This is such an excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels are contradictory (from my perspective) with say, the “red letters,” rather they are, for the most part, complimentary, but they provide more context.. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, looking at just this statement, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because people have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of them, and in all things.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, "if you learn how to listen, you will find God inside you," or, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements of separation (topologically distinct separation) come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, indeed, James also has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through the extremely limited scope of our perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings. This keeps the idea of "Thou art Source," which is one of the main teachings of Buddhism, from a huge number of people.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets (again, mostly provided by Saul), rather than learning how to listen to Source, to our own intrinsic Divinity, for "salvation" (release from the "eternal damnation" of The Matrix).

This is such an excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels are contradictory (from my perspective) with say, the “red letters,” rather they are, for the most part, complimentary, but they provide more context.. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, looking at just this statement, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because people have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of them, and in all things.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, "if you learn how to listen, you will find God inside you," or, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements of separation (topologically distinct separation) come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, indeed, James also has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through the extremely limited scope of our perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings. This keeps the idea of "Thou art Source," which is one of the main teachings of Buddhism, from a huge number of people.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets (again, mostly provided by Saul), rather than learning how to listen to Source, to our own intrinsic Divinity, for "salvation".

This is such an excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels are contradictory (from my perspective) with say, the “red letters,” rather they are, for the most part, complimentary, but they provide more context.. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, looking at just this statement, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because people have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of them, and in all things.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, "if you learn how to listen, you will find God inside you," or, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements of separation (topologically distinct separation) come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, indeed, James also has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through the extremely limited scope of our perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings. This keeps the idea of "Thou art Source," which is one of the main teachings of Buddhism, from a huge number of people.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets (again, mostly provided by Saul) for "salvation".

This is such an excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels are contradictory (from my perspective) with say, the “red letters,” rather they are, for the most part, complimentary, but they provide more context.. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, looking at just this statement, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because people have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of them, and in all things.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements of separation (topologically distinct separation) come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, indeed, James also has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through the extremely limited scope of our perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings. This keeps the idea of "Thou art Source," which is one of the main teachings of Buddhism, from a huge number of people.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets (again, mostly provided by Saul) for "salvation".

This is such an excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels are contradictory (from my perspective) with say, the “red letters,” rather they are, for the most part, complimentary, but they provide more context.. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, looking at just this statement, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements of separation (topologically distinct separation) come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, indeed, James also has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through the extremely limited scope of our perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings. This keeps the idea of "Thou art Source," which is one of the main teachings of Buddhism, from a huge number of people.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets (again, mostly provided by Saul) for "salvation".

This is such an excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels are contradictory (from my perspective) with say, the “red letters,” rather they are, for the most part, complimentary, but they provide more context.. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, looking at just this statement, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements of separation (topologically distinct separation) come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, indeed, James also has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through the extremely limited scope of our perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings. This keeps the idea of "Thou art Source" from a huge number of people.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets (again, mostly provided by Saul) for "salvation".

This is such an excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels are contradictory (from my perspective) with say, the “red letters,” rather they are, for the most part, complimentary, but they provide more context.. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, looking at just this statement, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements of separation (topologically distinct separation) come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, indeed, James also has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through the extremely limited scope of our perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets (again, mostly provided by Saul) for "salvation".

This is such an excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels are contradictory (from my perspective) with say, the “red letters,” rather they are, for the most part, complimentary, but they provide more context.. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, looking at just this statement, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation in a previous post. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements of separation (topologically distinct separation) come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, indeed, James also has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through the extremely limited scope of our perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets (again, mostly provided by Saul) for "salvation".

This is such an excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels were contradictory with say, the “red letters,” rather they are, for the most part, complimentary, but they provide more context.. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, looking at just this statement, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation in a previous post. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements of separation (topologically distinct separation) come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, indeed, James also has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through the extremely limited scope of our perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets (again, mostly provided by Saul) for "salvation".

This is such an excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels were contradictory with say, the “red letters,” rather they were complimentary, but provide more context.. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, looking at just this statement, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation in a previous post. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements of separation (topologically distinct separation) come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, indeed, James also has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through the extremely limited scope of our perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets (again, mostly provided by Saul) for "salvation".

This is such an excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels were contradictory with say, the “red letters,” rather they were complimentary, but provide more context.. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, looking at just this statement, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation in a previous post. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements of separation (topologically distinct separation) come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, indeed, James also has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through our macroscopic perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets (again, mostly provided by Saul) for "salvation".

This is such an excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels were contradictory with say, the “red letters,” rather they were complimentary, but provide more context.. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, looking at just this statement, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation in a previous post. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements of separation (topologically distinct separation) come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, that has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through our macroscopic perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets (again, mostly provided by Saul) for "salvation".

This is such an excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels were contradictory with say, the “red letters,” rather they were complimentary, but provide more context.. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation in a previous post. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements of separation (topologically distinct separation) come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, that has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through our macroscopic perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets (again, mostly provided by Saul) for "salvation".

