TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,778
- Reaction score
- 1,044
- Points
- 108
The Second Coming of Christ 1945 - a new interpretation
- Thread starter Autogenes
- Start date
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,778
- Reaction score
- 1,044
- Points
- 108
Autogenes
Active Member
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 3
"...in alignment with prophecy" "With Biblical prophecy in mind"
The events of 1945 were in complete alignment with the very words of Jesus as preserved for us in the Gospel of Matthew regarding the circumstances of His Second Coming.
The events of 1945 were in complete alignment with the very words of Jesus as preserved for us in the Gospel of Matthew regarding the circumstances of His Second Coming.
'Amir Alzzalam
Šayṭānist
- Messages
- 1,131
- Reaction score
- 343
- Points
- 83
This hypothesis falls apart when you realize there was never a FIRST COMING of Yeshua the Nazarene.
By the first century A.D., the Jews were looking for strong, magnetic leaders who could deliver them from the wrath of the Roman Empire. The Essenes developed the idea of a messiah figure that would provide this. Several Jewish leaders were set to take over after the death of the Jewish King Herod, who primarily worked for the Romans. To qualify as a messiah, someone needed to be from the bloodline of King David. None of the descendants of King David and their misled disciples succeeded, and most were killed.
While these messiah figures drew support from the claim they descended from King David, wherein Judaic tradition did this claim that Davidic pedigree was necessary to become a Messiah come from? When King David ruled Israel (circa 10th century B.C.E.), the conviction arose that his progeny would “rule forever, not only over Israel but also over all the nations”.
One that stands out is a former slave of King Herod by the name of Simon of Perea. Simon was the first heretical Jew who managed to convince a large portion of the Jews that he was the King of Jews and Jehova's Messiah. When the Roman Empire caught wind of this they dispatched military units to put an end to this claim. They would eventually corner and behead Simon in 4 B.C.
Anthronges was another deified Messiah who waged a serious war against the Roman Empire and also lost. Next came Yeshua the Nazarene. Proclaiming himself king of the Jews, Yeshua was eventually hunted down and crucified. Oddly enough, Yeshua was far from a warrior, would never be able to lead men in battle or control the logistics of a military campaign. Had King David met Yeshua, he would have been greatly disappointed with the gentle ideas of this self-proclaimed messiah.
New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, eloquently stated:
"To call Jesus the messiah was for most Jews completely ludicrous. Jesus was not the powerful leader of the Jews. He was a weak and powerless nobody—executed in the most humiliating and painful way devised by the Romans, the ones with the real power.”
After Yeshua there came a dozen other Messianic campaigns, none of which are publicized by the Abrahamic faith, and all of which ultimately failed. Theudas in 58 C.E., Menachem ben Judah ben Hezekiah, Simon ben Kosevah, Moses of Crete, Abu Isa, Al-Ra'i" ("the shepherd of the flock of his people"), Saüra the Syrian, to name a few.
Ultimately, there has never been a true Jewish messiah because they all failed in their missions and were killed by the Romans. Yeshua (Jesus) failed as a messiah and stood in a long line of failed messiahs.
Autogenes
Active Member
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 3
"Proclaiming himself king of the Jews, Yeshua was eventually hunted down and crucified. Oddly enough, Yeshua was far from a warrior, would never be able to lead men in battle or control the logistics of a military campaign. Had King David met Yeshua, he would have been greatly disappointed with the gentle ideas of this self-proclaimed messiah."
Amir,
It appears you are will willing to consider the possibility Jesus may have existed, although I certainly can't prove it to you if you wish to believe otherwise.
"By the first century A.D., the Jews were looking for strong, magnetic leaders who could deliver them from the wrath of the Roman Empire. The Essenes developed the idea of a messiah figure that would provide this."
It's is not hard to imagine why the Jews of the 1st century believed their God would provide them a Messiah for their deliverance. Their religion taught them their God, the creator of the universe, had parted the Red Sea for them, and delivered them from Egypt to the promised land. Would God allow them to be subjugated and persecuted forever in the land He had promised them? Surely if they offered worship pleasing to God, He would deliver them from their oppressors. With this conviction, the Essenes retreated to Qumran to follow God's Teacher of Righteousness. The war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness didn't play out according to script, however. The warrior Messiah never appeared, and the Qumran community was annihilated by the Romans in 68 CE.
But suppose a Buddha had appeared among the contemplative cave dwelling ascetics of Qumran. How would they have responded?
Clearly the larger Jewish society rejected Jesus because He didn't meet their messianic expectation of Devine deliverance from oppression. This expectation made the Jews ungovernable in the eyes of the Romans, resulting in their expulsion from the promised land. Ironically, the Jews became a people without a homeland as a direct result of their worship of Yahweh. But Jesus became the most important figure in all of human history; a teacher of peace, love and compassion. A man who washed the feet of his disciples, and taught them to turn the cheek when assaulted. What a shame it would be if he never really existed at all. Rest assured, that's not the case.
Amir,
It appears you are will willing to consider the possibility Jesus may have existed, although I certainly can't prove it to you if you wish to believe otherwise.
"By the first century A.D., the Jews were looking for strong, magnetic leaders who could deliver them from the wrath of the Roman Empire. The Essenes developed the idea of a messiah figure that would provide this."
It's is not hard to imagine why the Jews of the 1st century believed their God would provide them a Messiah for their deliverance. Their religion taught them their God, the creator of the universe, had parted the Red Sea for them, and delivered them from Egypt to the promised land. Would God allow them to be subjugated and persecuted forever in the land He had promised them? Surely if they offered worship pleasing to God, He would deliver them from their oppressors. With this conviction, the Essenes retreated to Qumran to follow God's Teacher of Righteousness. The war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness didn't play out according to script, however. The warrior Messiah never appeared, and the Qumran community was annihilated by the Romans in 68 CE.
