dbz wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 7:23 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 1:44 pm
There's no need for anything, all is perfect. No reason to think, judge, act, do - there is only bliss...
...in enlightenment.
- I assume this thought was replicated in *Ev.
How well do the reconstructions of *Ev. maintain the fidelity of this thought as it originally occurred, or is it lost?
No, that's where the catch is
I am really not making any of this up, it is where the text leads me - but it is a story filled with dramatic irony as every single story that got written from Thomas up to the Patristics had the opposite effect of what it was intended to convey
A. The Patristics with all their refutations and apologetics evidently make clear that - under the rule of good wine needs no bush - everything they claim is a lie:
1. their rejection of Gnostics for centuries makes abundantly clear that it was the Patristics who were the heretics to the original movement of the "Gnostics" which now have a proper name: Chrestians.
2. All their arguing for pseudo-prophecies being fulfilled make clear that they in fact are pseudo-prophecies;
3. Their silly arguing for the cross
ad nauseam makes clear that there never was a cross, only a stake (stauros); there was no piercing of hands and feet at all, let alone that such is the proper Tanakh translation: Justin even uses the depiction of a "staurogram" in order to make a case for it, with his "the nose protruding"
B. The letters and gospels evidently are placed in the wrong order:
1. The gospels never speak of a dead IS yet the letters speak of a living one next to their dead XS
2. They explain all of the gospels yet the gospels explain none of the letters - and all the material that they share is either present in Thomas or triggered via it
3. The Christology, theology and all of the crooked Christian thought only gets mansplained in the letters
C. *Ev contained no Judaism at all, only anti-Judaism; hence the forced fusion of Chrestianity with Judaism in the gospels, in order to undo the damage - and thence the dramatic outcome of that as every single Judaic on the face of this earth either rejects or ignores all of Christianity. And then there are
Matthew 2:18 and the real Jeremiah behind it, and so on.
*Ev was the gospel of Chrestianity, a spiritual movement without a god, let alone God, where the Father was the highest possible entity - although I do suspect that the Egyptian Amun gets mentioned in the two masters. It wasn't about worship primarily, it was also in itself opposed to Judaism that indeed was visible on the outside - as it still is today - via noticeable signs of belonging to Judaism. I am pretty sure that Chrestians wore no signs at all, save for the Ixthus, the fish: it was a very modest movement on the outlook, a bit of a secret society in that aspect only.
Baptism in the name of the father, son and spirit-that-is-pure was their main ritual during which people could receive said spirit - and whether that was a controlled or spontaneous exercise is jard to tell, although Philip does state that those who falsely claim the name Chrestian as they did not receive the spirit were "cut", and the verb gets mainly if not solely used in the context of animal sacrifice in the Tanakh. And please do realise that almost all Coptic texts that we have are of a religious nature
D. John - the real and unredacted John - preceded that, and was the first to take Thomas into a narrative. But he also doesn't understand Thomas in its psychological self-salvation context, he turns the Father into a kind of deity, a being of light from where a person named IS was issued. Whereas IS is merely a concept, literally implying that via logion 28 where:
28 IS said: I stood to my feet in the middle of the World and I revealed outward to them in Flesh. I fell to them all being drunk; I did not fall to anyone in them who was thirsting, and my Soul gave pain upon the children of the humans; blind persons they are in their heart/mind, and they see not: they have come to the World they empty, they seek also to cause them come forth in the World they empty. Anyway now they are being drunk; Whenever if they should cast off their wine Then they will make be Conceive afterwards.
The World is an Image only, a concept of how we view the real world: it is our pleasant little dollhouse with just enough "bad news" in it so we can assume that it is a proper projection of it - and likewise for the house, the collection of mental models of ourself - and it must be destroyed, burned, and most certainly not recreated. How does IS stand in the World? I don't know, but the next logion opposes flesh to Spirit so it is evident that IS is Spirit, and we see an echo of that thought in John and Mark where the Spirit in the form of a dove descends
INTO IS:
John 1:12 ὅσοι (As many as) δὲ (however) ἔλαβον (received) αὐτόν (Him), ἔδωκεν (He gave) αὐτοῖς (to them) ἐξουσίαν (authority) τέκνα (children) Θεοῦ (of God) γενέσθαι (to be), τοῖς (to those) πιστεύουσιν (believing) εἰς (in) τὸ (the) ὄνομα (name) αὐτοῦ (of Him), 13 οἳ (who) οὐκ (not) ἐξ (of) αἱμάτων (blood), οὐδὲ (nor) ἐκ (of) θελήματος (will) σαρκὸς (of flesh), οὐδὲ (nor) ἐκ (of) θελήματος (will) ἀνδρὸς (of man), ἀλλ’ (but) ἐκ (of) Θεοῦ (God) ἐγεννήθησαν (were born).
