Gospel of Thomas

[traveler]

Here's a little bit of a twist to the topic:

 

The kundalini is not a result of perfect asanas, ahimsa (nonviolence) and a vegetarian diet, which are logical Progressions resulting from the experience but have little or nothing to do with attaining it. (Pathnotes, by Glenn Morris)

[Apech]

15) Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman,

prostrate yourselves on your faces and worship him. That one is

your Father."

 

Just to fill the void .... for some reason I keep thinking about the chicken and the egg .....

[traveler]

Jesus said, “When you see one who was not born of woman, prostrate yourselves on your faces and worship him. That one is your father”.

 

Interpretation:

 

The spiritual Self is not born of physical woman, not born of the flesh. It is the way of those without a degree of spiritual sight, that when they see a person they see them as a physical being. All spiritual beings were once a part of the Father who shed them as a flower sheds seeds. When a soul is perfected in the ways of the Father, it becomes a perfect image of the Father. It becomes one with the Father. The Father becomes the son, and the son becomes the Father.

 

When you see your own true image as a spiritual being, you are seeing the Father. It is then that you should surrender with great humility and Love, to your true Self and in doing so, you are worshipping your Father, for you are one with Him.

 

See in John14:10-11: ‘Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake’.

http://www.gospelofthomasfullyinterpreted.com/logia-11-to-20

 

I pulled that off the web. The interpretation he gave seems reasonable. When do you see your own true image as a spiritual being? Is this what the texts is referring to? Language is a stepping stone to ignorance. It's a shame that the full intent of these words couldn't be included. Maybe the words do come with the intent embedded in it. I recall learning somewhere in my distance Sunday School days that if words are written under the influence of the spirit then you need the spirit to understand them. The tricky part is that every one seems to get their own personal meaning.

 

That said, I still don't have a clue what this verse could be referring to.

[9th]

And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

 

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

 

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

 

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

 

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

 

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

 

For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

 

 

- Corinthians, Ch. 2:4-16

[goatguy-too]

Hi guys, sorry for joining so late. I just stumbled on the forum and the topic. I have actually been studying the methods of the Gospel of Thomas for about 15 years, though I did not read the GOT until about five years ago. I had learned the methods from a rabbi, and from the writings of the apostles. When I did read GOT, I recognized it as possibly being notes from someone who had studied under the apostles and learned to read "the mystery which has been hidden from the beginning". If you wish, I think I can contribute "something completely different" concerning GOT. You may not agree, and that's OK, but thought you might like to see an alternate meaning.

 

An example of a Biblical riddle is the parable of the mustard seed. Skeptics point out that it is not the smallest seed. But it is a riddle. Jesus, the seed of the woman, was the smallest seed because he was the least of all men, serving them all. The seed grew into the largest herb. In Genesis, the grass was given to animals to eat, the herbs were given to man to eat. The greatest thing that man can eat is the body of Christ... the bread of communion. Then it grew into the greatest tree, which is of course, the cross.

 

The answers to all the riddles are within the Bible itself. The thing that clued me in that GOT was the same genre was the one where it is said that Mary must become a man. You haven't gotten there yet, so I won't spoil it. But it is part of the solution to the riddle in Jeremiah that says all men will become pregnant.

 

Would you prefer I pick up here and go back to the first ones, or start a thread specifically on GOT as riddle?

[Apech]

<....>

 

Would you prefer I pick up here and go back to the first ones, or start a thread specifically on GOT as riddle?

 

Hi Goatguy,

 

Thanks for joining in this thread.

 

I want this thread to work its way slowly through the GoT verse by verse ... discussing as we go. When we are finished I am going to tidy it up a bit to remove chat and so on and then Pin it for reference. If you go back to the beginning now it'll mess that up a bit so I would prefer if you start another thread if you want to present a radically different interpretation. But if you can put your views on the current and future verses that would be good too.

 

A.

