Reason is Better!
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
REASON
VERSUS
REVELATION
(Including Song:
I Choose Reason)
By
Francis William Bessler
Laramie, Wyoming
4/22/2015
What do I mean by "Revelation"? Revelation means to me claims by various agents throughout history that they have communicated with God and that they should be believed because of that. For the most part, Revelation - or Revelations - could be considered to be ideas and/or directives based on a Thus Saith The Lord premise - as found a lot in the Old Testament and New Testament of the BIBLE.
Earlier in life, I believed that such claims could be considered to be reliable - but that was when I believed God to be a Person. If God is a Person, then it stands to reason that God could try to relate to people - or some people - and expect "His" directives to be passed along; but if God is not a Person, but rather, in general, is AN INFINITE PRESENCE that is IN all things, then it is unlikely that God could "talk" to anyone. Why would God need to talk to anyone if God is really IN everyone? Tell me that! Just for the whimsy of it, when was the last time God talked to you?
Of course, if God is not a Person, then that would put all of the BIBLE in the unreliable column. Some may have "talked" with various persons in the Old and New Testaments and in the history of Islam, too, for example, but whoever it was - or is - that has "talked" with any person in history is probably not God. That would be the reasonable conclusion - if you know what I mean; and that is why, I think, that REASON should be consulted to know the truth because it would be the most reliable. We may not know the truth via Reason, but we have a much better chance of finding it there than in any hearsay argument of a claimed "prophet of God." God needs no prophets if indeed God is IN everyone.
God Pretenders
For what it's worth, though, "reasonably," why would any spirit or ethereal entity claim to be God - like a Jehovah for the Jews and Christians and Allah for the Muslims? Probably for the sake of being able to capture persons in the world for the purpose of gaining such people in servitude. Why else?
Just ask one question and it should be clear that such communication from some ethereal behind the scenes entity is likely illegitimate. That one question: Why didn't this entity behind some alleged directive from the nether world choose to talk to us all? If that ethereal entity was really legitimate, it would have chosen to communicate its message to all - not to just some one person who is supposed to relay that message to all.
Why would a "God Pretender" choose to speak to one and not all? The probable answer: Because "all" would not likely be receptive; and to try and talk to all would betray the impostor spirit as one who is not really God. Thus, it would be so much better for an impostor spirit to not to have to talk to all - and simply choose one gullible spokesman who then can go and try to direct all.
In any case, because God - as a necessary Infinite Presence that must be IN all - can't deal with one and not all, it is totally unlikely that it is really God behind some attempted directive to human beings who can't prove that a voice might be illegitimate. Again, if such an ethereal unseen visitor was - or is - really God, then that one would have to direct all - and not just one who is expected to pass on the message. It just makes sense, if you take the time to consider it all. At least, "Reason" would claim that to be the case. Right?
Why Is Reason Better?
For one thing, it is Reason that tells us that an Infinity must exist - if we dare to take time to think for ourselves. It is not "revelation" that tells us that it is likely that there can be no end to the world. Our minds - and reason - tell us that. If we consult them, our minds tell us that it is unlikely that there can be a world that ends. An end suggests a limited world; but if we go with our minds, a "limited world" is inconceivable.
Where is that end - if the world can be limited? How could there be a world that ends - in terms of all existence? I think if we apply our minds to such a notion, a world - or existence - that ends is inconceivable - and therefore, is as unlikely as it is inconceivable.
But what does an endless world tell us? It tells us two things, or at least, two things: It tells us that an endless or limitless world cannot be divided - into some assumed territories of Good & Evil, for example; and it tells us that if there is God, that God cannot be a Person - simply because a "person" by definition is "a limited one." If God is real, then God - as unlimited - must be equal to that endless world of which we conceive to be a must. If God is equal to all that is, then God can't be a Person who can create and manage at will. If God is not a "Person" who can rule in one place and not another, then no one should fear a "Person God" - that can't exist.
Furthermore, if an endless world is really equal to God, there is no place where God cannot exist. That means God must be everywhere; and that translates to no Hell - relating to God. Hell is considered by many, if not most, who believe in it to be a place where God is absent. If God cannot be absent from anywhere, nowhere can there be Hell. But reason tells us that - not revelation.
