The mixing of religious and non-religious beliefs in an individual.

Jesus on the gender dichotomy

Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the (Father's) kingdom."

They said to him, "Then shall we enter the (Father's) kingdom as babies?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

- Thomas 22

This is my favorite quote attributed to good ol yeshua ben yosef, because it neatly presents non-dualism in a western context. God is by definition larger than any dichotomy we would try and stuff hir in - larger than male/female, larger than good/evil, larger than form/void, subject/object of experience, etc. To enter the kingdom of god, we must strive to transcend these dichotomies, recognizing ourselves as simultaneously male and female, good and evil, matter and spirit etc.

http://www.redefinegod.com/forum/topics/anima-magnetism

http://www.redefinegod.com/forum/topics/your-shadow-knows

Comment by Jeff H on October 18, 2009 at 8:14pm: The Gospel of Thomas wasn't the work of anyone familiar with the teaching of Christ, or it wouldn't have so many contradictions with both Authoritative New Testament writing, and the Old Testament.

Comment by gneognostic on October 19, 2009 at 2:57pm: ok, this discussion is in some serious need of facts...

the gospel of thomas shares many of its parables in common with the synoptic gospels. There are two widely accepted explanations for this:

a) the author of thomas borrowed material from mark (as did luke and matt.)
b) the author borrowed material from an earlier source. Since thomas is a "sayings gospel", it's likely to have been an early collection of sayings. My guess is the non-extant proto mark. Papias, when he described mark in the 1st century, said it was a collection of sayings of jesus, imparted by way of peter, without any narrative or exposition. This, of course, cannot be the modern gospel of mark: modern mark was probably written a good 50-75 years later. Some evidence for this is that, where thomas agrees with the synoptics, thomas is generally more concise, and it's been the general consensus among bible scholars for hundreds of years that the pithier works tend to be more original, as later copiers like luke and matt. tended to be wordier.

So claiming that thomas was the work of someone unfamiliar with the teachings of christ is a fairly ludicrous statement. Either way, it was written by someone intimately familiar with early christian texts.

I dispute your ability to capitalize the word authoritative and make it true. early christianity was very spiritually diverse, you had docetics, ebionites, early johannites, and pauline christians running around the eastern mediterranean. You had folks insisting that jesus was all spirit, or all matter, or both in two persons, and the doctrine of the trinity was still several hundred years of arguing away. they all had their own gospels, and their own apostolic succession etc, and in historical retrospect none of them are any more convincing than the others.

Also, in terms of contradictions with the old testament, I suspect you should see a doctor about that beam in your eye - all christian writings, by proposing a divided god and a god-man, represent a huge theological departure from the torah, with it's emphasis on the oneness of god, the separation between man and god, and the resounding emphasis on the noachide covenant. To jews, in the first centuries ce and today, christianity is a broken attempt to compromise judaism with platonism.

Comment by Jeff H on October 19, 2009 at 3:54pm: The last first... In the clearly Messianic prophecy found at Isaiah 9:6, we find "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." In this and many other writing, both in Old and New Testament, we find the Son equated with the Father.

The Apostles and all the early Church Leaders appointed and closely associated with them didn't hold any of the heretical extremes you mention. The Gospel of Thomas isn't in concert with the writings accepted by the early Church and they were closer to the source then you or I. It may plagiarize parables, but it is fundamentally devoid of truth.

Comment by gneognostic on October 19, 2009 at 6:25pm: As I said, all the early christianities, heterodox and otherwise, claimed apostolic succession, none of them more convincingly than others. by "early church leaders" or "the early Church" you seem to mean the pauline proto-orthodoxy of the first few centuries, and yes, by all means, the heterodox gospels are not in line with that particular faith. but, of course, all the other christianities had their own churches, their own patristic epistles, gospels, history etc. they labeled the paulines heretical right back. Saying thomas is devoid of truth because it disagrees with people you agree with is logically empty.

“He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all” -STC

Comment by PH214 Youstbi Djuanvat on October 20, 2009 at 1:08am: Dear gneognostic,

I like the quotation: “He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all” -STC.

My question about this fight among christians, "Is this fight necessary?". Do we really need to know and prove who is right and who is wrong? There is no religion on this planet that their followers fighting each other more than Christianity. If you don't believe me, go to any christian video in youtube. you will see how many christians try to prove that they are the right one and other christians must learn from them.

One time, I saw a flame debates just over a christian music video just because the singer in the video is wearing short skirt and tight t-shirt. Another time, I saw a flame debates about can christians use drums in their worship service or not. If Jesus is walking now, what would you guys think when he hear this?

Does it matter which christianity is right, which one is wrong?

Comment by doug on October 20, 2009 at 5:43am: There will always be people who proclaim "other" gospels are worth our time and consideration...because they "tickle" our ears and are often esoteric. This reminds me of the "Essene Gospel of Jesus" and the "Urantia". Both of which I read many years ago, and kept in my library until I felt the spirit of God caused me to get rid of them...they had some truth, but they also had a fair share of "leaven". We are instructed to always be wise and are to follow Jesus (of the Bible...since it is cohesive) as our guide...since he holds all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2.3). I can't prove that they were "no good", but when you allign yourself with the Bible and with Jesus, you eventually know what is right and wrong, and what is worth holding on to...and also what should be discounted and ignored.

I'm with you on this one, Jeff.

Saying that Luke and Matthew borrowed from Mark may have its roots in scholarly research, but I believe it discounts the inspiration of the Holy Spirit...and I don't buy into it nor accept it. Scholarly research in these matters is often little more than fluff.

Comment by Roman Kozlowski on October 20, 2009 at 12:56pm: In the Book of Enoch, the White bull is Adam; Female heifer is Eve.

Comment by PH214 Youstbi Djuanvat on October 20, 2009 at 2:27pm: Dear doug,

Most conservative christians who fight each other are aligning themselves with bible alone. The war within Christianity isn't liberal vs conservative only. Even among Conservatives they have disagreements and debates, each of them exclusively claim "Holy Spirit tells me", "Spirit of God is with me", "God told me", "The bible says" but many of their beliefs are against each other. My question is, "does it matter to prove you are right biblically to other fellow christians?" What do you feel if they try to correct your beliefs using bible, saying that you are wrong?

Youstbi

Comment by Jeff H on October 20, 2009 at 2:58pm: Youstbi,

I believe that the reason the Alexander enjoyed his success was God wanted the New Testament written in Greek. It is the most precise language in its time. Studied in context, there is next to no wiggle room in scripture. It says what it says, and a person has to work very hard to make it say something else.

I posted a blog on Scriptural interpertation a long time ago on RG. Here is the link... http://www.redefinegod.com/profiles/blogs/855906:BlogPost:30702

Comment by Jeff H on October 20, 2009 at 3:10pm: Gneo…

You said “Saying thomas is devoid of truth because it disagrees with people you agree with is logically empty.”

Thomas, when compared to the Old Testament let alone the New, is full of doctrinal holes and errors. It’s just plain trash. God, like true logic, is consistent. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Thomas teaches this opposed to earlier teachings. Therein we separate wheat from chaff, leaven from unleavened. Let us remember the faithful teaching, “A little leaven raises the whole lump”. The supposed gospel of Thomas has more then a little leaven.

You said ““He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all”

I Love Christ, not Christianity. Jesus said “I am the Truth”, so in loving Christ I am loving the Truth as well.