and cursed is the soul that depends on the flesh!"
This could be understood more as a figure of speach to dramatically make a point... but Yes GoT Jesus think the flesh is inferior to the soul

Lets see what New Testament Jesus has to say
"It is the Spirit who give life, the flesh is useful for nothing"

Nothing schizo its just Jesus saying wake up to the eternal spirit being you, not your body

The point where things get problematic is not here... its the Gnostics who went further than this and said the flesh, the material universe and it's creator was inferior. Jesus doesn't say this stuff in the GoT

[django]

Originally Posted by davidmartin

I'm not sure what Jesus is an observant Jew means. He was a reformer, the answer to that has to be yes, since Christians do not follow the law or even observe circumcision. If you say, well that was Paul changing things... then Paul's gospel is different from what Jesus taught
I think the only way to reconcile things is that Jesus was not a traditional type of Jewish rabbi

"Cursed is the flesh that depends on the soul, and cursed is the soul that depends on the flesh!"
This could be understood more as a figure of speach to dramatically make a point... but Yes GoT Jesus think the flesh is inferior to the soul

Lets see what New Testament Jesus has to say
"It is the Spirit who give life, the flesh is useful for nothing"

Nothing schizo its just Jesus saying wake up to the eternal spirit being you, not your body

The point where things get problematic is not here... its the Gnostics who went further than this and said the flesh, the material universe and it's creator was inferior. Jesus doesn't say this stuff in the GoT

I think you managed to find the most negative verse about the body that it is possible to find in the NT. The overwhelming majority of verses throughout the entire bible are either about the body as a temple formed by God, or they refer to the superiority of things of the spirit, but without denigrating the body.

On Jesus being an observant Jew:

Both of Jesus' parents had “done everything required by the Law of the Lord” (Luke 2:39). His relatives, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were also Torah-observant Jews (Luke 1:6), so we can see that probably the whole family took their Jewish faith very seriously.

In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), Jesus continually affirmed the authority of the Torah and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17) even in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:19-20). He regularly attended synagogue (Luke 4:16), and His teaching was respected by the other Jews of His day (Luke 4:15). He taught in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (Luke 21:37), and if He were not a Jew, His going into that part of the Temple would simply not have been allowed (Acts 21:28-30).

Jesus also displayed the outward signs of being an observant Jew. He wore tzitzit (tassles) on His clothing (Luke 8:44; Matthew 14:36) to serve as a reminder of the commandments (Numbers 15:37-39). He observed Passover (John 2:13) and went up to Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 16:16) on this very important Jewish pilgrimage feast day. He observed Succoth, or the feast of tabernacles (John 7:2, 10) and went up to Jerusalem (John 7:14) as required in the Torah. He also observed Hanukkah, the festival of lights (John 10:22) and probably Rosh Hashanah, the feast of trumpets (John 5:1), going up to Jerusalem on both those occasions as well, even though it isn't commanded in the Torah. Clearly, Jesus identified Himself as a Jew (John 4:22) and as King of the Jews (Mark 15:2). From His birth to His last Passover Seder (Luke 22:14-15), Jesus lived as an observant Jew.

It's true he interpreted the Law according to his own values, but, "In general, the legal disputes in the Gospels fall within the parameters of those of 1st-century Judaism... He probably did have legal disputes in which he defended himself by quoting scriptural precedent, which implies that he did not set himself against the law (Mark 2:23–28)." https://www.britannica.com/biography...the-Jewish-law

Regarding Christians not following Jewish Law this was a debate within the Christian church at a very early stage, though this debate was well after the death of Jesus. I believe it was Paul who won the debate which allowed Christians to not be circumscised or observe other similar requirements of Jewish Law.

Whether the GoT is gnostic or not is a fair question, it is mostly considered proto-gnostic by scholars nowadays, I will try to make a list of what I consider to be gnostic in the GoT.

[django]

In the earliest Gospel texts, which picture Jesus as debating issues of Jewish law with the Pharisees, no hostility is observed. The crucifixion is said to have been carried out by the Romans with the support of some (apparently Hellenized) priests. As we trace the history of the New Testament traditions, they move from disputes with Pharisees, scribes, and chief priests [all members of various Second Temple-era Jewish sects] to polemics against the Jews and Judaism, from the notion of some Jews as enemies of Jesus to the demonization of the Jewish people as a whole.

