Buddhism and Christianity = mutually exclusive?

Bluehair

Firstly i haven't the foggiest idea why but keep finding myself drawn back to this particular forum and am following the various discussions with some interest.

I've always considered myself somewhat spiritual if not religious (though raised Catholic) but have always found the whole organisation of 'church' very hard to follow; i.e. someone interpeting Christs teaching for me and then telling me what to do, particularly when the focus seems to be on condemning certain actions rather than lauding and encouraging others.

I find myself torn a little, almost guilty strangely, of being attracted to what little i've read about Buddhism thus far.

Hence my question in the title "Buddhism and Christianity = mutually exclusive?". In fact what prompted me to post was an interesting quote from AnonymousBloke where he mentioned "Ironically, through Buddhism I have a better appreciation of Catholicism now."

I'd love to hear other views on this and if they share the same sentiment. Thank you

Goodshape

Bluehair wrote:

I find myself torn a little, almost guilty strangely, of being attracted to what little i've read about Buddhism thus far.

Guilty because it's a "crazy" "eastern philosophy" (in the eyes of your christian indoctrination) or because you're afraid you're being sucked in by the fad of it all, without any grounding reason ('what little i've read')?

I can relate to the second reason a little myself. But then, the more I read and learn the more I think that everybody would benifit from these things - so wheres the harm ? Obvious solution in any case is to read and learn more, and then make up your own mind based on that.

As for christianity and buddhisim being mutually exclusive, I don't think thats the case (although a lot of catholic preaching (rather than teaching) does seem pretty redundent when we take into account what buddhisim has to offer). I'm sure someone else here will be able to answer that question better than me.

twentycentshift

buddhism, as a non-theistic philosophy, does not exclude or condemn any other religious belief. buddhism is about compassion. christianity is about many things, but one of those is kindness and compassion. some christians may exclude buddhism, but not all, and not the other way around.

now bear with me. there is no record of jesus christ from the ages of 13 to
30. there is some real speculation and even eastern documentation that jesus travelled to the areas around northern india and studied buddhism. some of his ideas were very different and foreign to the ideas being taught by the jewish people of the day. many of those ideas were very much in line with what buddha taught. that's one of the reasons the teachings of jesus were so amazing and controversial. they were revolutionary to the people he preached to.

just food for thought.

Asiaprod

Bluehair wrote:

Firstly I haven't the foggiest idea why but keep finding myself drawn back to this particular forum and am following the various discussions with some interest.

Aha, I wonder why too.

I've always considered myself somewhat spiritual if not religious (though raised Catholic) but have always found the whole organization of 'church' very hard to follow; i.e. someone interpreting Christ's teaching for me and then telling me what to do, particularly when the focus seems to be on condemning certain actions rather than lauding and encouraging others.

I find myself torn a little, almost guilty strangely, of being attracted to what little I've read about Buddhism thus far.

Join the gang. I started as a catholic and felt all the same things myself. I moved to Japan and took an interest in Buddhism. During the first 4 years of my practice (over here we say we are practicing Buddhism) I used to do my nightly meditation and then before jumping into bed I would pray to God and my guardian angel. I had all bases covered. I remember the night I finally said to myself that this was stupid. I had not committed to either beliefs 100%. I did not pray to God that night and jumped under the covers waiting for that bolt from the blue. It did not happen, I fell asleep and I did wake up the next morning. The feeling of relief I felt at finally committing was incredible. I also realized how deeply that fear of God that the catholic church had pushed on me was rooted in my life. Since that day I have never looked back. I have many friends who are priests and I respect and cherish them deeply. And you know one funny thing, none of them have changed their attitude or respect for me. In fact a number of then have expressed their own appreciation for what Buddhism stands for.

Hence my question in the title "Buddhism and Christianity = mutually exclusive?". In fact what prompted me to post was an interesting quote from AnonymousBloke where he mentioned "Ironically, through Buddhism I have a better appreciation of Catholicism now."

Actually, I explain in one of my latest post how Kashmir Buddhist Lamas claim to have documentation to say that Jesus lived, studied and taught based on Buddhist scripture for 18 years in India earning great aspect and a large following. He is know under the name of Saint Issa. They also actually claim he is buried there. Have a read of the link I posted earlier today and feed back your thoughts to me. Feel free to pose any question, I will try to answer.

