The Gospel of Thomas

Its fairly clear that this document was set aside because it was a clear outlier.

Certainly each of the original apostles would demonstrate differing impressions of the Messiah as they were not all velcroed to Jesus 24/7 all hearing the exact same words. Tim obviously has his own take and thats fine, I've never read it so I cant say whether it jibes or not but the early church did and you see their decision. Doesnt make it all crap or not something we all could learn from but neither can it invalidate the rest.

IMHO
 
Cypress said:
Christian orthodoxy, the biblical canon, the adoption of Trinitarianism, the suppression of rival Christian religious sects was not accomplished until the fourth and fifth centuries...some would say well into the middle ages, since Nestorian christians continued to exist in Persia and central Asia, Arian Christianity continued to exist in North Africa until the Muslims arrived, and Marcionism I think was always a part of the Coptic Churches.

But I accept your tacit confession you did not really have a working knowledge of early, second and third century Christianity, and the various and sundry sects who were openly competing with proto-orthodoxy.
Click to expand...

none of this changes the fact that there IS consensus as to what constitutes the Christian religion and those that deny the existence of Christ simply do not qualify........you claimed otherwise, you failed miserably...deal with with your ignorance in good grace or suck eggs.....your choice.....
 
Cypress said:
It sounds like whatever little bible college you went to just taught you dogma, rather than legitimate biblical and religious scholarship.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you can't get away with claiming that cults that deny the existence of a Christ don't qualify as Christian......but that's just how reality slices the cheese........now gather your atheist supporters and move along......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I'm sorry if you can't get away with claiming that cults that deny the existence of a Christ don't qualify as Christian......but that's just how reality slices the cheese........now gather your atheist supporters and move along......
Click to expand...
Did your little bible college teach you reading comprehension?

I did not address what is accepted in the year 2021.

I explicitly wrote about what the situation was in the early third century AD.

Cypress said:
1,800 years ago, there was no accepted consensus on what constituted an authentic Christian.

Same today. Some conservative evangelicals do not think Catholics are Christian, and since Unitarian Universalists do not accept trinitarian theory, they are even more suspect.
Click to expand...
^^ that statement is one thousand percent correct. At that time, the trinitarian doctrine had not been formulated by consensus, and there were various and sundry sects of Christianity openly competing with the proto-orthodoxy strain which ultimately prevailed.

In the early third century AD, there was no way of knowing whether the Arians, the Nestorians, the Gnostics, the Marcione, or the proto-orthodox were going to be the prevailing perspective on the significance of Jesus.


As far as today is concerned, a lot of evangelical Bible thumpers will not accept Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic churches as real christians. That's just a fact, jack
 
Cypress said:
Did your little bible college teach you reading comprehension?

I did not address what is accepted in the year 2021.

I explicitly wrote about what the situation was in the early third century AD.


^^ that statement is one thousand percent correct. At that time, the trinitarian doctrine had not been formulated by consensus, and there were various and sundry sects of Christianity openly competing with the proto-orthodoxy strain which ultimately prevailed.

In the early third century AD, there was no way of knowing whether the Arians, the Nestorians, the Gnostics, the Marcione, or the proto-orthodox were going to be the prevailing perspective on the significance of Jesus.


As far as today is concerned, a lot of evangelical Bible thumpers will not accept Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic churches as real christians. That's just a fact, jack
Click to expand...

Again all your information is from organized religion.
The very people who had Jesus crucified!
But the Holy Spirit not other men were sent to teach us the truth of Christ.
 
Mr Apollyon said:
No,Jesus main mission was to be the Passover Lamb of God to save mankind from sin.
Click to expand...


a49.png


The last sacrifice. Ofc, a sacrifice needed an altar, right? Well there just happened to be one placed right under where Jesus was 400 years prior in a tunnel. When the Roman pierced his side and the blood and water spilled out, God cracked the ground open so Jesus' blood could be spilled on the altar, thereby making God's sacrifice to Man complete. The altar is the Ark of the Covenant.

