Gospel of Thomas; Really?

[Glostik91]

Hey everyone, I'm new here to the forum. After looking up some teachings of Diogenes on google I happened to stumble upon David Quinn's website of all places. As I read all the books I was very impressed by such deep thinking. Anyway, I thought I'd start on some familiar ground (me being a Baptist) by questioning the validity that people here place on the Gospel of Thomas. It is apparent that Thomas is not like any of the other gospels because it doesn't read with the narrative style, but instead it just has sayings, parables, and teachings of Jesus. This of course makes it hard to date seeing as it could have been slowly compiled over several years or decades. Some question if parts of it were even written by Thomas. Given the format of the book it's quite possible it was written by several authors. What I'm trying to say is, how can we know Jesus said everything that is written in this gospel? It is possible that as Gnosticism grew out of Christianity others began inserting portions into Thomas from their own minds to strengthen their own ideals. While Thomas as a whole is not a Gnostic writing, many passages suggest Gnostic teachings; teachings that Jesus may never have said. And that is why I feel this gospel is unreliable just like those at the Council of Nicaea did several hundred years ago. Any thoughts?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Welcome Glostik,

It is apparent that Thomas is not like any of the other gospels because it doesn't read with the narrative style, but instead it just has sayings, parables, and teachings of Jesus. This of course makes it hard to date seeing as it could have been slowly compiled over several years or decades.

One clue for its possible older dating is the generally accepted existence of a Q as source for the canonical gospels. Another collection of sayings making it in terms of style similar to Thomas.

The authorship and history of formation of the four gospels are unclear as well, by the way, at least not as solid as Christian theology often suggests. It's for example beyond doubt many passages were copied over ad verbatim from each other and earlier sources. They are therefore not original documents as such.

It seems reasonable to me to suspect the canon narrative was inspired by the dominating and prevailing Greek culture at the time, merged somewhat with the messianic writings in Judaism. What I found out that in those ages, around those same areas a lot of experimentation went on with Homeric scripts, blending mystery religions with local influences. Actually not much was written that didn't contain a dash of Homer. A bit like how the Roman Catholic churches blended with local pagan customs and gave rise to so many colorful traditions.

Whatever the real story, the contents of Thomas certainly resonates with Hindu and Buddhist philosophy, beyond being just "late Gnostic", a development that could be linked to the Indo-Greek, Hellenistic kingdoms, e.g. Greco-Buddhism. Many ways for people to get exposed here. Don't forget the Romans had busy trade routes from Palestine all the way to South of England with their druids an mines. Ideas travel easily on ships, in both directions.

The picture I'd like you to consider is a way wider world with many ideas and influences arising, merging, combining and dying off. Like some kind of philosophical ecosystem. In that world it's near to impossible to take one writing from which one somehow can trace its "authenticity". In the end one has to judge the wisdom for oneself, based on the little we know, and not rely of geopolitical movements like the early Roman Church with emperor-conqueror-pope Constantine to define what is original and what is not.

[Glostik91]

Welcome Glostik,

Thanks :)

One clue for its possible older dating is the generally accepted existence of a Q as source for the canonical gospels. Another collection of sayings making it in terms of style similar to Thomas.

The authorship and history of formation of the four gospels are unclear as well, by the way, at least not as solid as Christian theology often suggests. It's for example beyond doubt many passages were copied over ad verbatim from each other and earlier sources. They are therefore not original documents as such.

Its most likely that Mark was the first gospel written. It was most likely written in Rome under heavy influence by Peter. So in others words one could say that Mark was Peter's gospel. I also think its extremely likely that a Q document existed. One of the disciples could have just wrote down random teachings of Jesus while he was traveling with Jesus which would have been used by the writers of the four gospels. Matthew probably used the Q document mixed with his own experiences, John Mark probably used the Q document along with Peters personal experiences with Jesus, Luke almost certainly used either the Q document, Marks gospel, or even Matthews gospel along with several eyewitness accounts to formulate his gospel, and John probably used a little of the Q document (along with the Holy Spirit) to help him remember his personal experiences with Jesus. Thomas was probably just the Q document itself except several elements definitely could have been added to it after the other four gospels were written.

It seems reasonable to me to suspect the canon narrative was inspired by the dominating and prevailing Greek culture at the time, merged somewhat with the messianic writings in Judaism. What I found out that in those ages, around those same areas a lot of experimentation went on with Homeric scripts, blending mystery religions with local influences. Actually not much was written that didn't contain a dash of Homer. A bit like how the Roman Catholic churches blended with local pagan customs and gave rise to so many colorful traditions.

I agree that the writing styles of the four gospel writers could have been influenced by Greek culture, although this wouldn't affect the core teachings of Jesus. It would only affect the way they would be presented. Just like the English paraphrase translations we have today don't affect the core teachings of Jesus, but only the way they are presented so that they can be read more easily.

Whatever the real story, the contents of Thomas certainly resonates with Hindu and Buddhist philosophy, beyond being just "late Gnostic", a development that could be linked to the Indo-Greek, Hellenistic kingdoms, e.g. Greco-Buddhism. Many ways for people to get exposed here. Don't forget the Romans had busy trade routes from Palestine all the way to South of England with their druids an mines. Ideas travel easily on ships, in both directions.

The picture I'd like you to consider is a way wider world with many ideas and influences arising, merging, combining and dying off. Like some kind of philosophical ecosystem. In that world it's near to impossible to take one writing from which one somehow can trace its "authenticity". In the end one has to judge the wisdom for oneself, based on the little we know, and not rely of geopolitical movements like the early Roman Church with emperor-conqueror-pope Constantine to define what is original and what is not.

