The meaning is this. If you come to understand the meaning in the other 113 sayings and live accordingly you will lose the fear of death. You will still die, just the experience will escape your attention because it fails to occupy your mind.
You made up that meaning to coincide with what you want it to mean. Your statement has no bearing on the actual meaning of what was said. The author originally could really have meant that he thought you wouldn't die if they figured out what all the sayings mean. You see, this is what people like you do. You assign sentences a meaning that really isn't there, so that it fits with your preconceived notions of what it means. You manipulate language to serve your purposes, while the rest of us scratch our heads and wonder what the hell you're talking about. While I'm just reading the words and taking their meaning as they were written, you are changing the meanings of the words to suit your ideas.
You are equating the phrase 'experience death' to the phrase 'fear death'. Experiencing death is being dead. Fearing death is still alive, but afraid of being dead. No matter how much mental gymnastics you do, the two phrases mean DIFFERENT things. Sorry, but they do.
No, I offered an interpretation. he didn't think that you wouldn't die. Here's the saying that I believe justifies that assertion.
GOT 59 Jesus said, "Look to the living one as long as you live, otherwise you might die and then try to see the living one, and you will be unable to see."
An obvious truth, perhaps. Spirituality is a living experience and truth.
Possible reasons for exclusion:
Anti the concept of an afterlife
And I think I understand what inspires "behaviors" like yours also. You have an idea, that gives you an identity free of the god concept and like any ego when challenged your on the attack. Don't worry, it's either just a behavior or another one of the things I made up. :-)
If you are looking for something know that there is something to be found, keep seeking until it is found. Once found you will disturbed, then you will marvel and will reign over all and then rest.
In life, many search for meaning/purpose. In this context Jesus is saying keep searching there is something to be found. But what and why will we be disturbed? What if, there was something blocking the discovery, remember we can expect to be disturbed by our find. This suggests a pre-condition that will get a shakeup perhaps.
Or perhaps the whole thing is just wrong, EES. If you're looking for something that isn't there, you aren't going to find anything. But if you're looking for something that you really BELIEVE is there, your brain will eventually convince you it is... especially this spiritual crap.
Ego alert ... :-):-). did you just provide evidence of a disturbance.
As an aside, how then do we know authentic maturity or more importantly what it is? Isn’t the hallmark of good advice, the authenticity of the adviser's interest in our well being with no material benefit for themselves. They should also have an authentic understanding of what brings true peace and joy. Their living example should be evidence of this understanding. If it takes a while to discern this shouldn’t that time be taken. I digressed because it seemed obvious that this reigning concept could be dangerous in the wrong hands. Again, I think of those suicide bombers and how we see far too often how self interest brings great harm to the immature. I’m reminded of Jones town. Of people who say they are God or Jesus and the harm some of them have done to others. If Jesus is accurately describing a condition we need to be careful in discerning the level of self and selflessness in those we take guidance from.
I'm sorry to do this, but blah, blah, blah, blah. This is all just white noise. The hallmark of good advice is advice that we can use that help us to effectively meet our goals. Nobody needs to have 'an authentic understanding of what brings true peace and joy' to give good advice. They just have to be practical and intelligent.
This is why I got out last time. This stuff is just boring as hell. Yes, I know that's my problem, not yours.
Well at least one of us is getting something out of the exchange. I still think good advice has the interest of the one being advised at heart. And yes practical.
If I think of volunteers, they give genuinely and both they and those they aid gain significantly. Often their genuineness is evident in their manner, the light will be in their eyes and smiles. They have an air of integrity about themselves and enjoy good friendships.
I'm not sure why this is important. Its just more white noise. Their genuineness is evident in their manner? The light will be in their eyes? You're going for poetic here, but you're doing it so often that it's just coming off as trite.
I won't disagree that I need to work on writing skills.
No. I'd suggest that they had been popular amongst the population that constantine wished to court. He just needed to tweak them a little to ensure they served good governance.
