The Gospel of Thomas is one of the Nag Hammadi (A complete version in Coptic (an Egyptian language derived from the Greek alphabet) was found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945. The complete text has been dated to about 340 AD, while some of the Greek fragments have been dated as far back as 140 AD) documents. It is not really a "Gospel" as we might expect, but, collection of random sayings attributed to Jesus. The author is unknown and since these sayings are not tied to historical events we cannot determine validity. There are also purported questions/statements from Simon Peter, Matthew, Thomas, and Mary.
Any of the discussions about this purported catalog of comments begin with disqualifiers such as:
How Many of the Sayings in the Gospel of Thomas come from Jesus? Who knows for sure?
Does the Gospel of Thomas reflect the views of Jesus? That is unclear.
Is the Gospel of Thomas Gnostic? It all depends on what you mean by Gnostic. Maybe.
When was the Gospel of Thomas written? This is a question hotly debated by scholars.
There are a couple things I would note. The Gospel of Thomas is very different in tone and structure from the four Canonical Gospels and even the NT apocrypha. It is not a narrative account of the life of Jesus; and while the text contains a possible allusion to the death of Jesus there is no mention of crucifixion, resurrection, or final judgment.
The Early Church believed it to be a false gospel. Eusebius, for example, included it among a group of books that he believed to be not only spurious, but "the fictions of heretics" that should be thrown out as absurd and impious.
The Gospel of St. Thomas is considered "Gnostic" in that it holds that salvation of the soul comes from a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of secret formula indicative of that knowledge.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
The more you want the less you have.
It seems to me that when someone says, "More than anything in the world I would like..." they set themselves up for disappointment. Should they get that person, dream, thing, cash they will soon find it is not the panacea they at first thought.
This is not, I am sure the reader is aware, a new insight. The epiphane for me is that so many people seem to have a dream of how their lives will progress and even if most of what they dream seems to be in process they are depressed that it is not now available. They almost seem to resent the effort needed to make it thus or the time it takes for fruition.
So they wail, "I do not have my dream" when their joy could be found in, "I have and that is a joy in itself."
More is to often the salt of life when God has asked followers of Jesus to be the salt. When "more" is the salt we drink from the fountain of materials, sexual pleasure, substance intake and search for power. When followers of Jesus are the salt we drink from the water of life - and while never entirely filled - nor are we ever entirely parched.
This is not, I am sure the reader is aware, a new insight. The epiphane for me is that so many people seem to have a dream of how their lives will progress and even if most of what they dream seems to be in process they are depressed that it is not now available. They almost seem to resent the effort needed to make it thus or the time it takes for fruition.
So they wail, "I do not have my dream" when their joy could be found in, "I have and that is a joy in itself."
More is to often the salt of life when God has asked followers of Jesus to be the salt. When "more" is the salt we drink from the fountain of materials, sexual pleasure, substance intake and search for power. When followers of Jesus are the salt we drink from the water of life - and while never entirely filled - nor are we ever entirely parched.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
When did "Jew" mean "Hebrew" and more
Ok – we can all agree that Sherman is still getting used to the technology. I posted this once but did something wrong and so I am posting again. My mistake from which I learned to “post” before exiting.
Question One from last Sunday was, “When did the Hebrew people become known as the Jews?”
The Torah (Hebrew word meaning "teaching" or "instruction", or "law" also known as the Pentateuch which are the Five Books of Moses and comprise the entirety of Judaism's founding legal and ethical religious texts) does not refer to “Jews” as it is found in the post exilic period. The word Jew comes from Yehuda, the son of Yaakov who become the leader after Shimeon lost that position over the tribe of Judah.
Question Two “Was Adam a Jew?”
Adam was the first human (his name is an ancient Hebrew word for any human) which makes him the archetype (when God made human male and female Eve became the archetype female) and given the fallen nature of human – I have to believe we have no idea what Adam looked like. He and Eve were a standard to themselves.
