[HN Gopher] Largest archive of online books about religion, myth...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Largest archive of online books about religion, mythology, folklore
       and more
        
       Author : Woods369
       Score  : 181 points
       Date   : 2024-01-04 10:43 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (sacred-texts.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (sacred-texts.com)
        
       | j7ake wrote:
       | Happy to see these efforts on more narrowly curated archives.
        
         | curo wrote:
         | are there others? (besides Project Gutenberg)
        
           | j7ake wrote:
           | Here is one for piano https://www.thepianofiles.com/
           | 
           | And the famous is islmp for sheet music
           | 
           | https://imslp.org/wiki/Main_Page
        
       | Donz1 wrote:
       | Great effort
        
       | stonlyb wrote:
       | I've been curious lately about the existence of any religion,
       | mythology, folklore, etc that capture something closer to the
       | current edges of modern physics and astrology. Basic assumption
       | is that most/all are based on dated observations of seasons,
       | planets, stars, etc -- things that were once mysteries in the
       | mechanical universe.
       | 
       | Are there any that touch on quantum weirdness or more recent
       | astrophysics (black holes, gravity waves, FRBs, etc)?
       | 
       | Would be interesting to see if new myths are being born. Even
       | more interesting if a really ancient one touch on some of these
       | only recently discovered mysteries.
        
         | devinjon wrote:
         | Well, the new-age has swallowed quantum woo whole. It is a kind
         | of religion or attempt at modern myth making, I suppose. More
         | respectably, a number of eminent physicists have fallen hard
         | for philosophical Hinduism and or certain strands of Buddhism.
         | Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and Bohm among them.
        
           | Podgajski wrote:
           | Krishnamurti and Bohm on the ending of time
           | 
           | https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1n30s-LKus4MyNuceRoFAes5.
           | ..
        
         | NikolaNovak wrote:
         | Depends on what exactly you're looking for.
         | 
         | There is certainly a _tremendous_ amount of religious-feeling
         | material that references modern physics by name - Deepak Chopra
         | possibly being the most (in)famous example. Some of it is quite
         | popular.
         | 
         | In particular, it seems a lot of pseudoscience/mythology is
         | arising around the concepts of "Energy", "Vibration/Frequency",
         | and "Quantum".
         | 
         | There is also a lot of work always being done by enthusiastic
         | internet-dwellers with penchant for capitals and blink tag in
         | retrofitting these aspects into ancient texts.
         | 
         | One's ability to consume such content may depend on how much
         | attention they paid in high school and other factors :-).
        
         | keiferski wrote:
         | Check out Alfred North Whitehead, process philosophy, and some
         | of the thinkers that have been influenced by him. They
         | incorporate evolution and change much more than basically any
         | religious thinker from prior eras.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology
        
           | devinjon wrote:
           | Except maybe Heraclitus and Lao Tzu.
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi
        
             | keiferski wrote:
             | Very little to do with Whitehead's system other than being
             | broadly "process" oriented.
        
               | devinjon wrote:
               | Okay, Heraclitus might be a stretch, I'll give you that.
               | But I do recommend giving the Tao Te Ching a read with
               | Whitehead in mind. :)
        
               | Podgajski wrote:
               | "process philosophy posits transient occasions of change
               | or becoming as the only fundamental things of the
               | ordinary everyday real world."
               | 
               | I think you need to read more Daoist writings! It
               | possesses that it is the transformation of yin into yang
               | and back that creates everything in the world.
               | 
               | https://www.heraldopenaccess.us/openaccess/yin-yang-a-
               | method...
               | 
               | The discovery that the motion of matter is not the result
               | of external dynamics, but the result of the action of
               | things themselves. The mutual movement, growth and
               | transformation of yin and yang in natural things
               | contribute to the process of formation, development and
               | decay. All things in nature, from the large celestial
               | universe to microscopic particles and human cell, are in
               | constant motion in their own yin and yang. This uniform
               | law is the absolute law of motion of the universe as a
               | whole.
               | 
               | And
               | 
               | https://www.openhorizons.org/daoism-and-process-the-
               | daoist-s...
        
