Do you understand the different interpretations of reality?

Originally Posted by Busby

There is no 'truth', that is separate from us, everything is true.

Of course one might state that your statement is false. So would that also be a true statement? True for who?

[Busby]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Of course one might state that your statement is false. So would that also be a true statement? True for who?

If anything it underlines that which I have put forward above. All is present, everything is in the state or condition it is in, due to collective (combined) input, whatever form it may take.

There is nothing which is true or false, it is all as it is. There are no points given for good deeds or bearing the cross. We are surrounded by causes and effects.

We, and everything else is not here to 'learn' but to be part of the existing circumstances, these circumstances have been created by the total 'feedback' which we within the presiding conditions have accepted to fit the way we live.

[Rah nam]

Originally Posted by Honza

I
My favourite version is that we as a race have fallen from grace and our Father sent Jesus to save us. I place my trust in Jesus Christ.

This would imply that your God or Father as you call it, is either imperfect in his or her creation efforts or set you purposely up to fail.

[sky]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Well that's just it. The rest of 'the universe' and all the people and everything are actually inside of me, and they are outside of me, its a question of definitions and perspective. We create our own reality, interpret it, and live within it, and it is as real as any reality. We all have our own reality. In life, there is no one single common objective reality (except perhaps the experience of true oneness), only degrees of overlapping objectivity that we share.

(3) Jesus said, "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 will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty." - GoT

Excellent description, love it

[Honza]

Originally Posted by Rah nam

This would imply that your God or Father as you call it, is either imperfect in his or her creation efforts or set you purposely up to fail.

Perfection and imperfection are both possibilities. The truth is that we are accountable for our actions. So is God. If we make mistakes then we have to pay for them. So does God. The existence of freedom implies that errors can be made.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Well that's just it. The rest of 'the universe' and all the people and everything are actually inside of me, and they are outside of me, its a question of definitions and perspective. We create our own reality, interpret it, and live within it, and it is as real as any reality. We all have our own reality. In life, there is no one single common objective reality (except perhaps the experience of true oneness), only degrees of overlapping objectivity that we share.

(3) Jesus said, "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 will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty." - GoT

One has to be careful when quoting from the the Gospel of Thomas because it is not part of the Bible.

The Gospel of Thomas in of itself has other problems which is why it never got canonized.

Originally Posted by BigJohn

One has to be careful when quoting from the the Gospel of Thomas because it is not part of the Bible.

The Gospel of Thomas in of itself has other problems which is why it never got canonized.

True, but I don't really see canonized as all that important. All scriptures have problems from my perspective, but whether they are problems with those scriptures or problems of my perspective I cannot say. I tend to find GoT a bit more useful than most writings, and try to remember that those who made such canonization decisions had problems and perspectives of their own, as I suppose did those who wrote them to begin with. It's a messy business alright, but what can one do other then the best one can?

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by ketzer

True, but I don't really see canonized as all that important. All scriptures have problems from my perspective, but whether they are problems with those scriptures or problems of my perspective I cannot say. I tend to find GoT a bit more useful than most writings, and try to remember that those who made such canonization decisions had problems and perspectives of their own, as I suppose did those who wrote them to begin with. It's a messy business alright, but what can one do other then the best one can?

If you look at the Gospel of Thomas and then look at the 4 Canonized Gospels, there are some very outstanding differences between them. The 4 Canonized Gospels complement each other whereas the Gospel of Thomas does not. The Gospel of Thomas also leaves out a lot of core Christian teachings that the other 4 do not.

Originally Posted by BigJohn

If you look at the Gospel of Thomas and then look at the 4 Canonized Gospels, there are some very outstanding differences between them. The 4 Canonized Gospels complement each other whereas the Gospel of Thomas does not. The Gospel of Thomas also leaves out a lot of core Christian teachings that the other 4 do not.

Yes, the Gospel of Thomas was written as a collection of sayings, bits of wisdom, rather then as a story of Jesus's life so the four canonized Gospels are substantially different. There were of course many other Gospels in addition to the five discussed here, and one would think there were probably many others that were suppressed or just died out and have been lost completely to history. The similarities between the four canonized gospels is of course a function of those who selected those four Gospels to be canonized in the first place and then went on to try to suppress others as heresy. Someone (or group of someones) decided what they thought was the important and true message of Jesus and then went on to first write it, then subsequently others copied and modified it, and then others later canonized four of them. But of course all along there were those who thought differently, they just happened to be on the losing side of the battle for orthodoxy and their beliefs were later suppressed by the religious authorities (same sort of thing goes on today in many countries and faiths). Those who won would of course have brought their own biases and agendas into the equation when making canonization decisions and I tend to feel that I do not agree with those biases, and nor do I assume they made the right decisions in what they canonized and what they prosecuted as heresy or blasphemy.

Speaking of those four synoptic gospels, did you even get a chance to watch that PBS series (its on you tube) to which I posted links, "From Jesus to Christ"? It is a fascinating look into when, by whom, and how the biases of the persons and periods played out in the variations of the four canonical gospels. Very interesting and makes one think.

Speaking of problems with GoT, I have to say I get a warped kick out of the last passage.

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

It is rather bizarre and many religious scholars suspect it was added later on and was not originally a part of the GoT. My theory is some young pimple covered scribe who just couldn't catch a break with the ladies got fed up and slipped it on the end when nobody was looking to get his revenge.

[inavalan]

There are some interesting commentaries on that GoT Saying #114:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...thomas114.html

As everything else in the gospels, this is an allegory. It shouldn't be taken at face value.