γεννάω
1.11), of the father, to beget, engender, Aesch., Soph.; rarely of the mother, to bring forth, Aesch.; οἱ γεννήσαντες the parents, Xen.; τὸ γεννώμενον the child, Hdt.:—like φύω 1. 2, as κἂν σῶμα γεννήσηι μέγα even if he grow, get a large body, i. e. if he be of giant frame, Soph.
2.metaph. to produce, Plat.
Naturally, evidently and blatantly obviously this said not God in *Ev, but father - but the dumb Romans only used their Plutarch and weren't very apt at Greek
E. And then in the end we have Thomas, completely misunderstood by most if not all, who nonetheless explicitly points inwards for salavation, for the "location" of the kingdom, and who fiercely rejects any and all Judaism - and as such gets rejected as Quelle even though he is exactly as predicted by the Germans of the 19th century. He also contains none of the Double Tradition material which LukeMatthew shares and made up from scratch, yet bovine biblical academic is determined to find a Q that contains it all and Kloppenborg is the worst advocate ever as he takes everything literally, writing tons of pages on agriculture in Palestine and all that nonsense
- So Thomas writes a text that aims to push the reader to enlightenment, free from his Ego and Self - and it rejects religion, authority and leadership outright.
It is fiercely anti-Judaic and rejects and ridicules it in fantastic ways
- Then along comes John and turns the text straight into a text that revers the father and makes IS into a medium of some kind. He preserves the anti-Judaism and anti-Judeanism but for some strange reason leaves out all of the logia themselves - and I do have very important homework to do there, as *Ev contains 57 of them and the logical order would be John, Thomas, *Ev. Which perhaps is the case, but then Thomas drops the entire narrative, miracles and whatnot.
And gone is the self-reflection and self-salvation
- *Ev takes John and puts back in the logia, and adds even more anti-Judaism with his Transfiguration (where Moses - the Law - and Elijah - the Prophets - get superseded) and his wineskin and patch (where the fresh movement insists on remaining separate from the old Judaism, something that the gospels, letters and Patristics all agree to). Is it he who introduces the miracles, or John? John seems to have modest ones only such as turning water into wine which is very Hellenistic -
yet gone is the medium to self-salvation and what we find in *Ev is an idol, something of a god. His gospel ends with the brutal death of IS at the instigation of the Judaics and carried out by the Roman rulers, leaving an outraged audience - hellbent on revenge on both
- Mark turns everything around and mitigates the anti-Judaism as much as he can (which ain't much really) and introduces Judaism as very roots to Chrestianity, thereby creating Christianity. He resurrects IS so one of his pseudo-prophecies can come true, and neglects to turn any of that into any other advantage.
And gone is the anti-Judaism, and a true religion gets created
- Matthew takes *Ev and redacts it into Luke while writing his own on the side, making up from scratch what needs to be added, likewise also incorporating stories that had evolved since *Ev / Mark. Luke gets sent an entirely different message and its audience if poverised, told to turn the other cheeck, and so on: what we see there is an enemy of the state that gets fed the right and proper propaganda according to that very same state.
- The Patristics make propaganda for Mark ff as best as they can, and while the gospels are blissfully unaware of any Judaics following IS or Christianity we already find the later letters arguing against that, and the Patristics have no other choice than to talk their way out of the mess that Mark put them in: Christianity is entirely different from Judaism, and as a result it is nothing but presenting a pseudo-Messiah predicted via and fullfiling pseudo-prophecies, thereby having created a forn of pseudo-Judaism that has never attracted any Judaic at all whatsoever -
so they turn to the initial anti-Judaism of Thomas and reject Judaism, even supersede it. And while Thomas gets his anti-Judaism that was just a minor part of his main story, which was all about anti-establishment / anti-authority / anti-religion and all in favour of thinking for oneself, via oneself, by oneself: seeking the kingdom within and certainly not OUTSIDE