Without reason to lead the way, however, we would be subject to believing what some "finite, pretender god" has to offer - under the guise that it is really God; but with the aid of reason and a bit of preemptive knowledge that there can be no Personal God, then Paranormal Deceivers like, perhaps, Jehovah and Allah, cannot get away with trying to pull a fast one on the likes of the human race.
Of course, it is always possible that Reason is somehow wrong in a notion that an Infinite World must exist. It is possible to a very small nth degree that the world does end and that somehow a Personal God can exist either outside that world that ends or inside that world that ends. Yes, it is "possible" that a Personal God can exist; but it is "probable" than a Personal God cannot exist. So, aided by Reason, Revelation can be demonstrated as unlikely - possible, perhaps, but definitely unlikely - and improbable. Now, why in the world should I conduct my life based on an improbability? Why in the world should you base your life on an improbability? Answer that!
People tell me "Francis, you need saved!" I reply that in a way I agree; but my "Salvation" has been my Reason. Everyone needs saved from that which might lead one in the wrong direction. Yes, I am also such a one; but it is totally unlikely that some "revealed directive" from outside of me can be reliable because it is unlikely that such revelation can come from an Infinite God. If such directive is not coming from a legitimate Infinite God, then it is "probable" it is coming from an impostor. Why would I want to follow the lead of an Impostor?
Promises, Promises!
A few days ago, I made out a birthday card to my brother, Paul, who turns 77 today, April 22nd. Happy Birthday, Paul! In that card, I included a "million dollar check." That printed check looks as real as it can get, but it is, of course, a "dummy check." I paid Ace Hardware one dollar for it; and that is all it is worth. Sorry, Paul!
Now, imagine if you will that Paul thinks it is real. How surprised he will be when he tries to cash it and finds out it is bogus. Now take that little scenario and apply it to Promises through Revelation; and it is very likely that the results may be the same. Because Revelation - or life led via some "Revealed Command (or Commands)" - is being offered via some "probably" illegitimate source, one who thinks he has been given a million dollars will find, upon an attempt to collect it, that his million is really worth only one dollar - if that.
But are the "Promises of Reason" any more legit? I think so. At least in my case, when I die, I expect nothing more than to continue to be the one I am. My expectations are "reasonable." My chances of collecting my "reasonable fruits" are much better than one collecting promised fruits from what will likely be an unreliable source.
We have all heard about those "Pearly Gates" - beyond which is some Fantastic Kingdom - waiting for those who "obey" some assumed Godly Regimen; but that is all based on this world not being worthy. That promise of a Fantastic Kingdom someplace else is based on the idea that this world lacks in comparison; but the only "proof" of that is in the dreams of those who believe it.
When I was young, I was indeed one of those dreamers. I imagined that there was - or is - some kingdom out there some place because it suited me to think it. We all have dreams; and I was perhaps as imaginative as any dreamer that has ever lived - though my dreams were mostly about a kingdom someplace as if there were no other worlds once I arrived at that wonderful place.
In that, I think I was a bit ahead of many dreamers who also dream of a Wonderful Kingdom, but with a caveat - outside their wonderful kingdom there exists a dungeon kind of kingdom where all participants suffer intensely - and supposedly forever. We are all familiar with the standard proverbial warning: You will burn in Hell forever if you don't pay attention to some given "Heavenly Regimen."
John of the Book of Revelations of the BIBLE comes to mind. John also dreamed of a Fantastic Kingdom, but his Kingdom was set apart from a painful world where all within it will suffer for all eternity. John's kingdom resulted only after some catastrophic war between the worlds of Good & Evil event - explained as an Armageddon. John's kingdom could not be achieved simply by allowing everyone a wonderful lasting permanent peace. No! John based his kingdom of peace & prosperity on another kingdom having to exist - that other kingdom being one of pain and punishment forever to contrast with John's eternal kingdom of pleasure and reward.