But suppose a Buddha had appeared among the contemplative cave dwelling ascetics of Qumran. How would they have responded?
Clearly the larger Jewish society rejected Jesus because He didn't meet their messianic expectation of Devine deliverance from oppression. This expectation made the Jews ungovernable in the eyes of the Romans, resulting in their expulsion from the promised land. Ironically, the Jews became a people without a homeland as a direct result of their worship of Yahweh. But Jesus became the most important figure in all of human history; a teacher of peace, love and compassion. A man who washed the feet of his disciples, and taught them to turn the cheek when assaulted. What a shame it would be if he never really existed at all. Rest assured, that's not the case.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,778
- Reaction score
- 1,044
- Points
- 108
Autogenes
Active Member
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 3
Thank you LightWithin
Your words of encouragement were all I needed.
Here’s my next message…
I believe Jesus was among a circle of contemplative ascetics who splintered off from the Essenes at Qumran under the leadership of John the Baptist, forming a new baptismal sect attaining higher states of consciousness and enlightenment through contemplative practice and the baptism of the five seals. Jesus rose to prominence and began His own ministry after the arrest of John, delivering his teachings to village dwelling Essenes and mainstream Jewish society. These teachings spread quickly among a diverse group of followers who circulated his sayings after his arrest and excecution by the Romans.
The truly enlightened Gnostic disciples dwelt in the transpersonal spiritual realm beyond time and space known as nirvana to Buddhists and Brahmin to the Hindu. They transcended bodily existence and became spiritually immortal. Recall the first saying in the Gospel of Thomas: “Whoever finds the meaning of these sayings shall not taste death.” But physical immortality captured the popular imagination and became the Orthodox doctrine. His execution came to be interpretated theologically as a sacrifice of atonement for original sin. Jesus’ Gnostic disciples didn’t accept this theology. The Gospel of Thomas taught salvation through understanding and following the teachings of Jesus. This teaching became eclipsed by the Orthodox kerygma of death and resurrection however. Jesus returned in His Second Coming to restore the teaching to us, and to reveal the nature of the apocalypse we face.
May your journey lead you to the Light Within.
Your words of encouragement were all I needed.
Here’s my next message…
I believe Jesus was among a circle of contemplative ascetics who splintered off from the Essenes at Qumran under the leadership of John the Baptist, forming a new baptismal sect attaining higher states of consciousness and enlightenment through contemplative practice and the baptism of the five seals. Jesus rose to prominence and began His own ministry after the arrest of John, delivering his teachings to village dwelling Essenes and mainstream Jewish society. These teachings spread quickly among a diverse group of followers who circulated his sayings after his arrest and excecution by the Romans.
The truly enlightened Gnostic disciples dwelt in the transpersonal spiritual realm beyond time and space known as nirvana to Buddhists and Brahmin to the Hindu. They transcended bodily existence and became spiritually immortal. Recall the first saying in the Gospel of Thomas: “Whoever finds the meaning of these sayings shall not taste death.” But physical immortality captured the popular imagination and became the Orthodox doctrine. His execution came to be interpretated theologically as a sacrifice of atonement for original sin. Jesus’ Gnostic disciples didn’t accept this theology. The Gospel of Thomas taught salvation through understanding and following the teachings of Jesus. This teaching became eclipsed by the Orthodox kerygma of death and resurrection however. Jesus returned in His Second Coming to restore the teaching to us, and to reveal the nature of the apocalypse we face.
May your journey lead you to the Light Within.
Last edited:
The problem here would be that the gnostic writings came much later than the gospels themselves, and even the gospels were still taking form while Paul the first Christian writer was already speaking about the resurrection and the Sacrifice of Christ.
Paul was writing within about two years of the death of Jesus, and he personally met Peter and John, and especially with James, the brother of Jesus*.
Also John the Baptist clearly recognized Jesus as 'the one who will come after me, whose sandal I am unworthy to unlace.'
*https://ehrmanblog.org/gospel-evidence-that-jesus-existed/
Last edited:
Autogenes
Active Member
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 3
“He is the one who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie” - John 1:27. This more likely reflects the theological views of the evangelist than the actual words of John. You probably won’t find that quotation in the Mandean scriptures.
1 Thessalonians, Paul’s first epistle and the earliest writing in the New Testament, is commonly dated around 50 AD, approximately 17 years after the crucifixion of Jesus (see Helmut Koester’s Introduction to the New Testament Vol II, page 112, or the Britannica online).
Paul disputed circumcision requirements for Gentile converts with Christians from Jerusalem at the Apostolic Council, probably held in 48 AD, claiming his authority on theological matters came directly from God. He describes his encounter with the risen Lord on the road to Damascus as more of a visionary appearance than an encounter with a man of flesh (see Acts Chapter 9).
Galatians 2:1-10 reveals a church of theological diversity. The “Hellenist” faction had already been expelled from Jerusalem, probably due to their rejection of the Laws of Moses, a view shared by Paul and the church in Antioch, but not the church in Jerusalem.
Concerning Peter, Paul writes: “When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.” (Galatians 2:10-13). Paul also opposed the “super-apostles”: “Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.” - Timothy II 2:17-18.
Thomas is criticized in the Gospel of John for not believing in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas makes no mention of it, focusing instead on His teaching.
First generation Christians were hardly of one voice. Scholars today debate over what Jesus actually taught. Form critics identify interpretive “glosses” added to traditional sayings that change their meaning. Fellows of the Jesus Seminar (1985-2006) cast ballots on the authenticity of sayings found in the New Testament, though their conclusions are often questionable. When in doubt, form a committee.
From my video narration:
In his introduction to the Gospel of Thomas in James Robinson's edition of the Nag Hammadi Library in English, Helmut Koester writes: "If one considers the form and wording of the individual sayings in comparison with the form in which they are preserved in the New Testament, The Gospel of Thomas almost always appears to have preserved a more original form of the traditional saying... More original and shorter forms are especially evident in the parables of Thomas." Obviously, not everyone will agree. Bible studies are a field of fierce debate.
