The Gospel Of Thomas

[JosephR]

The Gospel Of Thomas

I have a book that has the Nag Hamaddi texts in it, one translated by Marvin Meyer. There's some things in the texts like the Gospel of Thomas that are intriguing, but there's a lot I don't like. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus says Mary Magdalene has to become male to enter the kingdom. It's a strange doctrine. I don't attribute authority to most extrabiblical texts. The Apocrypha that was in the original 1611 KJV and the Book of Enoch I think are a good source for historical information and have some useful info in them. But most of the Nag Hammadi and so called "gnostic" texts are not authoritative at all, in my opinion.

Well thanks for sharing , the Gospel of Thomas is not Gnostic and does share some traits with the Nag Hammadi but teaches none of the doctrine that makes it Gnostic... You won't find mention of any other Gods or demons in it.

Btw what is to not understand about what He says about Mary? In the Kingdom of Heaven people will not marry or be givin in marriage.. Further more one must become like a child, that to me is harder to wrapt head around .I hope that solves the problem for you


Posted from the TOL App!

 

[Daniel1611]

Well thanks for sharing , the Gospel of Thomas is not Gnostic and does share some traits with the Nag Hammadi but teaches none of the doctrine that makes it Gnostic... You won't find mention of any other Gods or demons in it.

Btw what is to not understand about what He says about Mary? In the Kingdom of Heaven people will not marry or be givin in marriage.. I hope that solves the problem for you


Posted from the TOL App!

It says we will neither marry not be given in marriage. It does not say we will all be male. Male and female created He them. It's just a strange doctrine. There are some interesting sayings in the Thomas that I like, but having strange doctrines is enough for me to say it is not inspired. Further, it is based on this idea that the "hidden" sayings of Jesus are a key to salvation. It's basically esoteric knowledge, it's gnostic.

 

[JosephR]

It says we will neither marry not be given in marriage. It does not say we will all be male. Male and female created He them. It's just a strange doctrine. There are some interesting sayings in the Thomas that I like, but having strange doctrines is enough for me to say it is not inspired. Further, it is based on this idea that the "hidden" sayings of Jesus are a key to salvation. It's basically esoteric knowledge, it's gnostic.

There is nothing strange to me about it, in Heaven there will be no gender... No need for it, like the angels do not need to reproduce we will be like them. Just because you don't understand a cannon passage does not make the Gospel of Thomas strange. He does say we will be like the angels, right? And you must be like a child to enter, right? So once you figure out what that really means then maybe it won't seem so strange..

Btw Jesus flat out told the 12 he speaks in parables to hide the real meaning.. So unless you don't believe that then I guess Jesus was Gnostic

But really when you study what makes a text Gnostic or not the Gospel of Thomas does not fit the bill, it is a recorded text of Jesus saying that was not allowed in the cannon. That's all. The cannon and the whys are a whole other topic.

Me personally, if the 12 studied a book as scripture it is good enough for me like book of Enoch , bel and the dragon ect ect


Posted from the TOL App!

 

[Daniel1611]

There is nothing strange to me about it, in Heaven there will be no gender... No need for it, like the angels do not need to reproduce we will be like them. Just because you don't understand a cannon passage does not make the Gospel of Thomas strange. He does say we will be like the angels, right? And you must be like a child to enter, right? So once you figure out what that really means then maybe it won't seem so strange..

Btw Jesus flat out told the 12 he speaks in parables to hide the real meaning.. So unless you don't believe that then I guess Jesus was Gnostic

But really when you study what makes a text Gnostic or not the Gospel of Thomas does not fit the bill, it is a recorded text of Jesus saying that was not allowed in the cannon. That's all. The cannon and the whys are a whole other topic.

Me personally, if the 12 studied a book as scripture it is good enough for me like book of Enoch , bel and the dragon ect ect


Posted from the TOL App!

Where in scripture does it say there is no gender in heaven? Where is one passage that says this? How does not marrying mean genderless. There are celibate people who do not marry on earth. Are they genderless? These "become male" idea is a strange doctrine with no scriptural support. Further, Jesus said to the disciples that he began with speaking in parable to explain things, but before he ascended to heaven he said that he as revealed ALL things.

Also, the Book of Enoch is not equivalent to the Gospel of Thomas. Jude quotes Enoch. Enoch does not contradict the Bible anywhere, and Enoch was considered accurate by many people in the early church. Therefore, I use the book of Enoch as a source for good historical information. Also, Bel and the Dragon was also considered valid by many people in the early church. It was included with the Apocrypha in the 1611 KJV. And it's basically just an expanded version of Daniel. I also consider Bel and the Dragon a reliable source for these reasons. There is no evidence that Gospel of Thomas was ever considered authoritative. For all we know it was just a one off text that didn't have any following, neither was it preserved. There's not evidence that the Thomas text was ever considered a valid Christian text.

 

[freelight]

Male-female analogies...........