First off, Constantine was an emperor. Why would he need to court people?
Then why bother at all with Christianity.
Second, Constantine played no part in deciding what was actually in the bible. The canonical writings were set after a long drawn out process both before, during and after his life, and from what I remember, he wasn't a major part of it. If you have evidence that Constantine played a major role in what was in our out of the bible, please show me. I may be wrong, but I don't ever remember seeing anything about Constantine having a say in what was in the bible.
Certainly seemed to be there about, not to mention his relationship with Eusebius ( a principle author and I'd suggest possible fabricator)...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I#Religious_policyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
"The supporters of Arius included Secundus of Ptolemais, Theonus of Marmarica, Zphyrius, and Dathes, all of whom hailed from Libya and the Pentapolis[which?]. Other supporters included Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyrus, Actius of Lydda, Menophantus of Ephesus, and Theognus of Nicea.
"Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial entrance at the opening of the council, probably in early June, but respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself." As Eusebius described, Constantine "himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones." He was present as an observer, and did not vote. Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate. Hosius of Cordoba may have presided over its deliberations; he was probably one of the Papal legates. Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave the welcoming address."
You'll need to read more widely re Eusebius to get a broader sense of this man's potential, careful though there are two Eusebius to account for.
Looks like the emperor was under the churches governance. And this is a man that would kill his own to preserve power. Something doesn't quite make sense, i'd suggest.
Third, please read the following passage from "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code" by Bart Ehrman regarding Constantine's input into the biblical process...
Bart's already been discredited. He wasn't even able to accurately count the number of inclusions in the Bible. But I will read it :-)
The historical reality is that the emperor Constantine had nothing to do with the formation of the canon of scripture: he did not choose which books to include or exclude, and he did not order the destruction of the Gospels that were left out of the canon (there were no imperial book burnings). The formation of the New Testament canon was instead a long and drawn-out process that began centuries before Constantine and did not conclude until long after he was dead. So far as we know, based on our historical record, the emperor was not involved in the process.
So who to believe, Wikipedia or Bart :-)
"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....."
— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians
No. I can't image that he would back a false propostion. Not so close to the time that individual lived.
It was 300 years later! And this was during a time where less than 10% of the people could read or write. This wasn't modern times with computers and copy machines. Are you seriously going to stick with the notion that everything emperor Constantine believed was the truth? Give me a break. Part of me thinks you're just trying to argue for the sake of argument with this.
Well they could hear and talk. It's not just Constantine. It's a theory that he used Christianity, to break the hold of the Pagan Gods. It's the scant amount of historical records, It's a precedence he and others set for destroying the Historical record, It's the ambiguity of Eusebius and that he seems to be like a funnel for the Biblical record... etc
So what your saying is that someone else created Jesus earlier. So who is the culprit and what's their motive.
What I am saying is that a man named Jesus might have lived. He might have been a cool dude. But there is no reason to believe that those 114 sayings in the GOT were from him (as we have biblical scholars who attest that the GOT was forged); nor do we have good reason to believe that those 114 sayings were anything more than the ramblings of an ancient, ignorant desert dweller.
I always wonder why so many people think ancient man somehow knew more than modern man does. Why do you think that way?
Spirituality is not a changing condition. Mothers loved their children the same way they do now and will continue to do. Authentic tears of joy and sorrow are inspired by the same things that they always were inspired by/for. Compassion, caring how are thy improved on through the generations?
It's not the name thomas nor jesus for that matter that make this document valid, in my opinion. It's the words and their relevance both then, now and the future. And I'd suggest that those words are neither hidden or forged. Although I have some way to go to finding the correct theory, perhaps, the words will remain like the human condition the constant :-) Thanks for the thought provoking comments.
The relevance is in your head. You've conjured it. This is nothing more than the same type of mentality that you see from numerologists or people that find special sayings in music if you play it backwards. You're inventing the relevance.
Well you may be bored by me I'm entertained. Peace and Joy :-)