The Beauty of the Gospel & The Importance of Body, Soul, Spirit

I am bringing this post from Molearner for further discussion

When presented with the Gospel of Thomas there is much to be considered. Perhaps it is ignored somewhat due to the fact that it is not accepted as canon.

But we have to remember the words of John 21:25...."Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." This invites us to consider that this gospel of Thomas is one such book.

The brevity of the Gospel of Thomas(114 verses) is no longer than about 2 chapters of many of the books of the Bible. This is beneficial for it brings a focus to what the author deemed of significant relevance and importance. I become dismayed when readers of the Bible approach the Bible as a historical document and labor to prove that certain things simply happened in a historical context.....unwittingly robbing it of current relevance for us.

If anything the Gospel of Thomas by encouraging us to focus on what is important....assuming we come to understand it.....can return to the Bible in its entirety and adapt the same approach to gain a much deeper understanding of the Bible as we know it.

IMO the author was clever and organized. The very first verses(1 & 2) are motivational in nature, dangling the carrot of eternal life and gaining mastery of the world. As I mentioned in a previous post v. 17 provides a key to abandoning our normal way of thinking and our senses and implies that it is necessary to access the Spirit. I am drawn to this things that are mentioned in some way in multiple verses.....children for example.....and body and soul(vs. 87 &112)….especially 112 because it is very close to the conclusion.
Originally the Church recognized the tri-partite constitution of man(body, soul and spirit)…...it metamorphized into bi-partite(body and soul). This IMO is a dangerous transition and should encourage us to examine the reasons that soul and spirit should be differentiated and understood.

Just a few thoughts for consideration.....:)

Source threads:
https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/s...00#post1980000
https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/s...d.php?t=137379

In my opinion, the Gospel of Thomas, upon review, contains great inner truths and brings to great esteem in my mind the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. It also puts into greater light, in my opinion, the impact of the Churches taking away the aspect of meditation/contemplation.

The Gospel was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945 among a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library. Scholars speculate that the works were buried in response to a letter from Bishop Athanasius declaring a strict canon of Christian scripture.

I will look further into this:

"Originally the Church recognized the tri-partite constitution of man(body, soul and spirit)…...it metamorphized into bi-partite(body and soul). This IMO is a dangerous transition and should encourage us to examine the reasons that soul and spirit should be differentiated and understood."

This would have, in my opinion, changed the whole course of Christianity and its impart/impact in the modern world.

JL

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by janielee

In my opinion, the Gospel of Thomas, upon review, contains great inner truths and brings to great esteem in my mind the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. It also puts into greater light, in my opinion, the impact of the Churches taking away the aspect of meditation/contemplation.

The Gospel was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945 among a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library. Scholars speculate that the works were buried in response to a letter from Bishop Athanasius declaring a strict canon of Christian scripture.

I will look further into this:

"Originally the Church recognized the tri-partite constitution of man(body, soul and spirit)…...it metamorphized into bi-partite(body and soul). This IMO is a dangerous transition and should encourage us to examine the reasons that soul and spirit should be differentiated and understood."

This would have, in my opinion, changed the whole course of Christianity and its impart/impact in the modern world.

JL

Janielee,

Thanks for opening this thread. I am grateful for everyone that have brought attention to the Gospel of Thomas. The concise nature of it makes it appear to be a less daunting task than understanding the Bible.....but deep is deep no matter what the source. It is invaluable for our spiritual growth to be challenged. Meeting challenges can be the doorway to epiphanies.

Yes, I kind of think of it as

Here is a doorway - now apply the principle you said you knew.

Thoughts, Molearner?

JL

[sky]

So we have to wonder why the Church went from Tripartite to Bipartite when it is mentioned various times in the Bible starting with Genesis....

Originally Posted by sky123

So we have to wonder why the Church went from Tripartite to Bipartite when it is mentioned various times in the Bible starting with Genesis....

The corrupt ones, no doubt.
Wanted power and control over the masses.

There is nothing weaker from a spiritual perspective than "believers", in my opnion.

I am heartened by the existence of contemplatives and some traditions such as the Benedectine Order and others which still value silence, reflection, contemplation, service. So much better than those do-gooder believers who call groups animals and renegades and heretics.

My opinions
JL

I found some details on how the Church disallowed Bibles to be translated or available to people for 1000 years.

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned...”

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy” Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s decree “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River.”

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-c...ears_b_3303545

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/banned.htm

Heartbreakingly so.

First Council of Nicaea, (325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions.

He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem created in the Eastern church by Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being.

Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council but was represented by legates.

The council condemned Arius and, with reluctance on the part of some, incorporated the nonscriptural word homoousios (“of one substance”) into a creed to signify the absolute equality of the Son with the Father.

The emperor then exiled Arius, an act that, while manifesting a solidarity of church and state, underscored the importance of secular patronage in ecclesiastical affairs.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Fir...-of-Nicaea-325

[sky]

Originally Posted by janielee

The corrupt ones, no doubt.
Wanted power and control over the masses.

There is nothing weaker from a spiritual perspective than "believers", in my opnion.

I am heartened by the existence of contemplatives and some traditions such as the Benedectine Order and others which still value silence, reflection, contemplation, service. So much better than those do-gooder believers who call groups animals and renegades and heretics.

My opinions
JL

Well it is definitely easier to control the minds of the believers than those who ask questions Churches need their coffers filled to provide for the ' Elite ' Bishops/Cardinals etc: so an easy way of collecting the funds is to charge for Prayers on your deathbed which guarantees you a place in heaven. This was common practice especially amongst the rich in past times.

You can visit any ancient church here in England and find all the inside furniture was paid for by the rich Parishioners, each stained glass window, alters, pews, baptismal fonts etc: all bare the names on brass plates of the person whose soul was redeemed by their generous offerings

Corruption was rife but all done in the Name of God so it was accepted by the poor ignorant believers.

Having a soul rather than a spirit brought in the money so maybe that was one reason we became two instead of three, who knows.

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by sky123

Well it is definitely easier to control the minds of the believers than those who ask questions Churches need their coffers filled to provide for the ' Elite ' Bishops/Cardinals etc: so an easy way of collecting the funds is to charge for Prayers on your deathbed which guarantees you a place in heaven. This was common practice especially amongst the rich in past times.

You can visit any ancient church here in England and find all the inside furniture was paid for by the rich Parishioners, each stained glass window, alters, pews, baptismal fonts etc: all bare the names on brass plates of the person whose soul was redeemed by their generous offerings

Corruption was rife but all done in the Name of God so it was accepted by the poor ignorant believers.

Having a soul rather than a spirit brought in the money so maybe that was one reason we became two instead of three, who knows.

Sky123,

The Church made it official in Canon 11 of the 4th Council of Constantinople 869-870 A.D. They accused certain elements of saying there were 2 souls when those people were saying man consisted of body, soul and spirit. Obviously the Church by that time simply accepted that soul and spirit were synonymous. There were many in the earlier Church that strongly believed and accepted the tripartite understanding. Done for reasons of control of the masses ? Keeping the spirit from the people ? I see a possible connection to v. 39 of the Gospel of Thomas.