Gospel of Thomas; Really?

[Animus]

Yea, I think, whether or not Jesus really existed in the flesh, his life-story as a parable makes sense.

Indeed his manifestation in the flesh was as much a distraction as it was an identifier for people. People can identify with the image of a man, but then they seem to get stuck there.

[Tomas]

Yea, I think, whether or not Jesus really existed in the flesh, his life-story as a parable makes sense.

Indeed his manifestation in the flesh was as much a distraction as it was an identifier for people. People can identify with the image of a man, but then they seem to get stuck there.

The more I read the ranting of Christ , the more he sounds like a mortal woman.

There's a reason why king james was burning witches at the stake, and all before he "produced" the 1611 bible.

Could Christ Have Been a Woman?
An interview with Father Basil Pennington
by Simon Alev
http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j ... n.asp?pf=1

[Animus]

I don't follow you Thomas...

[Glostik91]

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

How can one who is omnipotent be wrong?

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)

If the Truth equals Jesus then Jesus must be just as important as the Truth. He is not only the Truth but he is also the Way. He is the only way to God. Through Jesus' sacrifice you are able to remove the virus of sin by accepting and believing what he did. He is not only the Way but he is also the Life. Jesus sacrificed his life so that many may receive Life. And this Life is to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom God has sent. (John 17:3) But how do we know God? Or an even better question. How do we get eternal life? Read John 6:25-59.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

If the Truth equals Jesus

Okay, if Truth = Jesus, then anywhere one writes Jesus, it would be just as valid to write Truth. Let's try that on one of your statements.

Through Jesus' sacrifice you are able to remove the virus of sin by accepting and believing what he did.

Through Truth's sacrifice you are able to remove the virus of sin by accepting and believing what he did.

Any sacrifice of the truth makes a lie, at least a lie of omission. So, this says that by accepting and believing a lie, we are able to remove the virus of sin.

Well, I'm not too sure only because I'm not really sure what you mean by "sin." I ask you again, how would you define sin?

[Glostik91]

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.

Its possible that the narrative part of Thomas was burned. That would explain why it doesn't have the most important part of Jesus' life which is his death. Although I do think it would go against logic to say it did burn. There is no substantial proof to decide that Thomas had a narrative part. The only proof we have is what's in Thomas. So its safe to say that the portions that would've been burned were in the same format as the rest of Thomas. I don't understand how there could have been a telephone game in regards to the book of Mark and John or even Luke. (just read Luke 1:1-4) I highly doubt that Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew, but we can see that (we'll call the author of Matthew Matthew) Matthew did use the "M" manuscript, Marks gospel, and the hypothesized Q manuscript (which I hold to be an early form of Thomas). This makes a good case for the authenticity of the book of Matthew. I agree that Thomas wouldn't have had enough time to have been morphed into another style because I believe it was being written right after Jesus' death and it was continually being added to all the way through to about 140 AD. This is why I would say Thomas is unreliable.

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 even more obviously, just because it is not in the gospels does not mean that it is not true.

Thanks :) Logic is a tool that points to ultimate truth. The Bible is a tool that points to ultimate truth, but the Bible is different from logic in that it comes directly from the mouth of God. (The mouth of God being Jesus of course) Logic always has the possibility of being flawed by sin or illusion. Those who have sin will always have a tainted view of God. Those who don't have sin can still be under illusions.

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.

nicely put.

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.

Your right in that God is unexplainable, and that is exactly what I said. God is still unexplainable, but God has created images that describe who he is so that we might be able to understand what God is like. When God caused the universe he created nouns and adjectives that describe who he is. (Mercy, Justice, Spirit, Word, etc) But we must also accept that God is much more than this. God is more than the finite words we place upon him. Logic is a finite tool we can use to explain the infinite, but the Bible is a better tool in that it isn't inhibited by sin and illusions the way logic can be. That is why I choose to use logic through the lens of the Bible so my logic is not inhibited by sin and illusions.

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?

This is different in that the people going to that church do not have to buy the trinkets. The people at the temple had to buy their sacrifices so there were vendors at the temple selling animals for sacrifice. This isn't wrong. What Jesus was angry about was that the vendors were ripping off the customers who had no other choice but to buy the animals at outrageous prices thereby bringing sin into the temple. (Mark 11:17, it is also apparent that they were sinning in Jeremiah 7:9-11) So I believe if someone was in a country where there were few Bibles around and this person was selling them at outrageous prices then you would be justified in your anger.

