goatguy-too

Examining the hieroglyphics: בקש 'Seek': 'ב enter in' 'ק the Son's death' 'ש for a dual response from God's word' and you will מצא 'find': 'מ the covenant made in heaven' 'צ through the holiness and grace revealed by the son of man' 'א brings reconciliation'. 'Find' is a pun to 'matsa' the unleavened bread which is the 'body of Christ in the communion. 'Knock' דפק , in hieroglyphics means 'ד a word' 'פ spoken' 'ק unto death'. When you knock, you persist. It is used of a herdsman driving the sheep until they die. Thomas is using it to say , "Speak of the cross/death". The result is that something is 'opened' פקח. The sub-root occurs in both 'knock' and 'opened'. Opened ends with ח which is 'life'. If you speak of the cross (the death of Christ), you will receive life. The hidden message of Thomas: If you enter into the death of the Son will find reconciliation with God (through is body which is broken for us) as he promised. If you speak of the cross (death of Christ), you will receive life. What Thomas missed was the first part of the saying of Matthew: "Ask, and it shall be given you." 'Ask' שאל is a pun to שאול 'Sheol' or the grave. שאל also means 'given upon request'. It is the object which was asked for. It is understandable why one might miss this part of the riddle since the sense is opposite that of the other 2/3 of the saying. This one says if you ask for death, you get it. The others say that if you seek the cross and speak (preach) the cross, you will get life. Is it a coincidence that in Revelation 1/3 of stuff is destroyed. Probably not. It is probably part of the same riddle. Romans 1:18ff says that God gives you what you desire and lets you wallow in the consequences. Occasionally, you have seen that I have been unable to address parts of Thomas's riddles. I just leave it out. This is evidence that Thomas's writing came before mine. I can only explain that parts I understand. Likewise, the omission here is evidence that Matthew probably wrote before Thomas, and that Thomas was unable to expound on this part of Jesus's riddle as recorded by Matthew.

After offending Evangelicals with the last one, this one will offend many others. The meaning of the simple riddle is easy. The dog represents those who go back to their sin and the swine is one who has no discretion in what they 'eat'. They accept any teaching as true. But the simple meaning of the riddle does not address the issues brought up by Thomas. The word קדש for 'holy' also means 'male temple prostitute' and so does the word for 'dog' כלב. The phrase 'lest they throw them on the dung-heap' which does not occur in Matthew is likely an addition to highlight the word play for 'holy' and 'dogs' by focusing attention on the idea of 'abominable things' such as dung. The hieroglyphics of quodesh קדש mean 'ק after the resurrection of the Son' 'ד there is a shout, declaration, proclamation' and 'ש God's word is effective with two results'. Compare this with: There are two meanings to this. There are two resurrections, those who have died previously, then those who are alive at his coming, and the righteous and the unrighteous. Paul picked up on the first meaning, Thomas is showing the second. The reason that the male temple prostitute represents the opposite of 'Holy' is based on symbols we have already examined. The female represents those who do not see clearly; they do not understand, and they are also pictured as 'the blind'. The male represents those who understand. The one who understands, but willfully chooses to be deluded is represented by the sodomite, a male choosing the behavior of the female. This willful rejection of God is amplified by the action taking place in the temple, indicating that it is not merely a rejection of God, but an attempt at usurping God's position. Jesus uses the same imagery when confronting the money changers in the temple saying that the tax collectors and harlots would enter the kingdom before they would. The tax collectors only collect money in the flesh, but those who sold things in the temple had served mammon spiritually. The harlots had sinned in the flesh, but the Pharisees had sold themselves figuratively as temple prostitutes because they had brought their false god and religion into the temple. He is saying that they knowingly and willingly were rejecting God and replacing him with their own religion of greed. The second half of Thomas's saying is missing, but it will likely show a similar word play that we may be able to discern from Matthew's saying. There are a few things in the scriptures which were trampled down: A counselor to the king (who did not believe Elisha (2Ki 7:2), Jezebel (2Ki 9:33), thistle (2Ki 14:9, 2Ch 25:18), the Messiah (Ps 7:5). The key is the thistle חוח which represents a distinction of choice between lifestyles. (ח represents life). The swine is undiscerning in it's diet. It will, for a time, claim the truth to be truth, but then will turn again and proclaim the lie to be truth. It is said that there is nothing worse than a sober drunk except a drunk sober drunk. They turn against sobriety with a vengeance. One who accepts the truth of Christ intellectually, but is not converted in Spirit becomes the most vociferous opponent of Christ when they choose to reject their intellectual conversion. In this forum, you all have been most gracious, even though I have shared things which I know are offensive (from reading other threads). But it would not be surprising to have other readers pop in and see stuff out of context and be most ungracious. The purpose of this post is not to condemn anyone, but to show the symbolism used by Thomas in the context of orthodox Christianity. This post has nothing to do with gender, gender identity, sexual preferences, etc. The female is used to represent the blind. It says nothing about women. The word 'rend' also means 'to accuse'. The swine cannot discern truth from error, and will accept truth for a time, until that truth suggests that they not longer wallow in abominable things, then they will accuse the bearers of truth as being judgmental, and worse.

