IN THE WORDS OF JESUS–Part 758

ON LOVE; PART CCCXLVII

ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•Α

GoodWill IS Love in Action

ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•ΑΩ•Α

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. (2 Corinthians 10:3-6).

In the last post we finally made it through our selected sayings from the Epistle of the Apostle James, sayings which in the end we can more clearly see as a caution and a warning to the aspirant and the disciple regarding the ongoing pull which the ways of the world have upon the psyche of the man who perhaps had thought that he had overcome them, and those like us as well who KNOW that we have not. This psyche or personality had sifted or was shifting its focus from the self to the not-self, from the ways of the world to the ways of God, which change brings the consciousness, which the personality controls in Life on Earth, to receive its input from the Soul and not from the illusory nature of the self in the world and in this idea is somewhat of a conundrum as it IS the personality that is both the cause and the effect of the illusion and the glamour of Life. Here again we should see the consciousness as belonging to the Soul who, along with the Life itself, gives this to the use of the human form; from the perspective of the form, the Life is retracted at the death of the form but this sense of form consciousness persists for a time as the personality lives on. This part is not our point today as we say this here only to show the consciousness as becoming a part of the personality in the same way that the Life becomes a part of the physical form….it is a part but it IS NOT the same as the Life goes on when the form is dead. Similarly then the consciousness IS NOT a part of the personality but it is used by the personality, lent by the Soul as we have previously framed this, and then it is the consciousness that is brought into the ways of the personality in the world thereby defining the person or, it is the consciousness and his changing focus that brings the Light of the Soul to bear on the personality and from this perspective we should be able to see the idea above where the personality is shifting its focus.

This is not so complicated as it seems and a simpler way of viewing this can be that while focused in the self and the self in the world, the personality is using the consciousness which IS the conscious awareness of the man in the world. Then, when the focus is changed from the self to the Soul, and the things of God, the consciousness takes up its rightful role and uses the personality as his means of expression in the world. The former state here is the state of the man in the world with little or no focus other than upon himself and the interests of that self; the latter is the disciple, the state where a man is focused upon the Soul and the God and the Christ Within as his expression of the Good, the Beautiful and the True, the Love and the Power of the divine Soul. Between these is the world of the aspirant, the man whose focus is on both the self and on the Soul in some degree of alternation based upon the strength of the focus on the Higher, the Soul. Somewhere in this realm of duality the aspirant becomes the disciple and we would presume that this is a purely personal reality based in the many variables of mind and emotion as they effect one’s ability to express the Higher divine Life and it is likely to those in this place, to the aspirants and the disciples found in this state, that James is writing regarding the constant pull of the personality to bring the consciousness back to that which he knows best, the ways of the world. At ALL stages a man is who his conscious personality says that he IS, this stays more or less the same; the change is in his expression, that it becomes and stays an expression of the Good, the Beautiful and the True or that it remains or reverts back to an expression of the self and the interests of the self in the world who is bound to some degree of the lust and envy and pride that the apostle cautions us against. We should remember here as we conclude this segment of our essays on James’ writings that ALL functions by degree; there are degrees of divine expression and degrees of carnal expression and degrees of their combination in the Life of the man caught in the duality as the aspirant; we should remember as well that ALL focus upon the things of the world is what is meant in the words of the Master and His apostles as sin and this Truth is seen in that saying by the Apostle Paul that “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). We should remember here as well the words of the Apostle John who tells us that “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8) and if we can combine these words with James’ words which tell us to “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves” (James 1:22) we can find this True relationship between NOT keeping His words and sin and find that there is no particular thing that one DOES or DOES NOT do that makes him a sinner but rather it IS the generalities of NOT keeping His word, which IS to focus upon the self in the world, just as to keep His words is to focus one’s Life upon them. And to this we add the Master’s words that reflect the more general state of men in His day and yet still today; the man who calls on the name of the Lord but yet is not so focused as to keep His words and who then by default is focused upon his self and his self in the world. The Master’s words which He frames for us as a rhetorical question: “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?“(Luke 6:46). James words are our caution to not go back to being one such as these to which the Master refers.

