What Was The Great Beyond?
They showed it multiple times in the movie, but never clearly defined what it was supposed to represent. The main character was just afraid of it for no reason whatsoever.
shareHeaven.
share
MovieChat Forums > Soul (2020) Discussion > What Was The Great Beyond?
The Gospel of Thomas says: "Look to the Living One while you are alive. If you wait until you're dead, you will search in vain for the vision."
In other words, the life you're currently living is what matters. The afterlife doesn't matter right now.
Believe in "life". Not "pre-life" or "after-life", just life.
Stop telling me what to believe.
shareThe gospel of Thomas is gnosticism.
share"Gnosticism" is such a general word/term - be more specific. I believe that the Jesus of Thomas is the same Jesus of the 4 Gospels. Thomas is really not that crazy either - a quarter of the content in Thomas is the same as the content in the synoptic Gospels.
shareGnosticism simply means "having knowledge". I will say that Thomas is not necessary - but Thomas makes the doctrine of Jesus a bit more clear and less vague, actually. I'll give you an example.
(Luke 14:26) Jesus said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."
Sounds pretty drastic right? But Thomas rephrases this and adds more context to it.
(Thomas verse 101) Jesus said: "Whoever does not hate their father and mother as I do, cannot become my disciple. And whoever does not love their father and mother as I do, cannot become my disciple. For my mother made me to die, but my real mother gave me Life."
Well Gnostics are not Christians. Christians don´t believe in the authenticity of the "gospel of Thomas" and there are vast differences between it and the synoptic gospels.
1. It has no Apostolic Authority (ie connection to any of the original Apostles including Timothy)
in part, by virtue of its text being dated to mid 2nd century.
2. It requires deep dependance on large parts of the NT which were not available until a later date,
so Authorship of (GOT) required scriptural access which didn´t exist for the early Gospel authors.
3. Some scholar suggest (GOT) relied on Diatessaron dated AD 170.
4. In addition, other works, dated earlier like Shepherd of Hermas which was lauded by the early church
but canonically rejected because it could not be connected to the Apostles, because it came too late.
5. There are some other strange views like women having to make themselves (male spirits) to enter Heaven.
6. It´s not in narrative form but a list of "secret sayings".
Finally and most importantly, (GOT) teaches secret esoteric teachings are how one attains salvation.
The first saying states: "“Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.”
This is completely contradictory to entire teachings of the New Testament. Christians achieve salvation
by believing in Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and Jesus preached and said the gospel should be preached to everyone.
It is not technically, "secret knowledge that is discovered" but the gospel is "available" to anyone.
In addition, Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "you are saved by grace through faith and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so no man shall boast".
Not by works, means you cannot earn your salvation by discovering, "special", esoteric knowledge.
I could dig a bit further but I am sure you get the gist at this point.
Thomas is not "Gnostic" in the sense of talking about Sophia and the Demiurge. There's no mentions of that in Thomas. Thomas comes off as Christian, only much more hipster and David Lynch-ian.
I have seen some people try to give the Gospel of Thomas an early composition date. Even earlier than the regular Gospels. Due to GOT verse 12 talking about how James the Just (brother of Christ) is the leader of the Jerusalem Church.
Fair. Thomas does introduce his gospel as being a secretive one. There's a few crazy quotes in Thomas, but like I said, Jesus actually expands upon some of His doctrine in Thomas. So, the Gospel of Thomas was discovered roughly around the same time the state of Israel was established in the 1940's. I think Thomas's Jesus is "needed" for this current era we live in. I think Thomas's Gospel was meant to be hidden away, only to be accessed later, close to the Messianic Era.
Any thoughts on the Luke verse and Thomas verse that I just gave in my previous comment?
"Women making themselves Men in order to enter Heaven." Yes, that is GOT verse 114. Jesus Christ is actually half Male and half Female. And that is actually happening in our time - women are making themselves equivalent to men now. Some do it in the legalistic sense, some in the biological sense, some in the psychological sense. Is that not prophetic of Thomas? My theory is that Jesus might even be coming back fully as a woman.
Jesus being half Female is still shown in the 4 Gospels, but it's a bit more vague. Jesus makes it more obvious in Thomas.
