[gthomas] Re: God Within
> From: Justin LancasterHmmm. Taking this as the question of logic that it seems to be,
> interesting question becomes, "If Jesus saw truth, and spoke truth, then
> can one essentially see Jesus through sayings of truth that he inspired,
> whether they quote him verbatim or not?"
I think the answer has to be no. For example, if a scientist claims
to be inspired by Jesus to brilliantly elucidate the RNA of aphids
and another is inspired by Jesus to discover whole new insights
in topology, one cannot from those scientists' true conclusions
anything whatsoever about Jesus even given your premise.
> > Where in Thomas is GodThis is really pretty good. If we take 50 as the starting point, and
> > described as a power within? Are you assuming that the word
> > "Kingdom" is synonymous with "God?" If so, how can we see this
> > clearly in GTh?
> Take the supposition that all that is (all creation) is light, i.e.,
> light itself created the world. Allow "the Father" to be God, and both
> to be light. Allow the Kingdom to be all that light has created of
> itself. If light is self motivated to create, then this is God creating
> from within (occurring at every point in the Universe where light is
> present). Take that God/light is a growing creative power from within.
> Looking to GTh, ...
> In GTh 24: Show us the place where you are ... There is light within a
> person of light, ... (i.e., light is within, God is within)
> In GTh 37: When will you appear to us ... then you will see the son of
> the living one ... (alluding to recognizing God in ourselves)
> In GTh 50: We have come from the light, from the place where the light
> came into being by itself ... we are its children ...
> In GTh 77: I am the light ... from me all came forth ... split a piece
> of wood ... lift up a stone ...
> (speaking here to the omnipresence of God's energy/light in all
> of nature and within natural objects)
it does specifically speak of the self-origination of light, the rest
does follow pretty well.
I don't know why you want to drag GOD into the picture though.
God comes with this huge cultural baggage (he hates everybody but the
Jews, and doesn't like them either, he reveals the Torah on Sinai,
he is known to be hanging about in the Valley of Death and so
forth....) why bring Him into a document that has virtually zero
interest in God? Both times the word is used it is used negatively,
in 30 it is negative, albeit gibberish, and in 100 it serves as a
metonym for taxation required by Judean law (aka Torah).
So your insight is great, "Thomas is about light" but you need
to go on, "and not about God." You seem to wish it were about God,
but your clever enough to see that it is actually about light. Let
that be the conclusion. God just isn't a factor.
> The universal truth that matter has evolved from light/energy has beenIndependent is something of an understatement.
> described independently in this century, independent of the
> observations/sayings of Jesus 2000 years ago.
> Astounding is the notion that healers in this century are discoveringAstounding would be any actual evidence for this sort of stuff
> that recognition of a healing power "within" the fabric of space can
> allow this "power/light" to work "miracles."
that would stand up to New England Journal of Medicine (etc.)
> Da Vinci learned long before Newton that many spectra of light (colors)Life just ain't fair.
> were contained within sunlight, but Newton got the credit.
> Might not GTh help us see that Jesus had a powerful jump on both ofNo. Whatever "light" means in Thomas is not what "light" means
in anything remotely connected to "science" even including