1 Thessalonians, Paul’s first epistle and the earliest writing in the New Testament, is commonly dated around 50 AD, approximately 17 years after the crucifixion of Jesus (see Helmut Koester’s Introduction to the New Testament Vol II, page 112, or the Britannica online).
Paul disputed circumcision requirements for Gentile converts with Christians from Jerusalem at the Apostolic Council, probably held in 48 AD, claiming his authority on theological matters came directly from God. He describes his encounter with the risen Lord on the road to Damascus as more of a visionary appearance than an encounter with a man of flesh (see Acts Chapter 9).
Galatians 2:1-10 reveals a church of theological diversity. The “Hellenist” faction had already been expelled from Jerusalem, probably due to their rejection of the Laws of Moses, a view shared by Paul and the church in Antioch, but not the church in Jerusalem.
Concerning Peter, Paul writes: “When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.” (Galatians 2:10-13). Paul also opposed the “super-apostles”: “Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.” - Timothy II 2:17-18.
Thomas is criticized in the Gospel of John for not believing in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas makes no mention of it, focusing instead on His teaching.
First generation Christians were hardly of one voice. Scholars today debate over what Jesus actually taught. Form critics identify interpretive “glosses” added to traditional sayings that change their meaning. Fellows of the Jesus Seminar (1985-2006) cast ballots on the authenticity of sayings found in the New Testament, though their conclusions are often questionable. When in doubt, form a committee.
From my video narration:
In his introduction to the Gospel of Thomas in James Robinson's edition of the Nag Hammadi Library in English, Helmut Koester writes: "If one considers the form and wording of the individual sayings in comparison with the form in which they are preserved in the New Testament, The Gospel of Thomas almost always appears to have preserved a more original form of the traditional saying... More original and shorter forms are especially evident in the parables of Thomas." Obviously, not everyone will agree. Bible studies are a field of fierce debate.
Ok, but when a person kicks off their post by disputing that any given passage of John's Gospel 'more likely reflects the theological views of the evangelist than the actual words of John (the Baptist)' it leaves the field open, as always, for anyone to cherry-pick the parts of the New Testament that support their own theory, and reject whatever does not as corrupted or interpolated, or whatever.
Regarding Paul's writing within about two years after the crucifixion I'm quoting Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman and have linked the article in my above post #31
There is no indication that the Thomas who doubted is the same person who wrote the Gospel of Thomas.
Whatever the disagreements between Cephas and Paul it is clear in the account of Peter's vision that he did come around to Paul's way of thinking about kosher observance.
Paul clearly took his encounter with the risen Christ to be absolutely real.
The Jesus Seminar is not really regarded as authoritive
Regarding Paul's writing within about two years after the crucifixion I'm quoting Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman and have linked the article in my above post #31
There is no indication that the Thomas who doubted is the same person who wrote the Gospel of Thomas.
Whatever the disagreements between Cephas and Paul it is clear in the account of Peter's vision that he did come around to Paul's way of thinking about kosher observance.
Paul clearly took his encounter with the risen Christ to be absolutely real.
The Jesus Seminar is not really regarded as authoritive
Last edited:
Autogenes
Active Member
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 3
Peace,
The Gospel of Thomas begins: These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke, and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down. “Didymos Judas Thomas” means Thomas the twin in Greek. In Thomas the Contender from Nag Hammadi, Jesus speaks of Thomas as his twin. He is the doubting Thomas of St. John’s gospel. The beloved disciple in the Gospel of John is most likely John the Apostle. Elaine Pagels in her book Beyond Belief, theorizes the communities behind St John’s gospel and the Thomas tradition held rival theologies.
I would never suggest Paul’s encounter with the risen Christ was not real, nor would I suggest that he was not a great teacher or disciple of the Lord. Still, I don’t agree with everything he said. I cherry pick his writings for pearls of wisdom.
Consider these two statements from John the Baptist:
After baptizing Jesus: The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” - John 1:29
Spoke when John was in prison: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” – Matthew 11:3
It would be hard to imagine both statements could be historical.
At the time the gospels were written, the followers of Jesus and John the Baptist formed two different communities competing for converts. John 1:27 is essentially saying “Our teacher is greater than their teacher” in my opinion.
“He is the one who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”
Would Buddha have been worthy to untie Jesus’ sandals?
What about Mohammad?
Jesus compares his ministry to John's in Luke 7:31-35:
31 "To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like?
32 They are like children sitting in the market place and calling to one another, 'We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep.'
33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.'
34 The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'
35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children."
- (RSV)
Attempting to understanding Christian beginnings is a fraught enterprise. The books written on the subject would fill a library (try the GTU in Berkeley). Someone who graduates from Bob Jones University will inevitably have a different perspective than someone who reads Elaine Pagels. I always welcome the Mormon missionaries who knock on my door with fellowship, even though I don’t agree with their theology. Do the people they convert form authentic bonds with Jesus? If some of their doctrines aren’t ultimately true, does that make me the better Christian?
The Gospel of Thomas begins: These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke, and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down. “Didymos Judas Thomas” means Thomas the twin in Greek. In Thomas the Contender from Nag Hammadi, Jesus speaks of Thomas as his twin. He is the doubting Thomas of St. John’s gospel. The beloved disciple in the Gospel of John is most likely John the Apostle. Elaine Pagels in her book Beyond Belief, theorizes the communities behind St John’s gospel and the Thomas tradition held rival theologies.
I would never suggest Paul’s encounter with the risen Christ was not real, nor would I suggest that he was not a great teacher or disciple of the Lord. Still, I don’t agree with everything he said. I cherry pick his writings for pearls of wisdom.
