Gospel of Thomas

[sky]

' Scripture contains approximately 170 references to God as the “Father.” By necessity, one cannot be a father unless one is male. If God had chosen to be revealed to man in a female form, then the word “mother” would have occurred in these places, not “father.” In the Old and New Testaments, masculine pronouns are used over and over again in reference to God.

Jesus Christ referred to God as the Father several times and in other cases used masculine pronouns in reference to God. In the Gospels alone, Christ uses the term “Father” in direct reference to God nearly 160 times. Of particular interest is Christ’s statement in John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” Obviously, Jesus Christ came in the form of a human man to die on the cross as payment for the sins of the world. Like God the Father, Jesus was revealed to humanity in a male form. Scripture records numerous other instances where Christ utilized masculine nouns and pronouns in reference to God.'


Misogyny????

[AHIYAH]

[quote=anthony c]

Originally Posted by AHIYAH

We can but i only found the video and liked it and so want to read the gospel of Thomas. I don't really know that much about it but if you want to, we can.

I'm confident you know more about this book and others than you think you know. That knowledge is just a seed that just needs nurturing. Before we get started in the friendly discussion these are just some of the tools I use. I've mentioned some of these before. I use the science of the philosophy of tacet knowledge. This basically means that there is a Speaker and a receiver. The speaker will convey a message, the receiver may or may not receive the conveyed message with the meaning and intent of the speaker. This is where we consider the readily available interpretations, I will then ignore those interpretations and sit in silence and wait for the inner voice(that we all have) to show me other views. It gets easier the more you do it and before you know it, its instant. There's the four levels of Hebrew understanding you should have a look just be careful of the interpretations. We Maori have our own four levels of understanding and as much as I don't like to translate it into English I will give it to you in its most basic form. This is used in speeches, songs and proverbs. And its a gathering of people, the song/proverb/speech is about different birds which symbolises people. Part of it goes like this "Gather up! Gather up! Gather up from Above, Gather up from Below, Gather up from Without and Gather up from WITHIN. So in order for one to GATHER from these four levels She/He must be able to understand each level. That understanding gets better the more you do it. I say four levels because its easier to digest. There's other tools I use that when I remember them I will post it.

[AHIYAH]

[quote=AHIYAH]

Originally Posted by anthony c

I'm confident you know more about this book and others than you think you know. That knowledge is just a seed that just needs nurturing. Before we get started in the friendly discussion these are just some of the tools I use. I've mentioned some of these before. I use the science of the philosophy of tacet knowledge. This basically means that there is a Speaker and a receiver. The speaker will convey a message, the receiver may or may not receive the conveyed message with the meaning and intent of the speaker. This is where we consider the readily available interpretations, I will then ignore those interpretations and sit in silence and wait for the inner voice(that we all have) to show me other views. It gets easier the more you do it and before you know it, its instant. There's the four levels of Hebrew understanding you should have a look just be careful of the interpretations. We Maori have our own four levels of understanding and as much as I don't like to translate it into English I will give it to you in its most basic form. This is used in speeches, songs and proverbs. And its a gathering of people, the song/proverb/speech is about different birds which symbolises people. Part of it goes like this "Gather up! Gather up! Gather up from Above, Gather up from Below, Gather up from Without and Gather up from WITHIN. So in order for one to GATHER from these four levels She/He must be able to understand each level. That understanding gets better the more you do it. I say four levels because its easier to digest. There's other tools I use that when I remember them I will post it.

So here's what instantly attracted my inner voice.

"If those who lead you say to you, 'See the kingdom is in the sky' then the birds of the sky will precede you"

"If they say to you , ' It is in the sea,' then the fish of the sea will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside you and it is outside of you."

When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realise that it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

"But if you will not know yourselves, you will be in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.

If you would like to share what this means to you that would be awesome but lets do it one paragraph at a time and then we will go over its entirety after. Just to get started. You'd notice in this part of the Gospel of Thomas that the four levels of Maori understanding is mentioned. Let your inner voice flow. Btw you're not obligated to say anything if you don't want to.

[django]

Originally Posted by sky123

' Scripture contains approximately 170 references to God as the “Father.” By necessity, one cannot be a father unless one is male. If God had chosen to be revealed to man in a female form, then the word “mother” would have occurred in these places, not “father.” In the Old and New Testaments, masculine pronouns are used over and over again in reference to God.

Jesus Christ referred to God as the Father several times and in other cases used masculine pronouns in reference to God. In the Gospels alone, Christ uses the term “Father” in direct reference to God nearly 160 times. Of particular interest is Christ’s statement in John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” Obviously, Jesus Christ came in the form of a human man to die on the cross as payment for the sins of the world. Like God the Father, Jesus was revealed to humanity in a male form. Scripture records numerous other instances where Christ utilized masculine nouns and pronouns in reference to God.'