By sometime in the first century, the New Testament redactors had clearly decided that they were no longer part of the Jewish people. Therefore, they described Jesus as disputing with all the Jews, not just some, as would be appropriate to an internal Jewish dispute. Once Christians saw Jews as the “other,” it was but a short step to the notion that all Jews were responsible for the rejection of Jesus and, hence, for the failure of his messianic mission to be fulfilled.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...me-christians/

Negativity towards the Jews is clearly apparent in the GoT, and thus places the GoT's author(s?) as a Christian who has firmly decided that Judaism is to be shunned, and who actively encourages GoT readers to move away from any form of Jewish Christianity. This strongly suggests that the anti-Judaic parts at least are late additions.

[sky]

Originally Posted by django

I think you managed to find the most negative verse about the body that it is possible to find in the NT. The overwhelming majority of verses throughout the entire bible are either about the body as a temple formed by God, or they refer to the superiority of things of the spirit, but without denigrating the body.

On Jesus being an observant Jew:



It's true he interpreted the Law according to his own values, but, "In general, the legal disputes in the Gospels fall within the parameters of those of 1st-century Judaism... He probably did have legal disputes in which he defended himself by quoting scriptural precedent, which implies that he did not set himself against the law (Mark 2:23–28)." https://www.britannica.com/biography...the-Jewish-law

Regarding Christians not following Jewish Law this was a debate within the Christian church at a very early stage, though this debate was well after the death of Jesus. I believe it was Paul who won the debate which allowed Christians to not be circumscised or observe other similar requirements of Jewish Law.

Whether the GoT is gnostic or not is a fair question, it is mostly considered proto-gnostic by scholars nowadays, I will try to make a list of what I consider to be gnostic in the GoT.

Negativity towards the flesh is definitely found in the NT. Here's a few....

The Flesh is intrinsically hostile to God – The mind of the flesh is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the flesh cannot please God. (Rom 8:7-8)



The Flesh does not grasp spiritual teachings – [Jesus said] The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. (John 6:63)


Flesh is as flesh does – Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the spirit have their minds set on what the spirit desires. The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace (Rom 8:5-6)


The Flesh Demands to be fed – So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. (Gal 5:16-17)


It's common sense to see that the difference of opinions are obvious from different writers of the Scriptures.

[django]

Originally Posted by sky123

Negativity towards the flesh is definitely found in the NT. Here's a few....

The Flesh is intrinsically hostile to God – The mind of the flesh is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the flesh cannot please God. (Rom 8:7-8)



The Flesh does not grasp spiritual teachings – [Jesus said] The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. (John 6:63)


Flesh is as flesh does – Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the spirit have their minds set on what the spirit desires. The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace (Rom 8:5-6)


The Flesh Demands to be fed – So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. (Gal 5:16-17)


It's common sense to see that the difference of opinions are obvious from different writers of the Scriptures.

Romans and Galatians were both written by Paul, who never actually met Jesus, at least in the flesh. Sometimes he is positive about the body and sometimes negative, much as he is sometimes positive about Jewish law and sometimes negative. That's just Paul. You could support just about anything you wanted to with him. I could quote his beautiful positive messages about the body:
1 Corinthians 3:16-17
16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body.

The quote from John is the same one that davidmartin ferreted out, John was a late gospel with Jesus speaking very fancifully and with a well developed Jesus-as-Christ-Messiah theology. Very few people consider the eloquent soliloquies of John to be authentic Jesus sayings, but he has a beautiful theological interpretation of Jesus.

I spent a few years reading all I could about the historical Jesus, and I have a sense that he was a man of the land, he used agricultural motifs in his parables, and he didn't consider himself God as later writers did. John had time to develop a Christian theology before he wrote the Gosepel according to John, and Paul was faithful to his 'light' vision and his interpretation of Jesus.

[sky]

Originally Posted by django

Romans and Galatians were both written by Paul, who never actually met Jesus, at least in the flesh. Sometimes he is positive about the body and sometimes negative, much as he is sometimes positive about Jewish law and sometimes negative. That's just Paul. You could support just about anything you wanted to with him. I could quote his beautiful positive messages about the body:
1 Corinthians 3:16-17
16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body.

The quote from John is the same one that davidmartin ferreted out, John was a late gospel with Jesus speaking very fancifully and with a well developed Jesus-as-Christ-Messiah theology. Very few people consider the eloquent soliloquies of John to be authentic Jesus sayings, but he has a beautiful theological interpretation of Jesus.

I spent a few years reading all I could about the historical Jesus, and I have a sense that he was a man of the land, he used agricultural motifs in his parables, and he didn't consider himself God as later writers did. John had time to develop a Christian theology before he wrote the Gosepel according to John, and Paul was faithful to his 'light' vision and his interpretation of Jesus.

We can go back and forth because for every positive flesh scripture we can find a negative, it's all about perceptions.

Without positive there's no negative anyway

[django]

Originally Posted by sky123

We can go back and forth because for every positive flesh scripture we can find a negative, it's all about perceptions.

