The Gospel According to Thomas, commonly shortened to the Gospel of Thomas, is a well preserved early Christian, non-canonical sayings-gospel discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945, in one of a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library..
'In the Thomas gospel, Jesus is presented as a spiritual guide whose words (when properly understood) bring eternal life (Saying 1). Readers of these sayings are advised to continue seeking until they find what will enable them to become rulers of their own lives (Saying 2) and thus to know themselves (Saying 3) and their legacy of being the children of "the living Father" (Saying 3). These goals are presented in the image of "entering the Kingdom" by the methodology of insight that goes beyond duality. (Saying 22). The Gospel of Thomas shows little or no concern for orthodox religious concepts and doctrines.
The Gospel of Thomas emphasizes direct and unmediated experience. In Thomas saying 108, Jesus says, "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become as I am; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him." Furthermore, salvation is personal and found through spiritual (psychological) introspection. In Thomas saying 70, Jesus says, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not bring it forth, what you do not have within you will kill you." As such, this form of salvation is idiosyncratic and without literal explanation unless read from a psychological perspective related to Self vs. ego. In Thomas saying 3, Jesus says,
...the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are that poverty.
In the other four gospels, Jesus is frequently called upon to explain the meanings of parables or the correct procedure for prayer. In Thomas saying 6, his disciples ask him, "Do you want us to fast? How should we pray? Should we give alms? What diet should we observe?" For reasons unknown, Jesus' answer is found in saying 14, wherein he advises against fasting, praying, and the giving of alms (all contrary to Christian practice of the time), but takes a Pauline[dubious – discuss] position that what goes into the mouth will not defile a person, but what comes out of the mouth will. This is just one example in Thomas in which the hearer's attention is directed away from objectified judgements of the world to knowing oneself in direct and straighforward manner, which is sometimes called being "as a child" or "a little one" through the unification of dualistic thinking and modes of objectification. (For example, Sayings 22 and 37) To portray the breaking down of the dualistic perspective Jesus uses the image of fire which consumes all. (See Sayings 10 and 82).
The teaching of salvation (i.e., entering the Kingdom of Heaven) that is found in The Gospel of Thomas is neither that of "works" nor of "grace" as the dichotomy is found in the canonical gospels, but what might be called a third way, that of insight. The overriding concern of The Gospel of Thomas is to find the light within in order to be a light unto the world. (See for example, Sayings 24, 26)
In contrast to the Gospel of John, where Jesus is likened to a (divine and beloved) Lord as in ruler, the Thomas gospel portrays Jesus as more the ubiquitous vehicle of spiritual inspiration and enlightenment, as in saying 77:
I am the light that shines over all things. I am everything. From me all came forth, and to me all return. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift a stone, and you will find me there.
From The Gospel of Thomas:
Jesus said, "If those who lead you say, 'See, the Kingdom is
in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they
say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and
you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living
Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty
and it is you who are that poverty."
Jesus said, "Men think, perhaps, that it is peace which I
have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is
dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth
Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them
all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and
unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am
there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there."
The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will be."
Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that
you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the
end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning;
he will know the end and will not experience death."
Jesus said, "He who will drink from my mouth will become
like Me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden
will become revealed to him."
Jesus said, "I took my place in the midst of the world, and
I appeared to them in the flesh. I found all of them intoxicated;
I found none of them thirsty. And My soul became afflicted for
the sons of men, because they are blind in their hearts and do
not have sight; for empty they came into the world, and empty too
they seek to leave the world. But for the moment they are
intoxicated. When they shake off their wine, then they will
repent."
Jesus said, "Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you
will find the Kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will
return."
Jesus [said], "He who seeks will find, and [he who knocks]
will be let in."
From the wiki article on the "historicity of Jesus":
"The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. While scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, and while scholars further debate what can specifically be known concerning Jesus' character and ministry, essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence.[1]
The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds."
...
The article notes towards the end that there is a minority opinion among scholars that holds that there was no actual historical Jesus, and that Jesus is nothing more than a mythical figure. It goes on, however to state that:
"The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[103] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[104] For this reason, many eminent scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[105] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[106] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[107]"
While it is possible that the scholarly mainstream is completely wrong on this subject I'm inclined to think that scholars who have devoted their lives to studying this subject probably know more about it than anyone on this board. If the consensus opinion of the relevant scholarly community is that there was, in fact, an historical Jesus, that's enough for me.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
'The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds."
While it is possible that the scholarly mainstream is completely wrong on this subject I'm inclined to think that scholars who have devoted their lives to studying this subject probably know more about it than anyone on this board. If the consensus opinion of the relevant scholarly community is that there was, in fact, an historical Jesus, that's enough for me.