Question Three came from a text which was truncated but here is the question I received, “The assumption that Noah had a sex act that caused the family disruption is just that...an assumption. It could just be what it says: That…”
Very good question as we don’t really know what happened. We do know that what ever it was turned out to be bad enough to cause curses to be placed by a father on a son. Here are some of the explanations I found on Wikipedia which is quoted in several other sites with Jewish contributors.
“The Talmud deduces two possible explanations (attributed to Rab and Rabbi Samuel) for what Ham did to Noah to warrant the curse. (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 70a.) According to Rab, Ham castrated Noah on the basis that, since Noah cursed Ham by his fourth son Canaan, Ham must have injured Noah with respect to a fourth son, by emasculating him, thus depriving Noah of the possibility of a fourth son. According to Samuel, Ham sodomized Noah, on the analogy between “and he saw” written in two places in the Bible: With regard to Ham and Noah, it says, “And Ham the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of his father (Noah)”; while in Genesis 34:2, it says, “And when Shechem the son of Hamor saw her (Dinah), he took her and lay with her and defiled her.” According to this argument, similar abuse must have happened each time that the Bible uses the same language. The Talmud concludes that, in fact, "both indignities were perpetrated."
In more recent times, some scholars have suggested that Ham may have had intercourse with his father's wife. Under this interpretation, Canaan is cursed as the "product of Ham's illicit union."
This "curse of Canaan" by Noah was likely connected to the conquest of Canaan by Israel. Both the conquest of Canaan and the curse, according to the Book of Jubilees 10:29-34, are attributed, rather, to Canaan's steadfast refusal to join his elder brothers in Ham's allotment beyond the Nile, and instead "squatting" within the inheritance of Shem, on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, in the region later promised to Abraham.”
See you Sunday
Question One from last Sunday was, “When did the Hebrew people become known as the Jews?”
The Torah (Hebrew word meaning "teaching" or "instruction", or "law" also known as the Pentateuch which are the Five Books of Moses and comprise the entirety of Judaism's founding legal and ethical religious texts) does not refer to “Jews” as it is found in the post exilic period. The word Jew comes from Yehuda, the son of Yaakov who become the leader after Shimeon lost that position over the tribe of Judah.
Question Two “Was Adam a Jew?”
Adam was the first human (his name is an ancient Hebrew word for any human) which makes him the archetype (when God made human male and female Eve became the archetype female) and given the fallen nature of human – I have to believe we have no idea what Adam looked like. He and Eve were a standard to themselves.
Question Three came from a text which was truncated but here is the question I received, “The assumption that Noah had a sex act that caused the family disruption is just that...an assumption. It could just be what it says: That…”
Very good question as we don’t really know what happened. We do know that what ever it was turned out to be bad enough to cause curses to be placed by a father on a son. Here are some of the explanations I found on Wikipedia which is quoted in several other sites with Jewish contributors.
“The Talmud deduces two possible explanations (attributed to Rab and Rabbi Samuel) for what Ham did to Noah to warrant the curse. (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 70a.) According to Rab, Ham castrated Noah on the basis that, since Noah cursed Ham by his fourth son Canaan, Ham must have injured Noah with respect to a fourth son, by emasculating him, thus depriving Noah of the possibility of a fourth son. According to Samuel, Ham sodomized Noah, on the analogy between “and he saw” written in two places in the Bible: With regard to Ham and Noah, it says, “And Ham the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of his father (Noah)”; while in Genesis 34:2, it says, “And when Shechem the son of Hamor saw her (Dinah), he took her and lay with her and defiled her.” According to this argument, similar abuse must have happened each time that the Bible uses the same language. The Talmud concludes that, in fact, "both indignities were perpetrated."
In more recent times, some scholars have suggested that Ham may have had intercourse with his father's wife. Under this interpretation, Canaan is cursed as the "product of Ham's illicit union."
This "curse of Canaan" by Noah was likely connected to the conquest of Canaan by Israel. Both the conquest of Canaan and the curse, according to the Book of Jubilees 10:29-34, are attributed, rather, to Canaan's steadfast refusal to join his elder brothers in Ham's allotment beyond the Nile, and instead "squatting" within the inheritance of Shem, on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, in the region later promised to Abraham.”
See you Sunday
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Why do we trust the Canon?