This is what I believe about the Gospel of Thomas. It started out as the Q document, but as time progressed and different beliefs began influencing the early Christians, people began to add teachings to the Q document that Jesus never said because they wanted to support their own ideas. (this is also why we don't have a solid Q document, because the Q document is the Gospel of Thomas in disguise) That's why I can only accept some of the gospel of Thomas as Jesus' teaching. The only valid parts are those that are in the four gospels. (this is me using my own logic and not relying on Constantine ;) although this is probably the same conclusion the Council of Nicaea came to)

So now back to my other question. If Thomas is indeed not entirely reliable as a gospel why do people (such as David Quinn) still use it?

[Talking Ass]

So now back to my other question. If Thomas is indeed not entirely reliable as a gospel why do people (such as David Quinn) still use it?

Oh God, here we go...First, a cordial hello to Iowa from rural California. I just was reading about a reporter's new book: Methland which deals on some events in rural Iowa. I like to make as many connections between what we think, in the abstract, and what we live, in the here and now. I don't believe we can really talk about the abstract as a pure other-thing, and conversations really mean something---mean more---when we are speaking concretely about 'real life'. (I only present the book as a sort of synchronicity and for no other reason).

You have opened a whole, vast can of worms and many different issues that have been discussed quite a bit on this forum. In truth, you are right in that can of worms yourself, as we all are. We are all having troubles reconciling the world we actually live in with historical conceptions of it (say, religious, metaphysical conceptions). We live, if you will, in one plane of existence and yet we are always 'looking back' (metaphorically speaking) over distinctly other planes of existence. All existing belief systems are getting a substantial run-for-their-money by a radically new view of reality that has opened up, that is unstoppable, that has significantly rewritten our conception of the world (and the universe).

From the start, I do not profess to fully understand David Quinn, or Kevin Solway or Dan Rowden. I don't think I will ever be successful at understanding them because my idea-structure, from the look of it, is just radically different. But, in regard to your question---and I personally hope you'll keep up the questioning process---I would answer that David Quinn can highlight the Gospel of Thomas simply because it is abstract enough, non-tangible enough, that it fits right into his conception of 'Jesus' as a teacher of Enlightenment. From what I have seen so far, certain sayings and phrases are taken out of context and the rest of the context is suppressed or denied, and these selections are used to 'create' a radically different Jesus, and one that conform to their a priori idea of what a Jesus should be. See, you would 'logically' assume that Quinn and the rest are rationalists, hyper-rationalists, but I don't think this is true, in fact. They are mystics of a special sort.

I used some Gnostic ideas to communicate some ideas I had: here. In the second part of the post, below.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

...this is also why we don't have a solid Q document, because the Q document is the Gospel of Thomas in disguise

The problem is that what is known about the likely content of Q does not match the known content of Thomas at all in terms of verse selection. Thomas might have used Q as well but deviates a lot too, often in small but significant ways from the canon. If that means the canon is corrupted or Thomas is.... who knows? I do find Thomas more deep, more sharp and to the point than the other gospels. Even dramatically so at times.

So now back to my other question. If Thomas is indeed not entirely reliable as a gospel why do people (such as David Quinn) still use it?

There's not much evidence yet that would justify raising this as dilemma.

The question is asked from a whole different perspective compared to how I'm looking at reliability. The amount of verses in Thomas that reach deep into the great existential and relevant questions is significantly higher than the average verse in the canon. To me that's the measure I take.

Even the gospels have still many relevant passages that stand out even without theological knowledge. The question of reliability is moot: one has to ask the same question about Buddhist scripture or Nietzsche's sanity! Or your own!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I would answer that David Quinn can highlight the Gospel of Thomas simply because it is abstract enough, non-tangible enough, that it fits right into his conception of 'Jesus' as a teacher of Enlightenment. From what I have seen so far, certain sayings and phrases are taken out of context and the rest of the context is suppressed or denied, and these selections are used to 'create' a radically different Jesus, and one that conform to their a priori idea of what a Jesus should be.

So on one hand Thomas would be selected because of it abstraction level but at the same time you hint there is a context and lots of material in there to define what "Jesus should be". And thereby not really abstract at all, at least to you?

Anyway, the whole point of a wisdom teaching, any wisdom teaching, is to escape the contextual constrains by relating of an universal experience, by willfully cutting back on any detail that would distract from what's often called the timeless.

So the fact that Thomas is more abstract, contains less context and is therefore harder to place and explain against its backdrop would qualify it for being more suitable for wisdom compared to a collection of elaborate parables. Although even they have a function for the people who are way more stuck in their own drama and need some more fleshed out story to identify with. It are these stories however that most easily become idol fairly easy.

[Talking Ass]

Well, Thomas is selected in the sense of highlighted, privileged. I meant to say but didn't express it well that, in respect to the other Gospels, David selects from the sayings of Jesus or those attributed to him, and glosses over group of sayings that don't fit into his 'wise Jesus'. To understand David, and anyone else for that matter, including myself, you have to make a little study of what they omit, of what their belief-system can't or won't take into account. What I mean by this is that there is a Jesus, a Jesus of the Gospels, for which Quinn and others here evince outright contempt. The mere idea that such a Jesus would exist makes them wince. Pay especial heed to the wincing because it reveals a great deal.

Anyway, the whole point of a wisdom teaching, any wisdom teaching, is to escape the contextual constrains by relating of an universal experience, by willfully cutting back on any detail that would distract from what's often called the timeless.

Heavens, how I differ from you, though I do see your point. One could perhaps more justifiably assert that universal ideals become contextualized, and in that contextualization become effective, relevant, real.