               | keiferski wrote:
               | Yes, again, Whitehead has a particular system that is
               | pretty different from Taoism. It's a little more
               | complicated than a Wikipedia summary sentence.
        
               | Podgajski wrote:
               | As is Daoism! More complicated!
        
         | Podgajski wrote:
         | If you look at religion, folklore, mythology, as metaphors,
         | then you really can't exclude anything as a religion, that
         | includes science, which is also a metaphor. All language is a
         | metaphor. Science as you practice it today, to me, is also a
         | religion. I don't mean that to denigrate science in anyway. We
         | need metaphors to make the infinite more manageable.
         | 
         | And by metaphor I mean a thing regarded as representative or
         | symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.
        
           | edgyquant wrote:
           | You're definitely correct about the religion part. That
           | people want their religion to have "modern physics" shows
           | just how religious science has become in the last century.
           | 
           | Religion is supposed to be about guidance for people and how
           | to live a good life as a part of the whole. Dealing with
           | ethical codes, coping with the human condition of stress and
           | suffering, familial and social bonds etc. Science on the
           | other hand, at least hard science, is focused on making
           | predictions about the material world. The two have very
           | little overlap in general and trying to mix them I fear will
           | not result in good science or good religion.
        
             | Podgajski wrote:
             | > Science on the other hand, at least hard science, is
             | focused on making predictions about the material world.
             | 
             | This was a purpose of the I Ching, divination!
             | 
             | What else is science, but only a more refined method of
             | this practice?
             | 
             | And your definition of religion is very limited. Science
             | can also guide us. I had to live a good life as part of a
             | hole. It can also help cope with stress and suffering.
             | Science gave us air-conditioning, and that reduces a lot of
             | our suffering!
        
             | kiba wrote:
             | _Religion is supposed to be about guidance for people and
             | how to live a good life as a part of the whole. Dealing
             | with ethical codes, coping with the human condition of
             | stress and suffering, familial and social bonds etc._
             | 
             | It's all just mythology that also have some moral guidance,
             | some of which is incompatible or purported to be
             | incompatible with existence of people I care about.
             | 
             | It isn't made for you and me today. It's made for people
             | who lived thousand of years ago with their concerns and
             | values.
             | 
             |  _Science on the other hand, at least hard science, is
             | focused on making predictions about the material world. The
             | two have very little overlap in general and trying to mix
             | them I fear will not result in good science or good
             | religion._
             | 
             | Science is one of our most valuable and most reliable way
             | to answer questions about reality. As such, it will always
             | be a useful tool to help inform our moral questions, even
             | if it's basically mostly silent on that question.
        
         | dirtyhippiefree wrote:
         | New Myths?
         | 
         | Snopes dot com
         | 
         | I know it's not exactly what you're looking for, but it's the
         | most comprehensive telling of every modern myth they can find.
         | 
         | Here are the ones in Technology...
         | 
         | https://www.snopes.com/search/technology/
        
         | JeffSnazz wrote:
         | I'd assume unverifiable but narratively meaningful theories
         | like multiverse theories, "the universe is a hologram", etc
         | fill that role nicely. Sci-fi is full of them. "New Age"
         | beliefs are what you're looking for at face value, of course.
        
           | mistrial9 wrote:
           | some have said - since we are ultimately, just humans..
           | inquiry has to fit what a human is able to see-hear-think
           | etc.. so human-centered inquiry took over the public process,
           | over time. Humans are dangerous predators so, not being
           | attacked by other humans while doing whatever is a non-
           | trivial aspect of growth over time.
        
           | stonlyb wrote:
           | Thanks. Thought of these. I wondered if anyone has taken it a
           | step further and created new gods (of the hologram, of the
           | multiverse, etc) beyond the metaphysical/new-age trend
           | towards "the self as god". I suppose Roko's basilisk true
           | believers and their AI god counts.
        
             | AlecSchueler wrote:
             | In all seriousness I would recommend reading into the
             | subculture around salvia.
        