Consider these two statements from John the Baptist:
After baptizing Jesus: The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” - John 1:29
Spoke when John was in prison: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” – Matthew 11:3
It would be hard to imagine both statements could be historical.
At the time the gospels were written, the followers of Jesus and John the Baptist formed two different communities competing for converts. John 1:27 is essentially saying “Our teacher is greater than their teacher” in my opinion.
“He is the one who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”
Would Buddha have been worthy to untie Jesus’ sandals?
What about Mohammad?
Jesus compares his ministry to John's in Luke 7:31-35:
31 "To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like?
32 They are like children sitting in the market place and calling to one another, 'We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep.'
33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.'
34 The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'
35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children."
- (RSV)
Attempting to understanding Christian beginnings is a fraught enterprise. The books written on the subject would fill a library (try the GTU in Berkeley). Someone who graduates from Bob Jones University will inevitably have a different perspective than someone who reads Elaine Pagels. I always welcome the Mormon missionaries who knock on my door with fellowship, even though I don’t agree with their theology. Do the people they convert form authentic bonds with Jesus? If some of their doctrines aren’t ultimately true, does that make me the better Christian?
Last edited:
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,778
- Reaction score
- 1,044
- Points
- 108
Well, but who DOESN'T cherry pick? Different denominations have forever and always emphasized different things and minimized other things.
Nowadays, some evangelical hardliners are cherry picking which of Jesus' direct words are good enough for them:
Evangelicals are now rejecting 'liberal' teachings of Jesus
Christian devotees of former President Donald Trump are denouncing Bible verses attributed to Jesus as "weak," according to an evangelical leader.
www.newsweek.com
Possibly, we can't be certain.
Whilst Pagels is a renown scholar, her reputation was somewhat tarnished by The Gnostic Gospels, in which reviewers saw a rather partisan approach to the materials, and some clearly dubious conflations of the texts to validate her points.
I'm not saying she should be discounted, but I would suggest her view be balanced by attention to other scholars working in the same field.
However they could be. John has been arrested and languishes in jail. Two of his disciples go to Jesus to inquire of Him, and ask the question – it may well be that the question is theirs, rather than the Baptist's, and if He is indeed the Messiah, why does He leave His servant languishing in jail? Did the Baptist send them, or was the decision to approach Jesus their own?
I see no evidence of competition?
That they knew of the Essenes is not disputed – although not proven – but both the baptismal ministry of John and its continuance by Jesus is a different thing to the ritual 'washing' in Essene practice.
Autogenes
Active Member
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 3
Greetings Thomas,
Thomas means “twin” in Aramaic, and Didymus means “twin” in Greek.
John 11:16:
Then Thomas (also known as Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”
Are you suggesting “Didymos Judas Thomas” who compiled the original collection of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas was not a disciple of Jesus, and another “Thomas (also known as Didymus),” was the doubting Thomas in the Gospel of John? That seems unlikely to me.
It’s interesting that two sayings collections circulated in antiquity; the Gospel of Thomas and the Q Source, used to compose the dialogues of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. No manuscript of Q has ever been found, yet the Q source is one of the most successful theories of New Testament scholarship. Thomas is more esoteric and sapiential, Q has a more apocalyptic focus. A significant difference between Q and Thomas is that Thomas has no sayings where Jesus speaks of himself as the Son of man, leading some to conclude this “category” of sayings is not authentic to Jesus. Matthew 24:27 is essential to my interpretation of the Second Coming, so I prefer to think Jesus did use the title for himself.
______________
Here’s evidence first century Christians were actively converting followers of John the Baptist:
Acts 18:24-26:
24 Meanwhile, a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures.
25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John.
26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
Christianity has always been a proselytizing religion. Why wouldn’t they be converting followers of John? It this case it was a bit tricky though, given that John baptized Jesus.
______________
I believe Elaine Pagels’ reputation is still intact, although she has weathered some criticism and not everyone accepts her theories. I thought her book Beyond Belief, comparing the Gospels of John and Thomas, was very interesting.
It’s always important to read other scholars. Never trust the opinions of just one person on a controversial subject without considering what others have to say. Kurt Rudolph’s book Gnosis offers more comprehensive presentation of ancient Gnosticism without being controversial. It’s a difficult read in places, but worth the effort.
Thomas means “twin” in Aramaic, and Didymus means “twin” in Greek.
John 11:16:
Then Thomas (also known as Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”
Are you suggesting “Didymos Judas Thomas” who compiled the original collection of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas was not a disciple of Jesus, and another “Thomas (also known as Didymus),” was the doubting Thomas in the Gospel of John? That seems unlikely to me.
It’s interesting that two sayings collections circulated in antiquity; the Gospel of Thomas and the Q Source, used to compose the dialogues of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. No manuscript of Q has ever been found, yet the Q source is one of the most successful theories of New Testament scholarship. Thomas is more esoteric and sapiential, Q has a more apocalyptic focus. A significant difference between Q and Thomas is that Thomas has no sayings where Jesus speaks of himself as the Son of man, leading some to conclude this “category” of sayings is not authentic to Jesus. Matthew 24:27 is essential to my interpretation of the Second Coming, so I prefer to think Jesus did use the title for himself.
______________
Here’s evidence first century Christians were actively converting followers of John the Baptist:
Acts 18:24-26:
24 Meanwhile, a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures.
25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John.
26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
Christianity has always been a proselytizing religion. Why wouldn’t they be converting followers of John? It this case it was a bit tricky though, given that John baptized Jesus.
______________
I believe Elaine Pagels’ reputation is still intact, although she has weathered some criticism and not everyone accepts her theories. I thought her book Beyond Belief, comparing the Gospels of John and Thomas, was very interesting.
It’s always important to read other scholars. Never trust the opinions of just one person on a controversial subject without considering what others have to say. Kurt Rudolph’s book Gnosis offers more comprehensive presentation of ancient Gnosticism without being controversial. It’s a difficult read in places, but worth the effort.