The way I see things, and I have certainly been expressing these thoughts over the months, is that David's over-all philosophy and what is concluded from it, that is, the behavior it decides on and supports, the activity it provokes, gives evidence of the nature of the teachings at the core. This is true with all products and outcomes. It is possible, though I haven't concluded, that there were some good, rational reasons why certain elements of Gnosticism were resisted and rejected, because 'wisdom' sensed where some of it would lead.

In the great, protracted, early-Church battles to suppress Gnosticism, what in your opinion was lost, and what gained?

[Glostik91]

Oh God, here we go...First, a cordial hello to Iowa from rural California. I just was reading about a reporter's new book: Methland which deals on some events in rural Iowa. I like to make as many connections between what we think, in the abstract, and what we live, in the here and now. I don't believe we can really talk about the abstract as a pure other-thing, and conversations really mean something---mean more---when we are speaking concretely about 'real life'. (I only present the book as a sort of synchronicity and for no other reason).

I can definitely relate to that. My friend was at a high school football game when a meth lab blew up. It was crazy, but anyway.

From the start, I do not profess to fully understand David Quinn, or Kevin Solway or Dan Rowden. I don't think I will ever be successful at understanding them because my idea-structure, from the look of it, is just radically different. But, in regard to your question---and I personally hope you'll keep up the questioning process---I would answer that David Quinn can highlight the Gospel of Thomas simply because it is abstract enough, non-tangible enough, that it fits right into his conception of 'Jesus' as a teacher of Enlightenment. From what I have seen so far, certain sayings and phrases are taken out of context and the rest of the context is suppressed or denied, and these selections are used to 'create' a radically different Jesus, and one that conform to their a priori idea of what a Jesus should be. See, you would 'logically' assume that Quinn and the rest are rationalists, hyper-rationalists, but I don't think this is true, in fact. They are mystics of a special sort.

I agree with you. They are fitting the Bible with their own preconceived notions. Of course I don't expect anything less. They say to separate ourselves from emotion, but Jesus expressed emotion several times in the gospels. They say God is not a being, but Jesus prays to God saying, "Father". Although I do believe that before time God was unexplainable. God was the unexplainable void, until he created the heavens and the earth, and when he created the heavens and the earth he created a spirit for himself just as he created love to describe himself and justice and tranquility etc. Anyway, since I believe Jesus is the perfect manifestation of God on earth, therefore making himself God on earth, he cannot do anything sinful. Therefore to claim that what Jesus did is not the way we should live is blasphemy. If God had emotional attachments then I can have emotional attachments. If God prayed to his Father then I can pray to my Father. They say releasing yourself from emotions leads to nirvana. I say that releasing yourself from sin leads to nirvana. And how do we release ourselves from sin? Read the entire book of John and you tell me.

[Glostik91]

The problem is that what is known about the likely content of Q does not match the known content of Thomas at all in terms of verse selection. Thomas might have used Q as well but deviates a lot too, often in small but significant ways from the canon. If that means the canon is corrupted or Thomas is.... who knows? I do find Thomas more deep, more sharp and to the point than the other gospels. Even dramatically so at times.

So now back to my other question. If Thomas is indeed not entirely reliable as a gospel why do people (such as David Quinn) still use it?

There's not much evidence yet that would justify raising this as dilemma.

The question is asked from a whole different perspective compared to how I'm looking at reliability. The amount of verses in Thomas that reach deep into the great existential and relevant questions is significantly higher than the average verse in the canon. To me that's the measure I take.

Even the gospels have still many relevant passages that stand out even without theological knowledge. The question of reliability is moot: one has to ask the same question about Buddhist scripture or Nietzsche's sanity! Or your own!

You make a good point. That's why I believe only parts of Thomas are true. My main reasoning is why would David Quinn use the gospel of Thomas or any gospel for that matter if parts of it disagree with his teachings? He is obviously using it to his own ends. The gospel of Thomas is very dually minded in that it says there is a material world and a spiritual world. But David Quinn has said in his book Wisdom of the Infinite that there is no duality; there is only God. So obviously David Quinn just picks and chooses certain passages that fit his worldview suggesting that Jesus meant the same thing David is saying. In my mind this is being deceitful.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

David selects from the sayings of Jesus or those attributed to him, and glosses over group of sayings that don't fit into his 'wise Jesus'.

This smells like a fallacy: "when one cannot explain or use or place all texts, one cannot seriously use a part". Two thousands years of Christian theology does nothing but select, or even worse: forcefully try to fit everything into a fixed view. It's unavoidable really, you take what you think you understand, what seems to inspire and relate. The rest one can speculate over, brush aside until later insights or whatever. To make an issue of this, to create a requirement out of this shows how inexperienced you are with theology and text usage. Suddenly you raise these completely unreasonable requirements for a philosopher just to score a point.

What I mean by this is that there is a Jesus, a Jesus of the Gospels, for which Quinn and others here evince outright contempt.

So now you're saying they're not glossing over it after all! Now they are making great effort to denounce what they first were glossing over according to you. Your argument seems shifty here. Make up your mind!

One could perhaps more justifiably assert that universal ideals become contextualized, and in that contextualization become effective, relevant, real.

But teaching this contextualization is like peeing in the wind. Many tried and got wiser.

David's over-all philosophy and what is concluded from it, that is, the behavior it decides on and supports, the activity it provokes, gives evidence of the nature of the teachings at the core.

Could you list some of the behavior? Does it have to do with unemployment, lack of culture, hermitage, abstinence, continence? Why not being more specific for our new member?

In the great, protracted, early-Church battles to suppress Gnosticism, what in your opinion was lost, and what gained

The church wouldn't have survived without unity and to get to this unity all opposition had to succumb. The climate was not there to allow for it. Truth value had not much to do it. Gnosticism at the time represented opposition in the most general sense, this idea of rebellion against human authority, the Demiurg, the world and such. The way this was expressed varied quite wildly and was as such not a group, party of cult to suppress (check out "The Gnostic Philosophy" from Tobias Churton for a superb handling of the topic).