Goodshape wrote:

]As for Christianity and Buddhism being mutually exclusive, I don't think that's the case (although a lot of catholic preaching (rather than teaching) does seem pretty redundant when we take into account what Buddhism has to offer). I'm sure someone else here will be able to answer that question better than me.

Oh, you do give me the hard questions, and you were doing so well. Are Christianity and Buddhism being mutually exclusive. Well Buddhism acknowledges, and places very highly, the good works of Jesus (Saint Issa) of which it has first hand knowledge, but since they claim he studied with them that is hardly surprising . I have yet to hear Christianity pay the same respect back. Their beliefs would appear to be in total opposition. So I guess you could say they are mutually exclusive. You cant be both, you can only be one or the other.
But this really only applies to the dogma aspect. They do both stand for truth and justice. Thy both urge us to help our fellow man.
I once asked a Buddhist priest to tell me which religion most closely followed Buddhist beliefs. With out pausing for a moment he declared that Christianity would be the one. Would a Christian priest answer the same?

Cantab.

Bluehair wrote:

I've always considered myself somewhat spiritual if not religious (though raised Catholic) but have always found the whole organisation of 'church' very hard to follow; i.e. someone interpeting Christs teaching for me and then telling me what to do, particularly when the focus seems to be on condemning certain actions rather than lauding and encouraging others.

So the media would have you think. The Catholic Church is so much more than the sticky issues such as abortion, homosexual persons, celibacy, euthenasia, male priests, etc. which get all the attention. From the inside, such issues hardly enter your head. If you actually take time to read the Church's stance on these issues, you'll find that the teaching from Rome is solid and well thought-out and makes complete sense in the grand scale of things.

Bluehair wrote:

I find myself torn a little, almost guilty strangely, of being attracted to what little i've read about Buddhism thus far.

If you have been Baptised and Confirmed I'd tread very carefully indeed. Whilst Buddhism and Christianity are not entirely mutually exclusive, they are very unalike and have profound fundamental theological differences.

Bluehair wrote:

Hence my question in the title "Buddhism and Christianity = mutually exclusive?". In fact what prompted me to post was an interesting quote from AnonymousBloke where he mentioned "Ironically, through Buddhism I have a better appreciation of Catholicism now."

Be careful.

Asiaprod

Cantab wrote:

So the media would have you think. The Catholic Church is so much more than the sticky issues such as abortion, homosexual persons, celibacy, euthanasia, male priests, etc. which get all the attention. From the inside, such issues hardly enter your head

.

Well I am glad you have finally set out minds at rest: from the inside such issues hardly enter your head.
Let me assure you from the outside they enter mine and a whole load of other people`s heads

. If you actually take time to read the Church's stance on these issues, you'll find that the teaching from Rome is solid and well thought-out and makes complete sense in the grand scale of things

.

Sorry, I can not agree with that wishful thinking. Actions speak louder than words. Pay the abused, admit liability, punish the guilty or can it.

. If you have been Baptized and Confirmed I'd tread very carefully indeed. Whilst Buddhism and Christianity are not entirely mutually exclusive, they are very unalike and have profound fundamental theological differences.

.

Why if you have been Baptized and Confirmed, should you tread carefully. Are we about to get another doom and punishment scenario.
Both of the above mentioned actions are given/taken to/by minors who legally have not reach any age of consent. They are usually at the directive of the parents, granted doing what they feel is correct for the kid at that time. Kids grow up and can then make their own decisions.

. Be careful.

.

Be careful of what? It might be more constructive expand on this than to just issue guarded warnings.

AnonymousBloke

Some good topics going down in this forum

To the OP, re whether Buddhism and Christianity are mutually exclusive, I guess it depends on what your stance is and what you believe. I don't mean to be cutesy, but if Jesus and the Buddha met, do you think they'd have any difficulty with each other? Personally I imagine they'd both recognise in the other a kindred spirit.

There have been some very prominent Christian writers/thinkers who have had a very close relationship with Buddhism, Thomas Merton and Anthony De Mello come to mind. There are also individuals like Hugo Lasalle, who is a Jesuit priest and a Zen practitioner.

