Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
RabidMongoose

Jesus and Thomas

76 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RabidMongoose
Posted (edited)

While it goes against traditional Christian Morality, in the Book of Thomas Jesus said the following:

Quote 1: Jesus said `if you fast you will give rise to sin for yourselves. If you pray you will be condemned. If you give alms you will do harm to your spirit. 

Interpretation: As the receiver, intentionally denying ourselves food (which God has provided) is a sin. Our job is to totally receive whatever God gives us. Wishing for God to change the way things are gets us dammed. Our job is to receive whatever God provides for us not to wish for change. Giving money or food to poor people ruins our spiritual nature. Our job is to totally receive what God provides for us not to give it away. It is not intended for others but ourselves.

Quote 2: Jesus saw babies suckling and said `these infants being suckled are like those who enter the Kingdom. When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and female one and the same, then you will enter the Kingdom.

Interpretation: The first duality that arose from non-duality had two polar opposites which were receiving and giving. We are the receivers and our job is to totally receive what God gives us. To rise to the Upper realm we have to become the same as God too. So we totally receive everything that God sends our way with the intention of doing so to provide pleasure, satisfaction, and fulfilment back to God which is the giver. Then we have become the receiver and giver at the same time, we have unified two back into one.

Quote 3: Jesus said `a city being built on a high mountain and fortified cannot fall, nor can it be hidden`. 

Interpretation: When we become receiver and giver at the same time we ascend and stand out in the world.

Quote 4: Jesus said `it is not possible for anyone to enter the house of a strong man and take it by force unless he binds his hands`

Interpretation: You can only be removed from the upper realm if you allow yourself to be prevented from totally receiving what God provides in order to give back to God pleasure, satisfaction, and fulfilment.

Quote 5: Jesus said `the Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (Gnosis) and hidden them. They have not entered themselves, and they prevent other people from entering. You have to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.`

Interpretation: The serpent represents the gaining of wisdom of good and evil. We have been lied to about what is good and evil. Good is receiving and enjoying all that God provides us, evil is denying ourselves it.

Quote 6: Jesus said `whoever has something in his hand will receive more, and whoever has nothing will be deprived of even the little he has`

Interpretation: The universe mirrors back to us what we are, what we do, what we have, what we lack, etc. If you have nothing the universe mirrors back experiences to you which continue to leave you with nothing. If you have lots (and keep it for yourself instead of giving it away to the needy) then the universe mirrors back experiences where you continue to have lots while those without continue to lack it.

Quote 7: Jesus said `if two make peace with each other in this one house, they will say to the mountain move away and it will move away`

Interpretation: Unifying the receiving and giving forces back into one by totally receiving and enjoying everything to give pleasure, satisfaction, and fulfilment back to the giver, gives us the power to influence reality.

Quote 8: Jesus said `blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will find the Kingdom.`

Interpretation: The lonely and the politicians both get to see how people are only interested in their own egos. They dont totally receive all pleasures God provides them, their concern is only about receiving what their egos want. There is no consideration for the needs of others which includes God the giver.

Quote 9: Jesus said `when you know yourself, you will become known`

Interpretation: If you know yourself then the universe mirrors it back to you with experiences where you become known.

If you get the above, then enjoy!

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Assuming you quoted correctly Interpretation is up to each person, you posted yours which is far from the only Interpretation.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King

If the author was even the least bit competent, there wouldn't be any need for interpretation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
agnuhC

"My Boss is the Boss' son and that makes for a real long day" ~Old Country Song. Perhaps one would be wise to consider the source cautiously when reviewing what the Son of God said.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

If the author was even the least bit competent, there wouldn't be any need for interpretation.

If it's in a different language the translator will substitute words and there is both a Greek and Slavic "Thomas". I've seen 2 different variations of the Greek one. 