The New Testament isn't an historical source. Neither are statements from the early Church Fathers. And brief references produced decades and centuries after the supposed event also do not count.
There may well be scholars who have spent their lives studying the subject and who believe in the existence of the Biblical Jesus, but they have still failed to produce any evidence to support their claims. There are also planty of scholars who have spent their lives studying this subject who reject the historicity of of the Biblical Jesus.
Although Deists believe that 'God' created the universe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism 'Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things.'[/quote]
Much like my poitical views, I may not hold every aspect of deism as absolute. I believe in the big bang and everything that happened after it, I cannot bring myself to believe that a "being" was floating in space and creating our universe with the snap of his fingers. Where I do connect with deism is in the idea that we do not need biblical text, churches, priest, etc.. to have a relationship with God. I believe that God does not intervene with our world, I do not believe in miracles and revelations. I believe in coincidence and circumstance. I believe this because I cannot say with a reasonable mind that God does not care about Haiti and their suffering, but he cares about the Mets winning a game. I guess maybe the more I write the more I sound atheist. Let's go with agnostic, cause I really just don't know. Like everyone else.
Who the f*ck goes around skinning cats~~Ed
It all comes down to changing your head~~John Lennon
MSG 6-24-08/MSG 5-21-10/Philly MIA 9-2-12/Chicago Wrigley Field 7-19-13/Brooklyn NY 1&2 10-2013/Philly 1&2 10-2013
'The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds."
While it is possible that the scholarly mainstream is completely wrong on this subject I'm inclined to think that scholars who have devoted their lives to studying this subject probably know more about it than anyone on this board. If the consensus opinion of the relevant scholarly community is that there was, in fact, an historical Jesus, that's enough for me.
The New Testament isn't an historical source. Neither are statements from the early Church Fathers. And brief references produced decades and centuries after the supposed event also do not count.
There may well be scholars who have spent their lives studying the subject and who believe in the existence of the Biblical Jesus, but they have still failed to produce any evidence to support their claims. There are also planty of scholars who have spent their lives studying this subject who reject the historicity of of the Biblical Jesus.
As I said, there are scholars who agree with you, but they are a distinct minority. As for evidence, you can't simply take the work of the majority of the scholarly community, see that they don't agree with you, and simply state that the evidence they cite "doesn't count." That's just a bullshit way to argue. These guys aren't a bunch of facile idiots who read the Bible and take it as truth. They are approaching these texts using the most current methods of critical textual analysis, about which you clearly don't seem to know the first thing. The New Testament and the statements of Church fathers are most certainly historical sources, just as any ancient text or recorded statement is an historical source. Clearly these sources have to be approached critically, but to simply say "Wait. Stop. It's the Bible. That doesn't count," isn't an argument. It's an evasion.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
By the way, the title you gave this thread is "Jesus was an Arab," which implies that there WAS an historical Jesus. So either you're just so all over the map that you're incapable of intellectual consistency, or you're just trying to say something provocative to start a fight, in which case you're being kind of a dick.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
'The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds."
While it is possible that the scholarly mainstream is completely wrong on this subject I'm inclined to think that scholars who have devoted their lives to studying this subject probably know more about it than anyone on this board. If the consensus opinion of the relevant scholarly community is that there was, in fact, an historical Jesus, that's enough for me.
The New Testament isn't an historical source. Neither are statements from the early Church Fathers. And brief references produced decades and centuries after the supposed event also do not count.
There may well be scholars who have spent their lives studying the subject and who believe in the existence of the Biblical Jesus, but they have still failed to produce any evidence to support their claims. There are also planty of scholars who have spent their lives studying this subject who reject the historicity of of the Biblical Jesus.
As I said, there are scholars who agree with you, but they are a distinct minority. As for evidence, you can't simply take the work of the majority of the scholarly community, see that they don't agree with you, and simply state that the evidence they cite "doesn't count." That's just a bullshit way to argue. These guys aren't a bunch of facile idiots who read the Bible and take it as truth. They are approaching these texts using the most current methods of critical textual analysis, about which you clearly don't seem to know the first thing. The New Testament and the statements of Church fathers are most certainly historical sources, just as any ancient text or recorded statement is an historical source. Clearly these sources have to be approached critically, but to simply say "Wait. Stop. It's the Bible. That doesn't count," isn't an argument. It's an evasion.
so does that mean i can use homers the iliad as proof that the greek gods existed?? or that achilles was indeed only half mortal???
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
By the way, the title you gave this thread is "Jesus was an Arab," which implies that there WAS an historical Jesus. So either you're just so all over the map that you're incapable of intellectual consistency, or you're just trying to say something provocative to start a fight, in which case you're being kind of a dick.