This is such an excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels were contradictory with say, the “red letters,” rather they were complimentary in exactly the way I am suggesting was the original intent. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation in a previous post. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements of separation (topologically distinct separation) come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, that has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through our macroscopic perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets (again, mostly provided by Saul) for "salvation".

This is such a excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels were contradictory with say, the “red letters,” rather they were complimentary in exactly the way I am suggesting was the original intent. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation in a previous post. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements of separation (topologically distinct separation) come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, that has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through our macroscopic perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets (again, mostly provided by Saul) for "salvation".

This is such a excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels were contradictory with say, the “red letters,” rather they were complimentary in exactly the way I am suggesting was the original intent. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation in a previous post. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements of separation (topologically distinct separation) come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, that has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through our macroscopic perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets for "salvation".

This is such a excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels were contradictory with say, the “red letters,” rather they were complimentary in exactly the way I am suggesting was the original intent. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation in a previous post. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements of separation (topologically distinct separation) come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, that has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through our macroscopic perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

When Jesus talks about his Father, it is taught as a separate entity, as in, it’s his Father, not Our Father (The Source from which We all came, and still Are, since it is impossible to be separated from Source). But this separation from Source doesn’t really fit with most of the teachings of Jesus. It does fit with some, but only with certain interpretations, and it really doesn’t fit with most.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets for "salvation".

This is such a excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels were contradictory with say, the “red letters,” rather they were complimentary in exactly the way I am suggesting was the original intent. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation in a previous post. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. It is however possible for us to forget our connection to Source, or not be able to see it.

None of these statements come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, that has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through our macroscopic perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

When Jesus talks about his Father, it is taught as a separate entity, as in, it’s his Father, not Our Father (The Source from which We all came, and still Are, since it is impossible to be separated from Source). But this separation from Source doesn’t really fit with most of the teachings of Jesus. It does fit with some, but only with certain interpretations, and it really doesn’t fit with most.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets for "salvation".

This is such a excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels were contradictory with say, the “red letters,” rather they were complimentary in exactly the way I am suggesting was the original intent. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation in a previous post. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, “We are the Children of God. Period.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings demand that we can be a part of Source again. But I assert (and physics suggests, and other teachings from Jesus suggest) it is IMPOSSIBLE to be separated from Source. None of these statements come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, that has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through our macroscopic perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

When Jesus talks about his Father, it is taught as a separate entity, as in, it’s his Father, not Our Father (The Source from which We all came, and still Are, since it is impossible to be separated from Source). But this separation from Source doesn’t really fit with most of the teachings of Jesus. It does fit with some, but only with certain interpretations, and it really doesn’t fit with most.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets for "salvation".

This is such a excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels were contradictory with say, the “red letters,” rather they were complimentary in exactly the way I am suggesting was the original intent. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation in a previous post. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the canonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe," or "because we believe he adopts us," not, “We are children of God.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source. It is only if we adhere to what the teachings that we can be a part of Source again. None of these statements come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, that has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through our macroscopic perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

When Jesus talks about his Father, it is taught as a separate entity, as in, it’s his Father, not Our Father (The Source from which We all came, and still Are, since it is impossible to be separated from Source). But this separation from Source doesn’t really fit with most of the teachings of Jesus. It does fit with some, but only with certain interpretations, and it really doesn’t fit with most.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets for "salvation".

This is such a excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels were contradictory with say, the “red letters,” rather they were complimentary in exactly the way I am suggesting was the original intent. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation in a previous post. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the cannonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powers to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See ywhat kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called zchildren of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us2 for madoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe.” Not, “We are children of God.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source, unless we believe the tenets. None of these statements come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, that has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through our macroscopic perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

When Jesus talks about his Father, it is taught as a separate entity, as in, it’s his Father, not Our Father (The Source from which We all came, and still Are, since it is impossible to be separated from Source). But this separation from Source doesn’t really fit with most of the teachings of Jesus. It does fit with some, but only with certain interpretations, and it really doesn’t fit with most.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets for "salvation".

This is such a excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels were contradictory with say, the “red letters,” rather they were complimentary in exactly the way I am suggesting was the original intent. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation in a previous post. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the cannonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he ||power sto become tthe sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See ywhat kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called zchildren of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us2 for madoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe.” Not, “We are children of God.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source, unless we believe the tenets. None of these statements come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, that has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through our macroscopic perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

When Jesus talks about his Father, it is taught as a separate entity, as in, it’s his Father, not Our Father (The Source from which We all came, and still Are, since it is impossible to be separated from Source). But this separation from Source doesn’t really fit with most of the teachings of Jesus. It does fit with some, but only with certain interpretations, and it really doesn’t fit with most.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets for "salvation".

This is such a excellent question, and, given my pontificating, it is one which I should have already had clear answers, but when I thought about it, I realized I did not. So, I’ve spent some time today looking at the texts, trying to divine why I felt the way I did.

