http://www.clydelewis.com/dis/jesus2/jesus2.html
this essay is talking about the image of jesus and basically how it’s gotten way out of hand. the reason i post it as a link is because i can’t take credit for it. i’d like to see everyone’s take on this though.
I think that most everyone else will be half-assed and not read this big article, but I read it all.
I think that this was a fine article, that helped expose allot of the rubbish that people added to the Christ and the word.
If Jesus came again, people would hate him again, even “Christians” would do this, just like the Jews did! You know, he’d probably get more respect from the agnostics…?
Gospel of St. Thomas - What Does It Say?
The Gospel of St. Thomas declares that the Kingdom of God exists upon the earth today if people just open their eyes. There is "divine light" within all of us, which allows us to see the Kingdom of God in our physical surroundings. The Image of God at the beginning of creation (Genesis 1) still exists today. We can assume that Image still, which is different than the image of fallen man (Adam) in Genesis 2. The Gospel of St. Thomas reveals that mankind can and should restore their identities to the image of God now, and see the Kingdom of God on earth now. This text treats the first two chapters of Genesis in a non-traditional way. It holds that there were two separate creations of mankind -- the first was perfect and the second was flawed. Rather than wait for a future end-time Kingdom to come, the writer of this book exhorts people to return to the perfect Kingdom conditions of Genesis 1 now.
allaboutjesuschrist.org/gosp … thomas.htm
I’m curious about the Gospel of Thomas. If it was true and the church removed it from the bible… Then that changes allot.
I’ve met more then a few who believed in a different interporatation, in which ‘Satan’ was already dead, and the kingdom is already existent and maturing.
It’s an odd subject, but if someone were to pin the question to me, then I’d guess the true meaning [of their unorthadox and mysterious idea] would be this:
*1
Originally there was a utopian existence of humanity, a very natural existence, before technology or government. People were equal in status, united in small groups, there was no police, military, no “territory”, things weren’t imperialistic. Nobody felt as if they owned a part of the earth or their fellow man. Nobody had shame over their naked bodies, there was no self-hate, nothing unnatural about us. Human existence was very natural and pure, though not technologically advanced at all.
*1.5
The “sin” and “imperfections” that later arose consisted mainly within social and civil terms. People in feudal times were anything but equal, militant nations could easily murder barberian tribes due to military organization overpowering small and natural groups of non-imperialistc, uncivilized men.
*2
The second utopia will be the unnatural one. Much like a divorce, nature and humanity split up, and it took many many years for humanity to get over and compensate for the loss. Far later, our unnatural existence became better then our natural existence, and began to return to a partial utopia. The second utopia, paradise or “perfection” will come with supertechnology of the future. Genetic engineering of the species will lead to cures for all sickness and death eventually, and things like world hunger will also be remedied once technology becomes capable enough. False religion will also slowly crumble at this time. Satan is dead, and things like magic don’t work anymore. Times have changed allot.
This link contains several errors and misrepresents Christian belief and practice.
In Corinthians Paul was primarily concerned with food sacrificed to idols, not specifically idol worship. Second, I don’t know of any Christian denomination that condones praying “to” an idol. Even denominations that use representations of Christ, the cross, or saints, use these pieces of art to direct their thoughts and prayers to God. Some people find them helpful, some don’t. If you don’t like them, then don’t use them. Catagorising those who use them as idol worshipers is a simplistic argument and not a very good one.
This is just plain stupid. You have no more knowledge about the physical attributes of Jesus than I do. To assume that the average Christian cares this much about what Jesus looks like is absolute nonsense.
Not true. The Gospel of Thomas cannot be catagorized as “scripture from the NT” or “edited out of the bible”. It was never in the New Testament to begin with. It is a jumble of supposed sayings of Jesus that are clearly derived from gnostic thinking and bear no relation to the wisdom and grace of Jesus in the canonical gospels. People who like this “gospel” do so because they want to find “scriptural support” for their unbiblical beliefs. If you fall into this catagory then I suggest that you just write your own gospel, it would be much easier.
Dow!
Shutup flanders!