I think it is fair to say, we all have dreams; but some of us dream dreams that are not dependent upon nightmares; and others dream nightmares that must precede eternal kingdoms of peace. John of Revelations dreamed that only those who bowed down before his "Son of God" could be given the rights to some Fantastic Kingdom where all within would achieve some positive glory as others outside that kingdom would be punished to that same nth degree.
In other words, the dreams of the John of Revelations depended upon nightmares. On the contrary, my dreams dream of wonder without others having to be plundered - or punished forever without any chance of changing to get things right. Indeed, I think, my dreams were - and are - dreams of reason whereas the dreams of John of Revelations were just that - dreams based on "revelation." John of Revelations was "told" by sources outside of himself that his Kingdom required suffering among some to punctuate some eternal pleasure for others - and that is why he dreamed as he did.
Revelation Jesus
or
Reasonable Jesus?
In my opinion, Moses and Mohammed were probably both "Revelation" based, but I do not see Jesus that way. Moses did not direct his people based on reason, but based on some "revelation" he was allegedly given by one he thought is God. I do not know much about Mohammed, but the little that I do know about him is that he claimed to have been the recipient of a "Divine Revelation" that has been translated into what is known as THE KORAN.
Jesus, on the other hand, to my knowledge never received any "revelation" that he passed on to potential believers. That idea alone separates him from those who would claim a right to rule based on some outside "revelation."
From my vantage point, however, though Jesus himself was not "revelation based," most of his disciples were "revelation based." Then those disciples went forward and claimed that they too received some special power from a Holy Spirit - and that is how they ruled. So, though their leader & teacher, Jesus, probably never claimed to pass along some Divine Message that was outside of himself, Peter and all - or at least, most - of the others proceeded to teach Jesus as one who "revealed" the truth to them and that they had to follow that "revelation" to be saved.
The truth, however, is that there is no evidence that Jesus "revealed" any of the truths he taught. He taught what he taught on the basis of it being "reasonable" - not that any of his teachings could not be understood by any of his students. Jesus, then, appealed to reason to teach what he taught - as opposed to Peter and Saul and Moses and Mohammed who all taught according to having "received" some Divine Message.
Show me where I am wrong. Did Moses direct - or try to direct - by reason alone; or did he claim he had received some Divine Message that he was supposed to pass on? Did Mohammed direct - or try to direct - by reason alone; or did he claim he had received some Divine Message that he was supposed to pass on? Did Peter direct - or try to direct - by reason alone; or did he claim he was chosen by God to rule as he did - or tried to do? We might as well add one called Saul (Paul) too. Did Saul direct - or try to direct - by reason alone; or did he claim he too was chosen by God (or Jesus) to pass along the message he did?
When I was younger, I believed in the teachings of Jesus - but when I reviewed them, I reviewed them as "reasonable." I still consider myself to be Christian - in terms of being a fan of Jesus and his teachings - but nothing has changed in how I see Jesus. I still see him as a "teacher of reasonable truth." And I wonder why my fellow Christians act like Jesus somehow "revealed" the truth - and that by mind alone, no one can understand what Jesus taught.
How Did It Go Wrong?
How did it go wrong? How did Jesus become a "teacher of revealed truth" and not a "practitioner of reason"? Why have we been led to believe that Jesus was more than a "practitioner of reason"? I think the answer to that is that men who should have known better for having been disciples of Jesus insisted on "fitting" Jesus into their way of life - rather than listening to him as a teacher not tied to any tradition.
Why would they do that - insist on tying Jesus to Judaism? Because they were Jews. It is all they knew and perhaps all they wanted to know. Their Judaism in general was not wrong. It just needed a little tweaking; but keep in mind that it is unlikely they even knew what their Judaism was. There is a good chance that none of the disciples really knew a whit about much of the alleged history of Judaism. They were probably "told" as much as they could handle - given there were probably no books to look at to review anything - Jewish history or whatever. They were Jews, that's all; and somehow, God favored their race. That is all they needed to know. Though they may have not known much about their tradition, their tradition may have meant the world to them.