If we take this as a literal saying of Jesus, then it would be after the cross, and we must guess what it is that they are not asking him. But as a riddle we ask, What was Jesus unable to tell them plainly prior to the cross which he could tell them after the cross but that they were not asking? Neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost knew the sign of his coming. In resurrection, he apparently knew. This is where is gets interesting, and why evangelicals will not accept this teaching. Many today teach that either before or after the anti-Christ is revealed the church will be raptured, there is a great tribulation, and the end of the world when Christ returns. There are enough variations to make most people happy one way or the other. The problem is that they are likely wrong. Now, eschatology is supposed to be a secondary doctrine, meaning that it is not essential for salvation. People believing different things are supposed to be able to get along. But they don't. So as soon as I say something contradictory, someone will label me a heretic. So let me say that the following is an observation and it makes no difference to me whether anyone believes it or not. The book of Matthew is broken into four parts. Whithin each part the structure of the writing is such that the first half will be a teaching of Jesus, and the second half is a narrative about what Jesus did. There is a pattern, like poetry, but using subtle ideas like ABCD...abcd... For instance, in Chapter 5 Jesus goes up the hill and says, Blessed are the poor in spirit... In Chapter 8 he comes down the hill and heals a leper. Who would be more poor in spirit than a leper? He says blessed are the meek... and a Centurian comes to Jesus and considers himself a servant to his servant in requesting Jesus to heal, and does not consider himself worthy to have Jesus enter his home. He is an excellent model of meekness. The pattern occurs in the last block which speaks about the end times. It would almost be a doctoral thesis to spell it out in detail, so I will just give some highlights. Hearts waxing cold : His disciples slept while he prayed at Gethsemane. Stones scattered : the disciples scattered The abomination that causes desolation : Judas kisses Jesus to betray him "He who condemns a righteous man is an abomination" The great tribulation: A holy God placed in the hjands of sinful man, the Son made to be sin incarnate. Had the days of tribulation not been shortened no flesh would be saved: Had Jesus not be rushed to the cross, had he died in prison, or if the crucifixion had been delayed until after Passover, no flesh would have been saved... ever. This cannot be said of any other supposed 'Great Tribulation'. The desolation : God incarnate has been made to be sin, the Father departs leaving him alone on the cross, Where is God on earth? How much greater can the desolation be? The parallel passage when they are guarding the tomb has the disciples looking toward heaven. It is suggested that at the time of your death, you are raptured. We each are raptured at different times, but we arrive in timeless eternity simultaneously (because there is not time). Now we can understand his other teachings: Two are in the field and one is taken. Two things are two aspects of one thing. The spirit is taken and the body left behind. Two are in the bed and one is taken. It appears to us that they died in their sleep, but to them they are raptured and meet us in the air. Jesus said that all these things would happen before that generation passed away. Which generation? Every generation that reads it. We are all raptured. Why can't he now tell us the day of his coming, because it is every day that he sneaks back like a thief in the night and steals away his own. Our generation will not pass away before we each see his return. They do not now ask him what day it will be, because it would be asking him the day of their own death.

Jeff, there is no such thing as a disruption here. Sometimes I feel like I am singing in the shower. ;-) I am happy to have your questions and comments.