BTW, how would you define a sin?

Violating the Law of God.

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.

How can there be a duality when inherently all the finite worlds are the same? The spirit world and the physical world are all part of one reality. Its like saying my hand and my foot are a duality when in reality they are all just a part of my body made of the same types of cells only in different shapes (to use a finite example).

[Glostik91]

If the Truth equals Jesus

Okay, if Truth = Jesus, then anywhere one writes Jesus, it would be just as valid to write Truth. Let's try that on one of your statements.

Through Jesus' sacrifice you are able to remove the virus of sin by accepting and believing what he did.

Through Truth's sacrifice you are able to remove the virus of sin by accepting and believing what he did.

Any sacrifice of the truth makes a lie, at least a lie of omission. So, this says that by accepting and believing a lie, we are able to remove the virus of sin.

Well, I'm not too sure only because I'm not really sure what you mean by "sin." I ask you again, how would you define sin?

What is Jesus' sacrifice? Jesus became sin. (2 Corinthians 5:21) So when Jesus was on the cross all the sin of the world was placed on him. He then was justly punished for the sin that was placed upon him. His punishment was and eternal death in hell. He died an eternal death so you wouldn't have to. This, of course does not mean he had sin before his judgment which is what I believe your implying.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I'll get back to most of your post later, as that will require a lot of typing - but I want you to have this answer tonight to think about, and it is also an important enough concept to deserve to be thought about by itself, and not just tagged on the end.

How can there be a duality when inherently all the finite worlds are the same? The spirit world and the physical world are all part of one reality.

Duality exists when defining something draws a boundary between that which it is and that which it is not. The Infinite does not have any boundaries surrounding it. There is nothing that is not part of the Infinite; even nothingness itself is part of the Infinite.

[paco]

I'll get back to most of your post later, as that will require a lot of typing - but I want you to have this answer tonight to think about, and it is also an important enough concept to deserve to be thought about by itself, and not just tagged on the end.

How can there be a duality when inherently all the finite worlds are the same? The spirit world and the physical world are all part of one reality.

Duality exists when defining something draws a boundary between that which it is and that which it is not. The Infinite does not have any boundaries surrounding it. There is nothing that is not part of the Infinite; even nothingness itself is part of the Infinite.

When I think of duality I am pondering on a cube. Something great, big, enormous for thought. Now, what does this have to do with anything? Nothing.
I was at the dmv the other day and while looking at some posted signs it occured to me that this is what paul was speaking to us about in the book of revelations and this was written thousands of years ago. I think...I get nervous around here. You people smell of starbucks which makes me eerie!

[Kevin Solway]

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?

I think that David is just quoting those words or passages that he thinks are wise, and giving credit to the authors.

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.

This is correct. Duality is really just a manifestation of the spiritual. Ramakrishna once said, "God alone is real, all else is illusory."

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.

I think it's probable that Jesus was a wise man of sorts, but there's no way we can really know for sure. Any wise sayings that are attributed to Jesus may have been composed by someone entirely different. It may have been that Jesus never said anything wise in his entire life.

[Kevin Solway]

. . . the most important part of Jesus' life which is his death.

That is spoken like a true enemy of wisdom!

Kierkegaard notes that Christianity (which he calls "Christendom") concentrates on the birth of Jesus, and his death, in order to eliminate his life.

He says,

"Established Christendom" really dates from the time Christmas was
declared the supreme festival (in the Fourth Century). The Saviour of the
world is now a baby.
Thus there is an oscillation between two extreme poles - either stressing
only Christ's death (for then one also escapes imitation) or the baby Christ.

[Animus]

To me; Jesus in the flesh represents the ego, and the crucifixion represents the death of the ego.

Christ represents Truth. Jesus died but Christ lives.

Jesus was symbolically a manifestation of the Truth in bodily form so that humans would identify with it. It loses its quality somewhat though in such a representation and creates an opportunity for people to misinterpret it (Prophecy of Isaiah/Parable of the Sower/etc..)

This is what it means to be "buried with him in baptism" or to undergo the "circumcision done without hands", is to crucify your own ego.