Without positive there's no negative anyway

I think the number of positive verses far outweighs the number of negative verses.

For myself I think it is valuable to keep in mind that the body houses the spirit, and it is valuable because it gives the spirit an opportunity to grow. For some reason growth seems to happen when we are embodied.

Having a grounded appreciation of the value of the body is vital to my understanding of the spiritual path as well, instead of cutting out into heaven, I see value in bringing the spirit into the body.

This is a split I've been thinking about lately, some people can't wait to get beyond the body and reincarnation, and the alternative is to bring spirit into the body. These seem to be two very different ways of envisioning spirituality, and I am firmly in the camp of bringing spirit into the body.

[sky]

Originally Posted by django

I think the number of positive verses far outweighs the number of negative verses.

For myself I think it is valuable to keep in mind that the body houses the spirit, and it is valuable because it gives the spirit an opportunity to grow. For some reason growth seems to happen when we are embodied.

Having a grounded appreciation of the value of the body is vital to my understanding of the spiritual path as well, instead of cutting out into heaven, I see value in bringing the spirit into the body.

This is a split I've been thinking about lately, some people can't wait to get beyond the body and reincarnation, and the alternative is to bring spirit into the body. These seem to be two very different ways of envisioning spirituality, and I am firmly in the camp of bringing spirit into the body.

We always find what we choose to find in Scriptures. I see the Spirit as being everywhere, inside and out and I don't believe in Reincarnation so I look at it from a different angle to you.

[davidmartin]

Django I agree in the Jewish worldview the material world and body are seen positively. If you check the Odes of Solomon as a 1st century Christian writing it's about as positive as you can get. Worth a read BTW if you never seen it. Jesus himself didn't have a problem comparing the kingdom of heaven to things like seeds or pearls, material things.

The Gnostics were city dwellers Jesus was a country boy thats how i see it anyway in a mental picture of the two. Jesus in the fields at peace and the Gnostics in hellish conditions in cities with open sewers and violence.

Some of his sayings could be interpreted in an anti-body way. The Gnostics went wild with that but considering this the GoT is vague I mean that saying 'split a piece of wood and I am there'. The Gnostic censor would have skipped over that!
Funny how few Gnostic writings quote Jesus directly, but then neither does Paul... maybe we are all Gnostics adding our own interpretations onto things..
But the GoT is radical and free, and ruffles feathers cause theres a lot of religious domination going on and the GoT isn't having any of that. I just kind of like it

[django]

Originally Posted by davidmartin

Django I agree in the Jewish worldview the material world and body are seen positively. If you check the Odes of Solomon as a 1st century Christian writing it's about as positive as you can get. Worth a read BTW if you never seen it. Jesus himself didn't have a problem comparing the kingdom of heaven to things like seeds or pearls, material things.

The Gnostics were city dwellers Jesus was a country boy thats how i see it anyway in a mental picture of the two. Jesus in the fields at peace and the Gnostics in hellish conditions in cities with open sewers and violence.

Some of his sayings could be interpreted in an anti-body way.

This could be the most fundamental message Jesus is likely to have actually said “But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.” Matthew 6:33

So this does value the spiritual over the body (though at the same time the 'things' that shall be added are the material needs of the body that will be given by 'God').

Is this gnostic, or could it be construed as gnostic? Apart from the material needs being supplied it says seek the kingdom of God, a gnostic then says they will find the kingdom of God by understanding secret sayings, an orthodox Christian thinks that by surrendering to Jesus/God and being baptised they gain the kingdom of God.

I guess I don't agree with either of these positions. I think knowing oneself, 'gnosis', is required, but the GoT doesn't help me to know myself. Understanding my mind and emotions helps me to know myself, which is possible with some sort of good psycho-emotional analysis, but for me gnosis is not enough, and establishing a relationship with Jesus as 'the Light' is required to go further. I can't supply my own light, perhaps a gnostic Christian believes they are self-sufficient, and only need Jesus's message, not a spiritual relationship with him.

So to be fair, I probably am actually a gnostic, but not a fan at all of the Gnostic Christian cult and it's cosmology. Kind of interestingly, some of the early church Fathers called themselves gnostics

Originally Posted by davidmartin

The Gnostics went wild with that but considering this the GoT is vague I mean that saying 'split a piece of wood and I am there'. The Gnostic censor would have skipped over that!
Funny how few Gnostic writings quote Jesus directly, but then neither does Paul... maybe we are all Gnostics adding our own interpretations onto things..
But the GoT is radical and free, and ruffles feathers cause theres a lot of religious domination going on and the GoT isn't having any of that. I just kind of like it