It is, then, tradition, a tradition of Judaism - and having had a commitment to it - that is the reason why Peter and Saul (Paul) and all of those who should have known better insisted on making Jesus a Jew - that is, a believing practicing Jew. Upon making Jesus a Jew, that is where it all began to go wrong. Oh, Jesus may have been a Jew alright, but perhaps in name only. The Jesus I know would not have favored practicing a religion that was - or is - anything but reason oriented.
In truth, I believe, Judaism was not - and perhaps is not - based on reason - though I will admit that some of the laws like Honor your father and mother are reasonable; but Judaism as a whole is based on "revelation," not reason. It is not based on rules that guide that should be universally embraced by all. It is based on just one people selected by God to have a right to override all other peoples. It is not based on reason. It is based on revelation.
Likewise, I suppose an argument could be made that the Islamic tradition of Mohammed was not based on reason - though - like Judaism - some of the laws may be reasonable. The tradition Mohammed started was based on revelation - on some alleged Divine Message that only some can completely understand - and perhaps by Divine Providence, only some will be allowed to embrace.
Likewise for Moses and his Jews. I am reminded of the tale of Moses in Egypt before Moses led the Israelites to "freedom" to the "Promised Land." When I read this earlier in life, I could not believe any one could believe such nonsense. The god of Moses supposedly made the "hearts" of the Egyptians "hard" specifically so the Egyptians could not embrace the way of the Jews because somehow Egyptians are not "worthy of salvation." Refer, if you wish, to Exodus, Chapter 10. Where in that is there any attempt to "practice reason" - or fairness? How could an impartial and fair God consider one race "his" children and another race unworthy? I would consider that ridiculous, wouldn't you? Or at least "not reasonable."
But, Moses and his clan were not about "reason." They were about "revelation." Never mind what is "reasonable." Go with what has been "revealed." Is it any wonder that today's Jews still do not listen to reason? Is it any wonder that today's Jews are still "hard of heart" in their own way in terms of insisting that they have a right to exist on their own terms - even if they are displacing others who believe they should be existing on their own terms?
And on the other side of the sea are the Muslims. They, too, will not abide by "reason." No! They have been "chosen" by some Divine Source to carry on as they do - and the rest of the world can be damned. As they clutch their KORAN and insist on some "special Divine selection," their people kill at will - or at least, some of them do. Why? Because they refuse to listen to reason and insist that revelation is far superior.
Oh, Reason -
Where Art Thou?
As I see it, Moses was the recipient of "revelation" that commanded an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, to put it plainly. The god of Moses "revealed" exact punishment for exact violations of "his" commands. Let us review from Exodus, Chapter 21, Verse 22: If men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Etc.
To continue, from Exodus, Chapter 22, Verse 18: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth to any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Etc.
To finish a little look at the "unreasonable," let us check in with Exodus, Chapter 31, from Verse 14: Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: everyone that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul should be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Where is reason in any of that - or at least in all of that? Is it reasonable to have to be executed if you work on the sabbath? Is it reasonable that if I pay attention to some other belief or god that I should be executed? Is it reasonable that if I am a "sincere witch" that I should be executed?
Never mind being reasonable. In essence, that is what the god of Moses "revealed" as directives through Moses. Listen to what I say, not to what is reasonable. That is the gist of the god of Moses. Is it any wonder that Jews of old and today's Jews still think in terms looking for violations in order to punish them?
Some - and probably, many - would argue that an eye for an eye is "reasonable," but as another of reason once pointed out: an eye for an eye only makes for two who go blind. Some might think that is reasonable, but such reason only creates havoc and a license to maim and kill - under the cover or claim of justice.
Again, I must admit I know very little about Mohammed; but I am given to believe that he taught charity to all - unless a Muslim is affronted. If affronted, a Muslim has the right to respond in revenge - even to kill one who a Muslim might think is disparaging him or his Mohammed or his Allah. The same ole "eye for an eye" agenda taught to Moses by the god of Moses. Is it any wonder, then, that today's Muslims - or some of them - think it is just fine and dandy to wipe out any seen as "the enemy"? OH, REASON, WHERE ART THOU?