Misogyny????

You're making a case for what doesn't exist in the bible, though it does exist in the gnostic literature.

Jesus is recorded as saying “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.” (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34)

Jesus pictured himself here as a mother hen. The word he uses in Matt 23:37-39 and Luke 13:34-35 (ornis) is expressed as feminine, underlining that this is a mother hen, not a cockerel.

In John 4:23-24 Jesus says "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

As I posted previously God was considered by the Jews to be neither male nor female, and Jesus was a devout Jew, he would have known this. Now if God (neither male nor female) is spirit, it follows that spirit is also neither male nor female. To worship the Father in the spirit then must also mean worship the Father as neither male nor female.

Referring to spirit as male seems anachronistic to the equality of male and female in God and the spirit that can be found in the bible, and the idea that Jesus would have to make a female male in the context of the bible is ludicrous.

So I can't help but see the Gospel of Thomas as a devolution of the Jesus found in the bible, one who hasn't yet figured out what all Jews already understood, that God is neither male nor female, and that God made people male and female in God's own image.

The Gnostic literature repeatedly associates the female with the earthly and corruptible, and the male with the spiritual and incorruptible. Female sexuality in particular is a target; for instance, the Book of Thomas the Contender has Jesus say “Woe to you who love intimacy with womankind and polluted intercourse with them.”

Inseparable from this, of course, is female fertility, whose negative potential is often emphasised. In the Second Discourse of the Great Seth, Jesus says “And do not become female, lest you give birth to evil and its brothers: jealousy and division, anger and wrath, fear and a divided heart, and empty, non-existent desire.” An instruction in the Dialogue of the Saviour even commands us to “Destroy the works of womanhood.”

In contrast, maleness was repeatedly identified with spirit, truth and the divine.The mindset of the ancient world was patriarchal to the point of misogyny.

http://www.academia.edu/19327057/Gen...Jesus_fe male

This misogyny is in direct contrast to the actions of Jesus in the bible where a scene is recorded in which a woman—apparently a public prostitute—came to Jesus during his meal with the Pharisees. She knelt down, washed his feet with her tears and dried them with her hair (Lk 7:38ff). While the Pharisees were fit to be tied by her act and frustrated with Jesus’ acceptance of her, Jesus assured her of God’s forgiveness because “she has loved much.” In fact, Jesus contrasted her humble action with the Pharisees who did not even offer to wash his feet, which was at the time a common courtesy toward a guest.

It seems clear to me that the Gospel of Thomas is written by a man or men who are influenced by the narrow-minded misogyny of their times, and to say that Jesus said any of these things is as far as I'm concerned an insult to Jesus and his true attitude to both women and to the nature of spirit.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by anthony c

Hi everyone

I watched this video on youtube and it just made me feel good inside and so i want to share this with everyone. Hope you enjoy it as i did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZQ03ki7-UU

I've read the Gospel of Thomas several times, and it's really good.

Ironically, I had viewed the video that you posted before even reading your post. It's pretty good as it quotes a lot of the sayings attributed to Jesus.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by sky123

' Scripture contains approximately 170 references to God as the “Father.” By necessity, one cannot be a father unless one is male. If God had chosen to be revealed to man in a female form, then the word “mother” would have occurred in these places, not “father.” In the Old and New Testaments, masculine pronouns are used over and over again in reference to God.

Jesus Christ referred to God as the Father several times and in other cases used masculine pronouns in reference to God. In the Gospels alone, Christ uses the term “Father” in direct reference to God nearly 160 times. Of particular interest is Christ’s statement in John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” Obviously, Jesus Christ came in the form of a human man to die on the cross as payment for the sins of the world. Like God the Father, Jesus was revealed to humanity in a male form. Scripture records numerous other instances where Christ utilized masculine nouns and pronouns in reference to God.'


Misogyny????

There is a book (Prayers of the Cosmos, Translated and with Commentary by Neil Douglas-Klotz, Foreword by Matthew Fox, Published by Harper San Francisco, ISBN: 0-06-061995-3) which takes the oldest version of the "Our Father" written in Aramaic and translates it with commentary. The commentary specifically notes the meaning of the various words AT THE TIME OF JESUS since the meaning of some of the words reportedly has changed in time as they do with any language.

Regarding the current use of the word "Father" specifically in this translation of the oldest known version of the "Our Father" prayer in the language of Jesus (Aramaic), the following comment was made in the book:

QUOTE: The ancient Middle Eastern root 'ab' refers to all fruit, all germination proceeding from the source of Unity. This root came to be used in the Aramaic word for personal father --- abba --- but still echoes its original ungendered root in sound meaning. While 'abwoon' is a derivative of this word for personal father, its original roots do not specify a gender and could be translated 'divine parent'.