I do not believe that the Gospel of Thomas was intended as a doctrinal work, but as an instructional piece on how to read the Bible. As such, it's doctrines are incidentally orthodox Christian. The sensus plenior is the meaning intended by God, but unknown to the human author. Since God directed the human author to write the literal, and unknowingly produce the hidden, they are both in agreement. So the riddles of the Bible are also orthodox. I am not from a denomination. The sensus plenior settles many of the issues that denominations (and skeptics) argue about. They are unlikely to embrace it because it would require a new hermeneutic and an adjusting of some of the beliefs. An example is the discussion of free will and predestination. There are three women at the same well. Abraham (the Father) chose a bride for his son. Jacob (the Son) wooed and worked for his bride. And the woman at Sychar (meaning 'intoxicated' as a metaphor for the Spirit at Pentecost) was gathered with the other town's folk by the Spirit. These three stories tell the roles of the three persons of the godhead in obtaining a bride for the Son, and in each case, the bride had the choice to marry. Though we are chosen by the Father, wooed by the Son, and gathered by the Spirit, we choose to be with God. It is a relationship like a marriage. If a denomination were to embrace this method of interpretation it would be from the Restoration movement, like Church of Christ or Disciples, etc. Theoretically, they would like to read the Bible the way Jesus and the apostles did.

Hi Jeff, Thanks for asking. The premise from the beginning of this thread is that Thomas is not Gnostic since it teaches orthodox Christianity, and that it may not even be quotes from Jesus directly, but a tutorial on how to read the sensus plenior of the Bible. I doubt very much that #114 is an actual saying of Jesus, but I have no doubt that it is a key to solving scriptural riddles. In this context, when Thomas says something different from the Biblical record, we assume that he is commenting on the hermeneutic. Certainly, the parallel teaching of Jesus in the Bible teaches what you suggest. But since there is some doubt that Thomas is quoting Jesus directly, I hesitate to place the teaching from Thomas in the mouth of Jesus. And in the context of this thread, I am showing the methods of biblical riddle. Sometimes I just give an interpretation to show that it is a biblical interpretation, especially when they are very similar. When I can point out the mechanics of riddle, I try to do so. There is another Gospel of Thomas thread where they are primarily dealing with the meaning of the Thomas sayings.Hope this helps.

This one actually goes with the previous one. 'Sky' שחק also means 'play'. Thomas is focussing on the 'play of the heavens' which is the riddling which he is teaching. The word 'moment' is 'רגע' which also means 'rest' and 'splitting apart'. Christ offers us rest by being split apart from the Father on the cross as prefigured by the parting of the waters and the splitting of various scrifices, and the splitting of the rock, etc. Jesus is teaching how to 'rest' in his word. "You can see the riddles of heaven, and the literal of the written word, yet you cannot yet recognize Jesus (and the rest he offers)?" They did after the cross when he was 'split'.

(90) Jesus said, "Come unto me, for my yoke is easy and my lordship is mild, and you will find repose for yourselves." The primary reason for Thomas's teaching is to show us how to read scripture. Here Thomas is playing on the words על 'ole' which is 'yoke' and אל 'el' which is 'God' or 'Lord'. The teaching is essentially he same, and Thomas is showing how the puns are used in scripture to give meaning.

Whenever there are two things they are two aspects of the same thing. The one thing is the person, who has an inside or 'spiritual' aspect and an outside or 'flesh'. Cleaning the flesh; doing works or changing behavior, does not clean the spirit. But if the spirit is clean, physical dirtiness does not matter. Some had mistakenly tried to apply the physical dirtiness to spiritual things and say that if you are pure inside, you can indulge in sins of the flesh without affecting your spiritual status. This is an error of interpretation. The moral things are spiritual in nature which work out into fleshly behaviors. The one who is spiritually pure turns away from sinful things.

The manner in which the Messiah had come was a mystery to angels and prophets. They knew the event would come, but could not discern how and when. The salvation of man was revealed in Christ through the apostles which caused the prophets and angels to marvel.

"Contradiction is not arguement" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY ;-)