Jesus & John The Baptist
Back to Jesus, again, where did it go wrong? When did the attempt to make Jesus one of revelation and tradition - rather than a teacher of reason and wisdom - begin? That is a good question, but if you read the Gospels of the BIBLE, it becomes clear - to an observant reader - that the attempt to tie Jesus to "revelation and tradition" came early.
Before Mark and Matthew even had Jesus born, they already had him tied to one called "John" - that is John the Baptist. Where is the reason in that? I think nowhere to be found; but Mark and Matthew were intent on tying Jesus to tradition - and revelation - going back to even beyond Moses - and thus, they wrote stories that tied Jesus to a notorious Jew called John the Baptist by having John the Baptist baptize Jesus as if to prepare him for a Judaic role and mission. I believe that tale alone betrays the true story of Jesus. Once tied to a notorious Jew, John the Baptist, who lived to warn his fellow Jews about following false ways that will lead to perdition, Jesus is "made a righteous or practicing Jew." After that, it is all "revelation" based - and rule by reason goes out the window.
So much has been lost because of that "betrayal of Jesus," I think. I do not believe that the real Jesus was ever bound to one like John the Baptist. I think, though, Jesus realized that some of his fellow Jews saw him as necessarily related to another Jew, a "notorious" Jew like John the Baptist to give Jesus "credibility." I think, too, based on THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THOMAS (see below), that Jesus tried to refute the notion - but apparently without success. Today, the story of Jesus is still tied to John the Baptist - and that is just one of the terribly unfortunate tales about Jesus that almost every Christian believes - simply because "it was written" - which is another way of saying "it was revealed."
Which Jesus Should I Follow?
But was Jesus a believer of John the Baptist to require baptism by him? I doubt it. The Jesus I know would not disregard reason to pay attention to any one - let alone a notorious Jew like John the Baptist.
For what it's worth, from THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THOMAS, there is a bit of a verse that appeals to me about how Jesus really related to John the Baptist - and by default, Judaism in general. In Verse 46, it is found: Jesus said: From Adam until John the Baptist, there is among those born of women none greater than John the Baptist, so that his eyes will not be broken. But I have said that whoever among you becomes as a child shall know the Kingdom, and he shall become higher than John.
Where is being tied to John the Baptist in that? Of course, it comes from a different tale about Jesus - from the pen of Thomas - who might not have been as "tradition bound" as the others who told about Jesus.
The Gospel of Thomas
To digress a bit, many think that THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THOMAS is illegitimate; and they might be right too; but they may also be wrong - and I just happen to be one who believes in THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THOMAS more than I believe in the tales of any of the other gospels - simply because what I find in Thomas is "reasonable" - or seems so to me.
To clarify about the Gospel of Thomas, in the 4th Century, within the Roman Empire, Christianity was marked as a "state" religion equal to the other "state" religion of Paganism by new Emperor, Constantine; and furthermore, Christians would no longer be persecuted and could worship in the open whereas before Emperor Constantine, Christians were forced to worship in private and if caught worshipping at all, could be executed by the state. But by making Christianity a "state" religion, it also became a very "structured" institution - and only some books about Jesus could be condoned. All others not condoned and "canonized" as acceptable were to be destroyed.
Among those gospels not canonized and considered potentially heretical was THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THOMAS - which featured only sayings of Jesus for the most part - and not much narrative. In my opinion, I think THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THOMAS may have been the first gospel written - and possibly recorded in some way by the Apostle Thomas during the life of Jesus - not long after the life of Jesus, as all the gospels of the BIBLE were.
Anyway, many scriptures - if you want to call them that - about Jesus were canonized in the 4th Century by a newly institutionalized "state embraced & authorized" Christianity; and those not canonized were charged to be destroyed. Many were destroyed, but some were stashed away to hide them from such a fate; and among those that were is THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THOMAS.
In 1945, an Egyptian peasant was going through a cave off the Nile River in Egypt, near a town called Nag Hammadi. He was looking for some kind of fertilizer in a cave, but stumbled upon a huge jar that contained some of the ancient scriptures banned by the Church in the 4th Century. Among those "ancient scriptures" was an Egyptian Coptic translation of THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THOMAS. Since 1945, that Coptic version has been translated to lots of languages - including my English.