         | edgyquant wrote:
         | >Basic assumption is that most/all are based on dated
         | observations of seasons, planets, stars, etc -- things that
         | were once mysteries in the mechanical universe.
         | 
         | I think this is pretty much propaganda from anti-religious
         | people. I have read all of the major religious texts over the
         | last two years and If you look at most religions and their
         | scriptures they deal very little with the physical world in
         | general and are more focused on psychology and sociology than
         | having serious thoughts on physics.
         | 
         | Sure some of them have foundation myths which we may say is
         | wrong, but that's a small part of any given religion and I
         | don't believe anyone every took them serious in the way we
         | think of something like the Big Bang.
        
           | cyberpunk wrote:
           | Did you include the shobogenzo?
        
           | serf wrote:
           | > I have read all of the major religious texts over the last
           | two years
           | 
           | you're doing better than a lot of monks did over their entire
           | life time.
           | 
           | call me a skeptic, but even if I was able to accomplish such
           | a herculean feat over 2 years time I doubt I would have the
           | time to grasp much of any of the content that I blazed
           | through -- but of course we're different people -- allow me
           | to express my awe.
        
             | naremu wrote:
             | Many of these texts have been around long enough for many
             | dedicated people to put forth their own translations, and
             | if relevant (like with many Chinese texts) with some kind
             | of further researched commentary/citations to better
             | explain linguistic concepts/cultural references that may
             | not immediately be obvious otherwise.
             | 
             | It helps a lot of texts without/before involving deities
             | can actually be quite short and sweet, comparatively.
             | Personally, I've found the greek classics to be much more
             | difficult to get into than most of these "sacred texts".
        
             | edgyquant wrote:
             | I'm extremely proud of your skepticism at something I
             | really haven't put much effort into.
             | 
             | To clarify I haven't read every religious text, but I have
             | now read the Old/New Testament, The Baghavad Gita, The Tao
             | te Ching, The Quaran and currently working my way through
             | the Buddhist Sutras (looking to start on Sikhism next).
             | That is the main text of all major religions and I only
             | read 20-30 pages a day (with some overlap/not reading one
             | at a time.). It's very possible if you stick to it
        
               | lifeline82 wrote:
               | Buddhism is derivated from Christian heresy called
               | Manicheism.
               | 
               | Created and spread in Asia from Pakistan by third
               | generation after apostle, called Mani.
               | 
               | There isn't any evidence of any existing trace of
               | Buddhism before 4th century AC, most Buddhism art are
               | based on grec, and Syrian Christian artists who followed
               | St Thomas the apostle into the east.
               | 
               | Mani predated those early Christian with his fake
               | teaching which founded Buddhism.
               | 
               | Time to learn history.
               | 
               | In short: Buddhism is just a Christian heresy
               | (manicheism)
        
               | tremon wrote:
               | And in the same spirit, Christianity is just a Jewish
               | heresy. What's your point?
        
             | elefanten wrote:
             | Seems like the natural gulf between a serf and an edgy
             | quant. :shrug:
        
           | naremu wrote:
           | People seem quick to forget that religion/philosophy was
           | originally married to the quest to discover more about our
           | world.
           | 
           | Carl Sagan, before lamenting about modern astrology, reminds
           | us in Cosmos that astrology was once an actual attempt to
           | make heads or tails of an impercievably large cosmic system
           | and understands these are largely attempts at answers that
           | simply lack the information/ability to falsify them yet.
           | 
           | What psychological tendencies the common man has about those
           | beliefs/theories presented to them is a whole other topic.
           | 
           | I've finally read enough texts from various sources to feel
           | ready to start Aldous Huxley's book on The Perennial
           | Philosophy which I'm finding a refreshingly well researched
           | alternative to, as you say, propaganda from whoever passes by
           | in conversation.
        
           | basil-rash wrote:
           | Do we take the Big Bang seriously? As far as I can tell it's
           | just a vague description of what a "rolling back" of the
           | clock until we don't know how to go further might look like,
           | under a whole ton of assumptions that are almost never
           | stated. It's interesting to consider in basically the exact
           | same way the 7 day creation story is, and it's quite likely
           | that neither one is all that true - or all that false. Indeed
           | they are quite compatible with each other, and incomplete.
        
