Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:
4) The GoT is a "gnostic" gospel. That is, it is the product of a second century heresy that had its roots even in the apostolic age. The early form of this, we may refer to it as protognosticism, was thoroughly rejected by the Apostles. Thus, it is not to be considered part of the canon.

Jac3510 wrote:Gnosticism in itself isn't found in the apostolic period. That was a particular heresy that taught things such as:

1. For women to be saved, they must become men,
2. Matter is evil; only the spirit is Good,
3. Jesus did not resurrect with a physical body,
4. Salvation resulted, not from the removal of sin and imputation of Christ's righteousness, but from the aquisition of "secret knowledge", etc.

We could go on, but that's a good start. It's full blown form is found first in the second century, and it was thoroughly rejected by the Church. However, we see its beginnings during the apostolic times. Peter dealt with it a good bit.

Therefore, even forgetting the previous three arguments (any one of which excludes the GoT from being considered Scripture), we see that while the apostles did not directly reject Gnosticism, and thus the GoT, they did reject its seed. They rejected the very foundations on which the system is built. Rejecting the foundations, it is easy to see that the whole system is to be rejected.

It is interesting to note that those who put stock in the GoT always reinterpret the rest of the NT in its light. The leads to a rejection in better than 80% of Jesus' sayings, as well as the idea that Pauline Christianity was of an entirely different nature than Apostolic Christianity. Further, it always leads to the idea that the gospels themselves were written in the second century, after the GoT, thus lending credance to the rejection of their historical value.

Your local library, especially if there is a seminary or Bible college near you, should have an English copy of the GoT. Or, I'm sure there is one floating around online somewhere . . . just give the text itself a read. If you are at all grounded in NT doctrines regarding Christ, sin, and salvation, you'll see just how off the wall it really is.

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:Pshh . . . they believe American Indians are direct descendants of the Jews.

Not too much worth discussing with those people.

Jac3510 wrote:I really, really like talking to Mormons. They are so silly. It's great, because you can get them so twisted, and eventually, they get to saying things like, "Well, let me ask my pastor, and I'll be back!" Of course, you never see them again . . .

Silly, silly Mormons. But, they do have a trump card when you think about it. South Park says that of all the religions, they have it right!

A. Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)

A. God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321.  Joseph Smith,  Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.)
A. After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354.)
A. The true gospel was lost from the earth. Mormonism is its restoration, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 182-185.)
A. Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247, 1856.)
A. "Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).

Yes it is with some more knowledge and understanding, I hope to can know also. Just like a baby can't start with meat, but first milk . It's heavy doctrine but all true and I will testify to that.
Hope to be able to sit down and discuss it over lunch sometime?

Jac3510 wrote:Haha, awsome. Yeah, I've heard those before. Have lunch with him, and bring a Bible. Get him to show you where he got it all from that. Obviously, he can't. Then, show where his ideas are contradictory to the Bible.

Ultimate, it will come down to, "Well I believe this because the BOM says so!" To which you reply, "Well I believet his because the Bible says so. And since your book teaches that the indians are direct descendants of the Jews, I think I'll stick with mine."

JBirdAngel wrote:hello,

i read some things in the "gospel of thomas" that have worried, ive thought it over and dont believe the things i am worrying about are real at all they dont agree with the rest of the Bible, however my googles didnt seem to turn up as many things saying it is fake as things saying otherwise, and i dont believe the "gospel of thomas" but im still a little worried, which is bad, but i think its okay to ask for other believers to help with that, isnt it?

thank you - jason

"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me."
- Jesus - John 14:1

"It is probably our most significant witness to the early perversions of Christianity by those who wanted to create Jesus in their own image. Thus, it stands, like Lot's wife, as a new but permanently valuable witness to men's desire to make God's revelation serve them. Ultimately it testifies not to what Jesus said but to what men wished he had said."

"Gospel of Thomas, a forgery known by name from ancient times, which came to be lost, only now to be discovered. It is a forgery of the teachings of Jesus written in the name of one who should know them better than anyone: his twin brother, Didymus Judas Thomas. The Greek fragments of the GOT date from the second century. It was known to church fathers of the second and third centuries. Over half of the sayings found in the GOT are similar to sayings found in the New Testament Gospels (79 of the 144 by one count). In some instances the similarities are quite close. The closest parallels with the sayings of the GOT Matthew, Mark and Luke."

"Understanding these sayings correctly is the prerequisite for eternal life, how are we to interpret them?"

"A majority of interpreters have understood the Gospel of Thomas itself as some kind of Gnostic Gospel. Salvation comes through saving knowledge. The Greek term for knowledge is gnosis. And so these people are called Gnostics, "the ones who know." But how do they acquire the knowledge they need for salvation? In Christian Gnostic texts, it is Jesus Himself who comes down from the heavenly realm to reveal the necessary knowledge for salvation to those who have the spark of the divine spirit within."

Christian2, im confused by your post, you seem to list quotes that show that the gospel of Thomas is not real, but then you say you see no problem with it?

also if thats a quote from Bart Erhman, although i dont know who he is, if i am understanding what he is saying, he is at the very least wrong about Thomas being the twin brother of Jesus. Jesus does not have a twin brother, Jesus was the only child born at the time of His birth, his siblings came after His birth when Joseph and Mary began to partake in such events as would lead to having children.

Bart D. Ehrman. Ph.D. Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), 1985; M.Div. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981; B.A. Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), 1978. Principal Areas of Research Interest: New Testament Interpretation; History of Ancient Christianity (first three centuries), especially Orthodoxy and Heresy, Formation of the Canon, NT Manuscript Tradition, Historical Jesus, and Apostolic Fathers; Secondary Areas of Interest: Jewish-Christian Relations in Antiquity; Greco-Roman Religions; Christianization of the Roman World. Bart Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. Prof. Ehrman completed his M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees at Princeton Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude.

Christian2 wrote:JBirdAngel,

Christian2, im confused by your post, you seem to list quotes that show that the gospel of Thomas is not real, but then you say you see no problem with it?

also if thats a quote from Bart Erhman, although i dont know who he is, if i am understanding what he is saying, he is at the very least wrong about Thomas being the twin brother of Jesus. Jesus does not have a twin brother, Jesus was the only child born at the time of His birth, his siblings came after His birth when Joseph and Mary began to partake in such events as would lead to having children.

I'm sorry I confused you. Ehrman's credentials:

Bart D. Ehrman. Ph.D. Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), 1985; M.Div. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981; B.A. Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), 1978. Principal Areas of Research Interest: New Testament Interpretation; History of Ancient Christianity (first three centuries), especially Orthodoxy and Heresy, Formation of the Canon, NT Manuscript Tradition, Historical Jesus, and Apostolic Fathers; Secondary Areas of Interest: Jewish-Christian Relations in Antiquity; Greco-Roman Religions; Christianization of the Roman World. Bart Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. Prof. Ehrman completed his M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees at Princeton Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude.

I don't think that Ehrman is saying that Jesus had a twin brother. The authorship of the Gospel of Thomas is attributed to Didymos Judas Thomas, that is, Judas "the Twin," who was an apostle of Jesus.

I see no problem with anyone reading the Gospel of Thomas. It is a Gnostic book. If you are interested in Gnosticism, then read it. It is a real book; it is a real Gnostic book.

I've read GOT several times. It's interesting. I did a post on another discussion board where I suggested that we try to interpret the sayings. But this book does not conflict with my faith. In other words, it is like reading a novel of sorts. There are lots of other late "Christian" books that I've read and they are interesting too, but that is all--just interesting.

Now, once again, what are you worried about? Why are you worried about this particular book?