(* Okaley ding dong doodle *)
Okaley dokely! And if you want to borrow any of my power tools just come on over neighbor!! 
gee flanders, i didn’t say it was perfect, and i didn’t say it was my favorite essay about jesus ever. i haven’t read the gospel of st. thomas, though after reading this i was about to do so. the sole reason i put this up was because of the part of the essay that was about jesus’s appearance, and how it was nothing like the paintings and images that people generally attribute to jesus. he may not have been a hunchback, but he wasn’t all wavy hair, straight teeth, and glowing either. in the bible it says that he looked like a common man.
here’s my take on it: i think that since jesus was a carpenter, he was probably at least sort of strong, with weathered hands. chances are good that because of the area he lived in, he may not have been black but he certainly wasn’t white. he was probably about a normal height, and because of the general hygiene at the time, did not have straight teeth and probably had rough skin. (at least what we would call rough today.) jesus wasn’t quasimodo but he wasn’t exactly the sexiest man alive.
People think about the extreme pain that he suffered at his death.
They think about the extreme pleasures of supposed heaven.
They think about the destruction of their enemies in some theocratic war from God.
They think that God and Jesus where fantastic, amazing and perfect.
They are believing in something like:
Fox presents: Jesus, and the revenge of Satan.
Some kind of rubbish extreme, that gives nothing but quick fixes, and no real answers. “Adam and eve sinned, so we grow old and die” is far easier to say then:
Shortening telomeres of non-germline cells, imperfect repair and random failure rates, coupped by hormone changes after sexual maturity – these factors contribute to old age, sickness and death on earth. Scientists have identified most of the genes and causes of aging, but it takes time to apply and completely understand what you basically know in the field of genetics and bio-engineering. Various experiments have already produced animals, even mammals (mice) with x5 life spands, that were altered at birth with specific hormonal factors. This was only 1 hormone, and the “information-age” hasn’t fully matured. [Expect far better in the future!]
Because of evolution being generation based, the time it takes to sexually mature and reproduce is what mainly gets the attention from evolution, and once that’s finished, evolution completely neglects the individual of the species. This shows in all life on earth! Some species die right after sex and egg laying, humans begin to age and breakdown once they sexually mature and become adults.
^See how much longer that took? It’s not as easy as blaming God, Satan, Adam-&-Eve.
Quick replies and un-answered questions are the cancer of religion. To really understand who and what God and Jesus really were, we need to ask allot of questions and then accept the answers!
Not quite true. While it is true that lifespan and fertility do not match exactly, especially in higher animals, there is likely to be strong selective pressure for the maintenance of infertile older members among animals that live in social groups. The maintenance of these “non-productive” members is likely due to the added benefit to the group by having either extra numbers for group protection or for participation in group rearing of offspring. Although by definition evolution has no concern for individuals, there are certain to be geneticly defined behavioral traits that phenotypically present themselves as prolonging the life and health of “unproductive” individuals.
I both agree and disagree. Quick replies can be useful as long as there is some thought process behind them and not just mindless assent to a particular dogma. Then again, there are also aspects of religious thought that require our thinking to “conform” to a particular viewpoint. For example, the most common definition a christian for the last 2000 years is found in the creeds of the early church. While these can appear to be somewhat mindless agreement with doctrine, they serve the purpose of clear definition. I might bump into someone who calls themself a christian. I may ask, “do you accept the apostles creed?”. If they say “no” then I can quickly assume that their idea of the definition of the word “christian” and mine are not the same. Therefore, the creed serves a useful clarifying purpose despite it’s appearance as mindless assent to doctrine.
Apparently, there are many people interested in images of Christ. I did find many beautiful pictures on this website.
Ned Flanders wrote:
I dont normally do this but I like the Gospel of Thomas. And I think that if you have read it, then you would realize that the sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas, are very similar to the sayings of Jesus in the canonical gospels. Very similar. So, without further ado… what makes you the expert?
I’m not claiming to be an expert I was just stating my opinion. I think it’s a pretty useless book of garbled sayings. But feel free to disagree!
I’ve read it a number of times. Some of the sayings do seem similar to the canonical gospels but others are very strange and unlike anything found anywhere in the NT.
I don’t like it. And I don’t like peanut butter either…
It’s the eye of the tiger, it’s the thrill of the fight
Risin’ up to the challenge of our rival!!
And the last known survivor stalks his prey in the night
And he’s watchin’ us all with the eye
Of the tiger!!!
oh please , that’s hardly even a threat.