             | eropple wrote:
             | Y...yes? We do take the Big Bang seriously because there
             | are observable effects _of_ it.
             | 
             | "As far as you can tell" is doing a massive amount of
             | incurious lifting. Is phrenology making a comeback next?
        
               | basil-rash wrote:
               | That's tautological. We observe the effects, and assume
               | they _must_ propagate backwards under rules we think we
               | know, then say that the theory must be true because we
               | observe the current state is the forward propagation
               | under those same _assumed_ rules. It's unfalsifiable and
               | accordingly uninteresting.
        
           | slim wrote:
           | I don't believe anyone ever took them serious
           | 
           | I was surprised when I asked a religious person. They don't
           | talk about it much, but they believe all of it in a literal
           | way. Like they believe humanoid translucid creatures called
           | Angels live with us. _We_ think it is a metaphor when they
           | say the word, but it is not for them.
        
         | stonlyb wrote:
         | Im reminded of Roko's basilisk which I suppose may have gained
         | a significant number of new believers in the last year.
         | 
         | What I'm looking for is something specific to physics or
         | astrophysics and that is at the scale of god / mythical
         | creature creating. Like someone writing a literal (mythical?)
         | interpretation of "Maxwell's Demon" into a new-new testament.
        
           | CrypticShift wrote:
           | So, you are looking for a "religiously presented" science
           | text [1] rather than "scientifically presented" religious
           | text (as most comments here suggest)?
           | 
           | [1] i.e inferring classic religious ideas, like
           | God/demons/etc from scientific premises
        
             | stonlyb wrote:
             | Both but yes more interested in "religiously presented"
             | science. Again, based on the assumption that most religions
             | started as tools approximately explaining what was known at
             | the time (or for defining and increasing adherence to local
             | policy).
        
         | epiccoleman wrote:
         | These aren't exactly "religion" or a "new myth", but the Seven
         | Secular Sermons project is sort of in the wheelhouse:
         | 
         | https://sevensecularsermons.org/
         | 
         | I like them overall, though the meter breaks down in certain
         | places which drives me crazy after being raised on Dr. Suess
         | and Jack Prelutsky.
        
         | criddell wrote:
         | Scientology probably has a great deal of that.
        
         | chiefgeek wrote:
         | They are doing some interesting stuff over at
         | https://scienceandnonduality.com
        
         | naremu wrote:
         | I suppose if you're a cold hard logic type only just dipping
         | your toes into it, the Stoicism of old might be more your
         | speed, as they considered logic and reason their hammer and
         | nails, yet still retain a certain universal appreciation that I
         | find vaguely similar to Taoism from China (along with a concept
         | that change is the only constant)
         | 
         | Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius has quite an interesting journal
         | that also illustrates some of the thoughts and theories of the
         | time (unable to confirm or deny it, he merely repeatedly brings
         | up the possibility of atomism.)
         | 
         | Atomism also apparently makes an appearance in some Indian
         | philosophical texts, though I don't know them off hand.
         | 
         | Philosophy was originally married to the "natural sciences",
         | and so you'll find many scientific concepts originating in
         | mystical thinking if you look past whatever simple version that
         | suburban cavepeople of the area have decided is king.
        
         | bee_rider wrote:
         | Let's just make our own. I've always thought we should come up
         | with a new religion around quantum immortality.
         | 
         | Some basic thoughts could be:
         | 
         | Since you are the only immortal one from your point of view,
         | all of your loved ones will die before you, so don't worry too
         | much about meddling in their affairs or changing them, just
         | love them unconditionally. Your time with them is brief, so you
         | may as well enjoy it.
         | 
         | Make good memories together, you will carry them along
         | eternally (meanwhile, from others' point of view, you will die
         | at some point, but they will go on forever, so give them some
         | good memories of you).
         | 
         | Work toward the world and society you want to live in forever.
         | 
         | Hold yourself to unusually high standards, because you will
         | have to deal with the consequences of your actions for an
         | unusually long time. Also someday you will probably be noticed
         | as one of the earliest immortals, so try to live a life that
         | stands up to some scrutiny.
         | 
         | To avoid the stress of being incompatible with modern values,
         | you'll have to keep updating your moral framework. Big jumps in
         | your moral framework will be unpleasant to deal with mentally,
         | so keep up with where society is going. You don't have the
         | benefit of dying and becoming a product of your time at some
         | point.
        