Other than that, Thomas is very late gnostic thought and was never written by him. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists

Gospel of St. Thomas - Who Wrote It?
Scholars aren't sure who wrote the Gospel of St. Thomas. The first lines of the text refer to "didymos Judas thomas" as the author. The word "didymos" is Greek for twin and the word "thomas" is Aramaic for twin. It appears the author's name was Judas, and his nickname was "the twin" (set forth in two languages). The canonical Gospels of the Holy Bible mention a man named Thomas, who John called "didymos thomas." There are also several people named Judas mentioned in the New Testament other than the well-known Judas Iscariot. There is no mention of a Judas in the New Testament who was also nicknamed Thomas, "the twin."

https://www.gospel-of-st-thomas.com

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
22 minutes ago, Piney said:

If it's in a different language the translator will substitute words and there is both a Greek and Slavic "Thomas". I've seen 2 different variations of the Greek one. 

Other than that, Thomas is very late gnostic thought and was never written by him. 

True. Though I was mainly speaking to the assertion that such texts were "divinely inspired by God." If a god of some kind wrote it, language translations wouldnt require human interpretation. It'd be clear as day.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
Posted (edited)

I don`t believe in any of those late writing books about Jesus , only of the four Gospels books of the Bible. :)

four-gospels.jpg

 

Edited by docyabut2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
Posted (edited)

 I believe John and Mark of the Bible were the same person, he was Jesus`s cousin.  

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
2 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

There is no mention of a Judas in the New Testament who was also nicknamed Thomas, "the twin."

Jude 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
2 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

I don`t believe in any of those late writing books about Jesus , only of the four Gospels books of the Bible. :)

That's because you don't know anything about the history of your magic book

  • Like 3
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
1 minute ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

That's because you don't know anything about the history of your magic book

know about it all:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
1 minute ago, docyabut2 said:

know about it all:)

Then you know about all the other gospels, the q document, the basis for Matthew and Luke. The diatessaron, the early tradition gospels and the stories they tell.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
3 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

Know about it all:) do you know at the end of the Bible it  was a copy right,  it gives a cruse to anyone adding or taken away from the book in its all old ways of the writings of books :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

its shows that four-gospels.jpgmatthew and luke were the only ones that contributed  to Rome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
4 hours ago, Aquila King said:

True. Though I was mainly speaking to the assertion that such texts were "divinely inspired by God." If a god of some kind wrote it, language translations wouldnt require human interpretation. It'd be clear as day.

Strange comment. All writings are subject to interpretations, even all words individually. Words only mean what people understand them to mean, the entire practice of law is really a matter of interpretation of words. There is no way any discourse can be "clear as day", and especially after 2000 years of Chinese whispers, translations and amendments.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Strange comment. All writings are subject to interpretations, even all words individually. Words only mean what people understand them to mean, the entire practice of law is really a matter of interpretation of words. There is no way any discourse can be "clear as day", and especially after 2000 years of Chinese whispers, translations and amendments.

"Rape, torture, and slavery are evil. Don't ever do it."

Show me multiple legitimate rational yet mutually exclusive interpretations of that ^ for me, and maybe I'll consider your premise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
2 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

"Rape, torture, and slavery are evil. Don't ever do it."

Show me multiple legitimate rational yet mutually exclusive interpretations of that ^ for me, and maybe I'll consider your premise.

Easy. The definition of rape has changed somewhat over time. Once there was no rape in marriage, it was just claiming a right. Torture has many interpretations, what would be torture in one context, would be lawful restraint or coercion, or even highly commended, if torture managed to extract information that saved the lives of thousands. Slavery, some would say people working for subsistence pay under poor working conditions, in many parts of the world, are effectively slaves. You want black and white, in a world of grey.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

Hey all do you believe all that crap is true out of the books in the Bible of Jesus ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
5 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

Hey all do you believe all that crap is true out of the books in the Bible of Jesus ?

Please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Please explain.

just explaining the most truth writings about Jesus.  not like all those other writings are so wrong like this one and the addictions :(

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Easy. The definition of rape has changed somewhat over time. Once there was no rape in marriage, it was just claiming a right. Torture has many interpretations, what would be torture in one context, would be lawful restraint or coercion, or even highly commended, if torture managed to extract information that saved the lives of thousands. Slavery, some would say people working for subsistence pay under poor working conditions, in many parts of the world, are effectively slaves. You want black and white, in a world of grey.