I was reminded of the existence of the Gospel of Thomas which we can assume is the work of the Apostle Thomas although there much debate about both the authenticity and the authorship. The authenticity as scriptural writing can stand for itself and this as the Master tells us saying that it IS “by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7;20) and these fruits we can measure for ourselves by using the words from another apostle’s work, another where the authorship is yet today in question. In the Apostle James we have a similar situation regarding authorship which we addressed recently (In the Words of Jesus part 744) and we have other similarities which we will discuss as we proceed as our point here is just to say that one of our greatest sources for understanding Truth and the reality of fruit is found in James’ words, in a verse that we have used many times here in our work and one which contains for us as a guideline to believing; the apostle tells us “But the wisdom that is from above is first pure , then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy” (James 3:17). That the words of the Gospel of Thomas can meet this high threshold where there is naught for the self, nothing of a self-serving nature, IS ever in the purview of the reader who reads in honest response to the Apostles definition of what is this Wisdom. And, as we have discussed in previous posts, the dynamics of this operation are such that what we hear or read or otherwise come to KNOW as a man in the world is processed against the carnal mind; it is when a man can see and hear and sense his own Soul, much as the nature of the people that James writes to, that these things can be processed and understood as from above and this instruction is much like that which we have spent the last several days on regarding the apostle’s cautions and warnings to disciples and aspirants regarding the ways of the world. This of course should not detract from the reality that the honest reader, even if he is yet focused in the world, can sense in the carnal mind and in conscience, that what one IS hearing or seeing as Truth meets the criteria set by the apostle. The point here is that this sense of Wisdom works on many levels and for us as aspirants this level IS inclusive of this question of Wisdom being processed in the Higher sense of mind, the Soul.

With this in mind we will spend some time looking at this work by Thomas which is the subject to much debate and this is much along the same lines that we draw, that the doctrinal church DOES NOT present the Truth of Jesus in many respects as they make the devotional aspects to the man Jesus of more importance than the words that He says, the lessons that He offers and His word in general which IS His commandment and IS the word of God. While this IS True, that His word is the Word of God, in the doctrinal perspective as well, these words have given way to the rites and the rituals, to the affirmations and the beliefs, that color church doctrine yet today and parts of which we see as a dilution and even a changing of the Truth of the Master’s words. Then it IS NO surprise that it IS those who live by and preach the doctrines rather than the reality of Jesus from the Four Gospels that we have, are the same who deny that this Gospel of Thomas is authentically authored by the Apostle Thomas and, of course, their reasons ARE rather doctrinal in respect to this work. We take no position on who wrote these words nor when they were written and we acknowledge that both camps have some good arguments regarding their being contemporary with the other gospels or that they were written in the next century. We will hold this judgement till a later time and will first let the words of this gospel stand on their own; from reading various commentary on these words we get the sense that they are along the lines that we are setting forth in our writings which we already KNOW are likely frowned upon by much of the church. We should remember here that save for the changes that came as the result of the Reformation, the doctrines of Christianity have remained virtually unchanged since the Early Church Fathers devised them although most every new denomination does have some variant to offer so as to replace a doctrinal aspect that makes them a separate denomination.

We begin today with some history and a discussion on the different scholarly opinions although in this case one would wonder what makes one a scholar. The modern view of this gospel begins with the discovery of the text near a place named Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945. It is written in the Coptic language and it has been suggested that these were buried because they were declared non-canonical and even heretical by the rulers in the church and, while there is no firm evidence that this is accurate, they were indeed buried and found many centuries later as these works are unheard of except by reference in some of the writings of the Early Fathers. Most ALL ideas as to their origin and authorship are but speculation and the copy unearthed at Nag Hammadi is dated to around the year 340 although there is mention of this gospel in more ancient writings; among these are the writings of Hippolytus of Rome and Origen of Alexandria, both from the early 3rd century, both of which consider the gospel heretical. After studying the documents from Nag Hammadi, it was discovered that three different Greek text fragments previously found at Oxyrhynchus, also in Egypt, were part of the Gospel of Thomas and these fragments are dated in a range from the year 130 to 250.