Thomas 114
Simon Peter said to Him:
"Mary should leave us, for women are not worthy of the Life."
Jesus answered, "This is how I will guide her, so that she becomes Man.
She too, will become a living breath like you Men.
Any woman who makes herself a Man will enter into the kingdom of Heaven."
So Billy, in other words, the Karen is going to become the Store Manager. She will not be a victim anymore, but the provider. What's so wrong about that? I think it's tremendous. It's going to be beautiful, Billy.
I am just pointing out the differences. Believe what you want to believe, but whoever wrote the Gospel of Thomas was certainly not a "Christian" even if the authorship could be dated earlier primarily because Christians don´t believe that "secret knowledge" leads to salvation and Jesus Christ himself proclaimed the exact opposite. Salvation for Christians is "belief/faith" in Jesus Christ alone.
My thoughts are that any similarities between (GOT) and the real gospels is that including similar content from the actual gospels was an attempt to lend credibility to the Author of (GOT) as the Author did indeed have access to the synoptic gospels at his disposal as I brought up earlier. Gnosticism is just an attempt to deceive from the truth.
But, what does the Luke verse exactly mean and what do you think the Thomas verse means? Surely you have an interpretation of the Luke verse, since you are a Christian. How does it compare with the Thomas verse?
Just to summarize Luke 14:26 is hyperbolic and is about the cost of discipleship. It is about putting God before anyone and anything else. It does not mean to literally "hate" your family since this would be a contradiction of love your neighbour, or "anyone who hates his brother is a murderer", or "anyone who says ´I love God´ but hates his brother is a liar."
The verses are similar but the ending of the Thomas verse seems to be venerating Mary and undermining Jesus as God. Jesus never mentions Mary at all in Luke 14 but Thomas seems to be deifying Mary or some other "maternal god". No one "gave Jesus life" since he is eternal, so this would be another glaring contradiction with the synoptic gospels that undermines Jesus´divinity.
My interpretation of the Luke verse: there's real truth to it, because Jesus is against His earthly father, Joseph. Jesus hates his earthly father because it's not the truth. Look at Luke 3:23. Under Jewish Law, Mary and her child Jesus are the property of Joseph. Wives and children are under the authority of the man. This is where Jesus's other name comes from - "Son of Man".
Under Joseph the father, Jesus and Mary are dead. Under God the Father, Jesus and Mary are alive.
There is no veneration of Mary in Thomas - in fact, Thomas asserts the Trinity several times in Thomas (GOT verse 30, verse 44).
(Matthew 12:46-50) "While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? ”Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Jesus can´t have hated Joseph since hate is sin. Jesus lived a sinless life.
shareYou dismissed most of what I just said. That's what most people do though. People don't try to understand anything - they only dismiss what they don't understand.
shareJesus hated Joseph in the hyperbolic sense, like you just said. Because Joseph stands in the way of the real Father.
share"Jesus hates his earthly father because it's not the truth"
Okay but what you just said here sounds literal unless you state otherwise. We don´t take Luke 14 literally because we have context and scripture cannot contradict scripture.
So can you explain how Jesus can "hate" his father in a hyperbolic sense? Without meaning what you are saying it means. You are essentially saying your use of the word hate here is exaggerated and doesn´t really mean hate or not?
Luke 3:23 "When Jesus began His ministry he was about thirty years of age. He was the son, as was thought, of Joseph." As was thought? As thought by Torah Law observers/pharisees.
By Jewish Law, Joseph is the father of Jesus. Men own their wives when they are married. This is why the last name of a man becomes the last name of his wife when they are married. Because women become property to their husbands. Jesus has to be the "legal" son of Joseph, otherwise it looks as if Mary cheated on Joseph and Jesus is the son of another man. Making Joseph look like a cuckhold. You see this already in Matthew chapter 1 when Joseph wants to divorce Mary because she's pregnant (not by Joseph's seed).
Since Joseph is the legal father of Jesus, this is what makes Jesus resent/hate him. Joseph by Law, blocks Jesus from really being the son of God. Instead, Jesus is the "Son of Man".
When Jesus is speaking about hating one's father in Luke 14:26, He is speaking about His own situation.
