"Whoever discovers the interpretations of these sayings will not taste death"

a reply to: cooperton

"Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all (and after they have reigned they will rest)" (Thomas 2) 

Everything within the (4 accepted) gospels can be corroborated within the OT AND mirrored by the NT. How does the Gospel of Thomas fit in with the rest of the bible? The passage quoted fulfills neither case. Eternal truth does not yield bitter fruit, but hope.

The abovementioned quote sounds like something a gnostic would say to justify her/his works.

"Whoever discovers the interpretations of these sayings will not taste death"

Pretending that a bit of religious pseudo philosophy will stave off the inevitable? Won't make a difference. The extraordinarily high likelihood that there simply is no afterlife shouldn't be a problem either. Not as though we'll know much about it.

a reply to: cooperton

Here's a thought for you. What is the carcass? It's mentioned in Matthew 24.

27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be .
28 For wheresoever the carcase is , there will the eagles be gathered together.

So, what is the carcass? Working it out I realized it's a Daniel reference. Daniel 8 to be exact. Where Daniel 11 is referenced in Matthew 24-15. In fact I have found that many of his parables are referencing back to Old Testament prophesies and stories.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: cooperton

How does the Gospel of Thomas fit in with the rest of the bible? The passage quoted fulfills neither case. Eternal truth does not yield bitter fruit, but hope.

Thomas verse 2 sounds like something a gnostic would say to justify her/his works.

Look at the parable of the seed... It says that many will wither away when persecution comes on account of the word. The journey isn't all gumdrops and lollipops. Thomas verse 2 insists that the reward is great for those who persevere.

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: cooperton

14. Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.

That alone explains why is was tossed by the Council. They'd go broke if they included it. Otherwise, most of it seems to contradict every other gospel where Jesus is quoted.

Mark 2:18-20 ... he discusses that fasting is a means for repentance, but if you are already cleansed of miss-doings, it is unnecessary. Also see Thomas verse 104

originally posted by: ntech
a reply to: cooperton

Here's a thought for you. What is the carcass? It's mentioned in Matthew 24.

27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be .
28 For wheresoever the carcase is , there will the eagles be gathered together.

Check this out:

Matthew24:28 Interpretation

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Pretending that a bit of religious pseudo philosophy will stave off the inevitable? Won't make a difference. The extraordinarily high likelihood that there simply is no afterlife shouldn't be a problem either. Not as though we'll know much about it.

I presented analogous Orthodox Gospel verses to show that this is not an idea unique to the gospel of Thomas. Hypothetically, let's say you'r right and there is no afterlife... then this life is meaningless, in the grand scheme of things, if this is true, our lives are arbitrary at best. and ... if that is the case... what does it matter? Regardless of the outcome, Wouldn't it be ideal if every individual loved and lived altruistically ? If we are nothing but the accidental spawn of mutated pond scum, without the aid of some sort of intelligence, what does it matter?

I'd rather live my life searching for potential answers than residing at a complacent dead end thinking there is no answer.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

All the more power to you, it just seems unhealthy to dwell on something to the point you have to post the same material with the same message every week for the purpose of advertisement. I call that spam. But that is my opinion.

Are you referring to your perpetual references to middle school textbooks and hear-say science blogs? Tzar Chasm, literally meaning king of separation, I urge you to strive beyond your role as a parrot.

a reply to: cooperton

Here's my answer to their question. Unfortunately I can't post it there.

Ok, I'll give you an answer to this question. My answer is this. Jesus Christ is using a veiled reference here. And what it's referring to is a prophesy. Daniel 8 to be exact. In Matthew 24 he referenced Daniel 11 with the abomination of desolation. I believe this carcass/dead body reference is simply another Daniel reference and his story of the battle of the ram and goat.

He telling you to watch for the event when 2 nations in the middle east get conquered by a powerful country from the west. And it's aftermath in Matthew 24. The tribulation of those days.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Wait, "Enoch and Elijah both eluded death and ascended to the Kingdom in their lifetime." That is not the same as dying? Because their lives ended, and that is the definition of death.

Not so according to scripture. Moses and Elijah were both called up to the Mt of transfiguration by Jesus and while yet alive Jesus said that no man as yet has ever ascended to heaven.