E.g. Romans 2

28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Colossians 2

11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:



"The circumcision of Truth"


Sin to me is just the manifestation of thoughts which arise from the naive perspective of a self-sufficient, persistent, independent self.

[Talking Ass]

Glostik91: "...the most important part of Jesus' life which is his death".

Kevin: That is spoken like a true enemy of wisdom!

It is possible that both of you---the religionist and the rationalist---miss the point. One of the most amazing and enduring facts of life---human life and human consciousness---has to do with a recurring theme: resurrection. Our lives are a series of births, living-narratives, endings-deaths, and the struggle for rebirth, resurrection. It is very obvious in psychological motifs, mythical motifs. People go through life and death cycles, and after dying, there is a reassembling of the elements of the spirit or the personality and a 'rising from the dead'. This theme is so constant as to be universal.

One of the main motifs in Evangelical Christianity is the death-cycle, the coming to the end of one's rope, the psychological death, and the rebirth of a new man. It is the Christ narrative that is the model for that transition.

There are a number of individuals on this forum who are quite involved in a death-rebirth (psychological-spiritual) cycle, it is pretty obvious.

Baptism of Fire
____________________________________________________

PHOENIX: A universal symbol of the sun, mystical rebirth, resurrection and immortality, this legendary red "fire bird" was believed to die in its self-made flames periodically (each hundred years, according to some sources) then rise again out of its own ashes. Linked to the worship of the fiery sun and sun gods such as Mexico's Quetzalcoatl, it was named "a god of Phoenecia" by the Phoenician. To alchemists, it symbolized the the destruction and creation of new forms of matter along the way to the ultimate transformation: physical (turn lead into gold) and spiritual (immortality - an occult alternative to the Christian salvation). The philosopher's stone was considered the key to this transformation.

[Glostik91]

Duality exists when defining something draws a boundary between that which it is and that which it is not. The Infinite does not have any boundaries surrounding it. There is nothing that is not part of the Infinite; even nothingness itself is part of the Infinite.

This is what I believe too. So how can there be a boundary between the spiritual world and the physical world when they are inherently the same? They only have boundaries because we recognize them as boundaries. God doesn’t recognize them as boundaries because he transcends everything. Although I must confess I do believe in two boundaries: sin and illusion. They are the boundaries that keep us from God.

[Glostik91]

When I think of duality I am pondering on a cube. Something great, big, enormous for thought. Now, what does this have to do with anything? Nothing.
I was at the dmv the other day and while looking at some posted signs it occured to me that this is what paul was speaking to us about in the book of revelations and this was written thousands of years ago. I think...I get nervous around here. You people smell of starbucks which makes me eerie!

I’m not entirely sure what this means, but by saying Revelation was written by Paul makes me believe you don’t know what you’re talking about. If you would like to start a new thread on duality, how Paul was indeed the author of Revelation, or if you want to start a blog about your opinions there are many sites across the internet that praise these abilities, but this thread isn’t one of them.

[Glostik91]

I think that David is just quoting those words or passages that he thinks are wise, and giving credit to the authors.

This would be fine, if he gave credit to more than one author. Unfortunately, he only gives credit to one author.

I think it's probable that Jesus was a wise man of sorts, but there's no way we can really know for sure. Any wise sayings that are attributed to Jesus may have been composed by someone entirely different. It may have been that Jesus never said anything wise in his entire life.

It’s true that we cannot know for sure if Jesus said anything written in the Bible, but nothing has been able to disprove the statement that Jesus said what is written in the Bible so it’s reasonable to say that he did say them. Thomas on the other hand is not as reasonable in my mind because of certain reasons I believe I laid out earlier in the thread.

. . . the most important part of Jesus' life which is his death.

That is spoken like a true enemy of wisdom!

Kierkegaard notes that Christianity (which he calls "Christendom") concentrates on the birth of Jesus, and his death, in order to eliminate his life.

He says,
Quote:
"Established Christendom" really dates from the time Christmas was
declared the supreme festival (in the Fourth Century). The Saviour of the
world is now a baby.
Thus there is an oscillation between two extreme poles - either stressing
only Christ's death (for then one also escapes imitation) or the baby Christ.