The Wellhausen hypothesis has been very successful in popularizing the idea that the Bible is not reliable history, however, those who do accept it should at least know that there are alternatives. The Tablet theory proposed by P. J. Wiseman uses evidence from pre-Abrahamic Mesopotamian tablets to demonstrate that Genesis was written by eye witnesses. (and it implies that God himself wrote Gen 1 the same way he wrote the tablets of the law for Moses.) If the Bible is used as a reliable source, then the myth that Abraham invented mono-theism disappears in the face of God, who is one. From the time of Adam, there would be monotheists, even before Abraham. One such 'outsider' was Melchisadek, who was not Jewish. It is very likely there were other monotheists also. There is no Biblical warrant to assume that Abraham was the only one. Nor is there any warrant to assume the Jews were largely monotheists until after the rebuilding of the temple. Jacobs wife brought Laban's family idols with her. Many who went with Moses were not even genetic Hebrews but were from all the people who had sold themselves as slaves during the famine of Joseph. And it is recorded that they continued to worship their foreign gods in teh desert. When the Hebrews went into the 'Promised land' they adopted the religions of the peoples there. God continually is calling Israel a prostitute for her idolatry. Meanwhile, outside of Israel, men like Melchizadek worshipped a single God. How would they have gotten the idea? Everyone alive at the time of Noah knew there was only one God. They knew the creation story and the of the flood. Everyone at Babel would have known about Babel, so there should be no surprise that these 'myths' are perpetuated in many cultures. I think the comment that a religion which has a Satan isn't monotheistic should be considered. If the idea of Satan is that he is equal in power to God, then I agree, it is a dualistic religion. However popular that belief is, it is not what the Bible teaches. Satan is a created being who is not even close to being equal with God. There will be no eternal struggle of good and evil. I am not arguing the observations made above, simply suggesting that the observations are explainable by using the Bible as a source. Of course it is much more fun to use a rabbi who doesn't believe his own religion. It has been suggested that the consonants of ancient languages contain meaning which is shared across the languages. One such theory is called Edenics. If the Hebrew hieroglyphics are applied to the consonants of other languages, there are some interesting results. For instance, 'asa' or 'truth' which is the basis for Zoroastrian philosophy becomes the same as 'eesha' in Hebrew, which is 'man'. The first question of Zoroastrianism is "Who is true" and the answer is that man is. It is not much different from the Philosophical base of Descartes, who made man the center with "I think, therefore I am." This is the same philosophy of Adam, who decided that he could declare good and evil for himself. It should be no surprise to discover that Zoroastrianism teaches that it is man who can decide for himself what is good and evil. The same teaching that was defined as original sin for Adam. Now don't misunderstand me. I like original sin or I wouldn't do it so often ;-) Whenever, I act instinctively, I have declared good and evil. I have, without even thinking about it, acted in such a way as I thought good for my own self-existence. Zoroastrianism, apparently formalizes this into an acceptable religion. Perhaps I would like it. ;-)

I understand that Abrahamic religions are often portrayed this way, but I believe it is a misrepresentation which ignores the heart and focusses on the actions. The way it is stated above sounds like an unreasonable god even to me. But I think it not unreasonable for God to expect us to at least acknowledge that he is God. It would be like your adnoids deciding that they don't need the rest of your body and pretending that you don't exist. When they stopped receiving blood from the body that they pretend doesn't exist, they would die. The fact that we are not yet dead in such a denial of He who gives life, is the evidence that we are receiving grace even now. He first loved us. In another place I proposed my own riddle of Mary who fed the poor to her own destruction in order to show that it is the heart condition toward God, and not the specific action which defines the person. The heart of sin, as defined in Abrahamic religions, is a failure to give God his due. It is the desire for self-definition, self-determinism, etc. It is one's choice to believe differently, and the doctrine that such a choice in fact dis's God and is the nature of original sin, which make Christianity so offensive to those who make such a choice.

I think we have much in common. Sin of the Bible also isn't 'action' but of 'being'. Action merely reveals who we are. We call it the sin nature, or the 'old man', or the flesh. This is also explains the faith vs. works. Works reveal faith as certain actions reveal a sinful nature. THe actions don't cause us to be sinners, and works don't get us saved. By nature we place ourselves at the center of the universe. We judge the universe by our own standard, and look out for ourselves first. The teaching of Christ is that we can have a new nature. He doesn't 'clean up the prostitute', he makes her a virgin. The beginning of this, for the Christian, is to recognize (better to say 'admit') that the universe is God's, not ours. And the result of acknowledging God as God, is that with the new nature, we are also able to put others before ourselves. I also agree that we are made of nothing. However, we ceased being a nothing when God shared part of his nature with us. I think we also differ in the existence of God. I would say that he is the only thing that has intrinsic existence, and that all else has existence because it is imputed to us by God. In other traditions, the struggle for self-annulment is yours alone. In Christianity, the struggle is engaged with eth help of Christ, who was not only a model of self-annulment, but an enabler of it in us. I think you are able to state my position very well. Thank you. I hope I am doing the same for you.