[Diebert van Rhijn]

My main reasoning is why would David Quinn use the gospel of Thomas or any gospel for that matter if parts of it disagree with his teachings? He is obviously using it to his own ends. The gospel of Thomas is very dually minded in that it says there is a material world and a spiritual world. But David Quinn has said in his book Wisdom of the Infinite that there is no duality; there is only God. So obviously David Quinn just picks and chooses certain passages that fit his worldview suggesting that Jesus meant the same thing David is saying. In my mind this is being deceitful.

If only you would hold your own ongoing faith and the Christian theology and churches to the same standards! Then you may actually have a point. The material world in Thomas and some Gnostic writings is meant to be illusive, created by a false god. The duality is therefore also illusive.

[Talking Ass]

I agree with you. They are fitting the Bible with their own preconceived notions. Of course I don't expect anything less. They say to separate ourselves from emotion, but Jesus expressed emotion several times in the gospels.

We are of course heading into a very rich but very complex territory as we talk about all these things. If we are dogmatically and rhetorically driven there is a strong likelihood that conversation will polarize and we will miss out on the 'fine old wine' of subtlety, depth, and a strong degree of mystery that surrounds all these questions. I don't mean that is happening or will happen here, now, but it is typical in conversations of this sort. To get to the kernel---and by that I mean what can become existentially usable, practicable---we have to see that many viewpoint, even those that are 'heretical', likely contain elements of truth. Conversely, those that fight against heresies and wage long, hard battles against one thing or another, also lose something in the process, and in a sense 'commit sin'. There is an expression in Spanish: 'Cuando hablan las armas, callan las letras', meaning that when the guns of war roar, the subtle language and meaning between men ceases. (More literally, it means that during war, literature, and art, cease).

So, we know that the early Church fought many protracted and bitter battles against rival schools of thought and various regional power-centers, and we know that our of that rose a specific canon, and if you will a Politically Correct doctrine. I think we have to assume that a large part of this struggle likely had minimal to do with doctrine per se and, as with all human struggles, more to do with terrestrial power, authority, and possibly even economics. Similarly, it might have been the same from the Gnostic side: some men, with certain ideas, wanted to establish their own little power-grouping and ran into resistance from another power-center. Sure, there were doctrinal differences, but it just seems intuitively likely that the real struggle was just as much in other, mundane areas.

In any case, when we are fighting, we can't really mine and extract the 'precious jewel'.

God was the unexplainable void, until he created the heavens and the earth, and when he created the heavens and the earth he created a spirit for himself just as he created love to describe himself and justice and tranquility etc. Anyway, since I believe Jesus is the perfect manifestation of God on earth, therefore making himself God on earth, he cannot do anything sinful. Therefore to claim that what Jesus did is not the way we should live is blasphemy. If God had emotional attachments then I can have emotional attachments. If God prayed to his Father then I can pray to my Father. They say releasing yourself from emotions leads to nirvana. I say that releasing yourself from sin leads to nirvana. And how do we release ourselves from sin? Read the entire book of John and you tell me.

When I read such things, mostly what I am seeing is language. I look upon it basically as poetry, and (excuse the pun) a shot in the dark. I don't think we will ever be successful using language to explain the manifestation of life, of existence, and being. But, it also seems tru to me that in our history, that is, human history, we have a long love affair with the written word, and all the possibilities that the written word opens up to us. You could mention the Vedas, written in a very rich and condensed Sanskrit where each word has many levels of meaning. The mantra: oṃ bhūr bhuvaḥ svaḥ, tat savitur vareṇyaṃ, bhargo devasya dhīmahi, dhiyo yo naḥ pracodayāt ', is a group of multi-leveled sign-words that reflect and embody a metaphysical conception of the world in which we live. Because we were not instructed in this language and the cosmology that framed it, we stand outside of understanding. In a sense it is gibberish, meaningless.

To understand what this mantra means---it is generally translated as both a prayer and an affirmation, requires a fairly deep knowledge of the meaning of those words and the cosmological understanding of those who composed it. Those who handle the words, the literate class who were initiated into the use of language, regard this initiation as a pathway opened by God, and they regard the handling of those texts as a sacred enterprise. That is really the base of our inherited connection with language and literacy, because if these Bible scriptures are so important to us, we have to look back at who was handling these texts, and what it meant for them. And the people who handled these Bible texts and who constructed the platform upon which all later manifestations stand is the Jews of the priest/warrior class.

So, when you offer this story you have presented, obviously I cannot take it literally, and I don't really think you are taking it literally, if the truth were told. We enter into a whole, vast, strange and foreign territory of allusion. If we are really going to even approach some kernel of truth we almost have to outsmart ourselves and make sure, as we proceed into the dream-scape, that we don't start getting too literal. We have to remain in this uncomfortable, allusive, subtle state of sensitivity where we can 'receive' the message that the word encapsulates, and yet know that the word is not the essence, it is just a vehicle.

Below is some of the translation of the words that make up the Gayatri Mantra, a very interesting and potent prayer or affirmation. If we take this as a working translation: "Oh, Creator of the universe! We meditate upon thy supreme splendour. May thy radiant power illuminate our intellects, destroy our sins, and guide us in the right direction", do we accept that we are dealing with a sort of sentiment? It is sentiment that is also a form of will. But, it is also an asking, not an assertion. I don't see this prayer as being at all incommensurate with the Gospel message, do you?

