Gospel of Thomas analysis

[Good1]

(13)

(1) Jesus said to his disciples: “Compare me, and tell me whom I am like.”
(2) Simon Peter said to him: “You are like a just messenger.”
(3) Matthew said to him: “You are like an (especially) wise philosopher.”
(4) Thomas said to him: “Teacher, my mouth cannot bear at all to say whom you are like.”
(5) Jesus said: “I am not your teacher. For you have drunk, you have become intoxicated at the bubbling spring that I have measured out.”
(6) And he took him, (and) withdrew, (and) he said three words to him.
(7) But when Thomas came back to his companions, they asked him: “What did Jesus say to you?”
(8) Thomas said to them: “If I tell you one of the words he said to me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me, and fire will come out of the stones (and) burn you up.”

This one is authentic, according to my sources. I will tell later what those three things were that Jesus told Thomas privately.

Note Thomas' answer was the best, coming directly from a mind more ready for knowledge. That is, knowledge was the immediate teacher, while, Jesus words were secondary.

Note also that if this is true, there is some basis for rivalries between his students, and, more astonishing, some of his students were still so Jewish in their frame of mind, not only could they not understand but worse, they might even take up stones against whom they deemed to be blasphemers. This suggests they were of the type of ground not yet ready to receive the seed of knowledge, and so, could not be told everything, especially those things Jews considered to be blasphemous.

This may also explain why Thomas' gospel did not get included in the popular collection, and why those collections disparage Thomas as a slow learner. Actually, he was among the top three in the entire class.

Best answer: Words cannot describe what knowledge knows as the Self. This is because words are products of faith, within the domain of imagination. Knowledge is beyond the bounds of imagination, and so, beyond man"s lexicon.

 

[Good1]

A talk from Yale University:

Yes, Judah or Judas was his name, and Thomas and/or Didymus was his nickname, meaning "twin".

No, not because he was an actual twin (blood brother), nor anybody elses twin, but because he looked like Jesus!

It's also important to note that this gospel was ditched/buried at a time when one brand of othodoxy was ascending. There was a lot of book burning going on in the years between 300-399 (fourth century). As we would expect, the winners write the history. There has always been a popular "gospel", and yet another "underground" so to speak. The division goes all the way back to the immediate followers of Jesus, who held different interpretations of everything they saw and heard.

The division between the popular students and Thomas can be seen in saying #13 above. The greatest division was in regards the meaning of the resurrection. Sure, Jesus may have walked out of a tomb, and appeared/didsappeared out of/into thin air thereafter. But what did it mean!
Thomas had the best idea, and was shunned by all other students, who, like good Jews, were looking for another, more robust body.

 

[Good1]

#14 offers a more direct answer to #6 :

" His disciples questioned him, (and) they said to him: “Do you want us to fast? And how should we pray and give alms? And what diet should we observe?”

Subverse #5 above expands on why "if you fast you will bring forth for yourselves sin".

It seems to mean that if you fast, you may mistake what is more important: the thoughts you think, those being the source of what comes out of your mouth. It implies that fasting is not enough to change your mind about what you think. This would make sense if sin was entirely psychological.

Likewise, if you ask for things for your body, you may never receive what you need for your mind, which is where salvation comes from (being entirely psychological). He may be saying there is something wrong with the way Jews typically pray. It implies that maybe meditation is better that traditional Jewish style prayer.

Likewise, if you give alms, you could completely lose track of what is important: a complete paradigm shift in the way you think. It implies that attempts to solve the problems of the world with money do not necessarily translate into psychological salvation.

All three, seen with a narrow vision, seem like good things. Its hard to argue that fasting, for example, is not good for the body. In other gospels, fasting is recommended to gain more needed spiritual power (for example, the power to cast out demons).

Personally, through general observation, i have not been convinced that fasting translates into knowledge, which is what is needed to overcome the psychological handicaps of faith (a state of ignorance). I am convinced, however, that meditation can translate into knowledge. Ironically, the most effective meditation is to maintain a thoughtless state of mind for as long as possible. This is because thinking is the same as believing, and believing is the same as eating. Thus, effective meditation is fasting from believing. Without believing anything, knowledge has a chance to fill one:s mind instead, being the only alternative to faith (believing, ignorance). This assumes the mind will be filled with one or the other, but not both. Therefore, there is no translation from foodlessness to knowledge unless the foodlessness is also supplemented with faithlessness (no thoughts, no beliefs). Salvation requires an empty mind (to be filled with knowledge), not an empty stomach. If, however, an empty stomach helps to empty ones mind, then perhaps it could be beneficial. If an empty mind is not the goal of foodlessness, then the mind can be even more confused about salvation, which is what is meant by going deeper into "sin".

Similar with giving. Giving must be sublimated to be effective upon ones state of mind. Forgiving is the most sublimated form of giving. Forgiveness is about giving, to everyone/everything the eyes can see, their original identity. For example, you can give bread to a man, or you can give the man 'Christ", as his true identity, reaching back before time even began. Even more effective, instead of seeing a man, you can see 'Christ" instead. This is much more powerful on the psychology of both parties than a loaf of bread. Its powerful because it affirms the reality of oneness among all participants. This presumes the reality of oneness solves all of mankind's problems. Money, or bread, does not convey, or translate to a knowledge of oneness. The giving of an idea, however, such as the idea of oneness (in "Christ"), is the basis of problem solving miracles.