I am told that it is believed by scholars that THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THOMAS was probably not written until the 2nd Century at the earliest, making it a work that proceeded after the known accepted gospels of the BIBLE, rather than a work that preceded those gospels.
I admit I do not know if THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THOMAS proceeded the other accepted gospels - or preceded them; but given that THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THOMAS contains only sayings of Jesus and little narrative, it seems to me that it was "probably" the first written, being the most "primitive."
Logically, it seems to me that a "primitive" work would precede any works more expansive about the same subject, not follow such works. If so, that would suggest that the Gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John were probably written after a first, more primitive, Gospel of Thomas was written and could very well have taken from that Gospel of Thomas and expanded and expounded from it - while also taking care to refute any notion that Jesus was not a Jewish Messiah.
Others may see a notion of Jewish Messiah in Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas, but I do not. So if the Gospel of Thomas was indeed the first gospel, all of the others may have been written to refute it as well as to take from it.
It is entirely possible, too, that the Coptic work found in the 4th Century was recorded after the 1st Century - as some scholars claim - but it is also entirely possible that an earlier work in another language - like Greek, since Thomas was believed to be of Greek heritage - was written when Jesus lived. What happened to that earlier work if that is correct? Who knows, but more than likely, it would have been destroyed by the Church in the 4th Century when it went about canonizing a "true BIBLE." Many works were purged at that time - and destroyed to keep them away from future Christians; and an original Gospel of Thomas could have been among them. That is how I see it.
The Gospels
of
Thomas & Mary
I think it's wonderful that some ancient Christian scriptures that have been under ground, so to speak, since they were banned in the 4th Century, have come to light. How lucky we are in the 21st Century! Just think of it. Since about 450 A.D. to about 1950 A.D. no one in history has had access to a work like THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THOMAS.
No one knew - or has known about it! So no one could review it - or study it; and like the Gospel of Thomas, since the 4th Century, no one has known about other gospels either - like THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE. I am not sure about how the Gospel of Mary became discovered from an original hiding place, but it is my impression that it was discovered in Egypt in some library in the late 19th Century.
It seems that the Gospel of Thomas contains most - if not all - of its original verses, but the found Gospel of Mary does lack some verses - at the front end and in the middle; but still, even as part of an original work, I think we are lucky to have it. I won't try to relate to any of the Gospel of Mary here, but I do want to recommend it for review and study for any who think that maybe Reason is a way to go.
Having been banned by the Church in the 4th Century, neither the Gospel of Thomas nor the Gospel of Mary can be considered to be of "revelation" - in terms of being sanctioned by the Church; but as "works of reason" or works that can be considered as such, I do believe they are worthwhile.
Where can you get them? Check your library - or your favorite book store. I came upon my first translation of the Gospel of Thomas (completed in 1959) in 1979 when it was recommended to me by some friends, Russ and Joe - with whom I worked. My first translation of the Gospel of Mary came to me in late 2004. There have probably been many translations of both gospels - that of Thomas and Mary - but, for what it's worth, I can provide access to the translations I first discovered in my website.
If you wish, go to my writings website - www.una-bella-vita.com - and there is a feature there referencing the Gospels of Thomas and Mary. I took the effort to copy both of them there just so others can have access to them if they want without having to check them out at a library or buy them at a book store. I even made an effort to format both gospels in 4 by 6 pages so pages can be cut and fit into a standard 4 by 6 photo book. Feel welcome to pursue them as you wish - and in any way you wish. Personally, I think both gospels make good material for any religion discussion group.
Just keep in mind that both gospels should be seen as works of consideration only. Since they are not being included in a formal BIBLE, that may well be an advantage. Just consider them as works of or for a thinking person - male or female. OK? Or like I like to think of them - as works for a "reasonable" person.
Again, think about it! How lucky we are! Since about 450 A.D. when they were banned by a Church that found them too disturbing for catechism, so to speak, before 1945, no one has seen them. And now, they are yours and mine - if we want them.