Male-female analogies...........

I have a book that has the Nag Hamaddi texts in it, one translated by Marvin Meyer. There's some things in the texts like the Gospel of Thomas that are intriguing, but there's a lot I don't like. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus says Mary Magdalene has to become male to enter the kingdom. It's a strange doctrine. I don't attribute authority to most extrabiblical texts. The Apocrypha that was in the original 1611 KJV and the Book of Enoch I think are a good source for historical information and have some useful info in them. But most of the Nag Hammadi and so called "gnostic" texts are not authoritative at all, in my opinion.

We covered this earlier in the thread, my response is here & here. (concerning the 'female' becoming 'male'). Again,...its a matter of defining what 'male' and 'female' means to this faith-tradition, and appropriately interpreting that in the light of spiritual wisdom. Both 'male' and 'female' elements are essential, for in other sayings, Jesus respects both saying they must merge, become one, and that a higher state of realization even transcends 'gender', yet includes both naturally as such is intrinsic to creation, both genders working synergistically together, honor being given to both 'Father' and 'Mother' aspects.

Lets look again -

Thomas : 118 [114]. Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!" Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."

There is an interesting twist here, for it is Peter with the somewhat sexist attitude, which Jesus curiously adds to, emphasizing 'male' meaning a 'living spirit', something that a female can 'become' by some process or inner-merging with the male principle? It might be that the female must merge into and become 'male' in some sense, but this doesn't necessarily discount or demean women (since 'God' and 'Man' are both male/female by reflection), if the text is interpreted some other way. We are back to terms, meanings, context or some esoteric translation therein.




pj

 

[meshak]

Freelight,

In the NT, Jesus' teachings are mostly about heavenly things. But God's kingdom is for both earth and heaven. Heaven is God and Jesus dwells with spirit beings including with elect servants. There is no gender in spirit beings.

Most of us will be in paradise earth in perfect peace and love under God's loving law as human with eternal life..

 

[JosephR]

I have a book that has the Nag Hamaddi texts in it, one translated by Marvin Meyer. There's some things in the texts like the Gospel of Thomas that are intriguing, but there's a lot I don't like. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus says Mary Magdalene has to become male to enter the kingdom. It's a strange doctrine. I don't attribute authority to most extrabiblical texts. The Apocrypha that was in the original 1611 KJV and the Book of Enoch I think are a good source for historical information and have some useful info in them. But most of the Nag Hammadi and so called "gnostic" texts are not authoritative at all, in my opinion.

I allmost forgot to ask what do you think He meant that She had to become male. Surely you dont think physically , do you?

 

[freelight]

I allmost forgot to ask what do you think He meant that She had to become male. Surely you dont think physically , do you?

Obviously 'male' or 'female' terms are 'figurative'



pj

 

[The Barbarian]

Thomas : 118 [114]. Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!" Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."

A feminist once said something like "there are two kinds of humans; people and women. And if a woman tries to act like a person, people accuse her of trying to be a man."

Wonder if that woman had read the Gospel of Thomas.

 

[Daniel1611]

I allmost forgot to ask what do you think He meant that She had to become male. Surely you dont think physically , do you?

In the text, Peter refers to her physically being a woman, and Jesus comments that she must become male. He's not changed gears in this text. And whatever it means, it's strange doctrine. It's not biblical either. I've read it. I've read the gospels of mary and judas and all those others. Some things are okay and line up with Biblical teaching, but these books are filled with strange doctrine. And the emphasis on "hidden knowledge" is unbiblical. It's trying to mix Christianity w/ the mystery religions. And we've got people seeking out all these gospels that were dug up recently and they haven't even read the Bible yet. So they have nothing to compare it too. All these esoteric and works based gospels are unsaving gospels filled with strange doctrine.

 

[JosephR]

In the text, Peter refers to her physically being a woman, and Jesus comments that she must become male. He's not changed gears in this text. And whatever it means, it's strange doctrine. It's not biblical either. I've read it. I've read the gospels of mary and judas and all those others. Some things are okay and line up with Biblical teaching, but these books are filled with strange doctrine. And the emphasis on "hidden knowledge" is unbiblical. It's trying to mix Christianity w/ the mystery religions. And we've got people seeking out all these gospels that were dug up recently and they haven't even read the Bible yet. So they have nothing to compare it too. All these esoteric and works based gospels are unsaving gospels filled with strange doctrine.

Thanks for your opinion again. I don't agree with you . It seems strange because it is not proto-orthodox

 

[JosephR]

Thomas : 118 [114]. Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!" Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."

A feminist once said something like "there are two kinds of humans; people and women. And if a woman tries to act like a person, people accuse her of trying to be a man."

Wonder if that woman had read the Gospel of Thomas.

Based on Laotian Buddhism, the women of Laos are taught that they can only attain nirvana after they have been reborn as men.[6]

 

[freelight]

transcending sex......

transcending sex......