Sorry I have been away for a while. It is THAT season. In keeping with the thread and the season, I have gone to Genesis 38 and used the methods which we have been using in Thomas, to interpret the narrative concerning Judah and Tamar. Hidden in the narrative is a prophecy of the birth of Christ. I cannot find this prophecy documented anywhere in the history of the church, yet it is easily revealed using the methods of Thomas. Even if you do not celebrate the Christian holiday, I hope you can enjoy the unpacking of the esoteric Christmas story and I wish you and yours the best for the season. Tamar's mystery revealed Tamar and Mary were in a similar predicament. Tamar has been discovered to be with child and was going to be killed. (Ge 38:24) Mary was discovered with child and was going to be put away. (Mt 1:18-19) When the true father of each child was discovered, they both were honored. (Ge 38:26, Lk 1:42) Such a coincidence. Each had wanted an assurance of a promise. Tamar had received three things from Judah (Ge 38:18) and Mary had received three saying from the angel that announced her pregnancy. (Lk 1:35) These are easy parallels to understand, but they are easy to dismiss as accidents of history until we examine the whole story: The appointment Tamar met Judah before Timnath which means the appointment. (Ge 38:14). I will suggest that Mary met God before the appointed time of Christ. Since “It is appointed unto man once to die…” (Heb 9:27) Christ’s appointment was with the cross, and Mary was available to God just before that time. The scapegoat Tamar was offered a goat by Judah. (Ge 38:17) And Mary was offered THE scapegoat, since the angel told her “He will save his people from their sins.” (Mt 1:21) In the ritual of the scapegoat, two goats are presented. They represent Jesus before and after the cross. One is killed for a burnt offering. In the burnt offering, the priest do not get to eat any part of it since it is completely consumed by fire. It represents the Son’s total devotion to the Father which we cannot participate in, but only stand and watch in awe. The smell of the burnt offering is a sweet savor unto the Lord since there is not hint of sin involved in it. You can see the first instance of a burnt offering is when Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac AND Isaac was willing to be obedient to his father. (Ge 22:2 ) The second goat is released into the wilderness to carry away the sins of the people. It represents Christ’s resurrection, which demonstrates that his sacrifice for us was accepted. Since Jesus is the fulfillment of the scapegoat images, Mary had also been promised a goat. The virgin birth Mary was told that she would conceive miraculously by the Holy Ghost. (Lk 1:35) And when Judah told Tamar he would send a goat, the word he used also means ‘sow’. Since Judah represents God in the imagery, and Tamar represents Mary, we have a parallel passage that God would sow the goat. The need for assurance Tamar wanted an assurance that she would receive the goat, (Ge 38:17) and Mary also asked for an assuring word of explanation. (Lk 1:34) Three assurances Tamar was given the staff or rod which represents the power of God in discipline. (Pr 22:15, Pr 23:13, Pr 29:15) and Mary was told the power of the Highest would overshadow her. (Lk 1:35) She was not being disciplined, but God’s discipline upon mankind as borne by His Son and her son, overshadowed her life. Tamar was given the signet ring. (Ge 38:18) And Mary was told that he would be called the Son of God. (Lk 1:35) A signet ring declares the wearer to be a son. Tamar was given bracelets. (Ge 38:18) In a very literal sense, bracelets were given to signify a marriage, much like we now give rings. But the real clue to the hidden meaning comes from the law of cleanliness: Nu 19:15 And every open vessel, which hath no covering [bracelets] bound upon it, is unclean. Paul was called a chosen vessel (Ac 9:15) and in other images we find that we are vessels as well. Since Tamar was a vessel that had bracelets, she was not unclean. Likewise Mary was told that she was not unclean because although she was with child, it was by the Holy Ghost. (Lk 1:35) Twins Tamar bore twins (Ge 38:27) and Mary bore the dual-natured God-Man. (Joh 8:58) The names of the twins mean 'breaking forth' and 'rising sun' while Jesus was called Dayspring.(Lu 1:78) Usurping second son Have you ever wondered why so many second sons in the Bible got the inheritance rather than the first sons as tradition demands? It is a prophecy that Christ will be the second man, the second Adam. (1Co 15:47, 1Co 15:22) The image of Tamar’s twin sons would be incomplete if the second son did not get the inheritance, and sure enough, they wrestle in the womb, and the second son emerges first and receives pre-eminence. (Ge 38:28-29) And so it is with Jesus. In the flesh he died desolate. As God’s only begotten son, he did not succeed in being fruitful and multiplying. Only in his resurrection, as the mystery second son, did he receive the full blessing and inheritance given to Abraham. (Ge 12:2) Three chances to get it right God wants living children, not children dead in trespass and sin. Judah had three sons: Er, Onan and Shelah representing Adam, Israel and Joseph. Er Er represents Adam. Adam was alive until he ate the forbidden fruit and he died. (Ge 2:17) (Be careful… he died the day he ate the fruit or you call God a liar). Since he had