From here, where we have mostly facts, there opens two camps of opinion and these are exactly that, opinions by ‘scholars’ on each side of the timeline issue. Some believe that the original documents are written as early as 40 AD which places this in the same time frame as James Epistle and before the writing of the gospels with the general consensus of those in this camp being that these were written between the years 50 and 100 . Others believe that this gospel is written as late as 140 AD and the general consensus among those in this camp is that the gospel is a mid 2nd century work placing it after the other gospels and, while most ‘scholars’ do favor the later date, this difference is most likely along doctrinal lines as this would serve the purpose of those who view the work as heretical. We live in a world of controversy and of opinion regarding this gospel, the three synoptic gospels and John’s Gospel and there are many theories as to the time and somewhat still, the authors of each. From Vincent we find these historical ideas:

• On Matthew we read: Concerning Matthew personally we know very little. He was a son of Alphaeus, a brother of James the Little, possibly a brother of Thomas Didymus. The only facts which the gospels record about him are his call and his farewell feast. He had been a publican or tax-collector under the Roman government; an office despised by the Jews because of the extortions which commonly attended it, and because it was a galling token of subjection to a foreign power. When called by Christ, Matthew forsook at once his office and his old name of Levi. Tradition records of him that he lived the life of an ascetic, on herbs and water. There is a legend that after the dispersion of the apostles he travelled into Egypt and Ethiopia preaching the Gospel; that he was entertained in the capital of Ethiopia in the house of the eunuch whom Philip baptized, and that he overcame two magicians who had afflicted the people with diseases. It is further related that he raised the son of the king of Egypt from the dead, healed his daughter Iphigenia of leprosy, and placed her at the head of a community of virgins dedicated to the service of God; and that a heathen king, attempting to tear her from her asylum, was smitten with leprosy, and his palace destroyed by fire. According to the Greek legend he died in peace; but according to the tradition of the Western Church he suffered martyrdom ⁴.
• On Mark we read: Mark the Evangelist is, by the best authorities, identified with John Mark, the son of Mary. The surname Mark was adopted for use among the Gentiles; Mark (Marcus ) being one of the commonest Latin names (compare Marcus Tullius Cicero, Marcus Aurelius )as John was one of the commonest Hebrew names. Mark was a cousin of Barnabas, and was, from a very early period, the intimate friend and associate of Peter (Acts 12:11-17), who affectionately refers to him as “my son” at the close of his first epistle. The general opinion of the fathers, as well as that of modern authorities, is that Mark drew the great mass of his materials from the oral discourses of Peter ⁴.
• On Luke we read: When we apply to historical sources, however, we find very little about this evangelist. He never mentions himself by name in the Gospel or in the Acts, and his name occurs in only three passages of the New Testament: Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11, Philemon 1:24. That he was an Asiatic-Greek convert of Antioch, though resting upon no conclusive evidence, is supported by the fact that he gives much information about the church there (Acts 11:19, Acts 11:30; Acts 13:1-3; Acts 15:1-3, Acts 15:22, Acts 15:35); that he traces the origin of the name “Christian” to that city, and that, in enumerating the seven deacons of Jerusalem, he informs us of the Antiochian origin of Nicholas (Acts 6:5) without reference to the nationality of any of the others. That he was a physician and the companion of Paul are facts attested by Scripture, though his connection with Paul does not definitely appear before Acts 16:10, where he uses the first person plural. He accompanied Paul from Caesarea, through the shipwreck at Malta, to Rome, and remained there until his liberation. Tradition makes him to have died in Greece, and it was believed that his remains were transferred to Constantinople. It has been assumed that he was a freedman, from the large number of physicians who belonged to that class, the Greeks and Romans being accustomed to educate some of their domestics in the science of medicine, and to grant them freedom in requital of services. Physicians often held no higher rank than slaves, and it has been noticed that contractions in as, like Lucas for Lucanus, were peculiarly common in the names of slaves ⁴.
• On John we read: The life of John covers a period from near the beginning of the first century to the beginning of the second. He was a native of Galilee, and, according to tradition, of the town of Bethsaida, which was on the western shore of the Lake, not far from Capernaum and Chorazin. His father was Zebedee. His mother, Salome (Mark 16:1; Matthew 20:20), was among the women who supported the Lord with their substance (Luke 8:3), and attended Him to His crucifixion (Mark 15:40). The family was not without worldly means. Zebedee was a fisherman, and had hired servants in his employ (Mark 1:20). Salome ministered to Jesus, and John seems to have had his own house (John 19:27). He was, apparently, one of the disciples of John the Baptist; and while engaged in his father’s craft, was found and called by Jesus (Matthew 4:21; Mark 1:19). Of the two mentioned in John 1:35, only one, Andrew, is named (John 1:40); the other is commonly supposed to have been John, who suppresses his own name, as in other instances where he refers to himself ⁴.