John_3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Act_2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

The kingdom of heaven was not given till Jesus died and that was many years after both Moses and Elijah. Where were they then? they were in Sheol where paradise was located at that time. Both were called up from beneath and not down from above.

originally posted by: cooperton

I presented analogous Orthodox Gospel verses to show that this is not an idea unique to the gospel of Thomas.

The sentiment underneath it all, is certainly not unique to any particular culture, let alone religion or gospel (canonical or otherwise).

originally posted by: cooperton Hypothetically, let's say you'r right and there is no afterlife... then this life is meaningless, in the grand scheme of things, if this is true, our lives are arbitrary at best. and ... if that is the case... what does it matter?

So you feel that the one you are living, the only one you know with any certainty that you do or ever will have, relies on the belief of a fairytale/afterlife to give it meaning???

Surely this realisation (extreme unlikelihood of an afterlife) would give the only one you know that you do have, or are ever likely to have, a great deal more importance and meaning.

Though in the ultimate sense it doesn't matter, not in the grand scheme of things. Why should it? There could be "something" but whatever it is obviously gives no higher place to one particular species of intellectual ape than it does to an earthworm or an insect. It is interesting that the more refined of the ancient philosophies don't necessarily point to an afterlife, or if they do, don't have a god (in any religious sense).

originally posted by: cooperton Regardless of the outcome, Wouldn't it be ideal if every individual loved and lived altruistically ? If we are nothing but the accidental spawn of mutated pond scum, without the aid of some sort of intelligence, what does it matter?

Altruism and love isn't restricted to those with particular beliefs. In fact, such things are not uncommon in nature. It is also obvious that cultures with such beliefs (based on religious dogma) are the best at talking about such concepts, while also being the worst at displaying them. In the modern world, religious societies are quite a failure (comparatively) to their more secular counterparts.

originally posted by: coopertonI'd rather live my life searching for potential answers than residing at a complacent dead end thinking there is no answer.

I find that very unlikely. Settling for the less confronting and more comforting options found in religious dogmas as a place to begin, as if it were a fait accompli, gives a very narrow framework within which to find such answers. Equating the more honest/likely observation with a "complacent dead end" shows just how one tracked and limiting it is. There will be answers, they might not be appealing to everyone though.

a reply to: cooperton

Look at the parable of the seed... It says that many will wither away when persecution comes on account of the word.

Many will fall away due to persecution, not because of the Word. The Word is not persecution. You are blurring the symbols to suit non-biblical text.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

So you feel that the one you are living, the only one you know with any certainty that you do or ever will have, relies on the belief of a fairytale/afterlife to give it meaning???

I think there is more to it than we were led to believe. This is why in Thomas it is said that he who found a carcass is exalted... Our current world is the carcass. It's "dead". Look at Plato's Cave Allegory... this extremely wise man is strongly inferring that we are living a life of illusion... And so does Christianity:

Matthew 18:8-9
mentions how it is better to "enter life" crippled than to continue sinning (acting upon non-truth) until death.

also see:
Matthew 16:24-25

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: cooperton

Many will fall away due to persecution, not because of the Word. The Word is not persecution. You are blurring the symbols to suit non-biblical text.

I am not blurring anything. It is said that persecution will come to those who spread the Word:

"But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away." Matthew 13:21

originally posted by: cooperton
I am not blurring anything. It is said that persecution will come to those who spread the Word:

"But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away." Matthew 13:21

You read Matthew wrong, persecution will sometimes come to those who hear the Word.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

How does the Gospel of Thomas fit in with the rest of the bible?

Actually it fits with the four canonical gospels quite well... That particular text was rejected because "some" of the sayings did not fit with the church's agenda at the time... and of course some of them have no place at all in biblical teaching

Thomas is a strange book... its a text that relies heavily on the Q document which doesn't exist... but its because of Thomas that the whole theory of the Q gospel came into being

I did a series on Thomas a few years back... unfortunately I didn't ever have a chance to finish it

The First Synod of ATS: The Gospel of Thomas

Part II

a reply to: cooperton

I am not blurring anything. It is said that persecution will come to those who spread the Word: 

Right, but learning the truth is not the source of persecution, but a way of testing the gnosis. If the gnosis is applied correctly, then it is metabolized into epignosis. Only those who reject the truth are burdened.

a reply to: Akragon

I don't see how the Gospel of Thomas fits in with the rest of the Gospels. Jesus' Parables are all rooted in OT. Can the same be said about Thomas' Gospel?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Read my threads... I covered at least half of Thomas as to how the sayings relate to the gospels

Most are taken directly from the gospels with a little different wording...