When I said I'd gained a better appreciation of Catholicism through my experience in Buddhism, I guess it was because I was hearing the words differently. A lot of the core teachings of Buddhism and Christianity (and most religions as far as I can see) are very similar, the central ones being about compassion and love. The differences usually are in the detail.

I found over a period of time that the elements of other traditions that appealed to me most were their so-called mystical teachings. When I read some of the writings of Meister Eckhart, or Sufi poets, I find a strong resonance. Even certain passages that I occasionally hear from the Bible make sense to me in a different way now. I think that's because I'm hearing it differently, from a place in myself that Buddhism has helped me to access.

I have ended up ultimately pursuing a 'Buddhist' path, but I believe that everything can teach us if we're receptive. I have no problem reading books by anyone, and still learn from them.

I don't think there's any reason to feel guilty for having an interest in these things. Hope that makes some sense.

Asiaprod

AnonymousBloke wrote:

I think that's because I'm hearing it differently, from a place in myself that Buddhism has helped me to access.

Damn, Damn, Damn.

I wish I had said that. That was pure brilliance. You did not hit the nail on the head, you buried it. That is exactly how I see it.
Thank you for bringing that GEM to my attention.

Cantab.

Asiaprod wrote:

.

Well I am glad you have finally set out minds at rest: from the inside such issues hardly enter your head.
Let me assure you from the outside they enter mine and a whole load of other people`s heads

Catholicism is about so much more than the sticky issues. Of course to true believers, they're not really bothered too much by those who criticise the Church for being catholic.

Asiaprod wrote:

Sorry, I can not agree with that wishful thinking. Actions speak louder than words. Pay the abused, admit liability, punish the guilty or can it.

Individual priest are subject to civil law just like every other person in this country. Individual clergy aren't more prone to sexual misconduct than any other group despite the rhetoric that ensued soon after the blitz of the paedophilia scandal (and it is just that, a scandal). Child abuse is an evil that afflicts clergy of all denominations as well as parents, family members, teachers, coaches, etc.
The Church gets enough bashing in today's liberal, secular media, but it's important for people to realise that no matter how many trials and tribulations the Church is put through, the Faith will always stand firm through thick and thin.

Asiaprod wrote:

Why if you have been Baptized and Confirmed, should you tread carefully. Are we about to get another doom and punishment scenario.

Well if you're confirmed you accept responsiblility for your faith and destiny. To take another god before your own is a grave and mortal sin.

Asiaprod wrote:

Both of the above mentioned actions are given/taken to/by minors who legally have not reach any age of consent. They are usually at the directive of the parents, granted doing what they feel is correct for the kid at that time. Kids grow up and can then make their own decisions.

So? If you apply that logic then why impose a name on a child? Why not wait for them to become the magic age of 18 and let them choose a name for risk of imposing a name upon them that they didn't like?

Cantab.

Cantab. wrote:

Well if you're confirmed you accept responsiblility for your faith and destiny. To take another god before your own is a grave and mortal sin.

It's a good thing buddhism doesn't entail worshipping another god

furthermore, I was 10 when I made my confirmation, kids around that age shouldn't be accepting responsibility for anything

So? If you apply that logic then why impose a name on a child? Why not wait for them to become the magic age of 18 and let them choose a name for risk of imposing a name upon them that they didn't like?

Changing one's name by deed poll at whatever age is not a "mortal sin". That's the difference.

I've heard on another forum of buddhist christians. It seems common enough? If you just adopt some of the philosophies and meditations for example, that doesn't conflict anything. *shrug*

The Free Man

Cantab. wrote:

So? If you apply that logic then why impose a name on a child? Why not wait for them to become the magic age of 18 and let them choose a name for risk of imposing a name upon them that they didn't like?

you cant compare a name (which can be changed) to a religious oath forced upon you, which supposedly can't be changed under the eyes of god.

Also, it doesn't make sense if it is a mortal sin under the eyes of god to change your faith to buddhism (or anything else). I was confirmed, but now I no longer believe christianity, and practise buddhism. does this mean I have mortally sinned in the eyes of something that doesn't exist to me?