           | nonrandomstring wrote:
           | You would probably enjoy Nietzsche's "Eternal recurrence"
        
             | bee_rider wrote:
             | Hmm, even just reading the Wikipedia article has brought up
             | some annoying philosophical/physics questions. I think we
             | should instead aim to hit a critical mass of supporters
             | with feel-good pablum and hopefully one of them will be
             | good at arguing with philosophers, as that is beyond me. :)
             | 
             | Jokes aside, interesting article thanks.
        
         | kukkeliskuu wrote:
         | Check out the Jung/Pauli letters.
         | 
         | https://www.themarginalian.org/2017/03/09/atom-and-archetype...
        
       | WarOnPrivacy wrote:
       | They have text and illustrations of _The Secret Teachings of All
       | Ages_ but the images are B &W scans. https://sacred-
       | texts.com/eso/sta/index.htm
       | 
       | The large color illustrations are why I have a copy of the book
       | https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22the+secret+teachings+of+all+age...
        
         | edgyquant wrote:
         | I did like this book but feel a lot of it was Halls fan
         | fiction. Especially the section on Gnosticism seems completely
         | false compared to what we've uncovered from actual gnostics and
         | their scriptures over the past 30 years
        
           | WarOnPrivacy wrote:
           | I'm pretty much with you. Originally I qualified my post with
           | some remark about not heaping trust on a 1910s understanding
           | of the occult - and cut it out for brevity.
           | 
           | I bought an 80's ed of TSTAA when I was big on spiritualism -
           | and even then I approached it like an art piece. Maybe the
           | sampler format doesn't work for me.
           | 
           | Or maybe it was Manly Hall's glamour shot. https://upload.wik
           | imedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Manly_P....
        
       | rapjr9 wrote:
       | You can't download an entire work, you can only view HTML pages
       | of chapters. You can indeed read the texts online but the site
       | seems designed to prevent downloading an entire text, try Project
       | Gutenberg or the Internet Archive first if you want a local copy.
       | 
       | "Q: Why all the short files? I want to download the entire book
       | in one file! A: Sorry. The short files are for technical reasons
       | which greatly reduce the cost of hosting the site. Newer books
       | typically have a one-file text-only version, which is optimized
       | for screen reader software. Look for the links on the index pages
       | that say 'Text'"
       | 
       | There is no text file for the I-Ching on sacred-texts, if you
       | want to download it here's the archive.org versions:
       | 
       | https://archive.org/details/I-Ching
       | 
       | Here's the James Legge translation of the Tao Tey King in one
       | text file:
       | 
       | https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/216/pg216.txt
        
         | huytersd wrote:
         | It would be great if someone could make a torrent of all of
         | these in one go.
        
           | _a_a_a_ wrote:
           | Or you could buy it, that's what the site's for IIRC.
        
             | huytersd wrote:
             | I guess but it's $127 for information I can read in its
             | entirety for free already. I'm sure if they had a more
             | nominal price around $10-20 they would get a lot more
             | purchases. After all it's really an aggregation of existing
             | texts.
        
       | nprateem wrote:
       | Kind of related to what I was mentioning on the Godel thread, but
       | IMO the Kundalini (or whatever you call it) experience is the
       | "grand unifying theory" of religion and mythology (although it's
       | not actually a theory, but an experience).
       | 
       | It provides an explanation for where religions may have come
       | from, beyond our typically pompous attitude that earlier
       | generations of people were superstitious and stupid. Instead, it
       | suggests that the founders of religions experienced dramatic
       | shifts in consciousness which they were trying to explain in the
       | language of the day (and which, since their followers rarely had
       | such experiences themselves, were subsequently misinterpreted).
        
         | amanaplanacanal wrote:
         | Is that the same thing as "The mystical experience" as we know
         | it in western writings, or "kensho" as the zen folks call it?
        
