If you're wanting to support the Palestinian Christians in the West Bank, here is your chance. These are descendants of some of the first followers of Christ that still live in Bethlehem and they make nativity sets and jewelry made from the olive wood that grows in the area. Unfortunately, they're not exactly tech savvy and you need to contact them personally, but message me if you'd like to purchase them. Also, thanks to my friend Fadi, I've convinced them to take Bitcoin.

Many of the people in this Christian community have been suffering a lot the past few years due to the collapse of tourism, especially around Christmas. They're also a minority in a largely Muslim area which make their faith that much more remarkable. Please support them if you can!

Absolutely. How can you even begin to agree or disagree with an argument you don’t understand?

the ability to steelman your opponent’s point of view is an uncomfortable cheat code for finding truth

This is very similar to the freedom of speech argument. (I may not like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.)

The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus, and it is one of the most famous of the so-called Gnostic gospels. Unlike the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), the Gospel of Thomas does not follow a narrative structure but instead consists of 114 short, standalone sayings (logia), some of which closely resemble teachings found in the canonical gospels, while others are unique or show Gnostic influences.

Here are some key aspects of the Gospel of Thomas and its differences from the Synoptic Gospels:

1. Structure and Content

The Gospel of Thomas is primarily a sayings gospel, meaning it lacks the narrative framework of the Synoptic Gospels. There is no account of Jesus’s birth, crucifixion, resurrection, or miracles. Instead, it is a collection of sayings, many of which are presented as direct teachings of Jesus. These sayings range from parables to cryptic aphorisms.

Examples of Sayings:

"The kingdom of God is within you and all around you."

"He who drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I shall be he."

In contrast, the Synoptic Gospels follow a chronological narrative of Jesus's life, ministry, death, and resurrection, interspersing his teachings with events and miracles.

2. Gnostic Influences

One of the most striking features of the Gospel of Thomas is its alignment with Gnostic thought, a form of early Christian mysticism that emphasizes secret knowledge (gnosis) as the key to salvation. Gnosticism generally holds that the material world is flawed or evil, created by a lesser god or demiurge, and that spiritual enlightenment frees the soul from this material existence.

In the Gospel of Thomas, some sayings suggest a focus on inner knowledge or hidden meanings that lead to spiritual awakening. For instance, some sayings suggest that those who truly understand Jesus’s teachings will achieve a deeper, mystical knowledge of divine truth. This is quite different from the Synoptic Gospels, which focus on salvation through faith in Jesus as the Son of God, and through his death and resurrection.

In Thomas 1, the Gospel opens with: "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death," implying that salvation comes from understanding Jesus's secret teachings.

The Synoptic Gospels emphasize faith, repentance, and following Jesus's teachings as the path to salvation, without any suggestion of secret, hidden knowledge being necessary for enlightenment.

3. Non-Trinitarian and Non-Messianic Themes

In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus often speaks more as a wisdom teacher or spiritual guide than as the Messiah or Son of God, as he is portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels. There is little to no emphasis on his role as the sacrificial Lamb of God, his divinity in the Trinitarian sense, or the necessity of his crucifixion for humanity's redemption.

For example, Thomas 77 says: "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained." This echoes Gnostic ideas of Jesus as the embodiment of divine wisdom, but it lacks the messianic focus found in the Synoptic Gospels.

In contrast, the Synoptic Gospels emphasize Jesus’s role as the Messiah, the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, his sacrificial death and resurrection, and his unique relationship to God as the Son of God.

4. The Kingdom of God

Both the Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptic Gospels talk about the Kingdom of God, but they present it differently.

In the Synoptics, the Kingdom of God is often portrayed as something that is both present and future—it has arrived through Jesus’s ministry but will reach its fullness in the future, after the final judgment.

In the Gospel of Thomas, the Kingdom of God is depicted as something that is already present within each individual, but only those who understand Jesus’s teachings will recognize it. For instance, Thomas 3 says: "The Kingdom is inside you, and it is outside you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will realize that you are the sons of the living Father."

This emphasis on self-discovery and the idea that the Kingdom is already present but hidden aligns with Gnostic teachings about enlightenment and inner knowledge.

5. Absence of Apocalyptic Themes

The Synoptic Gospels include significant apocalyptic content, focusing on the end times, final judgment, and the return of Christ. Jesus in the Synoptics talks about the signs of the coming Kingdom, the destruction of the Temple, and the importance of being prepared for the final judgment.

The Gospel of Thomas largely lacks these apocalyptic themes. Instead of focusing on a future final judgment or the coming of the Son of Man, it emphasizes present enlightenment and the recognition of divine truth in the here and now. This places Thomas more in line with Gnostic thought, which often de-emphasizes the physical world and future events in favor of inner spiritual transformation.