This does not mean that the "approximately 170 references to God as the Father" which you mention all use the same root and have the same "divine parent" implications. However, this is something that you may wish to consider regarding the masculine current interpretation versus the ungendered "divine parent" interpretation.

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by sky123

The Gospel of Thomas is ' Good News '

The "good news", we're speaking of, is God's mercy and grace, born of His love, in the establishment of the atoning sacrifices. Culminating in the sacrifice He Himself made for the world, by the Lamb of God for sins.

[django]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

There is a book (Prayers of the Cosmos, Translated and with Commentary by Neil Douglas-Klotz, Foreword by Matthew Fox, Published by Harper San Francisco, ISBN: 0-06-061995-3) which takes the oldest version of the "Our Father" written in Aramaic and translates it with commentary. The commentary specifically notes the meaning of the various words AT THE TIME OF JESUS since the meaning of some of the words reportedly has changed in time as they do with any language.

Regarding the current use of the word "Father" specifically in this translation of the oldest known version of the "Our Father" prayer in the language of Jesus (Aramaic), the following comment was made in the book:

QUOTE: The ancient Middle Eastern root 'ab' refers to all fruit, all germination proceeding from the source of Unity. This root came to be used in the Aramaic word for personal father --- abba --- but still echoes its original ungendered root in sound meaning. While 'abwoon' is a derivative of this word for personal father, its original roots do not specify a gender and could be translated 'divine parent'.

This does not mean that the "approximately 170 references to God as the Father" which you mention all use the same root and have the same "divine parent" implications. However, this is something that you may wish to consider regarding the masculine current interpretation versus the ungendered "divine parent" interpretation.

I did a bit of searching and found this site with the complete Aramaic version and English translation for anyone who wants to read more of Douglas-Klotz's version of the Lord's prayer: https://bi.hcpdts.com/reflowable/scr.../9780062029645

[django]

For Judaism, both ancient and later, "Father" never ceases to be a metaphor. It thus belongs to the arena of religious language, as do all expressions that describe God. It teaches us about God and about the suitable approach to God, yet it does not truly describe God. Because there is no absolute status to this description, it is complemented by a host of other descriptions, such as that of God as King, which we have seen complements God's presentation as Father. There is no absolute sense in which God is spoken of as Father, nor does the description of God as Father carry any absolute value. When one is pressed as to why God is Father rather than Mother, one can simply point to cultural habits, without needing to justify in some essential sense God's paternity. Human language and concepts are relative and do not convey absolute truths.

http://elijah-interfaith.org/wp-cont...aism_and_C.pdf

..........

[sky]

Originally Posted by django

You're making a case for what doesn't exist in the bible, though it does exist in the gnostic literature.

Jesus is recorded as saying “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.” (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34)

Jesus pictured himself here as a mother hen. The word he uses in Matt 23:37-39 and Luke 13:34-35 (ornis) is expressed as feminine, underlining that this is a mother hen, not a cockerel.

In John 4:23-24 Jesus says "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

As I posted previously God was considered by the Jews to be neither male nor female, and Jesus was a devout Jew, he would have known this. Now if God (neither male nor female) is spirit, it follows that spirit is also neither male nor female. To worship the Father in the spirit then must also mean worship the Father as neither male nor female.

Referring to spirit as male seems anachronistic to the equality of male and female in God and the spirit that can be found in the bible, and the idea that Jesus would have to make a female male in the context of the bible is ludicrous.

So I can't help but see the Gospel of Thomas as a devolution of the Jesus found in the bible, one who hasn't yet figured out what all Jews already understood, that God is neither male nor female, and that God made people male and female in God's own image.



This misogyny is in direct contrast to the actions of Jesus in the bible where a scene is recorded in which a woman—apparently a public prostitute—came to Jesus during his meal with the Pharisees. She knelt down, washed his feet with her tears and dried them with her hair (Lk 7:38ff). While the Pharisees were fit to be tied by her act and frustrated with Jesus’ acceptance of her, Jesus assured her of God’s forgiveness because “she has loved much.” In fact, Jesus contrasted her humble action with the Pharisees who did not even offer to wash his feet, which was at the time a common courtesy toward a guest.

It seems clear to me that the Gospel of Thomas is written by a man or men who are influenced by the narrow-minded misogyny of their times, and to say that Jesus said any of these things is as far as I'm concerned an insult to Jesus and his true attitude to both women and to the nature of spirit.

' You're making a case for what doesn't exist in the bible, though it does exist in the gnostic literature '


I am not making any case, it is written in the bible repeatedly that Jesus uses the word
' Father 'over and over again, does it not?

You are not understanding what Jesus meant in the Gnostic Gospels but that's ok, they are quite deep...