What's so secret about the secret gospels?

[Medicine*Woman]

************
M*W: Did Jesus have a twin brother? Are these really Jesus' sayings? Is the Gospel of Thomas really a 'secret' gospel? When Jesus was still alive, he said such things cryptically and compelling, as follows:

"Jesus said, 'If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.'"

~ The Gospel of Thomas

Those who know Jesus as a Christian, really don't know Jesus. Those who know Jesus as a Gnostic, understand the sayings of Jesus. The New Testament Gospels condemn the gnosis. The Gnostic Gospels save the ones with gnosis.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

itopal: But it is farce; merely making it up as you/they feel/felt it?
*************
M*W: No, this is the actual words of Jesus recorded in the Gospel of Thomas.

I don't care if it was Jesus' twin brother or not.

 

[Joeman]

Jesus is a myth; not a historical person; that is what is true; and a Gospel can claim truth; anyone can claim anything - but if doesn't exist elsewhere outside the claim (religion) - it is myth.

Gnosis by definition - is self granted authority; the mythical process of intuitive knowledge of spiritual truths by introspection and meditation.

Gnosis is achieving full understanding of the "Logos". Logos doesn't just mean word like "Rhema" but is a very loaded word. Look up online to know the difference between the two. The concept of Logos come from the Greeks but is later used by the Gnostics.

Gnostics don't even believe Jesus ever existed; he was not a material (flesh) thing - and any mention of crucifixion is false to them - you can't crucify what does not have a body - mere illusion.

Saying Gnostics don't believe jesus ever existed is like saying All Christians believe in water baptism for infants. There are many different types of Gnostics.

The origin of the Gospel of Thomas; through Gnosis; simple divining words into the mouth of a name:Jesus; to the Catholics was considered heretical; because it denied major tenets of their dogma and doctrine - that is why they slaughtered approximately 1 million Gnostic Cathars.

Many early Gnostics believe that Jesus was a real person and was a Gnostic teacher. Most scholars think part of GOT is authentic. There are many passages in the bible that gave clues that Jesus maybe was a Gnostic teacher. One example is the part about Jesus speaking in parable to the public and explain everything in full only to believers. That is exactly what the Gnostics do.

My feeling about the Gospel of Thomas is that it does not matter if it is myth; the quality of the spirituality is the truth; if you can find some therein - and not any claim to history.

In the begining, it says "those are the living words of Jesus recorded by his twin Thomas." I don't think living words mean myth that people invented.

 

[Leo Volont]

************
M*W: Did Jesus have a twin brother?

No. Jesus did not have a twin brother. He had a cousin that looked alot like him. You see, Anne, Mary's Mother, had had another daughter 18 years older than Mary. That daughter had a daughter who was about the same age as Mary. They both gave birth to boys at about the same time. After a sojourn in Egypt, little Jesus and this little Thomas grew up together. They became known as the "twins". Already we know that Aramaic does not have a word for cousin and calls all extended family members of the same generation "brother". They did not have isolated nuclear families as we do. Their Society had as the basic social unit the Extented Family. 'Mom and Dad' were not the head of the household, but Great Grandpa and Great Grandma. Siblings were not singled out and separated, cousins and nephews all mixed together.

 

[duendy]

okaaaay, gather ye round, and pull yer chairs closer to the fire. i got a story to tell you....a story that gets down to the nitty gritty of it...about old Jesus...are you sittin comytable?...good i'll begin

the reaaaal twin of Jeezus, wans't no thomas or whatever, it was the DEVIL! Yes, it were Old Nick himself

you see...pull em closer. Jesus wasn't no man you seee. he was the pharmakon--the sacrament....he were an hallucinogen.you EAt him. don't larrrf, it be the truth. the Devil was the pharmakos--the scapegoat. the scapegaots created when the ploicians tell ye yer not to HAAAVe the sacrament no more. then the pharamakon becomes words and a ghost. a deity.Then there has to be an explantion of the discontent--the fear and resentment and need and misery and unhappiness that haaapen once the ecstasyi take....the opression and the oppressors need to tell ye NOtHEr stry i. and they came up with Old Nick. that way all your fears goes into his character...you see

so we have Jesus Christ now up there and his twin the Devil down here....and also , look at your left shoulder, and your right. there they are again

now....do ye haaaave any questions?
'crackle crackle' goes the fire

 

