Gospel of Thomas

[django]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

a lot of people seem arrogant, like their own experiences trump the 'opinions' of christ.

Speaking of arrogance though, maybe we are all being arrogant, in applying verses like the one you brought up to ourselves. Maybe it was another of the several scriptures that could be deciphered only by the son of man?

Well yes it would be arrogant to trump the opinions of Jesus, but I’m not assuming Jesus actually said all that is written in Thomas. I wonder why anyone would believe some of these sayings were from Jesus, as some of them are just nonsense.

Some people like to believe that Thomas records secret sayings only meant for the inner circle and the ‘elect’, another little ego boost for those that believe they’ve understood the riddles. Jesus used parables, not gnostic riddles for some elite group.

In the bible it is recorded that on occasion Jesus took a couple of the disciples aside and said something private to them, but it never mentions Thomas as one of them, nor is Thomas ever portrayed in any special light in the bible.

On the other hand, Gnostics felt at liberty to write anything they liked to support their philosophy, and claiming it was written by one of the disciples gave their writings legitimacy.

[sky]

Originally Posted by django

Well yes it would be arrogant to trump the opinions of Jesus, but I’m not assuming Jesus actually said all that is written in Thomas. I wonder why anyone would believe some of these sayings were from Jesus, as some of them are just nonsense.

Some people like to believe that Thomas records secret sayings only meant for the inner circle and the ‘elect’, another little ego boost for those that believe they’ve understood the riddles. Jesus used parables, not gnostic riddles for some elite group.

In the bible it is recorded that on occasion Jesus took a couple of the disciples aside and said something private to them, but it never mentions Thomas as one of them, nor is Thomas ever portrayed in any special light in the bible.

On the other hand, Gnostics felt at liberty to write anything they liked to support their philosophy, and claiming it was written by one of the disciples gave their writings legitimacy.

' On the other hand, Gnostics felt at liberty to write anything they liked to support their philosophy, and claiming it was written by one of the disciples gave their writings legitimacy.[/quote] '

You could say the same about the writers of the bible

[django]

There is enough similarity to make it clear that the writer of this ancient gospel [The Gospel of Thomas] had heard some of the same sayings found in the Bible; however, it clearly is not written from a traditional Christian perspective.

To me, the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas bear a lot more resemblance to ancient Chinese writings I've seen. Both the Gospel of Thomas and the Chinese writings share a similar love for paradox.

For example:

The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. In the days when you consumed what was dead, you made it what is alive. … On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do? (Saying 11)

I have to say, I'm not sure what I will do with a teaching like that. It sounds deep, but it really doesn't say anything and could be symbolically interpreted into almost anything. I find sayings like "turn the other cheek" (Matt. 5:39) and "flee youthful lusts" (2 Tim. 2:22) to be much easier to follow.

As a Christian, then, my personal response to the Gospel of Thomas was the same as my response to the Chinese writings. It looks like a lot of fun to write such things, and you feel wise and philosophical repeating these sayings, but they have very little to do with reality. They're more for gurus congratulating each other on their wisdom; I see no practical benefit.

Is the Gospel of Thomas Gnostic?
It's hard to determine exactly what is gnostic. Dr. Darrell Bock, author of The Missing Gospels, writes:

Gnosticism was not a singular connected movement but more a way of seeing the world that produced a myriad of viewpoints on the themes tied to its definition. (p. 23)

Irenaeus, the famed bishop of Lyons, agreed with this assessment some 1800 years ago:

Since they differ so widely among themselves both in regard to doctrine and tradition, and since those of them who are recognized as the most modern make it their effort to invent some new opinion daily … it is a difficult matter to describe all their opinions. (Against Heresies I:21:5)

So to say "This is a gnostic gospel" is not always an easy thing to do.

However, scholars treat the Gospel of Thomas as gnostic specifically because of that philosophical, dualistic feel that I described above. Orthodox Christians tended to avoid such philosophical language. As Justin Martyr, a mid-2nd century Christian, put it:

Brief and concise utterances fell from him, for he was no sophist [i.e., would-be philosopher], but his Word was the power of God. (First Apology 14)

..........