Thank you, Thomas! Thank you, Mary Magdalene! We appreciate it!
Conclusion:
Be As A Child
Anyway, if Verse 46 of THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THOMAS quoted above is a correct notion, what is it saying? I think it is saying that "tradition be damned." It is saying what is "reasonable" - not revealed. If one becomes as a child and is humble and grateful as a child, then that one will "know the Kingdom and be higher than John."
Now, do you think that one like Jesus who is downplaying the importance of one like John the Baptist would go forward and insist on being baptized by one like John - as the Gospels of the BIBLE claim? I do not; but then I like to be a man of reason - not revelation. Personally, I would prefer to be "as a child" and not rant and rave like John the Baptist supposedly did.
But what does that say about Jesus? I think it says that Jesus believed that he, too, should be as a child. He would not have directed me to be "as a child" if he did not believe that he should be like one too. So, where is the "revelation" in that? You tell me. What in that simple directive can I not understand? In that, where is there need of revelation?
It is simple; and it is reasonable: BE LIKE A CHILD! As Jesus would say, if you want to go to Heaven - or attain Heaven - just do one thing and you will succeed. No revelation needed. Just follow reason - and BE AS A CHILD!
Of course, none of us know for sure which tale of Jesus is correct - related to John the Baptist. Is the tale of Thomas the correct one - or are the tales of Mark and Matthew and Luke and John the correct tales? Personally, I would embrace reason over revelation; and by so doing, the tale of Thomas seems to be the more reasonable one. So, I will go with Thomas; but to each his or her own.
If the tale of Thomas is the more correct one, however, why would Jesus claim that since the time of Adam, none born have been greater than John the Baptist? What about Abraham or Noah or Jacob or Moses? Why would Jesus claim that John the Baptist is equal in Jewish stature with all of those?
Reason would say that he did not literally mean what he said. Add in a little sarcasm - and it becomes very clear what the Jesus of Thomas meant. Jesus is saying that in the eyes of John the Baptist, he - John - is equal in Jewish stature to all others. Perhaps that is where that phrase - so that his eyes will not be broken - comes into play. It is probably saying that in John's vision, he is equal in Jewish stature to all, even Abraham and Moses and Jacob. So that his eyes will not be broken simply translates as "in John's unbroken vision of himself," John is equal in Jewish stature to all of the previous Jewish heroes; but again, the great caveat of reason - But I have said that whoever among you becomes as a child shall know the Kingdom, and he shall become higher than John.
So, let us all choose who wish to choose. Which Jesus do we wish to believe - the Jesus of Revelations or the Jesus of Reason? I choose the one of Reason. How about you?
A song by
Francis William Bessler
4/22/2015
I choose Reason;
it's the best way to go.
If another tells any other tale,
how can I ever know?
How can I ever know
that what he claims is true?
How can I ever know
that what he claims is truth?
I choose Reason.
Revelation has no charm -
because Revelation can mislead
and lead me into harm.
Why should I listen to some bloke
who wants me in his control
and uses Revelation
as a means to take my soul?
I choose Reason -
and there I'll find my God.
Reason can tell me all
and all I need to applaud.
Reason tells me God is Infinite
and not a Person to oversee.
God must be Present inside of all,
including the one that is me.
I choose Reason.
Revelation is no friend -
because it claims God's outside
and domination it pretends.
It pretends some are worthy
and others are without.
In order to rule at all,
it has to lead with doubt.
I choose Reason
because it sets my mind free.
I'm free to be one with the birds
and with the flowers and the trees.
Just let me look at everything
like everything's Divine.
Then wherever I might go,
everywhere will be fine.
I choose Reason.
Revelation is for fools -
fools that believe Adam & Eve
should be taught in a school.
Adam & Eve were told
that they could lose Paradise.
Since that tale, we have believed
that all life is lacking light.
I choose Reason.
It tells me Paradise is everywhere.
There is no place I can go
where God can leave me there.
God is in everything
to always be my friend.
So, let me follow Reason;
and Reason to all, I commend.
Yes, let me follow Reason;
and Reason to all, I commend.