Last edited:
Greetings Autogenes –
Also the habit of 'blowing one's own trumpet' is common to Gnostic texts, whereas the 'orthodox' sources are a lot-less self-promoting.
(Paul aside, but he wasn't so much promoting as defending himself.)
Again, the Thomasine scribe might well have utilised sayings from the Thomas tradition, as well as Q – or that p-Thomas and Q both drew on a prior common origin, quite possibly an oral tradition.
The text we have today has evolved, so while (like John) there are very early elements, it has evolved over a period of time. The 'outlook' of the final form suggests a late 2nd-early 3rd century worldview, rather than the early apocalyptic.
By the time it reaches its form we have today – from the Qumran materials – it has incorporated some late ideas, including close-to-gnostic ideology.
In short, I'm saying its evolution is complex, In have no problem accepting a Thomasine Syrian Tradition – a wisdom school, a belief in gnosis (but not 'Gnostic').
Aside:
In defence of Thomas, I rather think that Apostle was clear-eyed and level-headed.
"Thomas therefore, who is called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples: Let us also go, that we may die with him." (John 11:16) – this was when Jesus decides to go up to Judea (at the call from Martha and Mary) – the apostles, it seems, try and talk Him out of it, all bar one, Thomas, who says the above. They knew that going up top Judea was 'tempting fate', but Thomas seems up for it.
"Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?" (John 14:5)
This during Jesus' Passion Discourse – quite a bold comment, but pertinent. None of the disciples knew what lay in store, John makes that clear later, at the empty tomb when, discovering Jesus is gone, it begins to dawn ...
Then, days later, in the Upper Room:
"Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came." (John 20:24).
Why was Thomas not in hiding with the others? Because he was out and about – he wasn't afraid.
His harsh rejection of the disciples when they say they have seen the Lord (John 20:24) is probably because he thinks they're hysterical. Nor is he rejected Christ – quite the opposite, his belief in Jesus strengthens him to go out into the world ... The Lord later admonishes him, but Thomas was no less believing than they, really, was he, because they all thought Jesus was dead, and that they might be next ... and Jesus remained and showed them many more signs, all of which was surely intended to bolster their faith ...
It may well be that the proto source might well have been an oral tradition from Thomas – that Thomas collected the sayings and used them in his preaching, but the Gospel as we find it has been redacted and edited by a disciple of Thomas along the way.
Also the habit of 'blowing one's own trumpet' is common to Gnostic texts, whereas the 'orthodox' sources are a lot-less self-promoting.
(Paul aside, but he wasn't so much promoting as defending himself.)
Again, the Thomasine scribe might well have utilised sayings from the Thomas tradition, as well as Q – or that p-Thomas and Q both drew on a prior common origin, quite possibly an oral tradition.
The text we have today has evolved, so while (like John) there are very early elements, it has evolved over a period of time. The 'outlook' of the final form suggests a late 2nd-early 3rd century worldview, rather than the early apocalyptic.
By the time it reaches its form we have today – from the Qumran materials – it has incorporated some late ideas, including close-to-gnostic ideology.
In short, I'm saying its evolution is complex, In have no problem accepting a Thomasine Syrian Tradition – a wisdom school, a belief in gnosis (but not 'Gnostic').
Well Q yes, but in two-source of three-source theories, Thomas doesn't figure as one of the sources. Rather, its a common belief that Thomas drew from these sources.
Indeed ... it does solve a lot of problems, but its acceptance is not universal ... and Thomas is way more problematic.
That would put Q as an older tradition source than Thomas.
Aside:
In defence of Thomas, I rather think that Apostle was clear-eyed and level-headed.
"Thomas therefore, who is called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples: Let us also go, that we may die with him." (John 11:16) – this was when Jesus decides to go up to Judea (at the call from Martha and Mary) – the apostles, it seems, try and talk Him out of it, all bar one, Thomas, who says the above. They knew that going up top Judea was 'tempting fate', but Thomas seems up for it.
"Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?" (John 14:5)
This during Jesus' Passion Discourse – quite a bold comment, but pertinent. None of the disciples knew what lay in store, John makes that clear later, at the empty tomb when, discovering Jesus is gone, it begins to dawn ...
Then, days later, in the Upper Room:
"Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came." (John 20:24).
Why was Thomas not in hiding with the others? Because he was out and about – he wasn't afraid.
His harsh rejection of the disciples when they say they have seen the Lord (John 20:24) is probably because he thinks they're hysterical. Nor is he rejected Christ – quite the opposite, his belief in Jesus strengthens him to go out into the world ... The Lord later admonishes him, but Thomas was no less believing than they, really, was he, because they all thought Jesus was dead, and that they might be next ... and Jesus remained and showed them many more signs, all of which was surely intended to bolster their faith ...
Autogenes
Active Member
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 3
Greetings Thomas,
Thank you for your interest and engaging in discussion with me. Here's my reply to your last post.
My comment:
Thomas was more esoteric and sapiential; Q has a more apocalyptic focus.
Your comment:
That would put Q as an older tradition source than Thomas.
My Response:
Why? Do you believe the apocalyptic says in Q are older and more likely to be authentic to Jesus than the wisdom says in Q? What about the Sermon on the Mount? Is it not wisdom? To say that Thomas is later than Q, and therefore less reliable, because it is a wisdom collection strikes me as too schematic, especially if one accepts that Jesus was a wisdom teacher. I believe both contribute to our understanding of what Jesus taught.
Your comment:
It may well be that the proto source might well have been an oral tradition from Thomas – that Thomas collected the sayings and used them in his preaching, but the Gospel as we find it has been redacted and edited by a disciple of Thomas along the way.