I think we are called on to examine and comprehend essences, and to avoid terrestrial warfare of words. The world will never do away with its war over words, and the confusion and distress that is the world's way. But we have other avenues open to us.
________________________________________________________

Translation of Gayatri Mantra:

"Oh thou golden sun of most excellent splendor, illumine our hearts and fill our minds, so that we, recognizing our oneness with the Divinity which is the heart of the universe, may see the pathway before our feet, and tread it to those distant goals of perfection, stimulated by thine own radiant light."

Word-by-word explanation (words not in exact order):-

om The sacred sound, see Om.
bhū 'earth'
bhuvas 'atmosphere'
svar 'light, heaven, space'
dhīmahi 'may we attain' (1st person plural middle optative of dhā- 'set, bring, fix' etc.)
tát várenyam bhárgas 'that excellent glory' (accusatives of tad (pronoun), varenya- 'desirable, excellent' and bhargas- 'radiance, lustre, splendour, glory')
savitúr devásya 'of Savitr the god' (genitives of savitr-, 'stimulator, rouser; name of a sun-deity' and deva- 'god' or 'demi-god')
yáḥ pracodáyāt 'who may stimulate' (nominative singular of relative pronoun yad-; causative 3rd person of pra-cud- 'set in motion, drive on, urge, impel')
dhíyaḥ naḥ 'our prayers' (accusative plural of dhi- 'thought, meditation, devotion, prayer' and naḥ enclitic personal pronoun)

Other translations:

"Oh, Creator of the universe! We meditate upon thy supreme splendour. May thy radiant power illuminate our intellects, destroy our sins, and guide us in the right direction."

"Oh matter-energy-mind (triple universe); Upon this worthy source of divine spiritual light, meditate: thus enlighten our intellect."

[Talking Ass]

To make an issue of this, to create a requirement out of this shows how inexperienced you are with theology and text usage. Suddenly you raise these completely unreasonable requirements for a philosopher just to score a point.

Hmmmm. I see your point, but have you considered this?

ॐ भूर्भुवः स्वः ।
तत् सवितुर्वरेण्यं ।
भर्गो देवस्य धीमहि ।
धियो यो नः प्रचोदयात् ॥

You admit that it changes things quite a bit, right?

I am not trying to toot my own horn here, but...I was there.

Look here, you.

True, I allow myself a few terrestial pleasures... But, despite that enormous erection rising between us, our love is Platonic, strictly agape...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Translation of Gayatri Mantra ...[blablabla]

As you know, should know anyway, the opaque, oblique text represents the feminine but its message, the call, the meaning - intent even, represents the masculine. The challenge, the challenger as well.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

They say to separate ourselves from emotion, but Jesus expressed emotion several times in the gospels.

No separation, more like undercutting the need for it arising altogether.

You should decide for yourself, not basing everything on what you read other people display or not, in ancient passion plays.

[Talking Ass]

As you know, should know anyway, the opaque, oblique text represents the feminine, but its message, the call, the meaning - intent even, represents the masculine. The challenge, the challenger as well.

I know nothing, nothing! [I added a comma after 'feminine'].

[Glostik91]

So, we know that the early Church fought many protracted and bitter battles against rival schools of thought and various regional power-centers, and we know that our of that rose a specific canon, and if you will a Politically Correct doctrine. I think we have to assume that a large part of this struggle likely had minimal to do with doctrine per se and, as with all human struggles, more to do with terrestrial power, authority, and possibly even economics. Similarly, it might have been the same from the Gnostic side: some men, with certain ideas, wanted to establish their own little power-grouping and ran into resistance from another power-center. Sure, there were doctrinal differences, but it just seems intuitively likely that the real struggle was just as much in other, mundane areas.

What kinds of mundane areas?

So, when you offer this story you have presented, obviously I cannot take it literally, and I don't really think you are taking it literally, if the truth were told. We enter into a whole, vast, strange and foreign territory of allusion. If we are really going to even approach some kernel of truth we almost have to outsmart ourselves and make sure, as we proceed into the dream-scape, that we don't start getting too literal. We have to remain in this uncomfortable, allusive, subtle state of sensitivity where we can 'receive' the message that the word encapsulates, and yet know that the word is not the essence, it is just a vehicle.

I mostly agree with you on this. I believe that God reveals himself through the vehicle of the Bible just as he revealed himself through the vehicle of Jesus. Although when Jesus spoke it was rather difficult to determine whether he was speaking literally or in a more metaphorical mindset. Like in John 9. Jesus heals a blind man. After the blind man visits the Pharisees Jesus finds him. This is what happened.

35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

36"Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him."

37Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you."

38Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.

39Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."

40Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?"

41Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

Now, does Jesus mean blindness of the eyes or blindness of the mind? He says he judges so that the blind will see. He obviously healed a man of his blindness. But should this be taken that literally? No, of course not. Jesus came so that those who blindly trust him to take away their sin will see the truth, but those who claim to see the truth without Jesus are still guilty of their sins because they are trusting in themselves and not the one who came to save them. This is still a literal interpretation but not nearly as literal as it could be taken. We have to be careful that we do not use eisegesis when interpreting a text, but instead we should attempt to find its original meaning and use exegesis to interpret it. (btw: Prophecy from Isaiah 46:7 fulfilled in Jesus in this passage)

Below is some of the translation of the words that make up the Gayatri Mantra, a very interesting and potent prayer or affirmation. If we take this as a working translation: "Oh, Creator of the universe! We meditate upon thy supreme splendour. May thy radiant power illuminate our intellects, destroy our sins, and guide us in the right direction", do we accept that we are dealing with a sort of sentiment? It is sentiment that is also a form of will. But, it is also an asking, not an assertion. I don't see this prayer as being at all incommensurate with the Gospel message, do you?