[geistkiesel]

Jesus is a myth; not a historical person; that is what is true; and a Gospel can claim truth; anyone can claim anything - but if doesn't exist elsewhere outside the claim (religion) - it is myth.

Gnosis by definition - is self granted authority; the mythical process of intuitive knowledge of spiritual truths by introspection and meditation.

Gnostics don't even believe Jesus ever existed; he was not a material (flesh) thing - and any mention of crucifixion is false to them - you can't crucify what does not have a body - mere illusion.

The origin of the Gospel of Thomas; through Gnosis; simple divining words into the mouth of a name:Jesus; to the Catholics was considered heretical; because it denied major tenets of their dogma and doctrine - that is why they slaughtered approximately 1 million Gnostic Cathars.

My feeling about the Gospel of Thomas is that it does not matter if it is myth; the quality of the spirituality is the truth; if you can find some therein - and not any claim to history.

How do you get to "this is true" when you said that J was not a histporical figure? I bet you include that roman records are void of any crucifixion in that era that would dovetail with J's event. I agree, there was no crucifxtion, only a sham trial and execution that got a lot of publicity at the time. J tho wasn't like Marlon Brando or Elizebeth Taylor, both household names. In MMLJ Pilate declfres J innocent of criminal activity , then sufddenly he reverses: "Whack him". sure.

Gnostics were slaughtered for the same reason Jews were slaughtered. It filled a political need while erradicating a political competitor. Are you familiar with the Holy Cross Holy Grail or The Gods of Eden? The most rational story I have heard is that J claimed blood in the line of David which would nmake J King of the Jews. Yet there was alreasy a Jewish political system that was not geared to replacing the dogmatic with words from a stranger.

If J were proved to be other than devine ,would Pope John Paul II send out a memeo: "Lock it up everyone, we've made a mistake, J wasn't devine"? If you prove this to JP II you don't leave the Vatical grounds alive.

Geistkiesel

 

[Medicine*Woman]

geistkiesel: I agree, there was no crucifxtion, only a sham trial and execution that got a lot of publicity at the time. J tho wasn't like Marlon Brando or Elizebeth Taylor, both household names. In MMLJ Pilate declfres J innocent of criminal activity , then sufddenly he reverses: "Whack him". sure.
*************
M*W: I believe confusion was created by Paul whose earlier writings about J influenced the writings of MMLJ. There was the man called Jesus Bar Abbas (Jesus, Son of the Father) who was crucified instead of Jesus, Son of God. The man who died was neither holy nor divine. The Jesus who got away due to MM's and Joseph of Arimathea's influence with Pilate, set Jesus free. This Jesus was a simple rabbi who did not profess another religion.
*************
geistkiesel: Are you familiar with the Holy Cross Holy Grail or The Gods of Eden?
*************
M*W: I read The Gods of Eden a long time ago, but I've read everything I can get hold of on the bloodline of J's descendants.
*************
geistkiesel: If J were proved to be other than devine ,would Pope John Paul II send out a memeo: "Lock it up everyone, we've made a mistake, J wasn't devine"? If you prove this to JP II you don't leave the Vatical grounds alive.
*************
M*W: J wasn't even determined to be divine until almost 400 AD by the early church fathers! For 1,600 years the lie has been perpetuated by the Church. I feel quite sure JPII has heard the rumors, but his job is to sell the lie of salvation to the ignorant masses. If J existed at all, the most he could be remembered for is that he was MM's husband.