My response:
The Gospel of Thomas as a sayings collection no doubt expanded as new sayings were added over the course of its transmission. The same could be said of Q. John Kloppenborg, in his books The Formation of Q (1987) and Excavating Q (2000), postulates multiple redactions, starting with a collection of wisdom sayings.
From Stephen J. Patterson the Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (1994):
Can Thomas tell us anything about Christian origins that we did not already know?
Early in the Thomas debate many answered this question with an emphatic "no." They argued that parallels between Thomas and the synoptics indicate that Thomas made use of the synoptic gospels, pirating sayings from them and corrupting them to reflect the unorthodox theology of Thomas. For such, Thomas could be dismissed as nothing more than an heretical perversion of earliest Christianity.
But the evidence for this view was slim, and the theories justifying this or that slight change in Thomas's version of a saying were fanciful. In recent years, in all but conservative Catholic and evangelical circles, this view has gradually given way to another. The parallels between Thomas and the synoptics are due to a common shared oral tradition, not Thomas's reliance on Matthew, Mark, or Luke. The evidence for this hypothesis is as follows:
1) Close, detailed comparison of sayings contained in both Thomas and the synoptics reveals that Thomas preserves them in a form that is more primitive than the synoptic form. In some cases, the Thomas form of a saying shows signs of later development, but lying behind it is a form that is more basic than the synoptic form. In either case such evidence indicates that Thomas did not rely on the synoptic gospels but on traditions, whether written or oral, that antedate them…”
3)…Thomas belongs formally to that early period of collecting sayings of Jesus, a time contemporaneous with Q… This evidence has convinced most current Thomas scholars that the Gospel of Thomas is basically independent of the synoptic gospels.”
Helmut Koester from the Nag Hammadi Library in English:
“If one considers the form and wording of the individual sayings in comparison with the form in which they are preserved in the New Testament, The Gospel of Thomas almost always appears to have preserved a more original form of the traditional saying... More original and shorter forms are especially evident in the parables of Thomas."
Does Q have a greater percentage of “authentic” sayings than Thomas? It would be impossible to say. Thomas is sapiential, Q is more apocalyptic. Was Jesus a wisdom teacher or an apocalyptic teacher? Is His kingdom a present reality, or something to become manifest in the eschaton? Would the Jews have accepted a messiah who taught the Kingdom of God was already present, while day to day life under Roman occupation remained unchanged? In my opinion, Jesus was both a wisdom teacher who taught salvation through Gnosis, and an apocalyptic teacher who could clairvoyantly foresee man’s ultimate thermonuclear self-destruction.
Do you see Jesus as primarily an apocalyptic teacher? What is your understanding of the apocalypse? Are you expecting divine, supernatural intervention on earth? Such was the hope at Qumran. I suggest we have a real, potentially immanent, man-made apocalypse staring us right in the face.
Thank you for your interest and engaging in discussion with me. Here's my reply to your last post.
My comment:
Thomas was more esoteric and sapiential; Q has a more apocalyptic focus.
Your comment:
That would put Q as an older tradition source than Thomas.
My Response:
Why? Do you believe the apocalyptic says in Q are older and more likely to be authentic to Jesus than the wisdom says in Q? What about the Sermon on the Mount? Is it not wisdom? To say that Thomas is later than Q, and therefore less reliable, because it is a wisdom collection strikes me as too schematic, especially if one accepts that Jesus was a wisdom teacher. I believe both contribute to our understanding of what Jesus taught.
Your comment:
It may well be that the proto source might well have been an oral tradition from Thomas – that Thomas collected the sayings and used them in his preaching, but the Gospel as we find it has been redacted and edited by a disciple of Thomas along the way.
My response:
The Gospel of Thomas as a sayings collection no doubt expanded as new sayings were added over the course of its transmission. The same could be said of Q. John Kloppenborg, in his books The Formation of Q (1987) and Excavating Q (2000), postulates multiple redactions, starting with a collection of wisdom sayings.
From Stephen J. Patterson the Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (1994):
Can Thomas tell us anything about Christian origins that we did not already know?
Early in the Thomas debate many answered this question with an emphatic "no." They argued that parallels between Thomas and the synoptics indicate that Thomas made use of the synoptic gospels, pirating sayings from them and corrupting them to reflect the unorthodox theology of Thomas. For such, Thomas could be dismissed as nothing more than an heretical perversion of earliest Christianity.
But the evidence for this view was slim, and the theories justifying this or that slight change in Thomas's version of a saying were fanciful. In recent years, in all but conservative Catholic and evangelical circles, this view has gradually given way to another. The parallels between Thomas and the synoptics are due to a common shared oral tradition, not Thomas's reliance on Matthew, Mark, or Luke. The evidence for this hypothesis is as follows:
1) Close, detailed comparison of sayings contained in both Thomas and the synoptics reveals that Thomas preserves them in a form that is more primitive than the synoptic form. In some cases, the Thomas form of a saying shows signs of later development, but lying behind it is a form that is more basic than the synoptic form. In either case such evidence indicates that Thomas did not rely on the synoptic gospels but on traditions, whether written or oral, that antedate them…”
3)…Thomas belongs formally to that early period of collecting sayings of Jesus, a time contemporaneous with Q… This evidence has convinced most current Thomas scholars that the Gospel of Thomas is basically independent of the synoptic gospels.”
Helmut Koester from the Nag Hammadi Library in English:
“If one considers the form and wording of the individual sayings in comparison with the form in which they are preserved in the New Testament, The Gospel of Thomas almost always appears to have preserved a more original form of the traditional saying... More original and shorter forms are especially evident in the parables of Thomas."
Does Q have a greater percentage of “authentic” sayings than Thomas? It would be impossible to say. Thomas is sapiential, Q is more apocalyptic. Was Jesus a wisdom teacher or an apocalyptic teacher? Is His kingdom a present reality, or something to become manifest in the eschaton? Would the Jews have accepted a messiah who taught the Kingdom of God was already present, while day to day life under Roman occupation remained unchanged? In my opinion, Jesus was both a wisdom teacher who taught salvation through Gnosis, and an apocalyptic teacher who could clairvoyantly foresee man’s ultimate thermonuclear self-destruction.