           | nprateem wrote:
           | To be honest, I haven't read into western writing too much,
           | but kundalini certainly leads to mystical experiences. It's
           | closer to the Holy Spirit in Christianity, an animating
           | principle (where the Father is pure awareness).
           | 
           | Kensho sounds more like insight gained into reality. While
           | kundalini isn't required to have such insights, some authors
           | say that attainment of it makes it easier to have them.
           | 
           | Generally, in Buddhism, they don't explicity talk about
           | kundalini, except Tibetan Buddhism, where they have the
           | rainbow body and vajrayana. Several authors do mention it,
           | e.g. Culadasa in The Mind Illuminated and Shinzen Young
           | amongst others. It's also clear from the Buddha's
           | descriptions that he'd awoken his kundalini (at least that's
           | my belief).
        
         | naremu wrote:
         | The Perennial Philosophy (both the concept and the book)
         | focuses on more these types of things.
         | 
         | It brings up that even in Christianity you can easily point at
         | the non-personified elements of the theology and find
         | conceptual relation to geographically unrelated beliefs.
         | 
         | One interesting bit he mentions is how dangerous it could be to
         | be one of those people without being in some prophetic or
         | theologically defensible position; Meister Eckhart being quoted
         | heavily talking about the divinity of god being in all things,
         | in a similar way as hinduism or etc might talk about
         | divinity/all being in all things.
         | 
         | Of course he eventually _was_ tried as a heretic in the papal
         | courts, as it seems the beauty of unity revealed to the sage is
         | often the nightmare of the local conqueror.
        
           | nprateem wrote:
           | Yeah, historically, and even now, there were good reasons for
           | not talking about altered states of consciousness too much.
           | It seemed like a good way to end up being executed.
           | 
           | Now describing some of the experiences that are supposed to
           | accompany altered states (hallucinations, strange abilities,
           | etc) could still lead to reputational damage. Hopefully
           | things are changing though, as Western scientists are
           | beginning to study spiritual awakenings:
           | 
           | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8417526/
           | 
           | https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-34730-006
        
       | a-ungurianu wrote:
       | Wonder how hard would it be to convert all the public domain
       | texts to Standard Ebooks. I know there's already ebooks of most
       | of these texts, but having them all together in a standard form
       | would be nice.
        
         | fnorder wrote:
         | This would be a cool project for a Uni Humanities Department
         | and would lend some credibility to the finished product. Get
         | them rolling with some basic infra; a site, wiki, bugtracker
         | and git repo.
        
       | mistrial9 wrote:
       | Happy three-kings day from California
        
       | emporas wrote:
       | Nice collection that is. I always find old tales and stories from
       | the past very entertaining. Their knowledge about neutrinos was
       | not very advanced, but still...
       | 
       | Nostradamus: "When the animal domesticated by man
       | 
       | After great pains and leaps will come to speak"
        
       | xrd wrote:
       | I was thinking this would be a fun way to get access to more
       | monster stories. I'm bored of the usual ones.
       | 
       | I started digging into the Shinto text, the Kojiki. This is my
       | favorite story so far:
       | 
       | https://archive.sacred-texts.com/shi/kj/kj153.htm
       | 
       | As far as I can tell, it looks like a young prince was mad his
       | uncle didn't get mad that the uncle's brother was killed. So the
       | prince killed the uncle in a fit of rage. Then, another brother
       | was similarly unconcerned, so the prince buried him up to his
       | shins which caused eyes to pop out and then die.
       | 
       | No monsters so far. But, about as ludicrous and disjointed as
       | most writing from a thousand years ago. It takes a special person
       | to twist that into a religion.
        
         | Loughla wrote:
         | What is the metaphor of your eyes popping out when buried to
         | your shins?
        
           | xrd wrote:
           | Technically, after reading it again, I see it was his loins.
           | I'm not sure, is this a riddle?
        
             | Loughla wrote:
             | No, my assumption is it's a metaphor.
             | 
             | Loins makes much more sense as the metaphor, as that's an
             | area of the body that can get you in real trouble if you
             | don't think first.
        