Some of the sayings are just out there... no idea where they came from

Though there is a lot of teachings that weren't written down... so maybe they actually did come from him but we didn't have an explanation as to what exactly they mean

Thomas... like the gospels have many layers of meaning

a reply to: Akragon

I'll take a gander, but without a direct connection to the OT as strong as Jesus' Parables are, its just not eligible for consideration in my mind.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Consider that idea eh...

Jesus wasn't all for everything in the OT... its quite possible the writers of the NT left things out so they would line up with said Old books according to their ideas

The later church ended up destroying the gnostic texts and murdering those who disagreed with them because they were powerful writings and had an influence over those who could understand them

Makes ya think

a reply to: Akragon

Jesus wasn't all for everything in the OT... its quite possible the writers of the NT left things out so they would line up with said Old books according to their ideas

That statement makes no sense at all. What is the possibility of the authors of the 27 letters of the NT which were written at various times to consider the vastness of Torah? One would have to have memorized Torah as it was not divided into chapters or verses as you have today or and at the least carry a copy of Torah in their travels.

Do you understand the fallacy of such a statement? First the cost of such a copy of Torah would prohibit this and second the means of referencing material from Torah would require a life time of study. As the last thought you would have to consider that Torah was in two distinct languages at this time and did not always agree with each other. There is strong evidence that the NT letters were originally penned in Aramaic and Hebrew. Even though some synagogues used the LXX Torah there were others that used the Aramaic and Hebrew Torah.

Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." (Thomas 114)

As misogynist as this may sound at first, I think it has a proper explanation:

Jesus answered..."whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”

He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.” (John 4)


He's referring to the sacred union, which is described more thoroughly in the Gospel of Phillip. The "Beloved Disciple" described in the gospel of John, who is always mentioned with women, may be Mary Magdalene: MAry MAgdalene is Blessed Disciple

The male-female aspect is like a lock and key model... The female must find the male to complete the process. With all this being said, this passage makes sense:

"Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) When Peter saw [her], he asked, “Lord, what about [her]?”

Jesus answered, “If I want [her] to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”... Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. "

a reply to: cooperton

I don't put much faith in Gnostic texts, but what the passages might be in reference to is the fact that, in union, females are the body and males are the head. That is, the male, or head, seeds (gives awareness to / gives conception to) the body, just as Father, the godhead, gives conception to his body, Yeshua.

And so that very implicit reference might be to the fact that females do not have Yeshua as their head (unless they be baptized [by fire]/ take in the spirit of the Son / take on the glory of God / take on the trial / follow the Way, instead of their husband / let their head be Yeshua / etc.)

To them, at that time, females having Yeshua as their head was probably unheard of. And they probably did not understand things like Church/Bride.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: cooperton

I don't put much faith in Gnostic texts, but what the passages might be in reference to is the fact that, in union, females are the body and males are the head. That is, the male, or head, seeds (gives awareness to / gives conception to) the body, just as Father, the godhead, gives conception to his body, Yeshua.

And so that very implicit reference might be to the fact that females do not have Yeshua as their head (unless they be baptized [by fire]/ take in the spirit of the Son / take on the glory of God / take on the trial / follow the Way, instead of their husband / let their head be Yeshua / etc.)

To them, at that time, females having Yeshua as their head was probably unheard of. And they probably did not understand things like Church/Bride.

The internal balance of male and female forces also mirrors itself as outward manifestation, in my opinion.

It is called, among other names,Ardhanarishvara in Hindu tradition.

"‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’... So they are no longer two, but one flesh.” (Matthew 19:5,6)

^Paul admits to being puzzled by this mystery in Ephesians 5:31-32.