[Mudryah]

http://www.easyenglish.info/booklist/frontend.htm

[Mudryah]

http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Original-Bible-Ernest-Martin/dp/0945657838

 

 

I am a minister of seven years and I been raised in the church since I was 8 I'm 33 now. I ask this question? Do you think God would let anything be lost?

[Apech]

http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Original-Bible-Ernest-Martin/dp/0945657838 I am a minister of seven years and I been raised in the church since I was 8 I'm 33 now. I ask this question? Do you think God would let anything be lost?

 

Hi,

 

This thread is for discussing verse by verse the Gospel of Thomas. Please could you start a new thread for comments like this.

 

 

Thank you.

 

A.

[Jetsun]

Edit: off topic

Edited October 31, 2013 by Jetsun

[Mudryah]

Books like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas and The Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians were written not in the first century (like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), but were composed in later centuries. The Gnostic teachings which permeate their gospels do not represent a Jewish worldview that Jesus would have had, but a Greek worldview which flourished in the second century.

 

The early Christian community was obviously far more aware than we are which books were authentic and which were not. These books were all rejected from the "canon" not because of theological reasons but because they were not written by the apostolic community. The church did not "choose" what was to be in the canon; rather they saw themselves as empowered only to receive and recognize what God had provided in books handed down from the apostles and their immediate companions. *The Apocalypse of Peter is not part of the canon since it was clearly not written by Peter nor even in the lifetime of the apostles. This is revealed by its use of 4 Esdras in Chapter 3, which was written around 100 AD. This is why the early church leader Origen of Palestine in 240 rejected it as spurious. The only dispute regarding the canon involved marginal books like Revelation, 2 Peter, Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, the inclusion or exclusion of which would not affect the basic teachings and gospel message of the Church.

 

 

These books were almost all written by a religious movement called Gnosticism, which was opposed by the early apostles. Gnosticism had existed before Christianity and was in fact a separate movement, though they tried to reinvent Jesus as a teacher of Gnosticism. Basically Gnosticism teaches that God did not create the world, but an imperfect, evil demiurge created the world. They were dualists, meaning that they believed that the physical world was all evil. They taught that Jesus didn't have a physical body, which is why some of them decided that he couldn't have died a physical death. They were ascetic, often vegetarian and some had sexual worship practices. Books like Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of the Egyptians taught that sexual relations were wrong even within marriage. They believed that salvation was not obtained through faith and righteousness but through mystical secret knowledge, similar to certain Hindu groups today. To support their ideas against the apostles, they would often invent different accounts of Jesus. For example, the Gospel of Judas teaches that Jesus asked Judas to betray him to the cross so that his spirit could be liberated from the prison of his human body. These ideas permeate the Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Judas and the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Mudryah

[Mudryah]

*See Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.preface; 3.1.1-2; as quoted in "The Canon of Scripture" ESV Study Bible, (Crossway, Wheaton, 2008) p.2580.

 

 

 

I studied the Lost Books and they were not apart of the Scriptures. They were written later for different reasons even the bible of the devil was written should that be apart of the Scriptures? I've been down the path you are on now and I must say that you should focus on the OT&NT. Books Enoch and Jasher have been quoted by Jesus and others in Scriptures. But if you are a true believer and practice and apply what the Scriptures say in your everyday life then you know the meaning of this on a Spiritual level:

 

Hebrews 8:10

This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

 

-----

 

"Is not this written in the Book of Yasher?"--Yahushua ben Nun, 10:13. "Behold it is written in the Book of Yasher."2nd Samuel, 1:18

 

 

We first learn of Enoch in Genesis 5 but it leaves us with questions. Hebrews 11 has the answers and Jude quotes Enoch! How did Jude come to know the words of Enoch? They are not in the Scriptures. The answer is Yes, is The Book of Enoch. A book which is actually quoted not only by Jude, but also James the natural brother of YAHSHUA.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Mudryah

[Jetsun]

The Gospel of Thomas is probably the most non-dual of all of the Gospels, so I don't see how it was written by dualists.

