Revelation

 

In his seminal book, “The Age of Reason”, Thomas Paine observed the following, “Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals.”

This form of divine communication has been claimed as direct, as when God delivered His commandments to Moses or via His son Jesus. Alternatively, angelic messengers have been employed; Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary or delivering Allah’s words directly to Mohammed.

Accepting these at face value for the moment, they undoubtedly constitute revelation. The difficulty, however, is that such is only revelatory for Moses, Mary and Mohammed. Even if greater numbers can be claimed for those who heard the divine word of God’s son, it was still only revelation for them.

What was subsequently written in the Talmud, Bible or Koran can at best only be received second hand by those who read it or hear it read. In reality, considering these three books were compiled well after the supposed event, as well as translation, interpretation and redaction, what is presented is anything but revelation,

As Paine wrote, “But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person…it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.”

This does not mean that what is written in religious tracts cannot be considered and reflected on, but it should always be kept in mind that they are the words and works of men, not divine communications, no matter how inspired they may appear.

Deism makes no claims to possess sacred books dictated by God, indeed it refutes their very existence. Nature and the cosmos, being for deists, the only known divine works, are the gospels looked to through the lens of reason.

As such, this is the true source of revelation. It is for each individual to draw deist conclusions from what can be observed and experienced in nature, the only source for recognising intimations of a non-anthropomorphic deity whose being is beyond human comprehension.

Deists do not preach because this way of seeing is open to everyone and does not require mediation through others. Deists offer deism as a possibility, but it is up to each person to open themselves to seeking and experiencing revelation for themselves.

The Gospel of Thomas – A Deist View

Much is made in Deist circles of religious scriptures and revelations as being the antithesis of Reason, the basic concept behind Deism. This is understandable as they are the source of what can appear to be superstition at best and an aggressive fundamentalism at worst.

From the 18th century onwards the advance of science and rationality has pushed back the boundaries of religious influence to the point today where affirming believers are a dwindling minority.

Churchmen and women strive to accommodate scientific understanding within the context of their faith, the difficulty being their concept of a supernatural God fits badly, if at all, with such an understanding.

Does this mean that all contained in religious texts is little more than the revelation of the ignorance of our per-scientific forebears? A good case can be made such testaments employed a metaphorical language before a scientific one became available.

However, there is no need for such special pleading in the case of a gospel existing outside the accepted canon. The chronological origin of the Gospel of Thomas is imprecise, with conflicting authorities arguing for dates prior to the New Testament gospels and others who favour a couple of centuries after.

Whichever came first, the gospels of the New Testament or of Thomas, a very different approach to religion is revealed, one that does not need to be refashioned around scientific thinking.

The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. There is none of the usual narrative or any indication of miracles, and God is only mentioned twice. This is not a supernatural Jesus set to reign over and judge mankind, but a teacher challenging listeners to take responsibility for their own spiritual development.

The most significant difference with traditional religious practice is an absence of any requirement for faith. “To know” is the verb of preference, and that appears in three forms in the course of this Gospel.

Awareness, as in, “I’m aware of how science has enhanced human knowledge of the universe.”

Understanding or realisation, as in, “The apple fell on Newton due to gravity, not as an act of God.”

Profound certainty, as in, “Through reason and experience I know a created universe operating according to discernable laws is not a random chance occurrence.”

There is a single reference to belief in the Gospel, but that is on behalf of some followers wanting some sign so they might believe in their teacher. The reply is a gentle admonishment that, as yet, they don’t know, doesn’t understand what is being set before them.

Such profound “knowing” has been rendered in canonical texts as repentance, the negative concept built around sin and sinfulness with consequent divine retribution on which the power of the Church has been built.

Consequently, a whole edifice of faith and belief was constructed inhibiting Christians, individually and collectively, from exploring spiritual possibilities and development, using and profiting from their Reason.

The Gospel of Thomas is not a holy book in the sense binding oaths before God can be sworn on it. It is a record of what was essentially an oral teaching, the efficacy of which does not depend on the teacher being literally Jesus.

For Deists there is much within the Gospel to contemplate and relate to how Deism can develop a spiritual praxis. Within in it are concepts certainly pre-dating it and are probably themes humans have explored since developing the cognitive ability to reason.

Like all text books, the Gospel is a starting point from which learning can be developed. It requires no priests or theologians as its use and interpretation falls on each individual who responds to it.

There will be many Deists for whom it is wholly inappropriate, while others may take inspiration from it. As traditional religions decline and a cold pseudo-scientific materialism fails to satisfy, many feel spiritually poorer, something The Gospel of Thomas anticipated in its third saying.
“But if you do not know yourselves
then you are in poverty,
and you are the poverty.” *

Such poverty also applies to those maintaining their faith; they may know the bible cover to cover, but don’t know themselves, relying on faith rather than Reason. God is reduced to an anthropomorphic being, instead of a concept appreciated, though necessarily beyond human understanding.

*
“Jesus Untouched by the Church.” Hugh McGregor Ross, William Sessions Ltd, York,1998. ISBN 1850722137.