Do you see Jesus as primarily an apocalyptic teacher? What is your understanding of the apocalypse? Are you expecting divine, supernatural intervention on earth? Such was the hope at Qumran. I suggest we have a real, potentially immanent, man-made apocalypse staring us right in the face.
Last edited:
My pleasure.
Indeed. Two interesting strands.
I see the Q as older because it's age can be strongly argued from the synoptics.
Dating GoT is more problematic in that regard.
I don't think that's the schematic.
I follow the scholars who largely agree that the final form of GoT reflects later writings. I'm not saying GoT isn't old, I'd say GoT used traditional sources and compiled from there.
I would agree with that.
Interesting. The same is argued of the Gospel of John.
OK.
"... his (Koester's) sole preoccupation being with source criticism. This provides him with explanations for the secondary elements in, for example, the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas: they are later additions to earlier (but hypothetical!) sources, and it is the earlier source which often stands behind the canonical gospels."
"two things are crucial for this advance:
(i) a methodological defence of each suggested hypothesis;
(ii) a continued awareness that however many scholars are persuaded by a hypothesis, the solution remains hypothetical. "
"Koester’s weakness is not in the making of hypotheses (by no means!), but he never provides a defence of his method. In particular, the priority of source criticism over an assessment of the whole document cannot be assumed, especially when a holistic literary approach may help explain the relationship between canonical and non-canonical gospel literature."
"There are other particular problems in Koester’s procedure when the Coptic Gospel of Thomas from the fourth century is used as a primary source (from the first century), even though the Greek fragments from Oxyrhynchus, the citations in Hippolytus, and the use of Gnostic technical terms suggest that it has undergone a thorough redaction between the second and fourth centuries."
From a review of Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, by P. M. Head
I think the telling points here is "the Greek fragments from Oxyrhynchus, the citations in Hippolytus, and the use of Gnostic technical terms (in the Coptic version which Koester treats as a first century material) suggest that it has undergone a thorough redaction between the second and fourth centuries."
What is required is a comparison between materials in Thomas that are common to the Synoptics (be they Mark or Q) and the isolation of content unique to Thomas, and then an evaluation of those particular strands.
OK, but thinking about it, the question is:
Why the apocalyptic is missing from Thomas when there is an apocalyptic dimension to Jesus' preaching?
By how much was the sapiential language in Thomas was redacted between its origin and the final 4th century version?
I'd say both.
I'd say salvation through faith – gnosis is in the very nature of Revelation, but it's not the path for everyone. I see his teaching addresses humanity as such, encompassing all the spiritual types – if we take the traditional understandings of the gnostic, the esoterist, the jnani, etc., then they represent only a small portion of humanity.
Well, always a possibility, but I think an environmental extinction event is more likely.
I see Him primarily as a Redeemer.
"No man knoweth" (Matthew 24:36)
Autogenes
Active Member
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 3
Greetings Thomas,
An interesting conversation we’re having.
Helmut Koester may not be above criticism, but he was a very influential and highly regarded New Testament scholar, chosen by James Robinson to introduce and translate the most important text in the Nag Hammadi Library. He was Elaine Pagels’ professor at Harvard as well.
Leaving aside the question of Koester’s hermeneutics, let’s consider the absence of apocalyptic sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, and sayings where Jesus speaks of himself as the Son of man. It may be these sayings were revealed in resurrection appearances to one or more disciples of Jesus within the Q community, after the common oral tradition had spilt between his Gnostic and proto-orthodox followers, and were added to Q but not Thomas. Both sayings collections expanded over time through the revelations of the risen Jesus. It’s not like people were just making stuff up. These were respected holy disciples of our Lord within the early Christian communities to which they belonged. It’s not really necessary to debate over whether this or that saying may or may not be “authentic” or what the original “form” of the saying may have been. Several epistles of Paul in the New Testament are considered “Deutero-Pauline” yet still regarded as holy scripture inspired by God. As to the larger question of whether the teaching of Jesus was corrupted during the oral transmission of his sayings, I would say no, although emphasis and interpretation may have shifted within different communities. Theology evolves over time for both Gnostics and Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, the orthodox have always taken a dim view of those who refuse to accept their creeds. “Anathema sit” as the saying goes. This stems to some extent from the idea that believing the correct doctrine is essential for salvation, but also reflects the need of the powerful to control peoples’ minds. Gnosis cannot be conveyed in words and doesn’t come from reciting a creed. May the teaching of Jesus be your guide, and Christian fellowship your support.
In my previous post I stated: “Jesus was both a wisdom teacher who taught salvation through Gnosis, and an apocalyptic teacher who could clairvoyantly foresee man’s ultimate thermonuclear self-destruction.”
You responded: “I'd say salvation through faith – gnosis is in the very nature of Revelation, but it's not the path for everyone.” I’ll revise to say Jesus was a wisdom teacher who taught salvation through Faith and Gnosis. Not every Christian will achieve Gnosis; not every Buddhist will achieve enlightenment, yet Jesus and Buddha offer salvation to all who follow their path. For those Christians who receive Gnosis from Jesus, the Kingdom of God is a present reality, and his Second Coming is less of a concern; they already dwell in His Kingdom as perfect light, just as a living Buddha dwells in Nirvana. Hence the lack of an apocalyptic interest in Thomas.
Compare these sayings from Paul, in his (authentic) letter to the Corinthians, and Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas:
Already you are filled! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you!
