Absolute Thomasine Priority

[Giuseppe]

Thomas doesn't ridicule God, he attacks the religious systems and their proponents - and slavish followers. He does, however, name The Rock in logion 9, that offers no depth, and certainly doesn't bring you near heaven - yet it stands for the Jewish monotheism

I have my doubts about Thomas adoring YHWH. When I read:

Jesus said:
"The pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of gnosis and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves".

(Gospel of Thomas 39 == Matthew 23:13; Luke 11:52 + Matthew 10:16)

...the accusation against scribes and pharisees seems to be that they have hidden the nature of the Revealer, by reducing his anti-demiurgical feature to the evil Serpent of Genesis (meant negatively as the Satan).

Note that if "Thomas" (author) adored Jesus as the Serpent of Genesis (meant positively as an friend of humanity), a Revealer and not a Reedemer, then it is very much expected that the Earliest Gospel assumed the form of instructions (logia).

[Giuseppe]

Continuing:

(101) <Jesus said:> He who does not hate his father and his mother like me cannot be a [disciple] to me. And he who does [not] love [his father] and his mother like me cannot be a [disciple] to me. For my mother [ . . . ], but [my] true [mother] gave me life.

This is anti-demiurgical dualism, not theistic unity: a false carnal mother against the true spiritual mother.

[Giuseppe]

Or still:

(79) A woman in the crowd said to him: Blessed is the womb which bore you, and the breasts which nourished you. He said to [her]: Blessed are those who have heard the word of the Father (and) have kept it in truth. For there will be days when you will say: Blessed is the womb which has not conceived, and the breasts which have not given suck.

"Luke" (editor) replaces the "word of the Father" with the "word of God" (11:27-28).

The reason is that "Thomas" identified the "Father" as a supreme god distinct from the god of the Jews and his enemy.

As reaction, "Luke" (editor) reduced the Jesus Son of Father adored by "Thomas" to a mere criminal: Jesus Bar-Abbas ("Jesus Son of Father"), who was not coincidentially different from Jesus called Christ.

[Giuseppe]

So Jean Magne proves the anti-demiurgical nature of Logion 79.

The logion is perfectly symmetrical in the writing of the Gospel of Thomas: the words of the woman in the crowd: "Blessed are the breasts that fed you" are opposed to the future words of the same woman and of the same crowd: "Blessed are the breasts that did not feed"; between these two opposing macarisms, one positive particular and the other negative general, the true beatitude is inserted: "Blessed are those who have heard the word of the Father". The perfection of this construction in the Gospel of Thomas shows it as original, while in Luke the detachment of the third member of the logion and its reuse in another context, the replacement of "Father" by "God", the addition of "the barren", and the editorial introductions denounce the two pericopes as secondary.

What are the days, then, on which the listeners of the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas will thus have diametrically changed their minds, if not those on which, in order to be able to go back to the Father, it will be necessary for them to "prove" that they have not "begotten a child for the Archon"? Now this meaning could no longer be understood, if not understood, then at least accepted in the Church even before the writing of Luke: the days of each one's death thus become those of the tribulations which we imagine must precede the end of the world or which accompanied the taking of Jerusalem; instead of condemning childbirth - which the letter of the text in Luke 23:29 still absolutely does - the word of Jesus is reduced by the context to nothing more than deploring the additional difficulties which pregnancy or breastfeeding will bring in these unhappy days. The writing of the three Synoptics goes a step further by bringing the text into line with the meaning given to it in this new context: "Woe to the women who will be pregnant and to those who will nurse in those days".

(Jean Magne, Sacrifice et sacerdoce, p. 103, my translation)

[Giuseppe]

Linssen himself recognizes that "God" here is not the god adored by Jesus:

(100) They showed Jesus a gold piece and said to him: Caesar's men demand tribute from us. He said to them: What belongs to Caesar, give to Caesar; what belongs to God, give to God; and what is mine, give it to me.

...since he writes:

who cares who you pay taxes to, it is part of the rules of society that you do so: this Caesar will die but he will just be replaced by another Caesar. Likewise it is part of the rules of society that you give to God, and that is equally as insignificant; this God might be replaced by another God but that won't change the System, you will still always be required to give to (a) God just as you're always required to give to (a) Caesar. Only one thing is most significant in your entire life, and that is you yourself: me - give me what is mine

(The 72 logia of Thomas and their canonical cousins, my bold)

If Jesus doesn't give himself to God (=YHWH), then Jesus is enemy of YHWH, as he is the Son of Father ("Bar-Abbas").

[mlinssen]

Thomas doesn't ridicule God, he attacks the religious systems and their proponents - and slavish followers. He does, however, name The Rock in logion 9, that offers no depth, and certainly doesn't bring you near heaven - yet it stands for the Jewish monotheism

I have my doubts about Thomas adoring YHWH. When I read:

Jesus said:
"The pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of gnosis and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves".