children in his image and likeness, (Ge 5:3) all his children were also dead. (1Co 15:22, Ro 5:14) But in riddle Er means ‘awake’. Awake is the opposite of asleep… and if you are asleep, you are dead and in the dust… so Er was called “Alive from the dust” as was Adam. Adam blew it. And God killed Er because of sin. (Ge 38:7) Onan Onan was mistakenly called ‘vigorous’. We say it was a mistake because he was named by his mother and all the females of the Bible represent those who do not see clearly (for Eve was deceived). It was a mistake to call him vigorous because he too was dead as was Israel; God’s son who was supposed to fulfill the Leverate law on behalf of Adam. God chose Israel through Abraham to bear living children (Jer 7:22-23) But Israel pursued the flesh and refused to do their duty to God in bearing living children, instead wasting their seed in the earth… (Dt 1:26, Dt 1:43, Dt 8:20, Jud 2:17, 2Ki 17:14, 2Ch 24:19, 2Ch 33:10, Ne 9:29, Ps 81:11, Isa 28:12, Isa 30:15, Isa 42:24, Jer 13:11, Jer 29:1, Eze 20:8, Mt 23:37, Lu 13:34) …just as Onan did. (Ge 38:9) Israel blew it. Shelah Shelah wasn't given a chance. The genealogy in Matthew tells us that Joseph, the husband of Mary, is the rightful heir to the throne of David. But he is not given the chance to bear living children. When it is his turn, God himself steps in to bear the first fruits of living children. (1Co 15:20) Likewise, Shelah is not given the chance to bear a son when the time was right. (Ge 38:11, 14) Smite the earth with a curse John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy of the returning Elijah. Elijah had made the rain stop until he spoke. (1Ki 17:1) Since water represents the word of God, there was no word of God for four hundred years until John spoke. His task in fulfilling the prophecy was to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and of the children to the fathers. (Lu 1:17) The consequence of failure was that the earth would be smited with a curse. (Mal 4:6) Timnath In the narrative of Tamar, Judah was going to Timnath. But why? Gen 38:12 … and went up unto his sheepshearers to Timnath, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite. 13 And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy father in law goeth up to Timnath to shear his sheep. The word for shear is cut off . Hirah means noble family and Adulamite means justice of the people. God was going to the appointed time to cut off his sheep. God threw Adam out of the garden, killed all but eight in a flood, killed a whole generation of Israel in the desert and now was going up to the appointed time to cut off the sheep. You may be looking forward to some future judgment, but the time of the cross was the time of the final judgment where God would have cut off all the sheep had it not been for Christ, the Lamb of God. When he bore all our sin on the cross what more could be judged? God was ready to give men justice, and He did in Christ who reconciled grace and law. Desolate women Have you ever wondered why there were so many desolate, barren women mentioned in the Bible? It’s prophecy! The world was full of dead children, dead in trespass and sin. It was long waiting for the fulfillment of the prophecy given to Eve. (Ge 3:15) The time was right as Tamar removed her widows garments. (Ge 38:14) And the time was right as Mary was selected to be the mother of Jesus. (Lk 1:69-70) The clift of the rock When Moses was in the physical presence of God he was hidden in the clift of the rock. (Ex 33:22) Tamar hid herself with a veil. The word is pronounced tsaw-eef. Is it an accident that there is a word pronounced saw-eef that means clift? The rock is Christ. In sensus plenior, all the rocks are Christ and they are all one rock. In this reasoning, the rock that was split in the desert, (Ex 17:6) is the same rock that Moses was hidden in. It was split by being smitten by the rod (of discipline of God). The real horror of the cross was not the physical agony of death. God, himself, was split as the Father removed himself from His Son on the cross. When Moses was hidden in the clift of the rock, it represented trusting in the cross to preserve you in the face of God. As Tamar covered herself with the veil, it tells us that Mary was covered with the grace of the cross in the presence of God. The death of Christ Gen 38:19 And she arose, and went away, and laid by her vail from her, and put on the garments of her widowhood. Mary would be a barren mother again before she would see the first fruits. Jesus had to die before he would be fruitful. (Joh 12:24) Did not possess the goat. Tamar did not take possession of the promised goat. (Ge 38:20) Just as Mary knew that Jesus had to be about his Father’s business. (Lk 2:49) God’s only begotten son Gen 38:26 And he knew her again no more. He bore our sin The two sons together represent Christ. The first son represents Jesus in the flesh who bore our sin. The narrative identifies the first son as the one who wore the scarlet thread. Many may debate it, but with all the evidence presented thus far, the scarlet thread represents our sin. (Isa 1:18) The resurrected Christ, the Son who was fruitful and multiplied, does not have the scarlet thread because Christ died once for our sin. (Heb 9:27, Heb 6:6) There can be no doubt that the human author of Genesis would not have known anything about the birth of Christ and that the hidden story had to have been put there by someone else.