I spent the first part of my life raised as a Christian, though not just “raised,” but rather reared by a theologian. My father was a minister, a Christian scholar, and a gifted debater. I spent no small part of the first couple decades of my life in debate on Christian theology with both my father and numerous other theologians. I had long ago left behind everything “Christian” because I kept winning debates, or rather, they always devolved into arguments from circular logic, or relying on faith to overcome the evidence. In contemplation today, I realized I didn’t really start to feel that Jesus was really teaching what I am suggesting he was teaching until I had (somewhat recently) read the “alternative” gospels, the ones left out of the “official narrative.”

It isn’t that the other gospels were contradictory with say, the “red letters,” rather they were complimentary in exactly the way I am suggesting was the original intent. So while I can (and will) show evidence within the red letters (“Jesus’ quotes” from canonical gospels), things are more explicitly stated in the other gospels.

For example:

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

This gives a sense of the teachings being a guide. Jesus being special (Divine in an exclusive way) isn’t a part of this, rather it is that he has gained an understanding, and is reassuring his followers that they have everything they need already within them. That’s not the only possible interpretation, but it is certainly compatible. In other words, the path isn’t through Jesus (as is Doctrine), but rather through the path he has laid out for them.

In the Gospel of Thomas is a similar teaching:

Jesus said, "If your leaders tell you, 'Look, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they tell you, 'It's in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside of you.

"When you know yourselves, then you'll be known, and you'll realize that you're the children of the living Father. But if you don't know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This one is much more inline with my interpretation in a previous post. Again,

“When you know yourselves, then you’ll be known, and you’ll realize that you’re the children of the living Father.”

I think “children” should be capitalized here, but that may just be a function of the interpreter, and not the original text. Regardless, this sentence is so powerful. I interpret this as “You are Split-Aparts from Source” (Children of the living Father). “All you have to do to realize this is to learn how to listen to that which is already inside you.” You cannot help but be Children of the Living Father. It is what you are. Just not everyone realizes it because you have forgotten how to listen to the Source that is inside of you.

In the cannonical bible, this is stated very differently, in no small part because of Paul or John (who’s authorship may have been Paul). For example:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he ||power sto become tthe sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 John 3:1 See ywhat kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called zchildren of God; and so we are. 

Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us2 for madoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ

All of these say “We are children of God because we believe.” Not, “We are children of God.” In other words, all of these things teach a separation of us from Source, unless we believe the tenets. None of these statements come from Jesus, rather, they were a part of the teachings of someone else (mostly or totally Saul the Pharisee, the leader of the “revolution”).

In no case (that I’m aware of) does Jesus state it this way.

Again, within the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expands the concept of All of us being Divine (Thou art God):

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know you're going to leave us. Who will lead us then?"

Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you'll go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came into being."

James the Just is thought to be his brother (or possibly step-brother, though I question the motives behind such determination, whatever, it’s not important). This is a pretty clear statement that it isn’t just him that has reached enlightenment, that has recognized the Divinity within himself.

I think this saying is very interesting:

They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter."

This sounds a whole lot like an appreciation for the illusory nature of Nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of “what we see as reality is nothing but a gross distortion through our macroscopic perspective.” This idea is directly reflected in all of our models of physics. It is because I have always been passionate about physics that I found some appreciation of the philosophies of Buddhism, though I always felt that their actions which separate themselves from society didn’t make any sense. I now think that that is intentional fuckery. A purposeful misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.

That’s just how I interpret this, but I think it is consistent with everything else.

When Jesus talks about his Father, it is taught as a separate entity, as in, it’s his Father, not Our Father (The Source from which We all came, and still Are, since it is impossible to be separated from Source). But this separation from Source doesn’t really fit with most of the teachings of Jesus. It does fit with some, but only with certain interpretations, and it really doesn’t fit with most.

Again, from Thomas:

Jesus said, "I stood in the middle of the world and appeared to them in the flesh. I found them all drunk; I didn't find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they were blind in their hearts and couldn't see. They came into the world empty and plan on leaving the world empty. Meanwhile, they're drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they'll change."

Again, this sounds like people are blind not because they couldn’t understand, not because Source wasn’t already inside of them, but because they were too drunk on the world to see, to allow themselves to be filled up with Source. They fill up the space of themselves with emptyness, where there would be understanding. That will happen when they “shake off their wine,” which I relate to the lies that surround us, the distractions of the wool that covers our eyes, The Matrix.

There is a great deal more within Thomas and the other gospels left out of the final version of the bible (or rather, the version we have now, since it actually changed numerous times over the intervening two millennia). Comparing those gospels with the canonical versions provides a lot of corroboration, but also a whole lot more context that really calls into question the gospels we got. There are some places of disagreement, but I wonder if there might have been parts left out of what we got within the books themselves, or if perhaps there might have been some subtle mistranslations to create that sense of a separation from Source, to reinforce the need to adhere to the tenets for "salvation".