Established Christendom and the Bible have strayed from each other time and time again. It has only been through “Great Awakenings” and reformations that have brought the attention back to the Bible and off of us. It is only from the Bible and primarily from the prophets and Jesus that provide a clear undiluted view of who God is. We are all infected with sin. This sin is in violation of God’s law. God reveals his glory by justly condemning the unrighteous to Hell. We glorify God’s justice by going to Hell. We are created to glorify God. It is inescapable. To be able to know true wisdom is to be free from sin which taints everything it touches. It dilutes and poisons wherever it is conceived. To contain sin and to claim enlightenment is a paradox. You cannot be without delusion unless you are without sin. How do we free ourselves from sin which dilutes everything in its presence? Jesus became our sin, took the punishment of eternal death in Hell and through this act He gives us Life. To believe in Jesus is to give all your sin to Him and receive eternal Life. I concentrate on Jesus’ death because through His death comes eternal Life. Jesus’ teachings are important, but it is his death that is the culmination of his teachings. Its like a football game where you’re in the final moments. The score is tied and it’s up to you to score. You score and you’re held as the hero of the team. Everybody loves you for your winning score of the game. Now, was your score more important than the other two scores? In hindsight no, but at the time of the scoring yes. Your score was the culmination of the teams ultimate victory, just as Jesus' death was the culmination of his teachings. Saying his death is more important than his teachings is debatable seeing as they are inseparable as Jesus prophesies his own death (John 3:14).

John 3:17
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

How does the Son save the world? By being lifted up. (John 3:15-16)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Its possible that the narrative part of Thomas was burned. That would explain why it doesn't have the most important part of Jesus' life which is his death. Although I do think it would go against logic to say it did burn. There is no substantial proof to decide that Thomas had a narrative part.

I did not mean to imply that I thought that it did. I only meant to point out that it was possible, and also that it was possible that even a different format does not prove anything other than it had a different format. It might imply that Thomas was written by a different author, but no one implied that the every account of Jesus was written by the same author.

I don't understand how there could have been a telephone game in regards to the book of Mark and John or even Luke. (just read Luke 1:1-4)

If anything, that proves it.

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus

Sounds to me like he's saying that the first generation(s) of story tellers were either eyewitnesses to what he believed happened or people who had dedicated their lives to the retelling of the stories, then many from the next generation(s) of storytellers tried to write down these stories in an orderly fashion, so he first carefully reviewed whatever he could, and then decided to write his own story.

Matthew did use the "M" manuscript, Marks gospel, and the hypothesized Q manuscript (which I hold to be an early form of Thomas). This makes a good case for the authenticity of the book of Matthew. I agree that Thomas wouldn't have had enough time to have been morphed into another style because I believe it was being written right after Jesus' death and it was continually being added to all the way through to about 140 AD. This is why I would say Thomas is unreliable.

I don't understand what you mean here. How would Matthew using Mark's gospel and the hypothesized Q manuscript (which I had previously understood to be Thomas, not just an early form of it - but for the point here, you consider as said above) make a good case for the authenticity of Matthew when you are trying to make the case that Thomas is not reliable? You're saying that authentic information can be expected from an unreliable source.

Logic is a tool that points to ultimate truth. The Bible is a tool that points to ultimate truth, but the Bible is different from logic in that it comes directly from the mouth of God.

If you're saying that the mouth of God is illogical, the way you’re making it sound, I'll have to agree with you.

Logic always has the possibility of being flawed by sin or illusion.

No, logic itself is flawless. People are, however, congenitally illogical. Logic must be learned as or after the brain develops to a certain level, but many people either don't learn logic well, or never develop the requisite parts of the brain sufficiently to be able to reason well.

I'll grant that not learning to be logical could be considered a sin, and not being able to be logical could be called subject to illusion or delusion.

God has created images that describe who he is so that we might be able to understand what God is like.

I agree with this.

the Bible is a better tool in that it isn't inhibited by sin and illusions the way logic can be.

I can't wholesale agree with this. The Bible may be a better tool for you to get as close as you can to God, but God made all of us differently, so it makes sense that God would also make different paths to Him to accommodate the different minds that He also made.

That is why I choose to use logic through the lens of the Bible so my logic is not inhibited by sin and illusions.