For the most part it is adequate. If one prays this they are asking God to take away their sins. But how does God take away our sins. He cannot simply forget them because this would violate his own being. He must judge those who have stolen His glory. Isaiah 46:8 God makes it very clear he will judge those who reject him yet claim to be innocent, those who claim to not have sin. Jeremiah 2:35. Therefore, if one prays this prayer, hears about Jesus, and rejects Jesus; they will still be under judgment. So what is adequate for salvation? One must trust in Jesus, who God has sent to take away the sins of the world.

I think we are called on to examine and comprehend essences, and to avoid terrestrial warfare of words. The world will never do away with its war over words, and the confusion and distress that is the world's way. But we have other avenues open to us.
________________________________________________________

Translation of Gayatri Mantra:

"Oh thou golden sun of most excellent splendor, illumine our hearts and fill our minds, so that we, recognizing our oneness with the Divinity which is the heart of the universe, may see the pathway before our feet, and tread it to those distant goals of perfection, stimulated by thine own radiant light."

Word-by-word explanation (words not in exact order):-

om The sacred sound, see Om.
bhū 'earth'
bhuvas 'atmosphere'
svar 'light, heaven, space'
dhīmahi 'may we attain' (1st person plural middle optative of dhā- 'set, bring, fix' etc.)
tát várenyam bhárgas 'that excellent glory' (accusatives of tad (pronoun), varenya- 'desirable, excellent' and bhargas- 'radiance, lustre, splendour, glory')
savitúr devásya 'of Savitr the god' (genitives of savitr-, 'stimulator, rouser; name of a sun-deity' and deva- 'god' or 'demi-god')
yáḥ pracodáyāt 'who may stimulate' (nominative singular of relative pronoun yad-; causative 3rd person of pra-cud- 'set in motion, drive on, urge, impel')
dhíyaḥ naḥ 'our prayers' (accusative plural of dhi- 'thought, meditation, devotion, prayer' and naḥ enclitic personal pronoun)

Other translations:

"Oh, Creator of the universe! We meditate upon thy supreme splendour. May thy radiant power illuminate our intellects, destroy our sins, and guide us in the right direction."

"Oh matter-energy-mind (triple universe); Upon this worthy source of divine spiritual light, meditate: thus enlighten our intellect."

I agree that we should accept more essences than extremely literal interpretations, but we must take caution that in our search for essences that we do not insert our own ideas into the passage. To do this would be deceitful. When one eisegetes meanings from the Bible they are not only deceiving others but they are deceiving themselves. This of course should not hinder any speculation which is what I was doing earlier. Sure, you shouldn't accept my words as gospel truth, but nonetheless it is reasonable, isn't it?

[Glostik91]

They say to separate ourselves from emotion, but Jesus expressed emotion several times in the gospels.

No separation, more like undercutting the need for it arising altogether.

Good point. Although I think at times its impossible to undercut your emotion.

You should decide for yourself, not basing everything on what you read other people display or not, in ancient passion plays.

If Jesus was just a person I wouldn't.

[Animus]

Here we go with the "Is this genuine Christ stuff"

I only have one thing to say to this: John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Truth as Truth stands alone and can be discerned by many means, plunging into the depths of philosophical inquiry without attachment to doctrine or conclusion is probably best, but that doesn't mean one can't 'stumble' upon the truth independantly.

Taking Jesus statements as equivalence "I am the truth" we might represent this as "Jesus = Truth".

Now, if you ask me, if something is equivalent, then by very definition it is no different and thus: "Truth = Jesus".

In effect, if Jesus is the Truth, then the Truth must also be Jesus and people shouldn't worry so much about where others get the Truth from, because if Jesus is the Truth, by virtue of them finding the Truth they will also come across Jesus.

On the other hand, if Jesus is not the Truth, then you have reason to worry about where people get their information from. You certainly wouldn't want them stumbling upon the Truth and realizing it is not Jesus, that is, if you hold that Jesus is the Truth.

[Talking Ass]

Isaiah is pretty amazing. Everything depends on what one does with it.

For the most part it is adequate. If one prays this they are asking God to take away their sins. But how does God take away our sins?

We are wedded to consciousness, it is part of our emerging self. Knowing God, praying to God, being involved in consciousness and moral questions, questions of vision, is to participate with God. I think that is something many died-in-the-wool Christians cannot see or accept. Christianity, and Judaism, invite one to see a kind of limited model of what God is. The better parts of Eastern teachings (not to say that Judaism and Christianity are not, substantially, Eastern teachings, they are), say Hindu metaphysics, describes God in a pretty radically different way. Like John amplified by a hundred. You know, the idea of Logos as preexisting.

So what is adequate for salvation? One must trust in Jesus, who God has sent to take away the sins of the world.

I see this more as an idea and less as a fact, if I were to be honest with you. To approach such an idea allegorically enables a more fluid, a more open, interpretation. It is possible to universalize the idea. Here's an alternative: As living entities---here on our planet or anywhere in the creation---come into consciousness (the domain of the inexplicable 'psyche')---something comes to meet them. What is that something? Something beckons to the kernel of awareness that is man, something inspires and motivates. What is that? And, God makes a sacrifice for this consciousness to quicken. In the sense that John places the Logos in a sort of eternal Now, one can see 'Christ-Consciousness' less as a specific event and more the expression of a universal principal. The Gayatri Mantra, a word-formulation, seems to express this, in my opinion.

What kinds of mundane areas?

Basic economics. Basic power. Why would this need to be explained?

[Glostik91]

Here we go with the "Is this genuine Christ stuff"

I only have one thing to say to this: John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Truth as Truth stands alone and can be discerned by many means, plunging into the depths of philosophical inquiry without attachment to doctrine or conclusion is probably best, but that doesn't mean one can't 'stumble' upon the truth independently.