The Bible’s authority comes from its being the inspired witness to the revelations of God. God did not dictate the Bible but communicated His will through His prophets and apostles.
Religion is humankind’s attempt to reach God and Christianity is God’s attempt to reach humankind. Generally God reveals Himself in His creation. He gives His Special Revelation through specific revelations and disclosures. He revealed His name, His covenant, His Commandments etc. The Bible is God’s infallible special revelation and it is reliable and trustworthy in His revelation of Himself and His will.
The canon we have today comes from thousands of years of critical testing. In some cases, where the authorship is clear, as in the case of The Gospels, their inspiration is accredited due to their closeness to the source, Jesus. Other books are included in the canon because spiritual leaders who we know and trust in history proclaimed them as inspired. The external test lies in the number of copies of portions, in some cases, and, whole books in others, though separated by centuries are found to be substantively and functionally identical. With over five thousand manuscripts in hand – some dating back to 400 years before Christ – we find less that a tenth or a percent difference in the final collection.
This compares to the minuscule number of late copies of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, or Shakespeare. As archeological discoveries reveal time and again the truth of the Biblical record there is now more reason to believe God’s special revelation today than on the day of Pentecost immediately following the resurrection of Jesus in which 3000 accepted God’s promise through Jesus Christ.
Religion is humankind’s attempt to reach God and Christianity is God’s attempt to reach humankind. Generally God reveals Himself in His creation. He gives His Special Revelation through specific revelations and disclosures. He revealed His name, His covenant, His Commandments etc. The Bible is God’s infallible special revelation and it is reliable and trustworthy in His revelation of Himself and His will.
The canon we have today comes from thousands of years of critical testing. In some cases, where the authorship is clear, as in the case of The Gospels, their inspiration is accredited due to their closeness to the source, Jesus. Other books are included in the canon because spiritual leaders who we know and trust in history proclaimed them as inspired. The external test lies in the number of copies of portions, in some cases, and, whole books in others, though separated by centuries are found to be substantively and functionally identical. With over five thousand manuscripts in hand – some dating back to 400 years before Christ – we find less that a tenth or a percent difference in the final collection.
This compares to the minuscule number of late copies of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, or Shakespeare. As archeological discoveries reveal time and again the truth of the Biblical record there is now more reason to believe God’s special revelation today than on the day of Pentecost immediately following the resurrection of Jesus in which 3000 accepted God’s promise through Jesus Christ.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Men & Women & Sex?
I ran this past my wife last night and she was underwhelmed so feedback would be helpful.
I believe that women's curse, yes the one in Genesis, was that they would be willing to do anything to have a relationship with a man. Man's curse (one of them) was embedded in the woman's curse, "they will lord it over them," as is that a man will always want to conquer life - which includes women.
That has led me to the belief that women have been historically willing to trade sex for relationship. I don't mean to imply women do not desire or enjoy the act of physical intimacy only that it is part of relationship and they are willing to enter into a physical relationship if they feel they will in turn have an emotional one.
Men are the reverse of this - they will "give relationship" to get physical intimacy which I believe leads to frustration after marriage when the man feels entitled and the woman feels used.
I believe that women's curse, yes the one in Genesis, was that they would be willing to do anything to have a relationship with a man. Man's curse (one of them) was embedded in the woman's curse, "they will lord it over them," as is that a man will always want to conquer life - which includes women.
That has led me to the belief that women have been historically willing to trade sex for relationship. I don't mean to imply women do not desire or enjoy the act of physical intimacy only that it is part of relationship and they are willing to enter into a physical relationship if they feel they will in turn have an emotional one.
Men are the reverse of this - they will "give relationship" to get physical intimacy which I believe leads to frustration after marriage when the man feels entitled and the woman feels used.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Clear Conscience vs Guilt Free
What follows is a response to a penitent's concern that their remaining sense of guilt for past sins should prohibit them from submitting to Christian Baptism as they understood 1 Peter 3:8.