Based on Laotian Buddhism, the women of Laos are taught that they can only attain nirvana after they have been reborn as men.[6]

To be fair, in some reincarnational systems, souls are incarnated at various times in both 'male' and 'female' bodies to experience both gender-roles equally, as nature provides.

One can get caught up in the duality of gender, but spirituality transcends such, while including both qualities and attributes. A 'living spirit' in any case might be beyond gender-identity as humans deem it, but still have both masculine/feminine aspects. In any case, the qualifications for 'entering the kingdom' are not 'sexist', since all are children of God equally as 'male/female'.




pj

 

[Levolor]

Thank you, Joseph, for reminding me of the name of this thread.

I didn't think I would post tonight, but alas... lol, I see that there were some questionings that I thought I might share my thoughts on.

In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus says Mary Magdalene has to become male to enter the kingdom. It's a strange doctrine.

I allmost forgot to ask what do you think He meant that She had to become male. Surely you dont think physically , do you?

About this becoming male business... yes, it can be confusing as well as could be insulting to women... as so much of the bible can be when the actual meanings are not understood. If we cannot interpret the bible in a manner that shows the love of God, then the interpretation is no doubt in error for God is love.

So!

About Mary Magdalen becoming male, with the scriptural support first:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:12

Why would it be sons? And why is God always portrayed as male and not at least as both genders?

Let me here advance the idea that all souls are female, since we, all of us, can only receive from God and never give. (We can affect the Spirit yes, but never give to Him... He already has everything! )

So, by becoming sons of God as shown in John 1:12, we can, like God, also give to other souls: healings, blessings, agape love, etc. despite actual physical gender.

A person who is not yet a son/male can only cause drama, turmoil and etc... whether that person is male or female gendered. The child of God is male: a son; a son who can give of the nature of God.

I hope from this that it can be seen why it is necessary for Mary to become male; to become a son of God?

 

[patrick jane]

Thomas : 118 [114]. Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!" Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."

A feminist once said something like "there are two kinds of humans; people and women. And if a woman tries to act like a person, people accuse her of trying to be a man."

Wonder if that woman had read the Gospel of Thomas.

i don't know what book that's from, but " I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males.(?) For every woman who has become male will enter the kingdom of heaven." - if anything, that may mean spiritually, but not literally. i know that's not what you're saying, but. we call God - "Father God." but i don't think God is male or female. God created both. why trip on gender ? weird - and i'm a guy sooooo, :wazzup: - "SO AS to make her male" ? -

 

[patrick jane]

also the "lost gospels" are not Word altering texts. if you are going to study them, it must be with discretion and wariness. but, barbarian seems to be a snob that avoids spiritual matters. catholic thing.

 

[JosephR]

I think spiritual transcends physical so gender is no longer an issue as eternal beings do not need to procreate . As Jesus taught we will be like the angels and not be in or givin in marriage .... I think it is something as physical humans we can't wholly wrap our head around but Jesus cleared that up as well when He explained that He tells of things of this world and we do not understand, how can we understand the things of Heaven.

 

[dreadknought]

I'm starting this thread due to a conversation in another thread. You're welcome to join in.

My personal thoughts on the logia.

"Great minds discuss ideas and concepts.
Average minds discuss things and places.
Small minds just talk about other people."

Many great minds have discussed many great ideas over the course of the development of the human consciousness. Contributions to the collective consciousness have been added throughout something we call history. We can index these contributions by date.

I have to take that into consideration while examining any text. I ask, where did this come from? Much of the logia are paralleled in the NT and those date back to Torah. Others have their parallels elsewhere. We are looking at a Coptic translation.

The Wiki article has info about the text and dating for those in doubt about what is believed about this text by others. How we know of it's existence from other texts (in their time) and so on.


Having said I that, I see the sayings (logia) as a collection of one particular "wisdom" of that time. I try to trace the source in time to see what school of thought produced it. The disciples (students) were sent out into the world; that's when they became Apostles. That's what the word means; sent out. It's the same root for the word postal i.e. to send something by the post office.

We see from various texts that these apostles (or whoever actually wrote the text in the name of the Apostles) did not always teach in the same manner with exactly the same understanding. That is the same thing we see in the real world today. A man goes to school and learns to be a preacher. Thousands of men attended the same course, received the same degree and teach different doctrine. Nothing new here.

So, as we go through the logia I will be asking for the origin (timewise) for the thought behind it. That will hopefully become more clear as/if the thread progresses.

Believing Wiki to be totally accurate isn't what I'd consider, listening to the Gospel. From what I've read, this fiction has no standing, not even in the Twighlight Zone.

 

[patrick jane]

Believing Wiki to be totally accurate isn't what I'd consider, listening to the Gospel. From what I've read, this fiction has no standing, not even in the Twighlight Zone.

you changed you username, but you still spelled forest wrong

 

[dreadknought]

you changed you username, but you still spelled forest wrong

Did I, hmmmm, spell check