(Gospel of Thomas 39 == Matthew 23:13; Luke 11:52 + Matthew 10:16)

...the accusation against scribes and pharisees seems to be that they have hidden the nature of the Revealer, by reducing his anti-demiurgical feature to the evil Serpent of Genesis (meant negatively as the Satan).

Note that if "Thomas" (author) adored Jesus as the Serpent of Genesis (meant positively as an friend of humanity), a Revealer and not a Reedemer, then it is very much expected that the Earliest Gospel assumed the form of instructions (logia).

Hi Giuseppe, (bold emphasis is mine) I never said that Thomas adores YHWH, that's your own assumption - I only state, in answer to your question

what are according to you the logia where the Jewish god is more explicitly attacked ?

You then make another assumption

the accusation against scribes and pharisees seems to be that they have hidden the nature of the Revealer

which, unfortunately, you don't substantiate with arguments. Why do you think that there is only one act behind hiding the keys of knowledge? Isn't it just a general action? And if there is only one act, why is that this particular one?
How do you get to that conclusion, based on the text of Thomas?

Then you make another assumption

it is very much expected that the Earliest Gospel assumed the form of instructions

which yet again you don't substantiate

What the biblical "scholars" do is building Babylonian Towers of Assumptions, by starting with one assumption. They don't verify that assumption, they don't substantiate it with arguments, but use it as foundation for yet another assumption: you do the same here.
That is a vicious circle, really. You assume that not ridiculing God (my answer to your question) equals adoring YHWH - and that is an unfounded assumption, and your corner stone to this particular post.
Then you build your other assumptions on top of that, using them as proof for the alleged fact that my answer is not correct - I think

Take it one step at a time please. Read an answer and accept or reject it, and use arguments for that. But don't read something into an answer and then read something into the possible interpretations of that, and then use arguments that are nothing less than assumptions - that leads nowhere, if you are trying to make a reasonable case

[mlinssen]

Linssen himself recognizes that "God" here is not the god adored by Jesus:

(100) They showed Jesus a gold piece and said to him: Caesar's men demand tribute from us. He said to them: What belongs to Caesar, give to Caesar; what belongs to God, give to God; and what is mine, give it to me.

...since he writes:

who cares who you pay taxes to, it is part of the rules of society that you do so: this Caesar will die but he will just be replaced by another Caesar. Likewise it is part of the rules of society that you give to God, and that is equally as insignificant; this God might be replaced by another God but that won't change the System, you will still always be required to give to (a) God just as you're always required to give to (a) Caesar. Only one thing is most significant in your entire life, and that is you yourself: me - give me what is mine

(The 72 logia of Thomas and their canonical cousins, my bold)

Yes, indeed. Thomas doesn't care at all about God, or rather, he doesn't bother with him. God, gods, deities: all the same really, and very similar to the comment in logion 30: if there are more than 2 gods in any place, those are mere deities. But where there are two, or just one, then IS its with you

If Jesus doesn't give himself to God (=YHWH), then Jesus is enemy of YHWH, as he is the Son of Father ("Bar-Abbas").

Well, again I don't follow that reasoning - because you don't give one. You repeat this statement an awful lot, but you don't substantiate it with arguments, you don't give me anything so I can convince myself that you have a point.
The Coptic uses one word throughout the entire text: ϣⲏⲣⲉ

That means child or son, and I have picked the word child. The word "son" doesn't exist in my translation, as I am convinced that no one uses words that can mean one thing now and another thing later, in a small text like this.

Child of the Father, yes. Who on earth believes that Thomas, who stresses with such great stress (sic!) throughout his entire gospel that male equals female and vice versa, inside is outside and above equals below, that the kingdom is everywhere, and so on - who believes that he would actually mean the Son of Man / Father, exclusively, and not Daughter as well?

[Giuseppe]

You are right in saying that I am doing some assumptions.

I place myself in this paradigm:

1) there was a Jesus cult where Jesus was a celestial deity working in heaven.

2) someone has written the Earliest Gospel about this Jesus.

3) all the other Gospels follow the Earliest of them.

Now, I am open to the possibility that "someone" of point 2, is the same "Thomas" (author).

What I would like to hear by you, is that, beyond of priority question, "Thomas" (author) was a dualist: his supreme god, the "Father", is different from YHWH and he is in some form of (strong) opposition against YHWH and Judaism.

Do you agree with this last my claim?

[Joseph D. L.]

mlinssen, get out while you still can.

[Giuseppe]

mlinssen, get out while you still can.

Martijn, I point out that here I would like only to see by you until what point you go to describe the anti-YHWH feature of Thomas. I don't know if it is necessary an entire article by you. Or only a post.