- I Corinthians 4:8 (RSV)
Cf. Apocryphon of James:
He [The Savior] said, 'Verily I say unto you, no one will ever enter the kingdom of heaven at my bidding, but (only) because you yourselves are full. Leave James and Peter to me that I may fill them.' And having called these two, he drew them aside and bade the rest occupy themselves with that which they were about.
- NHC I, 2,29-40 (Translation Francis E. Williams)
What does Jesus mean when he says, “No one will ever enter the kingdom of heaven at my bidding, but (only) because you yourselves are full.” By comparison, a Buddhist enters nirvana after becoming “awakened” or “enlightened.”. Gnosis and the Yogic word “Jnana” share the same meaning and the same Indo-European root.
- Disclaimer alert: I came to Gnostic Christianity by way of Buddhism and Yoga.
This seems to suggest if you don’t have Gnosis, you don’t get in. Surely ordinary Christians like you and me who establish a sincere relationship with Jesus and strive to follow his teaching will also be saved. Jesus died for us too. But great holy men such as St Anthony and the Desert Fathers, who achieve Gnosis and become “full” abide at a higher level. I realize St. Anthony and the Desert Fathers were not Gnostics in the philosophical or theological sense. I use them as well-known examples of men called to the wilderness by God, the same Great Invisible Eternal Spirit who called the Sethians to the caves of the Nag Hammadi Jabal al-Ṭārif. Granted, the Sethians called the Creator God "Saklas," but that may result from what happened at Qumran when the Sons of Darkness attacked the Sons of Light, assuming the sectarian roots of the Sethians are to be found there, a theory I explore more deeply on the Interpretation page of my website.
- Bear in mind, I’m a heretic.
Let us continue our search in fellowship.
Peace be with you.
An interesting conversation we’re having.
Helmut Koester may not be above criticism, but he was a very influential and highly regarded New Testament scholar, chosen by James Robinson to introduce and translate the most important text in the Nag Hammadi Library. He was Elaine Pagels’ professor at Harvard as well.
Leaving aside the question of Koester’s hermeneutics, let’s consider the absence of apocalyptic sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, and sayings where Jesus speaks of himself as the Son of man. It may be these sayings were revealed in resurrection appearances to one or more disciples of Jesus within the Q community, after the common oral tradition had spilt between his Gnostic and proto-orthodox followers, and were added to Q but not Thomas. Both sayings collections expanded over time through the revelations of the risen Jesus. It’s not like people were just making stuff up. These were respected holy disciples of our Lord within the early Christian communities to which they belonged. It’s not really necessary to debate over whether this or that saying may or may not be “authentic” or what the original “form” of the saying may have been. Several epistles of Paul in the New Testament are considered “Deutero-Pauline” yet still regarded as holy scripture inspired by God. As to the larger question of whether the teaching of Jesus was corrupted during the oral transmission of his sayings, I would say no, although emphasis and interpretation may have shifted within different communities. Theology evolves over time for both Gnostics and Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, the orthodox have always taken a dim view of those who refuse to accept their creeds. “Anathema sit” as the saying goes. This stems to some extent from the idea that believing the correct doctrine is essential for salvation, but also reflects the need of the powerful to control peoples’ minds. Gnosis cannot be conveyed in words and doesn’t come from reciting a creed. May the teaching of Jesus be your guide, and Christian fellowship your support.
In my previous post I stated: “Jesus was both a wisdom teacher who taught salvation through Gnosis, and an apocalyptic teacher who could clairvoyantly foresee man’s ultimate thermonuclear self-destruction.”
You responded: “I'd say salvation through faith – gnosis is in the very nature of Revelation, but it's not the path for everyone.” I’ll revise to say Jesus was a wisdom teacher who taught salvation through Faith and Gnosis. Not every Christian will achieve Gnosis; not every Buddhist will achieve enlightenment, yet Jesus and Buddha offer salvation to all who follow their path. For those Christians who receive Gnosis from Jesus, the Kingdom of God is a present reality, and his Second Coming is less of a concern; they already dwell in His Kingdom as perfect light, just as a living Buddha dwells in Nirvana. Hence the lack of an apocalyptic interest in Thomas.
Compare these sayings from Paul, in his (authentic) letter to the Corinthians, and Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas:
Already you are filled! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you!
- I Corinthians 4:8 (RSV)
Cf. Apocryphon of James:
He [The Savior] said, 'Verily I say unto you, no one will ever enter the kingdom of heaven at my bidding, but (only) because you yourselves are full. Leave James and Peter to me that I may fill them.' And having called these two, he drew them aside and bade the rest occupy themselves with that which they were about.
- NHC I, 2,29-40 (Translation Francis E. Williams)
What does Jesus mean when he says, “No one will ever enter the kingdom of heaven at my bidding, but (only) because you yourselves are full.” By comparison, a Buddhist enters nirvana after becoming “awakened” or “enlightened.”. Gnosis and the Yogic word “Jnana” share the same meaning and the same Indo-European root.
- Disclaimer alert: I came to Gnostic Christianity by way of Buddhism and Yoga.
This seems to suggest if you don’t have Gnosis, you don’t get in. Surely ordinary Christians like you and me who establish a sincere relationship with Jesus and strive to follow his teaching will also be saved. Jesus died for us too. But great holy men such as St Anthony and the Desert Fathers, who achieve Gnosis and become “full” abide at a higher level. I realize St. Anthony and the Desert Fathers were not Gnostics in the philosophical or theological sense. I use them as well-known examples of men called to the wilderness by God, the same Great Invisible Eternal Spirit who called the Sethians to the caves of the Nag Hammadi Jabal al-Ṭārif. Granted, the Sethians called the Creator God "Saklas," but that may result from what happened at Qumran when the Sons of Darkness attacked the Sons of Light, assuming the sectarian roots of the Sethians are to be found there, a theory I explore more deeply on the Interpretation page of my website.
- Bear in mind, I’m a heretic.
Let us continue our search in fellowship.
Peace be with you.
Last edited: