dreadknought
New member
Nope, the word is spelled correctly.
The Gospel Of Thomas
- Thread starter unknown
- Start date
dreadknought
New member
Nathan Bedford Forrest: American Confederate general who was active at the battles of Shiloh (1862) and Chickamauga (1863). He was a founder and the first leader (1867-1869) of the Ku Klux Klan.
:duh:
wrong. i think you spelled dreadnought wrong as well:duh:
wrong. i think you spelled dreadnought wrong as well:duh:
Last edited:
dreadknought
New member
Your 2 for 2
dreadknought
New member
:rotfl: If I didn't know better, I'd say your trying to provoke me, mentalist.
It's you're, not your.
Where? :think:just by your picture, i know i could take you [dreadknought]
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
male and female synergy and transcendence.....
male and female synergy and transcendence.....
Hi pj,
I covered this in a few previous posts here (see all links) {we also correlate this verse with saying 22} - of course the terms 'male' and 'female' have their own definitions within the teaching-school of the compiler, and we can draw other insights from the general cultural/theological context of this collection of sayings to arrive a better translation, plus that this 'secret saying' of Jesus is also referenced in a few other non-canonical writings, which supports its authenticity, noted in my linked posts above.
Directly in the verse, it speaks of 'males' being 'living spirits',....while 'females' where not regarded as 'living spirits', but perhaps 'living souls' only, who became living spirits when they joined fully or merged with the male principle ("becoming male" to use the metaphor), so that this represents a 'divine wedding' of both principles. It does not necessarily negate or void the 'female' element or gender, since Gnostic respect the divine feminine (Sophia, Holy Spirit, etc.) and gave women equal rights and privileges in ministry in some cults. The 'divine marriage' (or 'bridal chamber')...."the making the two one" is a fundamental principle not only in gnostic philosophy, but occult schools universally, since Nature itself reveals the dual genders as a synergized unity of soul and spirit, reflecting the divine Soul and Spirit (God). It is in the merging of both elements as one, where the full glory and divine nature is revealed in totality, as well as that 'marriage' being the genesis of pro-creation.
See: Outshining of gender in the pure radiance of Spirit
The texts that say "making the male and female one, and neither male nor female" speak of a state of prior androgyny, where gender distinctions are vague or wholly transended, including the germinal essence of both genders, yet outshining both as one indivisible Spirit. - to return to that 'original condition' is to have entered into the kingdom of Spirit, becoming one with one's true original essence, the re-turn to 'God'.
See also: Gnostic Christianity: Did Jesus Teach Sacred Union of the Sexes?
pj
male and female synergy and transcendence.....
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" ? -
Hi pj,
I covered this in a few previous posts here (see all links) {we also correlate this verse with saying 22} - of course the terms 'male' and 'female' have their own definitions within the teaching-school of the compiler, and we can draw other insights from the general cultural/theological context of this collection of sayings to arrive a better translation, plus that this 'secret saying' of Jesus is also referenced in a few other non-canonical writings, which supports its authenticity, noted in my linked posts above.
Directly in the verse, it speaks of 'males' being 'living spirits',....while 'females' where not regarded as 'living spirits', but perhaps 'living souls' only, who became living spirits when they joined fully or merged with the male principle ("becoming male" to use the metaphor), so that this represents a 'divine wedding' of both principles. It does not necessarily negate or void the 'female' element or gender, since Gnostic respect the divine feminine (Sophia, Holy Spirit, etc.) and gave women equal rights and privileges in ministry in some cults. The 'divine marriage' (or 'bridal chamber')...."the making the two one" is a fundamental principle not only in gnostic philosophy, but occult schools universally, since Nature itself reveals the dual genders as a synergized unity of soul and spirit, reflecting the divine Soul and Spirit (God). It is in the merging of both elements as one, where the full glory and divine nature is revealed in totality, as well as that 'marriage' being the genesis of pro-creation.
See: Outshining of gender in the pure radiance of Spirit
The texts that say "making the male and female one, and neither male nor female" speak of a state of prior androgyny, where gender distinctions are vague or wholly transended, including the germinal essence of both genders, yet outshining both as one indivisible Spirit. - to return to that 'original condition' is to have entered into the kingdom of Spirit, becoming one with one's true original essence, the re-turn to 'God'.
See also: Gnostic Christianity: Did Jesus Teach Sacred Union of the Sexes?
pj
Levolor
New member
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" ? -
If you rather, you can think of electrical poles with their negative and positive poles.
For me, speaking of the male and female is easier.
Granted there is no gender in the spirit, but to consider this spiritual concept, we must see that God is male. Then, we also must consider that all souls, whether they are contained by a male or female body, are female.
Simplified: God is male and all souls are female. Why?
Because God gives. That is what God does: gives, and is therefore male.
Souls can only receive from God and are therefore female.
Yet, when a soul has united, become one, with God, then that soul that was once female is effectively now a male.
That female soul, not body, which has become male by becoming one with God is then able to give spiritually to others who can, as of yet, only receive and are still female whether they are in a male or female body.
See?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
beyond the twilight zone..............
beyond the twilight zone..............
I suppose critics of the canonized gospels and NT in general, in various passages could say the same thing towards it. As far as 'religious fiction' and 'mythology' goes, scriptures (of many different and varied religious cult-ures) may carry a fair share, so how one discerns what has spiritual wisdom or value from what does not, is up to the reader and his 'interpretation' thereof.
We of a more liberal eclectic scope, can enjoy and glean from multiple texts, not just those sanctioned as 'orthodox' by the self-appointed 'orthodox', since you cant contain or restrict the breath of God, and its 'breadth' goes much further than standard assumptions.
pj
beyond the twilight zone..............
I suppose critics of the canonized gospels and NT in general, in various passages could say the same thing towards it. As far as 'religious fiction' and 'mythology' goes, scriptures (of many different and varied religious cult-ures) may carry a fair share, so how one discerns what has spiritual wisdom or value from what does not, is up to the reader and his 'interpretation' thereof.
We of a more liberal eclectic scope, can enjoy and glean from multiple texts, not just those sanctioned as 'orthodox' by the self-appointed 'orthodox', since you cant contain or restrict the breath of God, and its 'breadth' goes much further than standard assumptions.
pj
JosephR
New member
Most critics would regard the Gospel of St John as late, because it could not have such esoteric meanings in the writings .... I wouldn't be so fast to take on others options before you take time to make your own.
After the discovery of Q, many began to say that the idea of a "sayings gospel" was ridiculous. Then came the discovery of Thomas.
Both gospels--Q and Thomas--were basically the same length.
Neither one has anything to say about the crucifixion or the Resurrection. They were basically manuals of Jesus' teachings.
Aimiel
Well-known member
... was neither Gospel OR written by Thomas! :duh:
JosephR
New member
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Where is your 'evidence' ?
Where is your 'evidence' ?
There is no conclusive or absolute evidence that the persons whose names were attached to the 4 canonical gospels were the actual authors of the books attributed to them. While some may have more traditional/historical testimonial support by some early notables, still....you take it by 'faith' and 'tradition' that these persons actually wrote these works. (no one really knows). Furthermore, they could have been written by disciples of these persons (or persons associated by the same school affiliation), or just be mere traditional or attributed 'assumptions',....that the faith community just 'took for granted'. - take your pick.
Also, the so called "Q" document is hypothetical, or if any other 'sayings collection' existed (or may yet be discovered), while the GoT is an example of an early 'sayings collection' of Jesus teaching. While the GoT can be challenged by various persons or on certain points,....so can the canonicals. Just because some books made it into the 'church sanctioned' NT (via their canonization process)...doesn't make those book 'authentic', yet merely 'traditionally accepted' by believers in that tradition. We might note the 'distinction'.
pj
Where is your 'evidence' ?
There is no conclusive or absolute evidence that the persons whose names were attached to the 4 canonical gospels were the actual authors of the books attributed to them. While some may have more traditional/historical testimonial support by some early notables, still....you take it by 'faith' and 'tradition' that these persons actually wrote these works. (no one really knows). Furthermore, they could have been written by disciples of these persons (or persons associated by the same school affiliation), or just be mere traditional or attributed 'assumptions',....that the faith community just 'took for granted'. - take your pick.
Also, the so called "Q" document is hypothetical, or if any other 'sayings collection' existed (or may yet be discovered), while the GoT is an example of an early 'sayings collection' of Jesus teaching. While the GoT can be challenged by various persons or on certain points,....so can the canonicals. Just because some books made it into the 'church sanctioned' NT (via their canonization process)...doesn't make those book 'authentic', yet merely 'traditionally accepted' by believers in that tradition. We might note the 'distinction'.
pj
Aimiel
Well-known member
There is no conclusive or absolute evidence of anything. ANYTHING. All we have are suppositions and things made evident by study, tidbits of evidence and understanding. The evidence of the Gospels themselves as well as all extraneous evidence speaking of the four evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) all point to them being the actual authors. What there is NO evidence of is that they were written by others. You should read Dr. Simon Greenleaf's book, "The Testimony of the Evangelists, Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice," which takes every shred of evidence provided ONLY by the four Gospels and proves (according to the rules of evidence in jurisprudence) that They are authentic. Dr. Greenleaf was a professor of law at Harvard Law School and one of the founders of Harvard and considered the world's foremost authority on legal evidence.
Yes, I do, just as you take the nonsense you believe on faith and tradition. Your false gods have far less proof in print and far fewer collaborators than The God of Scripture.
Read Dr. Greenleaf's book. They provide far more proof than you've suspected.
The main distinction I see is that the Gospels lend to Truth and wholly agree with The Holy Scriptures. God knew what would end up in authorized translations and didn't mis-spell a single Word.
:thumb:
Hello unknown, nice thread, (and thanks to freelight for pointing me here).
Hi JosephR,
Yes, there is so much that can be discussed from just this one passage, it is truly as unknown said in some of the opening remarks quoted herein above, "hours and hours of teaching for years sometimes, are summed up in phrases and even one word for some teachings." I have divided this response into several separate posts so that hopefully my reply will not be deemed "too lengthy" by those who seem to care so much about the length of the posts of their perceived "enemies", (from previous experience here already). I had studied the Mishkan Tabernacle for quite some time before I ever came to the realization of the things which follow below and must say that these things did not begin to fully click until I came upon Thomas #19. If it were not for this passage I doubt I would have ever understood these things the way I do now:
Exodus 26:36-37
36. And you shall make a screen-curtain for the door of the Ohel-Tent, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, the work of the embroiderer.
37. And you shall make for the screen-curtain five pillars of shittiym-acacia-thornwood, and shall overlay them with gold: their hooks shall be of gold: and you shall cast five 'adney-['eden]-sockets of brass for them.