At the time that Augustine was ridding the western church of Hebraic influence, Constantine was doing the same in the east. Thomas teaches Greeks how to read like a Hebrew sage. So there would have been no motivation to canonize it. I am not sure that I would have proposed it to be cannonized either, for various reasons. But doctrine is not one.

Well I couldn't resist teasing on a thread with the name this one has. I know that the exclusive claims of Christianity can be offensive to others. I appreciate your hospitality. When I get done with Thomas, I may continue in the same thread (to keep a small footprint) to show that the same methods found in Thomas are found throughout the Bible.

Well, if it helps, I promise that when I finish the GOT thread I won't start anymore. I was going to start "Fundamentalism as taught by Buddha" , "Fundamentalist origins of paganism", and "The esoteric origins of Fundamentalism in I Ching" but I don't want to wear out my welcome ;-)

In one sense, changing the word from 'sin' to 'ignorance' is is a comfortable diversion. None of us like the word 'sin'. It implies that there is someone or something outside of ourselves which defines good and evil. But lets use the methods of Thomas and see what the real nature of sin is. The primary duality of the scriptures is not between good and evil, but between holiness and love. Holiness is an attribute which is made plain by distinction. The letter vav ו represents the idea of making a distinction. It is translated 'and' which distinguishes between two, and also joins them. It is called the sword, and represents the word of God. His holiness is revealed through his judgement, and the law. The law is not something we would devise for ourselves. Thinking that the law constrains us, we prefer to be 'free'. The law does constrain us if we read it literally. But when read in the spirit, it sets us free to love. The second half of the duality is love. Darkness is the symbol of love, not evil as so many have misunderstood. The trinity existed in darkness before creation. They did not dwell in evil, but in love. There was no light to represent holiness because there was no distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. There was no separation; only unity. As soon as there was a creation, there was something from which to be distinguished, so God said, "Let there be light". All of the other attributes of holiness existed in God before the creation. Elohim has a pun, 'a lo khoom' meaning 'not dark'. The light was hidden in his name. Things which are not Holy cannot exist in the presence of He who is holy. The very nature of holiness is that of separateness. But there is a problem, there is no place to put the new creation outside of God, since it was created within God. So immediately it is bathed in grace. It is treated as though it was holy, even though it was not. The darkness covers the unholiness. So men are in darkness/grace because they have not been destroyed by the holiness of God. It is God's desire to dwell with men, and he accomplishes this by extending his grace to man, even while man is in ignorance that He is doing it. So far, there is no mention of sin or evil. Already man requires grace in order to exist in the presence of God. "He first loved us" Men in darkness need to "see the light". Seeing means to understand. They don't need to discover God, he is manifest in the very things that are made. They need to see/unsderstand that He is holy/separate. He is different from us. He is not our peer. He is the creator and we are the creation. Adam's sin was not that he ate the fruit of the tree. It was that he made God a peer, and chose to determine good and evil for himself. In Genesis 3:22 'to know' also means 'to declare'. Adam declared for himself what was good and evil. It is not that he knew what God knew. He thought of himself as an equal to God with the capability to declare his own law. He did not acknowledge God as God (Romans 1:21). The nature of my flesh is to declare me as god. I measure the universe by me, I choose to do what I want, I plan things for the future as though I had control of the times. The result of Adam's rebellion was not so much a punishment as a lesson...more separation. God placed him in a world where there is cause and effect. He said that he created evil/calamity. This is the system of cause and effect. When we do something for which we were not created, we are the cause of suffering. It's like we are all in a pool jumping up and down doing stuff we weren't created for, and the waves we cause are the suffering as a result. Sometimes we get hit by a wave of our own creation, sometimes we get hit by someone else's wave. And sometimes the wave add together and slap us, and we have no idea where it came from. The purpose of all that is to teach us not to do the things which we weren't created for. Since we think we can make our own rules, the consequences are designed to teach us otherwise. We like to blame God for all the evil, pain and suffering, but his only culpability is that he created a system of cause and effect. We choose the suffering. How do we get out of it? By acknowedging God as God. God walked in the garden with Adam, and he walked among us as Jesus. Our choice is the same as his. Since the original infraction was a failure to acknowledge God, by pretending to be a peer to God, we can now pose a Thomas-like riddle of our own: 'Mary means 'rebellious'. Mahalaleel means 'praises God'. Two people can do the same work. The first does it because she has decided that it is a good work, the second because God says it is a good work. The first has committed the same sin as Adam. She has decided what is good and evil for herself, so she will die. the second acknowledges that God alone defines good and evil and lives according to what God has determined, and he will live. It is not an ignorance so much as a rebellion that keeps us from life. The sinner does not so much realize or gain a knowledge that they are a sinner, as much as they actively put aside the pride of life and acknowledge that it is God that gives life to them.