Bluehair

Many thanks to all for responding it's giving me a lot of food for thought. Interestingly the peace i found i related to most was

Asiaprod wrote:

During the first 4 years of my practice (over here we say we are practicing Buddhism) I used to do my nightly meditation and then before jumping into bed I would pray to God and my guardian angel. I had all bases covered. I remember the night I finally said to myself that this was stupid. I had not committed to either beliefs 100%. I did not pray to God that night and jumped under the covers waiting for that bolt from the blue. It did not happen, I fell asleep and I did wake up the next morning. The feeling of relief I felt at finally committing was incredible. I also realized how deeply that fear of God that the catholic church had pushed on me was rooted in my life.

This is representative of one of the things that bothers me about the church as opposed to christianity. It does indeed seem based on fear and (no doubt sincere motives aside and i thank him for it) Cantabs dire warning reflects that. I've a great deal more reading to do on it but i just can't relate to a church that spends so much time telling me about all the bad things i shouldn't do rather than providing leadership and guidance on the good things i should do.

One of the things that appeals about Buddism is the approach of living a certain style of life in order to attain nirvana rather than living a certain style of life in order to avoid hell.

Asiaprod wrote:

Actually, I explain in one of my latest post how Kashmir Buddhist Lamas claim to have documentation to say that Jesus lived, studied and taught based on Buddhist scripture for 18 years in India earning great aspect and a large following. He is know under the name of Saint Issa.

Truely fascinating, i had no idea of this whatsoever.

Cantab wrote:

If you actually take time to read the Church's stance on these issues, you'll find that the teaching from Rome is solid and well thought-out and makes complete sense in the grand scale of things.

I've no doubt you're sincere in this and i thank you for your contribution but i simply don't believe this. One of the problems i have is that there is a wide gulf between the lessons Christ taught us in his lifetime and the lessons the church today is attempting to deal with. Surely spirituality and religious leadership is about providing guidance on how to lead a good life rather than what seems to be a overwhelming need to specifically direct us on issues not to do. Was it Gandhi who said "i like your Christ... but not your Christians"?

AnonymousBloke wrote:

if Jesus and the Buddha met, do you think they'd have any difficulty with each other? Personally I imagine they'd both recognise in the other a kindred spirit.

This makes a great deal of sense to me. I don't believe there's anything at all awry with the teachings of Christ but it is increasingly apparant to me that the modern day church(s) seems to have split, confused and diverted from was what essentially a simple message of compasion and love for your fellow man.

Thank you to all for your contributions so far, i can safely say i feel considerably happier (and less guilty ) about exploring the issue much further now.

By the way i found another quote by Chopper really resonated with me ""when the student is ready, the teacher will appear" in relation to Soka Gakkai. As a full-time mature student of Internation Relations with ambitions to make a difference in the world (however small) imagine how surprised i was to find a website where Buddism and articles about the United Nations, Democracy, Peace efforts etc where walking hand in hand!

Yoda

The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas and the Buddha would appear to have a lot in common. The Jesus as edited by the Church... well, he's been edited into a god, hasn't he?

I don't think the Buddha would have had much time for Abraham or his god. Buddhism isn't a religion. It's sensible advice about dealing with life. Some of the advice may lead to rarified states of consciousness which are considered rather worthwhile by those who experience them. But that just makes the advice all the more sensible.

Asiaprod

Bluehair wrote:

By the way i found another quote by Chopper really resonated with me ""when the student is ready, the teacher will appear" in relation to Soka Gakkai. As a full-time mature student of Internation Relations with ambitions to make a difference in the world (however small) imagine how surprised i was to find a website where Buddism and articles about the United Nations, Democracy, Peace efforts etc where walking hand in hand!

I have been a Sokka Gakkai member (and leader) for 20 years now. Although I continually battle with the powers that be to prevent it sliding away from its central role of supporting the growth of Buddhism, I have great respect for its involvment in world affairs. It has established universities and community centers, it has touring exhibitions traveling the globe (Holocaust, Gahandi, Ann Frank, Aids Africa, Cappa (the War Photo Corespondent)( and variouse other involvments. To me, this is putting belief in to practise. I will alweays consider them to be a great portal for anyone seeking to learn.