Taking Jesus statements as equivalence "I am the truth" we might represent this as "Jesus = Truth".

Now, if you ask me, if something is equivalent, then by very definition it is no different and thus: "Truth = Jesus".

In effect, if Jesus is the Truth, then the Truth must also be Jesus and people shouldn't worry so much about where others get the Truth from, because if Jesus is the Truth, by virtue of them finding the Truth they will also come across Jesus.

On the other hand, if Jesus is not the Truth, then you have reason to worry about where people get their information from. You certainly wouldn't want them stumbling upon the Truth and realizing it is not Jesus, that is, if you hold that Jesus is the Truth.

Jesus claims to be the Truth in that everything that Jesus is, is truth. To not accept a part of Jesus is to not accept the Truth. Absolute truth is not flexible by any means. If its absolute then nothing can change the fact that it is true. If Jesus is the Truth then everything Jesus taught is absolute truth. I agree that someone can find the Truth independently, but if this Truth they find contradicts what Jesus taught and who Jesus is then it is indeed not the Truth. It is apparent that the Gospel of Thomas has been influenced by Gnostic teachings. I believe that Thomas was the Q document but after several decades church leaders who were influenced by gnostic teachings added their own verses and contorting some of the original verses of the Q document and naming it the Gospel of Thomas. If you notice verse 114 there is a caption that says "This verse was probably added to the original collection at a later date." Verse 114 nearly captures the essence of David Quinn's teachings on women. If this verse could have been added later then why not some of the other verses?

[Animus]

Everything could be wrong, including the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Besides the Bible professes "knowledge" of God, not "faith" of God's existence, merely "faith" in the operation of God.

Jesus was a fleshly representation, a symbol, an idol. Christians buy into the Jesus image too much, clinging to crucifixes and images of the flesh. Jesus isn't that important, ask him yourself, the Truth is what is important. (John 14:28)

[Glostik91]

I think that is something many died-in-the-wool Christians cannot see or accept. Christianity, and Judaism, invite one to see a kind of limited model of what God is.

I think your right. Many people try and fit God with their egos. They believe God died for us because he saw something worth saving. I believe God died for us to show us his glory. We are all created for one purpose (to glorify God). It doesn’t matter what we do on earth we will glorify God. For those that have stolen and are stealing God’s glory; they will not for long. When the judgment of the world comes they will recognize that everything they did was to the ultimate glorification of God and not to themselves. God will take back his glory on judgment day by revealing his justice. God will do this by condemning billions of souls to Hell. But because God wished to reveal his mercy he provided another way to glorify Himself. He sent Jesus (who is the very image of Himself) to die so that those who are Jesus’ will not be condemned but saved. Therefore we have two options to glorify God. We can either glorify him by magnifying his justice or by magnifying his mercy.

I see this more as an idea and less as a fact, if I were to be honest with you. To approach such an idea allegorically enables a more fluid, a more open, interpretation. It is possible to universalize the idea. Here's an alternative: As living entities---here on our planet or anywhere in the creation---come into consciousness (the domain of the inexplicable 'psyche')---something comes to meet them. What is that something? Something beckons to the kernel of awareness that is man, something inspires and motivates. What is that? And, God makes a sacrifice for this consciousness to quicken. In the sense that John places the Logos in a sort of eternal Now, one can see 'Christ-Consciousness' less as a specific event and more the expression of a universal principal. The Gayatri Mantra, a word-formulation, seems to express this, in my opinion.

It’s at this point where we must be careful that we don't eisegete the book of John. I'm not very familiar with Hindu metaphysics, but what I believe your trying to communicate to me is that the knowledge of God comes from within our own conscientiousness and the seeking of the truth within ourselves is how we know God; the proof being an almost universal impulse for knowledge or enlightenment as illustrated in the Gayatri Mantra. The Logos in John is not some deep intellectual thinking or searching our conscientiousness for truth, but it is Jesus' words and actions. Jesus says eternal life is to know God and Jesus Christ whom God has sent. (John 17:3) This is where epistemology comes into play. What is knowledge? A simple definition is: To believe something that is true. So what is Jesus saying? A plain reading of it is to believe in Jesus. The person who believes eternal life comes from knowing oneself or that knowledge comes from within doesn't believe in Jesus because that is not what Jesus taught. Jesus never said trust yourselves. He said trust in me. Is it possible for a finite being to create absolute truth? What if there is something beyond our understanding that contradicts what we hold to be true? To trust in ourselves is to limit oneself to only what they can understand because a finite being can never know anything but merely believe something (This is more or less a fallibilistic position). Before I continue I should probably lay out an illustration of the Trinity. I believe one of the best illustrations of the Trinity is to use personification. If the Trinity were a human then the Father would be the brain and conscientiousness, the Son would be the voice, muscles and bones, and the Holy Ghost would be the five senses. Now, if God is indeed infinite then the Father should be able to understand absolute truth. The Father has revealed absolute truth through Word who is Jesus. Once our sin is removed by Jesus the Holy Ghost can now look upon us, hear us, and feel our needs and relay this information to the Father for us. In David Quinn’s book The Wisdom of the Infinite he takes a step to say that what is logical equals absolute truth. He then tip toes his way around fallibilism supposing that logic supersedes this and continues on his way. This of course is a dangerous step. This shows that he has more trust in himself than in the one who calls himself God. A step that I dare not take.

Basic economics. Basic power. Why would this need to be explained?