I hate to attack this statement because you do have something of value in there, but I will because the way you put it, I'm not sure that you recognize the value but I'm sure that you don't see how this doesn't make sense.

If you use logic through the lens of the Bible, but your understanding of the Bible is flawed, then both your logic and your understanding of the Bible are flawed. Since you are not starting with logic, you must get your understanding of the Bible from somewhere else - either another person or from your own mind without the use of logic.

If you look at the Bible through the lens of logic instead, you are less likely to fall under delusion unless your mind is wired in such a way that you can think that you are being logical when in fact you are not.

The aforementioned value in your statement is that logic is infamous for being cold, the Bible speaks more to compassion and emotion, and cold logic often leaves out sometimes necessary variables that are related to or relate by feelings.

.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:BTW, how would you define a sin?


Violating the Law of God.

Okay, how would you describe the Law of God? And please give me a deeper answer than the Commandments and other stuff you find in the Bible. I mean how would YOU describe the Law of God.

What is Jesus' sacrifice? Jesus became sin. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Okay.

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

So Jesus, the mouth of God, became sin, the violation of God's law, so that what - ? So God made Jesus no longer his mouthpiece, so that we might - (wait a minute...)

Back it up to 2 Corinthians 5:20

So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making His appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

God is making his appeal through us. He is no longer speaking through Christ, but through us. So what voice in us might actually be the voice of God? I have a vote that the voice of God is logic, based on that by definition, all things operate logically if flawless logic is used, including that all of the correct premises are included in the equation.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Duality exists when defining something draws a boundary between that which it is and that which it is not. The Infinite does not have any boundaries surrounding it. There is nothing that is not part of the Infinite; even nothingness itself is part of the Infinite.

This is what I believe too. So how can there be a boundary between the spiritual world and the physical world when they are inherently the same? They only have boundaries because we recognize them as boundaries. God doesn’t recognize them as boundaries because he transcends everything. Although I must confess I do believe in two boundaries: sin and illusion. They are the boundaries that keep us from God.

In the eyes of God, there isn't a boundary between the physical world and the spiritual world. As you said, mankind drew that boundary with the collective of minds. The moment anyone holds a concept of a spiritual world, in order for that concept to distinctly exist, there must be a non-spiritual world to contrast it against, to define it. The boundaries, like the worlds themselves, are illusions. When you actually believe in them, then they are delusions.

[Glostik91]

If anything, that proves it.

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus

Sounds to me like he's saying that the first generation(s) of story tellers were either eyewitnesses to what he believed happened or people who had dedicated their lives to the retelling of the stories, then many from the next generation(s) of storytellers tried to write down these stories in an orderly fashion, so he first carefully reviewed whatever he could, and then decided to write his own story.

That's a short telephone game. If an eyewitness is good enough for a courtroom then I think its good enough for the book of Luke. As for the "servants of the word" this is most likely the author of Mark, and the Q document.

I don't understand what you mean here. How would Matthew using Mark's gospel and the hypothesized Q manuscript (which I had previously understood to be Thomas, not just an early form of it - but for the point here, you consider as said above) make a good case for the authenticity of Matthew when you are trying to make the case that Thomas is not reliable? You're saying that authentic information can be expected from an unreliable source.

What I'm suggesting is that Thomas was written by a disciple right after Jesus' ascension. This gospel was used by Matthew and Luke. After a few decades Gnosticism began growing in popularity among the young Christians. As the churches began to convert they took what they used as a Bible (Q document) and changed a few verses to help express their beliefs. They began to spread their newer gospel to other churches which then added some verses that expressed their beliefs. We must also take into account Cyril of Jerusalem's account of the Gospel of Thomas in that it was written by Thomas a disciple of Manes who was quite the heretic. I believe that this Thomas probably took what was the modified Q document and created what it is today as the gospel of Thomas, giving it his name. So the gospel of Thomas before it was the gospel of Thomas was for the most part reliable.

Logic is a tool that points to ultimate truth. The Bible is a tool that points to ultimate truth, but the Bible is different from logic in that it comes directly from the mouth of God.

If you're saying that the mouth of God is illogical, the way you’re making it sound, I'll have to agree with you.

How is Jesus (mouth of God) illogical?