Asiaprod

Catholicism is about so much more than the sticky issues. Of course to true believers, they're not really bothered too much by those who criticize the Church for being catholic.

We are not talking about criticizing the Church for being catholic, don't you realize by now it is being criticized for its hypocrisy.

These one I will answer simply.

Individual priest are subject to civil law just like every other person in this country.

But the church hides them away, that is aiding and abetting
It denies these things take place, that's perjury to your God
This list could go to pages so I will stop here.

Individual clergy aren't more prone to sexual misconduct than any other group despite the rhetoric that ensued soon after the blitz of the pedophilia scandal

I do not believe this to be the case. They are subject to a set of rules and placed in an environment that easily promotes this type of abuse.

(and it is just that, a scandal).

Get real, a scandal, no way Its a betrayal short and simple. To their, God, their church, their congregation, and to the innocents they despoil. Just a scandal my ass.

The Church gets enough bashing in today's liberal, secular media, but it's important for people to realize that no matter how many trials and tribulations the Church is put through, the Faith will always stand firm through thick and thin.

And it has deserved a lot of it. I think you should say Faith will always stand firm. You might even want to consider dividing this into Faith in the Church and Faith in the God, they are apparently not the same thing.

Well if you're confirmed you accept responsibility for your faith and destiny. To take another god before your own is a grave and mortal

How can a kid of 8-10 yrs be expected to take responsibility for his/her faith and destiny?
That to me is totally unreasonable, almost coercion if you like, IMHO it is in fact praying on the young and immature. While I can accept Baptism as a ritual, I cannot accept the confirmation aspect. Would it not be a better idea to have both of these rituals carried out as temporary actions that requires the recipient to finally confirm both at a different ceremony when he/she reaches the legal age of consent. This would then have a knock on effect that the church could not rest on its proverbial Butt, but would have to pay very close attention to the needs of that person or else they could find their books short another practitioner. In short, you have a lazy church that rests secure in the knowledge that they locked in a new member which they keep by using fear and punishment. I would like to kick that proverbial Butt and say, no you have not, if you want to keep this person you have a 16-18 years period to give it your best shot. Now you are talking about an active religion, not a complacent one which depends upon fear and retribution to maintain its numbers.

So? If you apply that logic then why impose a name on a child? Why not wait for them to become the magic age of 18 and let them choose a name for risk of imposing a name upon them that they didn't like?

I agree entirely, why indeed stick a kid with a name they may not want, let them choose that name when they make their commitment once they have reach the legal age of consent.
What a great suggestion by you, see how much you can change things when you really set your mind to it.

AnonymousBloke

Plenty of food for thought.

Just on the confirmation issue- I was confirmed at the age of 12. Surely for something to have true meaning there has to be understanding and genuine intention behind it. When I was confirmed, I mouthed all the things I was 'supposed' to, but I had no real understanding of what I was doing, didn't feel like I had a choice about it, and therefore I would say there was no true intentionality. Ultimately it was a meaningless ceremony for me, I was more excited about being able to take communion afterwards because that's what adults did, and about getting money!

What is a mortal sin anyway? If a child of 10 or 12 engages in an ill-understood ritual out of pressure to conform and family/societal expectation, and then later moves away from that faith, he/she is going to eternal hell? I have quite some difficulty reconciling that with the concept of an all-loving God.

I still think the different Christian faiths have a lot to offer people who are drawn to them, and there are many open-minded Christians with a very progressive attitude. My own opinion is that the Catholic Church needs to, as an institution, regain a heart-connection with the core of its faith, and operate from there. It seems to me to have lost touch with that somewhat, although there are individuals who are bucking the trend. In the past some of them would have been branded heretics though

All the above is meant respectfully to those who are Christian.

Yoda

AnonymousBloke wrote:

I have quite some difficulty reconciling that with the concept of an all-loving God.

More and more I find myself agreeing with Richard Dawkins on this point: my favourite god is Santa.

Though I do like palaeolithic and neolithic goddesses rather a lot.

Goodshape

I remember protesting strongly over my confirmation -- even at that age I was quite outspoken and opinionated with regards to my personal beliefs, and I could see catholosisim wasn't for me.