6. Authority and Canonical Status

The Gospel of Thomas was not included in the New Testament canon and is considered apocryphal by mainstream Christian traditions. It was likely written sometime in the 1st or 2nd century, but it is not clear if it was composed before or after the canonical gospels.

The Synoptic Gospels (along with John) were included in the New Testament canon by the early Church because they were considered to accurately reflect the life, teachings, and mission of Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas was rejected by Church authorities in part because of its Gnostic overtones and its divergence from the established Christian doctrine.

7. Historical Discovery

The Gospel of Thomas was lost for many centuries and was rediscovered in 1945 among the Nag Hammadi library in Egypt, a collection of Gnostic texts written in Coptic. Its discovery has provided scholars with insight into early Christian diversity, especially the presence of Gnostic Christianity, which emphasized mystical knowledge and often conflicted with the orthodox teachings that became dominant.

In conclusion, the Gospel of Thomas provides a radically different portrayal of Jesus from that of the Synoptic Gospels. It focuses on hidden wisdom, inner enlightenment, and a more mystical, Gnostic understanding of salvation, with less emphasis on Jesus’s role as Messiah and no focus on his death and resurrection. This difference highlights the diversity of early Christian thought and the complex debates that shaped the formation of Christian doctrine.

We need a skit where a soyCommie meets a Bolshevik with twice the testosterone and lust for blood.

Are there any other #Oklahomans on #Nostr or am I the only one? #asknostr

📸 100 SATS FOR YOUR FAVORITE OUTDOORS/NATURE PICTURE 🖼

🏔🎒☀️

I'm spoiled by living in Colorado, but I wanna see your favorite outdoors/nature picture that inspire you and where they are!

Trying to zap AT LEAST 50 people over the next 24 hours (be patient)!

🧡 Like + ♻️ boost so others can reap the benefits

Grateful for follows 🙏

The Harry Potter series was an example where, whenever fans voted for their favorite character, it usually wasn't Harry Potter. He'd be in the runningb but not at the top.

Fans were like, "I mean, we all like Harry. But we don't necessarily *love* him. And he's not *fucking memorable*. He's kind of boring.

Many people instead preferred Snape, Hermione, Black, Dumbledore, Dobby, etc.

-The very deep anti-hero or pseudo-villain. Highly conflicted, dark, and emotional, but sides with good. (Snape)

-The smartest one that fixes everything. (The books were read by bookish types, and Hermione was their bookish character identifier.)

-The wise mentor. Usually among the strongest, but from the prior generation. The plot has to factor him/her out. (Dumbledore)

-The chad scary seeming-villain who is actually a hero. (Sirius)

-The ultra-weak character, with charisma and talents, that manipulates things around the margins and morally *has* to fucking win. (Dobby).

You can't make more #Bitcoin, but you can make more Bitcoiners!

One of the life’s greatest joys is the discovery of kindred minds: those who share your worldview and who have gone ahead and written on topics that you could would have been interesting in trying a hand at writing and doing it far better than you could have ever dreamed.

The resulting sense of camaraderie, humility, respect (especially when the work was written by someone from ages past), and gratitude is one of the most profoundly spiritual experiences I’ve ever had.

I’d put O’Donovan there. Lewis too. Wendell Berry. Chesterton. Doug Wilson.

Whose work has similarly impacted you?

some of you may notice that i was a bit critical of nostr.

take two things under account

i am not technical and new to nostr, my terminology and understanding is that of a retail observer and participant

secondly i firmly and strongly believe that this technology is important yet remain a believer that TOFU will be a huge problem and that the network effects of the platform will be limited by it

look forward to everyone building the things that prove me wrong

nostr:note1jd6wkdkt0964xgjjrxsfgajhhyn9kty9gxd7cfdx6m4ryv43xw3s7mjs08

I've watched it and it's obvious that you intended to be provocative and I think you managed, without going over the top. Content-wise, the Marxist analysis is completely wrong, as it's been proven time and time again through history, that much is true. That said, I would never censor your talk for being provocative and wrong.

Let me add though that I would also be OK with a talk titled "Satoshi was a true Aryan National-socialist warrior" that tried to sell to the audience how Bitcoin is about bringing down the Global Jew, or some other such complete nonsense.

Yeah, that's where my bar is as far as free speech is concerned. Well, my point is that I don't think I have one, I'm a free speech absolutist.

Going back to your specific case, it's likely that being in a Baltic country, the organizers have a much lower tolerance threshold towards (perceived?) pro-communist speech.

Again, if I put myself in their Baltic victim of communism shoes, I would still not censor your talk, but I would probably have had a counter-talk immediately after, even if I had to improvise it, or I would have asked you to not give the talk and invited you to a debate instead.

Silly and wrong views should not be suppressed but exposed and countered in public with arguments.