If I understand you, I would say it is 'developmental' in the life of the Christian in the sense that one is not truly Christian without a true confessional of being wretched. So it is the first TRUE realization of their state.

This is parallel to : Wretched is the man who depends on another man, and wretched is his soul if he depends on his own flesh, or the flesh of another. Since Christians are dependent upon the body of Christ (eating his flesh) they are wretched. In fact, it is the confession of sin that makes one able to eat his flesh.

There are two things:the foxes and the birds, and we expect one (foxes) to represent something earthly (they have holes in the earth/ a grave), and the other (birds) to represent something heavenly (nests in tree/cross). This saying emphasizes the riddling rule that things which appear to be contradictory are just views of something from different angles. Both refer to his death. He would be placed in a grave and lifted to heaven. שועל 'Fox' comes from the same root as שעל 'hollow of the hand'. The hand always represents works, and in this case, the hollow is the grave. It is his work to face the grave. The Psalmist says it in a different way: Ps 46:8 Come, behold the works of the LORD, what desolations he hath made in the earth. Most of us 'rest' in the grave, but the grave is the work of Christ. The idea of contradictory statements both being true can be seen in the letters כ kof and נ nun. In the square text, where letters are built around a square, the upper horizontal of the template represents heavenly things, the lower represents earthly things. The right vertical represents things coming from heaven to earth, and the left vertical the response. The kof is composed of the full length of both the upper and lower horizontals. joined by the right vertical, it represents the Son of God who was fully God and fully man. The nun is composed of short strokes on the upper and lower horizontals and represents the Son of Man, and suggests he was partially God and partially man. To the Western mind this sounds like a contradiction. It is not. They are a riddle. How can the Son of God be fully God yet only partially God? How can the Son of Man be fully man yet only partially man? By nature Christ was God. But he emptied himself of the attributes of deity to be found in the form of man. This is the doctrine of kenosis. He chose not to use omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc. As a man, he did not do the things that make man fully man. He did not marry and have children. He did not engage in the affairs of men. Both the kof and the nun accurately describe the Messiah, but give different views of him. Out of the 22 letters only five have final forms. They have a different morphology when found at the end of a word. Both the kof and the nun have final forms which descend below the lower horizontal (though the font may not show it well) suggesting that the Son of God and the Son of Man had to die. ךן

Thanks h. This is a simple teaching. The one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than the greatest who lived before the kingdom. Those who are in the kingdom will never die, since being absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

In Christianity the serpent represents evil. When it was lifted on the pole, it represented Jesus on the cross. Jesus who was Love incarnate was made to be sin incarnate.

When we see that we have become like him, we rejoice. But the images, the prophecies, the hidden pictures in the scripture paint the bride of Christ as the prostitute that the Father chose to be a bride for the Son. The Son shares all the heartbreak that his bride gave him, all the anguish she caused. But he worked for her and wooed her, and made her into a virgin bride, casting her sins away and remembering them no more. Though the subtle prophecies speak of the great love of the Son for his bride, they confront us with our sin, which is a great burden to bear.