What I'm not sure of is if it's the Jews that have the Ark now, or the Ethiopians. Ethiopians think they have it, but it's possible the Israeli government does.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Did your little bible college teach you reading comprehension?

I did not address what is accepted in the year 2021.

I explicitly wrote about what the situation was in the early third century AD.


^^ that statement is one thousand percent correct. At that time, the trinitarian doctrine had not been formulated by consensus, and there were various and sundry sects of Christianity openly competing with the proto-orthodoxy strain which ultimately prevailed.

In the early third century AD, there was no way of knowing whether the Arians, the Nestorians, the Gnostics, the Marcione, or the proto-orthodox were going to be the prevailing perspective on the significance of Jesus.


As far as today is concerned, a lot of evangelical Bible thumpers will not accept Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic churches as real christians. That's just a fact, jack
Click to expand...

and yet, this thread is about a gnostic text and you were complaining that Christians today do not acknowledge your fellow gnosts as brothers or include your texts in the canon..........remember the topic, jack.......
 
Cypress said:
I believe there is probably knowledge which is beyond
the reach of human reason, scientific experiment, or neurological cognitive capacity.
Click to expand...

Cypress, I KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that it is POSSIBLE that there is knowledge which is beyond the reach of human reason, scientific experiment, or neurological cognitive capacity. I SUSPECT that there are many things which ARE beyond the reach of human reason, scientific experiment, or neurological cognitive capacity.

I would personally use "I suspect..." rather than "I believe..."


If someone wants to say that is a blind guess, it wouldn't bother me.
Click to expand...

I certainly would not call it a BLIND guess. In the context of a precise discussion I would call it a rather educated guess...and I suspect that it is correct guess.

I think from the point of view of language, syntax, economy, and brevity it it just easier to say or write "I believe" rather than "I am making a blind guess that..."
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct, it is just easier to express it that way rather than to use the expression "making a blind guess."

But that opens the door to suggesting that people must respect other people's "beliefs"...and then go beyond "suggesting." It becomes an obligation...and integral part of functioning society. And many of those "beliefs" go to questions about whether gods exist...and what we humans owe to those gods.

I just do not want to have "respect" for someone else's blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...or to have "respect" for someone else's blind guess about what we owe to any gods those people blindly guess exist.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I did a (very) brief research and see that Enoch was an OT guy, and it says "is wholly extant only in the Ethiopic language." As in Ethiopia?
Click to expand...
I think it’s the only remaining copy. It’s been awhile since I researched the text and read about it. I think in one of Karen Armstrong’s books.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and yet, this thread is about a gnostic text and you were complaining that Christians today do not acknowledge your fellow gnosts as brothers or include your texts in the canon..........remember the topic, jack.......
Click to expand...

Not even remotely close to anything I said.

But I am accustomed to you and your boyfriends lying about me.

The facts are that I am citing historical events in Christianity your little bible college neglected to teach you.

As to what I personally think about Gnoticism, I am not particularly impressed, because they were vaguely cultish and presumed only the select and elite would be given the secret knowledge for salvation.
 
Cypress said:
Not even remotely close to anything I said.

But I am accustomed to you and your boyfriends lying about me.

The facts are that I am citing historical events in Christianity your little bible college neglected to teach you.

As to what I personally think about Gnoticism, I am not particularly impressed, because they were vaguely cultish and presumed only the select and elite would be given the secret knowledge for salvation.
Click to expand...

Then why even bring up Gnoticism.
 
Grumpy said:
It depends upon which source you use as the origin of the Noah story ... from somewhere at the bottom of the Black Sea or the headwaters of the Tigris/Euphates system.
Click to expand...

The story doesn't reach the middle east till After the Flood.
Sure would like to have a map of the earth and population centers the day before Noah sailed.And how modern society was then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top