This leads to subverse #4 which de-emphasizes the importance of any particular brand of food, or no food, and instead emphasizes the power to do miracles (for example, "heal the sick"), which is dependant more on a proper understanding of what it means to "give", or rather forgive. Forgiveness and healing (miracles) go hand in hand. In one scenario, you would overlook the man (woman, child, animal) and "see" "Christ" instead, standing there in all former glory. This links together your strong mind with the weak mind of the sick one, making it strong too, within the shared space of the one mind (mind of Christ). The strong mind is then able to '"heal" the body that is temporarily associated with it, healing itself so to speak. But it starts with giving strength to minds that have been weakened by faith in separation.

Basically, anything we do, which may seem good, that does not reinforce the psychological acceptance of the reality of oneness, beginning at the level of mind space (mind over matter), confuses us. It is the confusion, being "sin", which condemns or otherwise harms us, and prevents salvation. Knowledge, not faith, is the solution, specifically the knowledge of the oneness of Christ as Self beyond all appearances (bodies) which would suggest otherwise (bodies suggest separation). Forgiveness overlooks appearances, and gives this knowledge through mental telepathy.

 

[Good1]

(15) Jesus says:

“When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your face (and) worship him. That one is your Father.”

This emphasizes that our origins are pre-historic. We do not descend from Adam and Eve, but rather, a spiritual ancestry. This corroborates with one of the pop gospels which says, "Call no man your father". It's an effort, by the teacher, Jesus, to associate our origins, with his. As such, we are "one". This is also corroborated by another saying in one of the other pop gospels to the effect, "I go now to my father, and your father". This saying suggests that Jesus' father, and "our" father, are the same.

Authentic? I have doubts, because no man will ever "see" the Father, at least not with eyeballs. You can, however, with knowledge (not eyeballs), see enough of Christ that you can see your Self. You do not necessarily bow down to yourself, or any other equal. Jesus was about equality.


(16) Jesus says:

(1) “Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the earth.
(2) But they do not know that I have come to cast dissension upon the earth: fire, sword, war.
(3) For there will be five in one house: there will be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father.
(4) And they will stand as solitary ones.”

This could be because we do not all ascend to knowledge (from the pit of faith) at the same pace, not even within one's close family circle. Because of the bigotry of faith, people will not always react peacefully to anyone ascending to knowledge, let alone any other faith. Muslims, for example, risk the death of an apostate if they leave the faith and say anything against it. They could be killed by their own family. Even among the students of Jesus, he had to be careful what he told one (for example Thomas) versus the others, as they, still being Jews, were a little too trigger happy with their righteous stone throwing skills. Everybody is trying to interpret what Jesus was saying, and, any interpretation considered "blasphemy" risks injury, even among "family" and "friends". So controversial is the correct interpretation among the faith-full, one may need to leave his family to find a safe space in which to finish ascending to knowledge. This is NOT a suggestion to go out and conquer in the name of Christ. THAT is an interpretation of the faith-full (having no knowledge), and is an example of why this content is volatile. Those ascending to knowledge may need to go it alone, following a very narrow path, rather than the broad path.

 

[Good1]

(17) Jesus says:

“I will give you what no eye has seen, and what no ear has heard, and what no hand has touched, and what has not occurred to the human mind.”

This sounds authentic. A correct understanding, and acceptance of what Jesus was talking about, will reveal more than our lexicons and dictionaries can possibly describe. It is just not in the human vocabulary, having never occurred to a human mind. This is because the status of being human is evidence of active ignorance of the reality that precedes time. In describing that original reality, I prefer to use a term denoting astonishment: Christ!


(18)

(1) The disciples said to Jesus: “Tell us how our end will be.”
(2) Jesus said: “Have you already discovered the beginning that you are now asking about the end? For where the beginning is, there the end will be too.
(3) Blessed is he who will stand at the beginning. And he will know the end, and he will not taste death.”

He is saying they (his students) have not yet understood what really causes the "beginning" of mankind. The Hebrew scriptures talk about a "beginning", but it is misleading, even deceptive (Jesus said: your father was a liar since the 'beginning'). So no, Jews, and therefore Christians, have not yet understood why the world we seem to live in seems to begin. If we did understand, fully, we would know how the world will end. We need to truly understand how this mess starts in order to solve the ongoing problem. Further, the world ends just as soon as we understand how it begins, and make a new choice. It comes down to a choice, because that is how it begins. If we understood what the choice was between, we would be able to make the choice. Meanwhile, the world we seem to experience does everything it can to obscure what the choice really is all about. Finally, the end of the world is the end of death, because it is the end of change. Before the alleged "beginning", there was no such thing as change. The end of change is a return to perfection, which needs no change, and which is spoiled by change. The return to perfection does not depend upon a traditional death scenario, but rather, a change of mind, or, an acceptance of the prior perfection by opening one's mind to the knowledge of it. Faith closes the mind, keeps it locked, and put's a sign on the door, "do not disturb", or, "no trespassing". The end of the world, and/or the end of death can come tomorrow, for anyone who desires to understand the teachings of Jesus about the beginning.

(19) Jesus says:

(1)“Blessed is he who was, before he came into being.
(2) If you become disciples of mine (and) listen to my words, these stones will serve you.
(3) For you have five trees in Paradise that do not change during summer (and) winter, and their leaves do not fall.
(4) Whoever comes to know them will not taste death.”

This builds on the understanding of the prior saying about how the original perfection, "paradise", was a state without change. Again, this is because perfection does not need change, and if you did try to change it, you would ruin it. And again, this is an emphasis on our pre-historic origins. We do not derive our being from human birth, or an other kind of animal ancestry. Our soul pre-exists the states of change (summer, winter) that we currently experience. There is an emphasis on knowledge (whoever comes to know them). Knowing about what does not change prevents death, which is basically rapid radical change.