I am glad you are approaching this sacred responsibility with care and study. The point the Apostle is making says that baptism, when it is properly a symbol of the putting away of sin, and of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, and an act of unreserved dedication to God—now saves us. In that light the “pledge” prior to baptism is not to be confused with the promise received after baptism. The pledge is in your court – that you pledge your intent in coming to the sacrament of baptism is that you are wholly committed to giving your life, past, present and future, to Christ.
The issue of guilt is separate from “clear conscience” in that guilt is the sense of shame God gives to tell of wrong doing and conscience is the tool used by the Holy Spirit to communicate that shame. Guilt is useful when it is prodding us to repentance and right action. Guilt is harmful when oppressing us and bringing give up hope in our ability to right the wrongs we have caused. However, guilt is a wonderful gift that keeps reminding us that God’s forgiveness has freed us from the penalty and power of sin while at the same time prodding us to do the work the of repentance in setting right what we have wronged to the extent we are able.
It is in baptism we receive the internal presence of the Holy Spirit which gives us the strength to do all the above – something we are not otherwise capable. See Acts 2:38 , “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
One final thing about sin and guilt. When God forgives you are forgiven – however – our personal sense of forgiveness takes time for two reasons. The first has to do with the fallout of our sin – the people we hurt and the damage done still has to be righted to the extent possible. The second is like a wound that continues to hurt or itch long after it is healed – we have to accept the wound is healed even though we still feel the pain or itch left behind.
I am glad you are approaching this sacred responsibility with care and study. The point the Apostle is making says that baptism, when it is properly a symbol of the putting away of sin, and of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, and an act of unreserved dedication to God—now saves us. In that light the “pledge” prior to baptism is not to be confused with the promise received after baptism. The pledge is in your court – that you pledge your intent in coming to the sacrament of baptism is that you are wholly committed to giving your life, past, present and future, to Christ.
The issue of guilt is separate from “clear conscience” in that guilt is the sense of shame God gives to tell of wrong doing and conscience is the tool used by the Holy Spirit to communicate that shame. Guilt is useful when it is prodding us to repentance and right action. Guilt is harmful when oppressing us and bringing give up hope in our ability to right the wrongs we have caused. However, guilt is a wonderful gift that keeps reminding us that God’s forgiveness has freed us from the penalty and power of sin while at the same time prodding us to do the work the of repentance in setting right what we have wronged to the extent we are able.
It is in baptism we receive the internal presence of the Holy Spirit which gives us the strength to do all the above – something we are not otherwise capable. See Acts 2:38 , “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
One final thing about sin and guilt. When God forgives you are forgiven – however – our personal sense of forgiveness takes time for two reasons. The first has to do with the fallout of our sin – the people we hurt and the damage done still has to be righted to the extent possible. The second is like a wound that continues to hurt or itch long after it is healed – we have to accept the wound is healed even though we still feel the pain or itch left behind.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Be the Father or the Prodigal but NOT The Brother
I was struck again by how easy it is to be the brother in the story of the Prodigal Son. The Prodigal attempts to create his own reality - in essence - saying to his father, "Your way works for you but I have to please myself so I am going to go my own way." When he discovers the loss of discipline, direction and direct contact with God leaves him without friends, funds or a future he makes a plan to at least have a roof over his head and a benevolent master for whom to work.
The father, of course, is the real star of the story and a challenge for any father to emulate. The fact that he had determined, even before repentance, he would forgive and forget, is a lesson to fathers everywhere that the consequences of an action is usually punishment enough for the penitent child.
It is the brother who reminds me how self righteous I sound when I require a time of repentance, acts of contrition, a period of ostracization before forgiveness will be given. How selfish I am when I demand my rights from someone whom God has received. Even as I write this I am uncomfortable with this complete a forgiveness.
The father, of course, is the real star of the story and a challenge for any father to emulate. The fact that he had determined, even before repentance, he would forgive and forget, is a lesson to fathers everywhere that the consequences of an action is usually punishment enough for the penitent child.
It is the brother who reminds me how self righteous I sound when I require a time of repentance, acts of contrition, a period of ostracization before forgiveness will be given. How selfish I am when I demand my rights from someone whom God has received. Even as I write this I am uncomfortable with this complete a forgiveness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