Never the less I was convinced by my parents to go ahead with the ritual 'for the sake of it' (they themselves don't practise their religion, but sure, what harm can it do?). At the age I was (probably about 12) I wasn't in any position to decide these sort of things for myself, nor was I given the oportunity -- the whole first communion / confirmation seems as important a part of education as the junior cert does when you get around to doing that. To not take part in what the rest of your school year is doing isn't really an option.

Coercion is right. I resent the church for that and have no qualms about 'turning my back' to 'the faith' -- in my mind and heart there never was a 'faith' in the first place. Words are cheap. Words from a 12 year old are cheaper still.

"i like your Christ... but not your Christians"

Great quote.

Asiaprod

Yoda wrote:

The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas and the Buddha would appear to have a lot in common. The Jesus as edited by the Church... well, he's been edited into a god, hasn't he?

I had the same feeling when I read it. Could never understand why the Church does not use it more. It containd very good advice.

Excelsior

The reason Christians don't use it in worship is because it is considerably later than the 4 Gospels. It is also not even a Gospel since it is a string of non-related, non-narrative aphorisms.

Christ means Messiah. In today's terms, it would mean King. He said a lot of things that resonate with a Buddhist approach to life but I guess I would want to ask this question of Buddhists- could you be a Buddhist and hold that Jesus is the Creator God who died, rose and now is redeeming the whole of the Cosmos?

If you can hold those 2 things together, I would say they are compatible.

Yoda

Excelsior wrote:

The reason Christians don't use it in worship is because it is considerably later than the 4 Gospels. It is also not even a Gospel since it is a string of non-related, non-narrative aphorisms.

This is incorrect. The reasons Christian don't use it in worship is that the Church does not recognize it, not that it is late per se. They (the recent Church anyway) didn't know about it until it was discovered in 1945.

It is not clear that it is considerably later than the four Gospels. The actual history is that there were a number of gospel documents around at the time of the early Church, and the people who were trying to control that Church were going around destroying the ones they didn't like. We are lucky: the Gospel of Thomas was buried and saved for us until 1945.

One reason many consider it earlier than the synoptic gospels is that it is a string of aphorisms. The synoptic gospels have been heavily edited, and contain obvious narrative additions (angelic visitations for instance; how did Luke get this information? By interviewing Mary?)

I think it is likely that the Gospel of Thomas is, as Hugh McGregor Ross wrote, "Jesus untouched by the Church".

Asiaprod

Yoda wrote:

I think it is likely that the Gospel of Thomas is, as Hugh McGregor Ross wrote, "Jesus untouched by the Church".

I believe this to be true. I really resonate with this Gospel. I also feel that because it was not a narrative it was excluded by the early Church Fathers. We know that there were many different versions of lets call them Proto-Gospels, I think time will see more of these being discovered and I think a different picture will begin to emerge. Irespective of what happens, I will alway say that their is some great stuff in these old writings.

Excelsior an I have disscussed the issue of Jesus in India and I know we do of course differ on our opinions. This I respect, he taught me a lot and continues to do so. I do still firmly believe that there is a very real possibility that Jesus spent his missing years in India and I am convinced that there is a lot of Buddhism in the Gospels and other sacred writtings.

Asiaprod

Excelsior wrote:

The reason Christians don't use it in worship is because it is considerably later than the 4 Gospels. It is also not even a Gospel since it is a string of non-related, non-narrative aphorisms.

Leaving aside the age and the fact it is not a narrative. What do you think of it? What is your impression of the contents and the message. And as another aside, you would you be surprised to learn that many have read, continue to read, and hold in high reguard it and other of the works found with it.

could you be a Buddhist and hold that Jesus is the Creator God who died, rose and now is redeeming the whole of the Cosmos? If you can hold those 2 things together, I would say they are compatible.

Excelsior, you know the answer to this has to be no. Since we are agnostics, we do not believe in a creator god,, Then we also do not concern ourselves with how the world come into existence and we do not specify what Nirvan is, only what it is not. Since we are concerned with the here and now, and we know one of our central beliefs is to be open to changes, I would say that we could have a lot more in common than most people currently think.
Just musing to myself heare.