Or you could simply read beyond the thread title, even if only as far as my initial post - if that isn't asking too much? - to see my clarifications.
Still, on the bright side, as least you managed to throw yet another personal insult my way. You seem to have a habit of that when things don't go your way.
Although Deists believe that 'God' created the universe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism 'Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things.'
Much like my poitical views, I may not hold every aspect of deism as absolute. I believe in the big bang and everything that happened after it, I cannot bring myself to believe that a "being" was floating in space and creating our universe with the snap of his fingers. Where I do connect with deism is in the idea that we do not need biblical text, churches, priest, etc.. to have a relationship with God. I believe that God does not intervene with our world, I do not believe in miracles and revelations. I believe in coincidence and circumstance. I believe this because I cannot say with a reasonable mind that God does not care about Haiti and their suffering, but he cares about the Mets winning a game. I guess maybe the more I write the more I sound atheist. Let's go with agnostic, cause I really just don't know. Like everyone else. [/quote]
iim somewhere between deist and agnostic, depending how blessed im feeling that day . i think there are things beyond our ability to comprehend, much like a cockroach is incapable of understanding English, no matter how much one would try to train it. and we have no ability to learn it, even with years of scientific study. our brains arent capable of it. so whatever it is that created existence, could be considered God, even if its simplified to an old guy in the clouds. but yeah i doubt it really cares about an oil spill. then again, maybe it does. pointless but interesting stuff to think about.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas
The Gospel According to Thomas, commonly shortened to the Gospel of Thomas, is a well preserved early Christian, non-canonical sayings-gospel discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945, in one of a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library..
'In the Thomas gospel, Jesus is presented as a spiritual guide whose words (when properly understood) bring eternal life (Saying 1). Readers of these sayings are advised to continue seeking until they find what will enable them to become rulers of their own lives (Saying 2) and thus to know themselves (Saying 3) and their legacy of being the children of "the living Father" (Saying 3). These goals are presented in the image of "entering the Kingdom" by the methodology of insight that goes beyond duality. (Saying 22). The Gospel of Thomas shows little or no concern for orthodox religious concepts and doctrines.
The Gospel of Thomas emphasizes direct and unmediated experience. In Thomas saying 108, Jesus says, "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become as I am; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him." Furthermore, salvation is personal and found through spiritual (psychological) introspection. In Thomas saying 70, Jesus says, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not bring it forth, what you do not have within you will kill you." As such, this form of salvation is idiosyncratic and without literal explanation unless read from a psychological perspective related to Self vs. ego. In Thomas saying 3, Jesus says,
...the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are that poverty.
In the other four gospels, Jesus is frequently called upon to explain the meanings of parables or the correct procedure for prayer. In Thomas saying 6, his disciples ask him, "Do you want us to fast? How should we pray? Should we give alms? What diet should we observe?" For reasons unknown, Jesus' answer is found in saying 14, wherein he advises against fasting, praying, and the giving of alms (all contrary to Christian practice of the time), but takes a Pauline[dubious – discuss] position that what goes into the mouth will not defile a person, but what comes out of the mouth will. This is just one example in Thomas in which the hearer's attention is directed away from objectified judgements of the world to knowing oneself in direct and straighforward manner, which is sometimes called being "as a child" or "a little one" through the unification of dualistic thinking and modes of objectification. (For example, Sayings 22 and 37) To portray the breaking down of the dualistic perspective Jesus uses the image of fire which consumes all. (See Sayings 10 and 82).
The teaching of salvation (i.e., entering the Kingdom of Heaven) that is found in The Gospel of Thomas is neither that of "works" nor of "grace" as the dichotomy is found in the canonical gospels, but what might be called a third way, that of insight. The overriding concern of The Gospel of Thomas is to find the light within in order to be a light unto the world. (See for example, Sayings 24, 26)
In contrast to the Gospel of John, where Jesus is likened to a (divine and beloved) Lord as in ruler, the Thomas gospel portrays Jesus as more the ubiquitous vehicle of spiritual inspiration and enlightenment, as in saying 77:
I am the light that shines over all things. I am everything. From me all came forth, and to me all return. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift a stone, and you will find me there.
From The Gospel of Thomas:
Jesus said, "If those who lead you say, 'See, the Kingdom is
in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they
say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and
you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living
Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty
and it is you who are that poverty."
Jesus said, "Men think, perhaps, that it is peace which I
have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is
dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth
Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them
all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and
unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am
there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there."
The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will be."
Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that
you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the
end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning;
he will know the end and will not experience death."