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by Amilius777

The Divine and Human made one. This event is rare. Christianity should realize that not every Ascended Master or Prophet who founded a religion was an Avatar. But they took this "specialness" and used it to conquer and destroy other people of faiths during the Middle-Ages.

Only the purest, and highly evolved chosen by God can be made as such.

A Catholic Saint once said, "My deepest Self is God"

Paramhansa Yogananda says the sin of the New Age movement is saying "I am God", but what is more correct is this- "God has become Me", but only the truly self-realized, perfected, and spiritually advanced understand this state of consciousness, that's why they NEVER say it.

Moses' Law was temporary. A great Master yes, but not a divine Incarnation of God like Jesus. His mission was to find a way to keep everyone in check under Karma and use the consciousness of the Time since so much of our world fell into this violent tribal mind, that his Laws reflected that period. But Jesus came to fulfill that Law and raise it up to a Higher Vibration

You raise some very good points, particularly "God has become Me" and "My deepest Self is God".

[Miss Hepburn]

Thank you for this, Amilius777:

"Paramahansa Yogananda says the sin of the New Age movement is saying,
"I am God", but what is more correct is this-
"God has become Me", but only the truly self-realized, perfected, and
spiritually advanced understand this state of consciousness, that's why they NEVER say it.''



Sorry, I respelled his name Paramahansa...Paramhansa is what the lawyers said
the Ananda group could use in their literature.
Big copyright battle back in the day with Kriyananda, my he rest in peace,
as they say, great guy.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

You raise some very good points, particularly "God has become Me" and "My deepest Self is God".

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Thank you for this, Amilius777:

"Paramahansa Yogananda says the sin of the New Age movement is saying,
"I am God", but what is more correct is this-
"God has become Me", but only the truly self-realized, perfected, and
spiritually advanced understand this state of consciousness, that's why they NEVER say it.''



Sorry, I respelled his name Paramahansa...Paramhansa is what the lawyers said
the Ananda group could use in their literature.
Big copyright battle back in the day with Kriyananda, my he rest in peace,
as they say, great guy.

I see that we both picked up on the same thing.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

I see that we both picked up on the same thing.

But, of course!!

[anthony c]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

You raise some very good points, particularly "God has become Me" and "My deepest Self is God".

"God has become Me" wow that's a first for me, how? Has God not always been everything? "My deepest Self is God" also don't understand that one too??

I don't 100% understand these sayings, could someone please help my understand pls?

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by anthony c

"God has become Me" wow that's a first for me, how? Has God not always been everything? "My deepest Self is God" also don't understand that one too??

I don't 100% understand these sayings, could someone please help my understand pls?

For what it's worth, here's my take on this.

I have often used the dream analogy to explain some points and, since I have practiced "conscious sleep" for years, the analogy has worked very well for me.

In a dream, the "One" (the dreamer) manifests an entire universe (depending, of course, on the nature of the specific dream). In other words, for lack of better terminology, the One "becomes" many. If one gets entangled in the dream, it seems very real especially when we are deeply identified with a dream object. Similarly, with "as above, so below" reasoning, God becomes many and hence "God becomes me" and everything else as well. If you can think of better wording, feel free to share.

Also, if the dream-object "meditates" on its Source, it realizes that the its deepest self is the dreamer. Analogously, "my deepest Self is God".

I don't know if that helps or not, but that's my take and the basis for my take in intellectual analogy wording though meditative experiences, which are hard to describe, arrive at the same conclusions.

[sky]

Originally Posted by anthony c

"God has become Me" wow that's a first for me, how? Has God not always been everything? "My deepest Self is God" also don't understand that one too??

I don't 100% understand these sayings, could someone please help my understand pls?

" Has God not always been everything "

You already understand if you believe your words above You don't need to complicate it Anthony.