What I "want" doesn't matter. What matters is what is. And there is an objective truth to reality independent of anyone's words, thoughts, beliefs, or deeds.

Sexually penetrating a woman without her consent is rape, restraining someone and causing them physical bodily harm against their will is torture, and owning another human being as property is slavery - and they're all morally wrong, period.

What you're doing isn't "interpreting" my words, you're using semantics to try and muddy the words clear as day definitions so as to meet your needs. It's petty linguistic nihilism dressed up as an intellectual argument. Taken to it's logical conclusion, "all words change over time and can have multiple meanings, all words are then open to interpretation, there are a few cases here and there where the meaning of certain words can seem ambiguous within that specific context, therefore no one can ever truly know what any words or sentences mean because everything is always up to the individual's interpretation." Taken to your argument's logical conclusion, objective truth can never ever be expressed through language, which means truth can never be expressed much less known.

No. Not everything is up for interpretation. Sometimes a word or sentence has only one clearly defined meaning, and any deviation from that is simply an intentional attempt to cause confusion over something that isn't confusing at all. A cat is a cat, a dog is a dog, water is water, rape is rape, torture is torture, and slavery is slavery. Just because there can potentially be some ambiguity regarding these things in very specific instances here and there, does not make the 90% or so of these words' real world associated counterparts any less clear.

Just because you can question a few rape cases in regards to "what is and is not considered consent," does not mean that those which clearly do count as rape aren't clearly what the word means - rape. In other words, the existence of a few cases that are ambiguous do not negate the core established meaning of the word.

We don't dissect every single word someone says to us as having multiple meanings. If we did, communication would become impossible. Sometimes their meaning can be ambiguous, but most of the time it's as clear as day. 911 operators couldn't do their job otherwise. Nor could your boss giving you orders. Some words and phrases are more ambiguous than others, some are not. But not literally everything is up for interpretation. Sometimes you're own personal "interpretation" is just flat out wrong. That's just how the world works.

I'm so sick to death of people using every lame excuse they can so as to deny objective reality in place of whatever bulls**t they wanna believe. This is just another example of it. Deligitimize all language as "up for interpretation" and you can insert whatever outright bulls**t you want into the senseless void that you just created.

Anyway, I'm tired and going to bed. I'm just getting overall exhausted with all of this nonsense lately...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
9 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Quote 2: Jesus saw babies suckling and said `these infants being suckled are like those who enter the Kingdom. When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and female one and the same, then you will enter the Kingdom.

Interpretation: The first duality that arose from non-duality had two polar opposites which were receiving and giving. We are the receivers and our job is to totally receive what God gives us. To rise to the Upper realm we have to become the same as God too. So we totally receive everything that God sends our way with the intention of doing so to provide pleasure, satisfaction, and fulfilment back to God which is the giver. Then we have become the receiver and giver at the same time, we have unified two back into one.

I don't see that as being the meaning of it, I take it as advice that all worldliness had to be abandoned, all discernment, all discrimination, to the point that you become like a baby, that cares and knows nothing of such things, the baby does not identify with gender, ethnicity, even what species it belongs to. Then you are a candidate to receive the Divine influx, when you have put the clutter of a lifetime into storage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
9 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

What I "want" doesn't matter. What matters is what is. And there is an objective truth to reality independent of anyone's words, thoughts, beliefs, or deeds.

Sexually penetrating a woman without her consent is rape, restraining someone and causing them physical bodily harm against their will is torture, and owning another human being as property is slavery - and they're all morally wrong, period.