Can we see here aught but uncertainty, theory and opinion? It should then be no surprise that this same is True regarding Thomas and this gospel attributed to him. Vincent adds this regarding John which sheds some light for us on the whole of the historical perspective. He tells us: The commonly received tradition represents him as closing his apostolic career in Asia and at Ephesus. An old tradition affirms that he left Jerusalem twelve years after the death of Christ. In no case, therefore, did he go immediately to Ephesus. Definite notices as to his abode in the interval are wholly wanting. It is a noteworthy fact that the lives of so many of the world’s leaders include spaces which remain a blank to the most careful biographer, and into which the world’s curiosity can never penetrate. Such is the period of Paul’s retirement in Arabia, of Dante’s exile, and, to some extent, of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness. Some later traditions assert that he visited Parthia, and Jerome groundlessly conjectures that he had preached in Judaea ⁴.

We will continue with our thoughts in the next post.

Note on the Quote of the Day

This daily blog also has a Quote of the Day which may not be in any way related to the essay. Many of these will be from the Bible and some just prayers or meditations that may have an influence on you and are in line with the subject matter of this blog. As the quote will change daily and will not store with the post, it is repeated in this section with the book reference and comment.

We repeat here again a saying that is from the Bhagavad Gita, which goes well with our theme of the God Within, the Soul, which we see as the Christ Within and while this is good in the Christian world and is True based upon our understanding of the Christ as the manifestation of God, we should also see in these words below that it does not matter what these divine ideas are called; that it matters not what we call this Inner Man, that he is the same in ALL, he is the Soul.

Thou carriest within thee a sublime Friend whom thou knowest not. For God dwells in the inner part of every man, but few know how to find Him. The man who sacrifices his desires and his works to the Beings from whom the principles of everything stem, and by whom the Universe was formed, through this sacrifice attains perfection. For one who finds his happiness and joy within himself, and also his wisdom within himself is one with God. And, mark well, the soul which has found God is freed from rebirth and death, from old age and pain, and drinks the water of Immortality.—Bhagavad-Gita

It is difficult to tell just what verses of the Bhagavad Gita the above is from; whether it is a paraphrase or a combination. It is from the book “The Great Initiates” by Édouard Schuré which was originally published in French in 1889 and perhaps it is in the translation of the verses that they become hard to recognize. However, the sheer beauty of the presentation caught my attention and so I share it with you. The Path to the Kingdom is the same no matter what religion one professes.

Let the peace of God rule in your hearts!

• ⁴ Word Studies in the New Testament; Marvin R Vincent D.D. 2nd edition, 1888