No, logic itself is flawless. People are, however, congenitally illogical. Logic must be learned as or after the brain develops to a certain level, but many people either don't learn logic well, or never develop the requisite parts of the brain sufficiently to be able to reason well.

I'll grant that not learning to be logical could be considered a sin, and not being able to be logical could be called subject to illusion or delusion.

Only when logic is used by flawless beings is it flawless. When logic is used by flawed beings then their logic is indeed flawed. It is impossible to learn logic when one is holding on to sin (delusion). It is also nigh impossible to use flawless logic when one is succumbing to illusions. I believe we inherently think the same way on this, but I can only perceive so much.

the Bible is a better tool in that it isn't inhibited by sin and illusions the way logic can be.

I can't wholesale agree with this. The Bible may be a better tool for you to get as close as you can to God, but God made all of us differently, so it makes sense that God would also make different paths to Him to accommodate the different minds that He also made.

The Bible is a better tool because it shows how to cleanse oneself from sin. Through this cleansing from sin (delusion) we are able to receive eternal life (know God). The Bible is the vehicle God uses to show us how be cleaned from sin and enter into eternal life. It is not by logical deductions. Jesus said the work of God is to believe in the one he has sent. (John 6:29) Jesus claims to be God. (John 8:58) Therefore, when Jesus says the work of God is to believe in the one he has sent we can trust he is telling the truth. There are many paths to Jesus, but there is only one path to God. John 6:63 from the amplified Bible (one of my favorite translations) says:
It is the Spirit Who gives life [He is the Life-giver]; the flesh conveys no benefit whatever [there is no profit in it]. The words (truths) that I have been speaking to you are spirit and life.
No matter how logical my arguments are, if they are from the flesh they will never convince you. It is only the words of Jesus that give life. My human power is of no use at all. Likewise, it is impossible for someone who despises the words of Jesus to receive Life because to forsake Jesus is to forsake the Spirit which wishes to hear your confessions of belief in Jesus but cannot accept your confessions unless you believe in the Word of God.

That is why I choose to use logic through the lens of the Bible so my logic is not inhibited by sin and illusions.

I hate to attack this statement because you do have something of value in there, but I will because the way you put it, I'm not sure that you recognize the value but I'm sure that you don't see how this doesn't make sense.

If you use logic through the lens of the Bible, but your understanding of the Bible is flawed, then both your logic and your understanding of the Bible are flawed. Since you are not starting with logic, you must get your understanding of the Bible from somewhere else - either another person or from your own mind without the use of logic.

If you look at the Bible through the lens of logic instead, you are less likely to fall under delusion unless your mind is wired in such a way that you can think that you are being logical when in fact you are not.

The aforementioned value in your statement is that logic is infamous for being cold, the Bible speaks more to compassion and emotion, and cold logic often leaves out sometimes necessary variables that are related to or relate by feelings.

Logic deals with knowledge not belief. A short definition of Knowledge is a belief in something true. Jesus says that you must believe in him to receive eternal life, not know him. To believe means to hold a conviction that something is true without proof that it is true indeed. When I read the Larkin Debate I see David Quinn holding his own logic as the highest authority. Jesus spoke about men such as these in John 9:41. Eternal Life or the knowledge of God does not come from knowing oneself because such a knowledge produces a belief of a self-starting enlightenment. In their claims of sight they become blind. Enlightenment only comes from God, and Jesus time and time again says God sent him. God sent Jesus into the world to save it. He saves the world from sin (delusions) by teaching against sin and ultimately sacrificing his life so that many may live. (John 12:24 and John 11:49-52)

.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:BTW, how would you define a sin?


Violating the Law of God.

Okay, how would you describe the Law of God? And please give me a deeper answer than the Commandments and other stuff you find in the Bible. I mean how would YOU describe the Law of God.

I can only report from what I hear God say through the Word. How do we know God? By (in my case) reading and believing Jesus who came from God. The law is merely an expression of who God is. Its an expression God's perfection and justice. The greatest commandment comes from Jesus which is to love the Lord God. The next commandment is to love our neighbors. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians tend to reverse the order of importance which should never happen. You ask my opinion, but my opinion is the same as God's who revealed his opinion through Jeremiah. Idolatry is the greatest sin in that wherever you find sin you find idolatry. No matter the sin, it will always involve idolatry. Idolatry is the opposite of loving God. To love God is to sacrifice yourself to Him. Idolatry is to sacrifice yourself to another. Jeremiah 2:13 illustrates this well. Israel declines the love of God which is a sin and has created their own cisterns for water; cisterns which don't even work right. This also correlates with John 4, but I won't get into that right now.