I haven't studied the history of Gnosticism. All I know is from a quick glance at wikipedia's article, but with all due respect I don't really want to pursue this topic right now.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

It is apparent that Thomas is not like any of the other gospels because it doesn't read with the narrative style

The middle of Proverbs seemed far more disjointed to me than any other part of the Bible, but it's still in the Old Testament. If the beginning and the end of Proverbs was burned, the middle would not have its value changed.

The Gospel of Thomas was only recently found, historically speaking... and we did not get all of it, as the guy who found it used part of it for kindling. It's probably better that the Gospel of Thomas was not a narrative, as that would have made the missing parts more intrinsic to the meaning of what's left. Maybe the narrative parts were burned.

Few people in that age read or wrote, so people had to remember and tell others what they remembered. It is easier for the human mind to remember a story than a list of facts, so the narrative format would have been a natural medium to relay the story until it was written. Since it is likely that The Gospel of Thomas was written reasonably shortly after Jesus' death, It wouldn't have had as much time to morph into a more narrative style.

As good as people's memories were back then (from using it so much more than we do) there still had to be an amount of the telephone game effect on stories that were passed down for generations before hitting paper ( or papyrus, or whatever). It does also show a more human side of Jesus than the rest of the Bible, and the Bible says that Jesus was born in the flesh, so it seems reasonable that He would have had the similar challenges of being in the flesh as everyone else. I think that was the point - and a point that got lost in too much glorifying of Jesus.

This of course makes it hard to date seeing as it could have been slowly compiled over several years or decades.

Writing all that by hand, between doing chores of survival and any religious rituals, and obligations to the state, would have taken quite some time.

Some question if parts of it were even written by Thomas.

Some also question whether any of the books in the Bible were written by the person whose name it is attributed to, as in those days, writers would routinely attribute their work to a name of greater recognition.

how can we know Jesus said everything that is written in this gospel?

I put value on The Gospel of Thomas for the ideas it espouses, just as I put value on the Bible for the ideas it espouses. Either or both could be essentially fiction from a historical perspective, but there are pieces of wisdom in both.

If Thomas is indeed not entirely reliable as a gospel why do people (such as David Quinn) still use it?

Glostick91, welcome to the board. What is important here is what you can reason out by thinking through logically for yourself. Any tool can be used to point to Ultimate Truth, but ultimately they are all just tools. The phrase "the gospel truth" may indicate unquestionable truth to the outside world, but here we prod such sacred cows to get to the real truth. In other words, just because the gospel says it's so does not mean that it is so - and eve more obviously, just because it is not in the gospels does not mean that it is not true.

I would answer that David Quinn can highlight the Gospel of Thomas simply because it is abstract enough, non-tangible enough, that it fits right into his conception of 'Jesus' as a teacher of Enlightenment.

David does like to stir things up a bit to get people debating and therefore thinking.

They say to separate ourselves from emotion, but Jesus expressed emotion several times in the gospels.

Part of being human is to have emotions. One of the challenges of being human is what to do with those emotions. Emotions can either be useful to us or use us. The right emotion in a dangerous situation can give us extra strength or less pain in order to survive or save someone else. Emotion can also prompt us to do what is right for humanity even if it is wrong for us individually (self-sacrifice), but just as easily emotion can cause us to do what seems right for the individual even if it is wrong for society (acts of selfishness). We know that acts of selfishness ultimately harm the selfish person too, but it can be hard for the person to see that - or to give up the hope that it won't get back to him - when that person is in the midst of temptation.

If we separate ourselves from emotion, we will still have emotions but we will be more than our emotions.

They say God is not a being, but Jesus prays to God saying, "Father". Although I do believe that before time God was unexplainable. God was the unexplainable void, until he created the heavens and the earth, and when he created the heavens and the earth he created a spirit for himself just as he created love to describe himself and justice and tranquility etc.

Language limits God, and God is limitless. All any form of language can do is point at God, but the person has to make that final connection to Truth as an individual. Many Christians call that "a personal relationship with Jesus." How close they get to enlightenment that way vs how close they get to walking around with an imaginary friend is a problem.

since I believe Jesus is the perfect manifestation of God on earth, therefore making himself God on earth, he cannot do anything sinful. Therefore to claim that what Jesus did is not the way we should live is blasphemy.

I know of a church that sells religious trinkets outside the parish hall. Should I smash the display case, or just throw the money box?

They say releasing yourself from emotions leads to nirvana. I say that releasing yourself from sin leads to nirvana.

There are many paths.

BTW, how would you define a sin?

My main reasoning is why would David Quinn use the gospel of Thomas or any gospel for that matter if parts of it disagree with his teachings?

In Wisdom of the Infinite, David is describing the Infinite. There is no duality in the Infinite, but there are many finite worlds inside the Infinite. Finite worlds do have duality.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Here we go with the "Is this genuine Christ stuff"

I only have one thing to say to this: John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Truth as Truth stands alone and can be discerned by many means, plunging into the depths of philosophical inquiry without attachment to doctrine or conclusion is probably best, but that doesn't mean one can't 'stumble' upon the truth independantly.

Taking Jesus statements as equivalence "I am the truth" we might represent this as "Jesus = Truth".

Now, if you ask me, if something is equivalent, then by very definition it is no different and thus: "Truth = Jesus".

In effect, if Jesus is the Truth, then the Truth must also be Jesus and people shouldn't worry so much about where others get the Truth from, because if Jesus is the Truth, by virtue of them finding the Truth they will also come across Jesus.

On the other hand, if Jesus is not the Truth, then you have reason to worry about where people get their information from. You certainly wouldn't want them stumbling upon the Truth and realizing it is not Jesus, that is, if you hold that Jesus is the Truth.

That is the best argument I have ever seen for Jesus being real even if His life story is a parable, a parable of parables.