Excelsior

Yoda wrote:

This is incorrect. The reasons Christian don't use it in worship is that the Church does not recognize it, not that it is late per se.

Which Church? Which one of the 32000 denominations are you referring to?

yoda wrote:

They (the recent Church anyway) didn't know about it until it was discovered in 1945.

The Nag Hammandi texts were discovered in their entirety during World War II but the largest bulk of Thomas was already available from finds in the 1870s.

yoda wrote:

It is not clear that it is considerably later than the four Gospels.

There are 2 competing theories at this point.
1) It is what it seems to be, a Gnostic text. It would be dated with the rise of the other Gnostic texts in the 100s.
2) It is a gnostic modification of a simpler document that has a shared root with Q. In this case it is a modified version of a source material that is earlier than the Synoptics.

Either way, there is no way it can be read as contemperaneous with the Canonical texts and I am unaware of anyone outside the radical fringes or the glossy divine-feminine-pyramid conspiracy paperback trade.

yoda wrote:

The actual history is that there were a number of gospel documents around at the time of the early Church, and the people who were trying to control that Church were going around destroying the ones they didn't like.

Can you offer any evidence to support this oft claimed myth? The early Church you are referring to is the Roman Catholic church I presume. So I guess you are working on a timeframe after the ecumenical era? In which case, as shocking as the Papacy has been, what relevance to the validity of Thomas is there in the burning of texts in the 4 or 500s?

yoda wrote:

We are lucky: the Gospel of Thomas was buried and saved for us until 1945.

Whatever about the Nag Hammandi finds, it is certain that they were not buried "for us".

yoda wrote:

One reason many consider it earlier than the synoptic gospels is that it is a string of aphorisms.

Exactly! So it doesn't even qualify as a Gospel which as a literary genre is a narrative.

yoda wrote:

The synoptic gospels have been heavily edited, and contain obvious narrative additions (angelic visitations for instance; how did Luke get this information? By interviewing Mary?)

Yeah. By interviewing Mary. By asking her son James. These are not obvious narrative additions. The irony is that if you want to see obvious tampering of texts, consult the Nag Hammandi find you cite in such exalted terms and look at aphorism 114. Are you certain that the current school of "Thomas is a feminist text" could be supported if they didn't say "oh well 114 is obviously added later".

Luke, by the way, is a far more equalitarian text than Thomas. But that is a needless digression.

yoda wrote:

I think it is likely that the Gospel of Thomas is, as Hugh McGregor Ross wrote, "Jesus untouched by the Church".

Aphorism 114. McGregor Ross, whoever he may be, has some difficult problems to deal with if he is going to make that claim in a more testing environment than the Spirituality shelf of Easons.

Excelsior

Asiaprod wrote:

Leaving aside the age and the fact it is not a narrative. What do you think of it? What is your impression of the contents and the message.

I think it is a fascinating and important historical document that shows clearly how heavily Christianity impacted the cultures it invaded. But I think that the similarity it bears to the Canonical Gospels is probably explained most simply by the revolution churches were causing.

Asiaprod wrote:

And as another aside, you would you be surprised to learn that many have read, continue to read, and hold in high reguard it and other of the works found with it.

If I ever lead a church I will wholeheartedly encourage to people read as widely as possibly, including Thomas. But there are extensive records of letters between the church fathers from the early 2nd century on and as soon as they start talking about books there is a total consensus on the Gospels. Christians should feel free to drawn inspiration from, remix and adapt sources that are not Christian in origin. If it is true and beautiful, absorb it. I am a rampant parasite on culture.

But there is no historical reason to buy the Dan Brown version of Thomas. The truth is simpler than the conspiracy theories would have it. Christians read the 4 Gospels. When they decided to write a guideline on what to read, they included the books they read. Thomas is Gnosticism. It is not the Jesus of Christianity but that Jesus with the Christ removed.


Excelsior, you know the answer to this has to be no. Since we are agnostics, we do not believe in a creator god,, Then we also do not concern ourselves with how the world come into existence and we do not specify what Nirvan is, only what it is not. Since we are concerned with the here and now, and we know one of our central beliefs is to be open to changes, I would say that we could have a lot more in common than most people currently think.
Just musing to myself heare.[/QUOTE]