[Apech]

***** Steward Missive ****

 

I am trying to keep this thread for discussing the Gospel of Thomas verse by verse. I appreciate that there a views regarding the provenance and authenticity of this and other apocryphal works. But what we are doing is taking it as a text and discussing it verse by verse. Compare this to discussing the content of the TTC say, without debating whether there was such a person as Lao Tzu and when and where he lived and so on. Feel free to start another thread on the Bible and its content and excluded texts - but can we keep this for discussion of the latest verse please.

 

*** Apech as Steward of Hermetic Subforum ***

[Jeff]

15) Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman,

prostrate yourselves on your faces and worship him. That one is

your Father."

 

I would agree with many of the posters (and quoted texts above). As Jesus state in many gospels, as one comes to know God, they are reborn of the Holy Spirit and "beyond" being born of a woman.

 

But, I believe that the quote is also one about discipleship (and finding a guru/master). He is saying that if you are lucky enough to find a true teacher, you should drop everything and follow him/her.

[Jetsun]

15) Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman,

prostrate yourselves on your faces and worship him. That one is

your Father."

I think this is another reference to non-dualism, it is similar to what in Zen they call the unborn awareness. If there is awareness before you were born then it is not born of woman, it is primordial.

[Apech]

... and now for something jolly ...

 

16) 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: fire, sword,

and war. For there will be five in a house: three will be against

two, and two against three, the father against the son, and the

son against the father. And they will stand solitary."

[traveler]

Could the five in the house be referring to the five trees mentioned in verse 19? In this verse (16) we see the unbalanced state of our inner world or five trees, then in verse 19 we see balance and peace as our five trees stop fighting and grow into perfect unity.

 

On the other hand, the coming of Christianity in all its many shades certainly did cause dissension - fire, sword and war - to fill the earth in a real physical sense.

[goatguy-too]

As a riddle:

dissention/betrayal is רמה remah which is identical to רמה cast down and רמה high place.

dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth

is a pun which says that the high place will be cast down to earh. The kingdom of God will be on earth.

 

The next part plays with the hieroglyphic metaphors of the letters. The metaphor of each letter can be expressed many ways, such as the shin can be fire, the Holy Spirit, the word not returning void,, etc (Great conversation for another thread). The aleph represents the separation of the waters, division, etc.. depending on its position it can also mean reconciliation.

 

ש - fire

ו - sword

א - war

 

The word שוא means desolation. So when the kingdom of God comes to earth, the earth will be destroyed. Many take the Biblical verses taht are similar to this as literal, but there is an aspect that when one is ruled by the spirit, the flesh no longer has control. It is made desolate.

 

Then there are only two houses that have five in them: בית~שן Bethshan or house of ease and בית־אל Bethel or House of God. The context makes it Bethel. Three (Beth) are against two (El), the house is against God, and God is against the house. It is said that we were at war with God, and then Christ took our sin upon himself and represented us as his 'house'or family. The time of the cross is when the Father left the Son and he cried out "Why have you forsaken me?"

 

Just a childish riddle..The same method is used by John is John 1.1: Ïn the beginning was the word". He shows us how the game is played with Gen 1.1: בראשית ברא אלהים In the begining God.

 

ברא bara is 'the word which creates' it is normally just translated 'created' but since God created by his word, it becomes either 'created by his word' or 'the word which created'. Look and see that ברא is in בראשית as the first three letters. In the beginning was the bara, the word. Bara is next to Elohim so John says, "The word was with God". It describes God as the creator so John says, "THe word was God". In fact bara has bar in it which is 'son'. The son was in the begining, was the creator, was with God, was God. Elohim has some puns: Alo khoom, LChaim, Lechem, meaning not dark (Light), Life, Bread. And John uses these puns in his theology.

 

1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

John plays the same game in 1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 

Heaven is שמים : The hieroglyphics of the three consonants are the Spirit (fire), Father (declared a covenant in heaven) and the Son (fulfilled the covenant on earth. The gematria = 3 as well.