What is Jesus' sacrifice? Jesus became sin. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Okay.

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

So Jesus, the mouth of God, became sin, the violation of God's law, so that what - ? So God made Jesus no longer his mouthpiece, so that we might - (wait a minute...)

Back it up to 2 Corinthians 5:20

So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making His appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

God is making his appeal through us. He is no longer speaking through Christ, but through us. So what voice in us might actually be the voice of God? I have a vote that the voice of God is logic, based on that by definition, all things operate logically if flawless logic is used, including that all of the correct premises are included in the equation.

God speaks through those that are his children. God no longer speaks through the Messiah because the Messiah is not here. Jesus gave us a helper who is the Holy Spirit of Truth. (John 16:13) The Father works through the Spirit to reveal what the Father has for his children. Your right in that the voice of God is logic, but only logic that comes from one who has eternal Life, because it is through believing in Jesus that you can receive the Holy Spirit of Truth. That is why I say I use logic through the lens of the Bible. We must also realize that throughout all of this God was only using us for his own glory. Not that his children are more important than those who are not his children because those who are not God's children will glorify God in a different way than God's children have glorified Him. God choosing to work through us does not mean we should develop any ego about it. Even though God chose his children out of the world his children are not important. Only God is important. Humanity's only reason of existing is to glorify God. If one can develop an ego from that then by all means do, if its even possible. When I say that humanity exists I do not say it in that we exists apart from God in a duality, but we exist in God's mind (using personification) in that God gives meaning to us just as we give meaning to the world, but our meanings are worth nothing because the giving of meanings is not why we exist. We only exist to glorify God. God does give us meaning, but that doesn't mean we are important. Only God is important. We are like peasants who bow to the king as he passes by on his horse. When peasants bow is that worth anything. It is giving glory to the king, but are the peasants worth anything. The peasants are simply reaffirming what the king already knows; that he is in total control of the kingdom.

Its late so unfortunately I cannot respond to your other dialogue.
Goodnight -_-

[Talking Ass]

Its late so unfortunately I cannot respond to your other dialogue.

Tomorrow is another day.

[Animus]

An eye-witness isn't good enough for a court room, it's rather circumstantial evidence. It's been demonstrated that witnesses are actually bad evidence. This is for various reasons - which I won't get into - in the neursocience of perception.

[Glostik91]

To me; Jesus in the flesh represents the ego, and the crucifixion represents the death of the ego.

Christ represents Truth. Jesus died but Christ lives.

Jesus was symbolically a manifestation of the Truth in bodily form so that humans would identify with it. It loses its quality somewhat though in such a representation and creates an opportunity for people to misinterpret it (Prophecy of Isaiah/Parable of the Sower/etc..)

This is what it means to be "buried with him in baptism" or to undergo the "circumcision done without hands", is to crucify your own ego.

E.g. Romans 2

28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Colossians 2

11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:



"The circumcision of Truth"


Sin to me is just the manifestation of thoughts which arise from the naive perspective of a self-sufficient, persistent, independent self.

What you say has some truth in it, but there is no scripture that I know of that teaches of Jesus representing just the ego. The ego I speak about is distinguishing oneself from everyone else. The children of God as a group do distinguish themselves from the world but only in a sense that the children of God were destined to glorify God's mercy rather than his justice. This means the children of God will not bear the same fruit as their counterparts will, in that the children of God come to the light so that it may be seen plainly that what they have born has been born through God. Their counterparts will not come to the light, but instead the light will be forced upon them to reveal their sin and be condemned on the day of judgment. The fruit I am talking about has been written down in Galatians 5:22-23. This is what the Bible passages you wrote in your dialogue mean. The children of God are called out of sin and become a new creation. A creation that has been set apart by circumcision. Not the circumcision of the flesh but a circumcision of the heart. A new breed that is no longer Gentile or Jew, but instead those who believe in Jesus are now the children of God. Also, when you say the Word came in the flesh so that we could identify with it you say this forgetting the prophesy that must come to fruition for this man Jesus to be the Messiah. The prophet Micah spoke about Jesus when he said:

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times."