         | bee_rider wrote:
         | Is the young prince portrayed as basically the villain or as
         | the protagonist (he sounds like the monster)? I could see this
         | story as a warning about getting angry on the part of others if
         | he's portrayed in a negative light (he did more damage to his
         | family by being angry "for" them). Or I could see it as a story
         | basically about upholding some social standard, if he's
         | portrayed in a positive light (if the story thinks the uncles
         | deserve it).
         | 
         | Of course the latter reading is incompatible with modern
         | morals, but then the past is a weird place.
        
       | salt-thrower wrote:
       | Love this site. I've been reading it periodically since high
       | school. Glad it's still around.
        
       | 082349872349872 wrote:
       | Related: https://archive.org/details/the-context-of-scripture
       | 
       | (Egyptian, Hittite, West Semitic, Akkadian, and Sumerian texts)
        
       | smeej wrote:
       | > The Gospel of Thomas Reputedly the writings of the apostle
       | 'Doubting Thomas'. This text purports to be a collection of the
       | sayings of Jesus. Traditionally Thomas was Jesus' twin brother.
       | This text shows strong Gnostic influence.
       | 
       | I'll admit I'm not deeply familiar with most religious
       | traditions, but I am absolutely sure none of the major ones have
       | any "tradition" in which Jesus had a twin brother. Yes, "Thomas"
       | means "the twin," but not because people believed he was actually
       | Jesus' twin brother.
       | 
       | It's hard for me to take any of the summaries seriously after
       | that, and it's _almost_ enough to make me wonder whether the
       | collection would actually include accurate copies of the
       | documents it claims to.
        
         | eruleman wrote:
         | You're not familiar with this text or gnosticism.
         | 
         | GPT-4: "In Gnostic texts, particularly those found in the Nag
         | Hammadi library, Thomas is often referred to as "Didymos Judas
         | Thomas." The name "Didymos" is Greek for "twin," and "Thomas"
         | is Aramaic for "twin." In the Gospel of Thomas, one of the
         | Gnostic gospels, Thomas is depicted as having a special
         | understanding or connection to Jesus, but the text does not
         | explicitly state that Thomas is Jesus's twin in a biological
         | sense.
         | 
         | Instead, the "twin" designation may be symbolic, representing a
         | spiritual kinship or a metaphorical relationship rather than a
         | literal familial one. Gnostic texts are known for their
         | symbolic and allegorical language, and the exact nature of
         | Thomas's relationship to Jesus is subject to interpretation.
         | It's also worth noting that Gnostic beliefs were diverse, and
         | different texts might portray the relationship differently."
        
           | neaden wrote:
           | Leaving aside GPT as a source you're saying agreeing with OP
           | that Thomas is not traditionally understood to be Jesus' twin
           | brother, except in perhaps a spiritual sense so the summary
           | is wrong.
        
             | stryan wrote:
             | The summary is written in the context of the tradition the
             | text is in, not an overall Christian/etc context.
        
         | archon1410 wrote:
         | > In later traditions (most notably in the Acts of Thomas, Book
         | of Thomas the Contender, etc.), Thomas is regarded as the twin
         | brother of Jesus.
         | 
         | Wikipedia cites a primary source, a translation of the Gospel
         | of Thomas by John D. Turner, for this claim. It does has say
         | "Now, since it has been said that you are my 8 twin and true
         | companion [...]" in that translation.
         | 
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas
         | 
         | http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/bookt-jdt-ln.html
        
         | xhevahir wrote:
         | Like the other commenter said, The Gospel of Thomas is a real
         | religious scripture from a date very early in the Christian
         | era. When Origen, Eusebius, and the other Church Fathers
         | decided which texts and doctrines were properly Christian, they
         | didn't include the Gospel of Thomas. Assuming they were aware
         | of Thomas at all, they would have judged its content to be
         | heretical. It's likely, though, that Thomas' readers saw it as
         | forming part of the nascent Jesus movement. Not only that, it
         | shows signs of having borrowed from the same "sayings gospel,"
         | "Q," that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels used as a source
        
         | verisimi wrote:
         | What else can you tell us about the historicity Jesus? And how
         | is it you are able to say anything about this person that is
         | purported to have lived 2000 years ago?
        
       | kouru225 wrote:
       | I was curious if this would include books on alchemy.
       | 
       | It does
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-01-06 23:00 UTC)