 

The word earth is ארץ which is the water (aleph as the division of the waters), the word (rosh which is a revelation) and the tzadik which is the blood (The son who is Holy and Love descending to the grave).

 

Silly riddles? yep. But systemic to the nature of Biblical prophecy and sensus plenior. Thomas took notes so that he would remember how to do it.

 

Oh, and they stand as one... "The Father and I are one".

Edited November 1, 2013 by goatguy

[Apech]

@goatguy

 

interesting but why do you use expression like silly riddle or childish riddle for the idea of hidden deeper meaning in the text?

[Apech]

16) 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: fire, sword,

and war. For there will be five in a house: three will be against

two, and two against three, the father against the son, and the

son against the father. And they will stand solitary."

 

 

This is how I have been taught to interpret this passage (or ones like it).

 

Jesus as the embodiment of the Messiah function is inheriting an ancient tradition of Hermes/Mercury/Thoth etc. in that wisdom, understanding, communication bring peace and reconciliation to a given situation. As in Christ = Prince of peace. So one would think that Jesus was incarnated to bring peace on earth. However here he is talking about the World … which literally means the 'whirled' that is the spinning process of the created universe … The World is the environment in which we are cast to learn lessons. So Jesus says that he is casting fire (spiritual energy), sword (the word of truth) and war (the struggle of forces against one another) into the World. That means he is upping the intensity of the learning process for the benefit of beings with the world.

 

The house is 'being' - which could mean the universe or a single entity like you and me. In this house there are five. These are the different aspects or levels of being. Namely, the physical body, the affective like/dislike pleasure/pain level, the serial counting mind, the conceptual level and will or initiative. Two of these battle the other three. This, in an individual would mean that will or intention and governing concepts battle with the serial mentation (stream of scattered thoughts), like and dislike and physical inertia. So our best intentions to do good which arise from our will and our ideas on what is right and true are in a struggle with the habitual tendencies in our thoughts, feelings and our physical body inertia.

 

As a being we are the 'son' while the power which made us and determines our fate is the Father. We find in life a tension between our private purpose as individuals and 'life' or the will of God. We struggle along to come to terms with this through acceptance and understanding of the 'bigger picture' or perhaps the greater good which seems on the face of it to be against us.

 

Solitary … well this could mean Sol - itary … like the sun, that is a unified being. So they, meaning the parts involved in the struggle will 'stand' that is come to resolution through unity … and being alone = All one … (see Plotinus).

[goatguy-too]

Sill

 

@goatguy

 

interesting but why do you use expression like silly riddle or childish riddle for the idea of hidden deeper meaning in the text?

Only because Jesus said we must become klike little children, and that God's wisdom is foolishness to the world.

[Jeff]

16) 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: fire, sword,
and war. For there will be five in a house: three will be against
two, and two against three, the father against the son, and the
son against the father. And they will stand solitary."

I would agree with much of what Apech has stated regarding the meaning of this passage. But, it also has a direct corollary in the Gospel of Luke that puts the passage in context...

Luke 12:49-59 (KJV)
⁴⁹ I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? ⁵⁰ But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! ⁵¹ Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: ⁵² For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. ⁵³ The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. ⁵⁴ And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is. ⁵⁵ And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass. ⁵⁶ Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time? ⁵⁷ Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right? ⁵⁸ When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. ⁵⁹ I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.


In both verse 16 and in Luke, Jesus is talking about the new and higher "truth" that he is bringing to world. A new covenant and baptism in the power of the Holy Spirit. In comparing the father against the son, he is saying that one must move on from the old ancestral jewish ways of the law. Though the path may be difficult, one must be resolute (solitary if need be) in the new way.

(edit - Ipad issues)

Edited November 1, 2013 by Jeff

[traveler]

All of the ideas offered here seem like good interpretations. I like them all. If nothing else, this text has gotten us to think and ponder the meaning of life.

[9th]

(hint: thats not hebrew)