Jesus said, "He who will drink from my mouth will become
like Me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden
will become revealed to him."
Jesus said, "I took my place in the midst of the world, and
I appeared to them in the flesh. I found all of them intoxicated;
I found none of them thirsty. And My soul became afflicted for
the sons of men, because they are blind in their hearts and do
not have sight; for empty they came into the world, and empty too
they seek to leave the world. But for the moment they are
intoxicated. When they shake off their wine, then they will
repent."
Jesus said, "Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you
will find the Kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will
return."
Jesus [said], "He who seeks will find, and [he who knocks]
will be let in."
"The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. While scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, and while scholars further debate what can specifically be known concerning Jesus' character and ministry, essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence.[1]
The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds."
...
The article notes towards the end that there is a minority opinion among scholars that holds that there was no actual historical Jesus, and that Jesus is nothing more than a mythical figure. It goes on, however to state that:
"The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[103] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[104] For this reason, many eminent scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[105] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[106] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[107]"
While it is possible that the scholarly mainstream is completely wrong on this subject I'm inclined to think that scholars who have devoted their lives to studying this subject probably know more about it than anyone on this board. If the consensus opinion of the relevant scholarly community is that there was, in fact, an historical Jesus, that's enough for me.
The New Testament isn't an historical source. Neither are statements from the early Church Fathers. And brief references produced decades and centuries after the supposed event also do not count.
There may well be scholars who have spent their lives studying the subject and who believe in the existence of the Biblical Jesus, but they have still failed to produce any evidence to support their claims. There are also planty of scholars who have spent their lives studying this subject who reject the historicity of of the Biblical Jesus.
Although Deists believe that 'God' created the universe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
'Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things.'[/quote]
Much like my poitical views, I may not hold every aspect of deism as absolute. I believe in the big bang and everything that happened after it, I cannot bring myself to believe that a "being" was floating in space and creating our universe with the snap of his fingers. Where I do connect with deism is in the idea that we do not need biblical text, churches, priest, etc.. to have a relationship with God. I believe that God does not intervene with our world, I do not believe in miracles and revelations. I believe in coincidence and circumstance. I believe this because I cannot say with a reasonable mind that God does not care about Haiti and their suffering, but he cares about the Mets winning a game. I guess maybe the more I write the more I sound atheist. Let's go with agnostic, cause I really just don't know. Like everyone else.
It all comes down to changing your head~~John Lennon
MSG 6-24-08/MSG 5-21-10/Philly MIA 9-2-12/Chicago Wrigley Field 7-19-13/Brooklyn NY 1&2 10-2013/Philly 1&2 10-2013
As I said, there are scholars who agree with you, but they are a distinct minority. As for evidence, you can't simply take the work of the majority of the scholarly community, see that they don't agree with you, and simply state that the evidence they cite "doesn't count." That's just a bullshit way to argue. These guys aren't a bunch of facile idiots who read the Bible and take it as truth. They are approaching these texts using the most current methods of critical textual analysis, about which you clearly don't seem to know the first thing. The New Testament and the statements of Church fathers are most certainly historical sources, just as any ancient text or recorded statement is an historical source. Clearly these sources have to be approached critically, but to simply say "Wait. Stop. It's the Bible. That doesn't count," isn't an argument. It's an evasion.
so does that mean i can use homers the iliad as proof that the greek gods existed?? or that achilles was indeed only half mortal???
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Or you could simply read beyond the thread title, even if only as far as my initial post - if that isn't asking too much? - to see my clarifications.
Still, on the bright side, as least you managed to throw yet another personal insult my way. You seem to have a habit of that when things don't go your way.
He moved to Florida many years ago.
Jesus says Alaska is to fucking cold.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Yep, at least in the modern day.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Law of averages ... Write out enough stuff, and it'll happen.
so when will yours average out then?? :P
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You wound me ...
You forget that I also said you are of no importance.
you're batting around .200 . not enough for the big leagues im afraid.
Much like my poitical views, I may not hold every aspect of deism as absolute. I believe in the big bang and everything that happened after it, I cannot bring myself to believe that a "being" was floating in space and creating our universe with the snap of his fingers. Where I do connect with deism is in the idea that we do not need biblical text, churches, priest, etc.. to have a relationship with God. I believe that God does not intervene with our world, I do not believe in miracles and revelations. I believe in coincidence and circumstance. I believe this because I cannot say with a reasonable mind that God does not care about Haiti and their suffering, but he cares about the Mets winning a game. I guess maybe the more I write the more I sound atheist. Let's go with agnostic, cause I really just don't know. Like everyone else.
iim somewhere between deist and agnostic, depending how blessed im feeling that day