This prophesy was fulfilled in Matthew 2:1-2 and Luke 2:4-7. God prophesied many times about His own coming that we may know this man Jesus is the Messiah. When you say “buried with him in baptism” as a reference to a sacrificing of the ego I do believe you have a point. Romans 6 puts it nicely:

We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

It is not only the sinful ego, which is different from the ego I spoke about earlier, but all sin that the children of God put away. For those who believe in Jesus and practice the fruit of the Spirit, bear much fruit. Those who don’t believe in Jesus and sin, bear much fruit. But these fruits are not of the same kind. For the fruit that is born of mercy is the fruit of the Spirit, and the fruit that is born out of justice is the fruit of wickedness.

[Glostik91]

It is possible that both of you---the religionist and the rationalist---miss the point. One of the most amazing and enduring facts of life---human life and human consciousness---has to do with a recurring theme: resurrection. Our lives are a series of births, living-narratives, endings-deaths, and the struggle for rebirth, resurrection. It is very obvious in psychological motifs, mythical motifs. People go through life and death cycles, and after dying, there is a reassembling of the elements of the spirit or the personality and a 'rising from the dead'. This theme is so constant as to be universal.

One of the main motifs in Evangelical Christianity is the death-cycle, the coming to the end of one's rope, the psychological death, and the rebirth of a new man. It is the Christ narrative that is the model for that transition.

There are a number of individuals on this forum who are quite involved in a death-rebirth (psychological-spiritual) cycle, it is pretty obvious.

This is true. Although I wouldn't use the term life/death cycle because I only believe a person can be born of the Spirit once. But those who are living in death go through highs and lows of life. It is when one believes in Jesus that they realize that these highs and lows are meaningless. They give meaning to their highs and lows of life, but their meanings are worthless in that they are not meant to give meanings. A sibling dies. Do you mourn? Yes, but it is not merely because of your attachment to them. You mourn because of sin and the effects they have produced in your life. Many people would consider this a low, but I would consider this not as a low nor a high for I have gotten off their roller coaster of sin. This of course does not mean sin doesn't affect me. The delusions people give in to across the world affect me on a day to day basis. Even those who are children of God succumb to the illusions of sin. With all the delusion around us it is not surprising that the children of God sometimes accept the mirage of sin. That is why one who is under delusion or one who is being ensnared by illusion must turn to the Bible which records with clarity what is the true gate to eternal Life. I do believe a child of God can be taken in by illusion and through this produce delusion in themselves. For the proverb is true; a dog returns to his vomit and a sow that is washed returns to wallowing in the mud. Delusion comes from inside to affect the outside of the mind. Illusion comes from outside to affect the inside of the mind. A child of God can be taken in by illusion and through this produce delusion, but a child of God cannot produce delusion before accepting an illusion.

[Glostik91]

An eye-witness isn't good enough for a court room, it's rather circumstantial evidence. It's been demonstrated that witnesses are actually bad evidence. This is for various reasons - which I won't get into - in the neursocience of perception.

John 19:35 says: The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

John 21:24 says: This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

To be enlightened is to be free from delusion. The Spirit enlightens us to the truth.

John 14:26 says: But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Therefore I believe it is reasonable to trust John in his telling of Jesus.

[Animus]

An eye-witness isn't good enough for a court room, it's rather circumstantial evidence. It's been demonstrated that witnesses are actually bad evidence. This is for various reasons - which I won't get into - in the neursocience of perception.

John 19:35 says: The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

John 21:24 says: This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

To be enlightened is to be free from delusion. The Spirit enlightens us to the truth.

John 14:26 says: But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Therefore I believe it is reasonable to trust John in his telling of Jesus.

Thats not really relevant. You aren't going to escape the pitfalls of visual fixation and confabulation by enlightenment. If you think being an enlightened being means that you are no longer subject of human folly, then I'm skeptical of your version of enlightenment. Just a heads up, I have no attachment to any scripture, so it really doesn't mean that much to me by itself. However, I'd be interested in seeing double-blind experiments confirming that enlightenment frees people from human folly, particularly confabulation, the processes of representation (impossible to escape ever) and fixation.