Okay but from a Christian perspective, Jesus "resenting/hating" Joseph would make Jesus a sinner which is not possible since he fulfilled/upheld the law and lived a life of sinless perfection.
Son of Man is just a term used by Jesus to remind his disciples that he was God in the flesh. The "man" part meaning he was flesh incarnate like them.
Also, Joseph´s guardian status as Jesus "legal" father is meaningless to Jesus and Jesus´s entire Biblical narrative. Jesus didn´t care about something so trivial, in fact if you believe he is God, then you believe his life was planned in advance, which would include choosing Joseph as his "legal" father. If Jesus resented Joseph, then Jesus can´t really be God in your eyes because why resent something he was already aware would exist and was part of his plan: which was to be the perfect lamb to be sacrificed for the atonement of the sins of those who would believe in him.
I respect your interpretation but I respectfully disagree with it.
Okay.
shareI just made another edit with some more pertinent info, but am I correct in assuming that your stance is that Jesus was not God, right?
shareI believe that Jesus is God. But I disagree as to why Jesus had to die on the cross. Jesus's death was indeed a sacrifice, but not a sacrifice in the way that you are describing it. I don't think the sacrifice was for our sins, I think it was a sacrifice representing the love God has for humanity.
That´s interesting that you believe Jesus was God but that his work on the cross was not substitutionary atonement. Is there any particular reason that leads you to this point of view? Are you aware that the vast majority of Jesus´parables are about salvation?
shareJesus never talks about dying for our sins. Never. The closest thing that He says is that He's dying for a ransom. That's it. In John 10:11, Jesus simply describes it as laying down His Life for us. Never mentions dying for your sins.
Where in the Gospels does Jesus say that his death on the cross was atonement for sin?
A lot of the parables about: the nature of the kingdom of heaven, love/caringness, forgiveness, the feast in heaven, etc.
The fire of Gehenna (hell) is contrasted with being born of water thus being born of the spirit (John 3:5). So, the fire of Gehenna (hell) is meant for you when you're born of earthly nature, not spiritual nature. It's metaphorical, not literal. You have to be born of water in order to enter Heaven, to be born of Spirit and to truly see Jesus.
Like, Jesus's crucifixion is really more of a mystery than a pure, straight answer.
When Jesus says that He must die on the cross, Simon Peter quickly denies that it must happen and then Jesus rebukes Peter for saying that. Seemingly not understanding why Jesus must die. Matthew 16:21-23.
The disciples didn't even understand why the crucifixion had to happen. Luke 18:31-34.
Correct, the disciples barely knew what anything meant until they had been born again, (received the Holy Spirit). They had not received the HS until Jesus breathed on them in John 20:22. In John 16:7, Jesus says that the "Helper"(Holy Spirit) will not come to them unless he "goes away" (does the work on the cross). He is alluding to the atonement of sin here. This is elaborated on further in 8,9,10 and 11, where he twice mentions sin and convicting the world of it.
The disciples were deliberately mostly, kept out of the loop until Christ´s work on the cross had been done. No one is denying that, it doesn´t mean that Christ´s work is a "mystery".
The crucifixion indeed isn´t a mystery if you believe in the complete New Testament not just only accept that the four Gospels were divinely inspired. The rest of the NT and the work of Paul contain a plethora of scripture regarding Christ´s propitiation of sin.
Having said that, I am particularly referring to Christ´s work on the cross which is common knowledge. The gospel will always be a "mystery" to those who don´t have ears to hear or eyes to see as in Matthew 13.
I do have a interpretation of the crucifixion. But I'm saying that it's just not obvious at all what it means without reading the Gospels all the time. The parables really don't at all address the crucifixion - which I do think is interesting.
My interpretation of the crucifixion is that it's actually a bit of a "feminine" sacrifice. Both Jesus and women "bleed" due to not being able to bear fruit. This is how Jesus Christ is like the "Divine Mother". In the parable of Mark 12:1-8, the kingdom of God goes through many servants/prophets and still can't obtain fruit. In the same chapter, it talks about how a woman going through many levirate marriages/husbands and she also cannot bear fruit. Mark 12:18-22. God/the kingdom of Heaven is like a woman in that sense.