What you're doing isn't "interpreting" my words, you're using semantics to try and muddy the words clear as day definitions so as to meet your needs. It's petty linguistic nihilism dressed up as an intellectual argument. Taken to it's logical conclusion, "all words change over time and can have multiple meanings, all words are then open to interpretation, there are a few cases here and there where the meaning of certain words can seem ambiguous within that specific context, therefore no one can ever truly know what any words or sentences mean because everything is always up to the individual's interpretation." Taken to your argument's logical conclusion, objective truth can never ever be expressed through language, which means truth can never be expressed much less known.

No. Not everything is up for interpretation. Sometimes a word or sentence has only one clearly defined meaning, and any deviation from that is simply an intentional attempt to cause confusion over something that isn't confusing at all. A cat is a cat, a dog is a dog, water is water, rape is rape, torture is torture, and slavery is slavery. Just because there can potentially be some ambiguity regarding these things in very specific instances here and there, does not make the 90% or so of these words' real world associated counterparts any less clear.

Just because you can question a few rape cases in regards to "what is and is not considered consent," does not mean that those which clearly do count as rape aren't clearly what the word means - rape. In other words, the existence of a few cases that are ambiguous do not negate the core established meaning of the word.

We don't dissect every single word someone says to us as having multiple meanings. If we did, communication would become impossible. Sometimes their meaning can be ambiguous, but most of the time it's as clear as day. 911 operators couldn't do their job otherwise. Nor could your boss giving you orders. Some words and phrases are more ambiguous than others, some are not. But not literally everything is up for interpretation. Sometimes you're own personal "interpretation" is just flat out wrong. That's just how the world works.

I'm so sick to death of people using every lame excuse they can so as to deny objective reality in place of whatever bulls**t they wanna believe. This is just another example of it. Deligitimize all language as "up for interpretation" and you can insert whatever outright bulls**t you want into the senseless void that you just created.

Anyway, I'm tired and going to bed. I'm just getting overall exhausted with all of this nonsense lately...

In practical reality, legal arguments and cases go on interminably, because words are not precise, if you want precision, be a mathematician.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Habitat said:

In practical reality, legal arguments and cases go on interminably, because words are not precise, if you want precision, be a mathematician.

You and I rarely agree, but you win this round. Natural language is subject to interpretation.

The 'rape' example: The law student's nutshell definition of rape is carnal knowledge, forced and unlawful. (Actually, law students remember those elements in a different order, but in that memorable order there is an acronym which recalls a four letter word which won't be uttered here on a family forum). Carnal knowledge alone is worth a volume (can a man rape another man?). Unlawful has already come up: used to be that everything sexual within marriage was lawful, but not so much lately. Obviously, the law changes and differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Speaking of which, there is statutory rape, where "force" is not an issue, on the theory that the victim is too young to consent as a matter of law - and that age is? Depending on when and where, and depending on who else might give consent in what context (parents for the purpose of making a legal marriage), pick a number, usually two digits and less than the age to become a representative in the legislature. 

And that just scratches the surface. Good thing we didn't pick torture. Is waterboarding torture? To hear some people tell it, it's the thinking person's alternative to torture. Good clean fun, eh?

Closer to the topic, there are "spiritual books" whose very point (and the demonstration of the authors' competence) is to elicit interpretation, with no single fixed interpretation. The I Ching would be an example. Quite a bit of secular poetry falls under that category, too. Multiple layers of meaning, and not a fixed interpretation, are features, not bugs, in poetry. Also diplomacy.

BTW,

Quote

... acronym ... a four letter word which won't be uttered here on a family forum.

is, in context, an exact description of a single word to the exclusion of all others. You know what word I mean, and you are correct. But you can't know that except that you perfomed a feat of interpretation.

BUT finally, mathematics? The words change there, too. The defintion of continuous function used as the foundation of the ordinary calculus was deficient, as revealed by counterexamples discovered centuries after the defective defintiion had been universally adopted. "Proof" also varies over time, and to some extent among mathematical communities.

Like everything else that arises through natural selection, natural language is good enough that some people survive long enough to get their children set up more or less OK, and not much better than it needs to be to accomplish that.

Edited by eight bits
grammar, spelling - wouldn't want to be interpreted wrongly
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.