The Messianic Era is basically when God stops being barren, and God is finally able to bear fruit.
My theology is that the 4 Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas are the closest teachings from Jesus Christ.
The letters of Paul and the other books of the NT are not as divinely inspired as the Gospels. They still serve to give us value, but they're not perfect. Like, the book of Revelation will never happen. It's still a vision that has meaning/value to it, but it's not literally going to happen.
OT: I study the 5 Books of Moses + Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings the most.
NT: 4 Gospels + Thomas. The writings of Flavius Josephus are also very useful/inspired. I'm eventually gonna try to read Eusebius/Roman history.
Current era - the writings of Robert A. Monroe and Philip K. Dick are good prophetic works. Plus, David Lynch's works are very solid.
That's my library.
A lot of what Jesus preaches about in the 4 Gospels is actually what Jesus confronts in His own story. Everything that Jesus says, is truth for Jesus.
"The last shall be first, and the first shall be last." (Peter and Judas switch roles)
"When you give a banquet, give it to the poor." (Communion/Eucharist)
"Seek the lowest/humble place, so that you may be uplifted to a higher place." (Baptism by John)
"Whoever seeks to save his life, will lose it, but whoever loses his life will save it." (1) Death and then 2)Resurrection; not 1) Life and then 2) Death.)
All these quotes/philosophical points happen to Jesus. So, Jesus talking about hating one's father is reflective of His own situation.
Well, this is a secular film, so instead of a heaven or hell, they used the generic "afterlife" or "spiritual realm" that the non-religious use to explain what happens to the soul after someone dies, or where souls come from before people are born. I've seen the tropes used several times in films and tv shows, particularly cartoons or cheap children's tv movies.
shareThe non-religious typically don't believe in an afterlife, or souls.
shareAgnostics still acknowledge that there is a higher power and possibly souls, life-forces, and other planes of existence for human beings; but they don't formally follow any specific religion.
shareYep, this is a very unheaveny heaven with unspiritual spiritual things. Seems like it’s just harder to come up with spiritual things for modernists or whoever.
shareAgnostics don't usually believe anything. "Gnostic" means knowledge. "A" is a prefix meaning "without". Hence, being a-gnostic is being without knowledge. And if you don't know that there's a higher power, souls, etc, then you typically don't believe in them. Hence why many agnostics also claim to be atheists (a-theism = "without theism"). Because most of them also claim to not know whether or not there are any of those things (hence why they don't jump into believing in them). Agnosticism is really an irrelevant word when you think about it. Just a euphemism for soft atheism. It didn't even exist until everyone started arguing about evolution, haha.
shareAgnostics aknowledge that they do not know if there is a higher power. They do not automatically believe in souls, life forces or other mumbo jumbo.
shareNon-religious doesnt necesarily mean non-spiritual.
shareSpiritual is a vague word.
When I hear "I'm not religious but I'm spiritual" I just think wtf are you talking about.
Non-religious in my experience don't buy into the supernatural, and if spiritual and spirits are connected...it really depends on how you define spiritual.
Religion to me is basically believing what man has told us what God is and following in that. Im not religous but I definitely do believe that there is a higher power or powers, whether on this dimension or some other, that is responsible for everything in existence. Still vague, but non religous, to me anyway, doesnt necesarily mean doesnt believe in God.
shareIf you believe in a god you're a theist, and I nearly want to draw an equal sign between that and religious.
Using the word religious to describe actively practicing religious traditions and whatnot, vs just thinking there is a god...I suppose that is reasonable...but would you call yourself a non-religious theist?
If the higher power is a super advanced alien civilization I wouldn't call it religion...nor would I call them a higher power..that word is kind of reserved for "mystical" powers for me.
But if your higher power created everything in existence, including the universe(s), that definitely falls into the god level tier, and to me you'd at least be theist.
He sounds more like a Deist. I think theism implies belief in supernatural revelation from God whereas Deists believe an impartial "god" who remains indifferent to his creation.
shareReligion is organized theism. The only difference between religion and a cult is its legal status.
shareNobody knoooows, not even the writeeeers
shareComplete death. We were never given the option of there being a heaven, your body dies... then your soul goes poof and it dies.
share