Controversy Thread part 2: Religious discussion (23 Viewers)

Ian · Sep 16, 2003

Indeed.

The gospel of Thomas is just like any other Gospel except in different words. IT casts a different light upon the life and time of Jesus. The more revolutionary scriptures have names which are too hard for me to remember at the moment.

gray · Sep 16, 2003

AFAIK,

The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. Unless it is merely a collection of materials that mainly were drawn out of the Biblical gospels, as seems unlikely for most if not all of Thomas' sayings, then Thomas is the most important historical source for knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth that exists outside of the Bible. Portions of Greek versions of the Gospel of Thomas were found in Egypt about a hundred years ago.

The Gospel of Thomas will never be added to the bible, as the biblical canon is not open for debate, it is a closed entity. A church that adds Thomas to its collection of scriptures would move outside the margins of orthodox Christianity and no well-known denomination has the slightest intention of adding Thomas to its scriptures.

Ian · Sep 16, 2003

++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++
AFAIK,

The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. Unless it is merely a collection of materials that mainly were drawn out of the Biblical gospels, as seems unlikely for most if not all of Thomas' sayings, then Thomas is the most important historical source for knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth that exists outside of the Bible. Portions of Greek versions of the Gospel of Thomas were found in Egypt about a hundred years ago.

The Gospel of Thomas will never be added to the bible, as the biblical canon is not open for debate, it is a closed entity. A church that adds Thomas to its collection of scriptures would move outside the margins of orthodox Christianity and no well-known denomination has the slightest intention of adding Thomas to its scriptures.

The Society has not "added" the Gospel of Thomas to the bible, we simply do not reject it out of hand as many other religions do.

Layce Erayce · Sep 16, 2003

interestingly enough i was reading something on the 'other' books- the apocrypha(secret books) and such a couple days back.

it seems that the books that have not been included in the standard bible have either

a. never been directly quoted in the new testament/jesus

b. have not been written as well as the others- ie their style isnt as beautiful as the others

not exactly the reasons I would have expected....

Ian · Sep 16, 2003

That's mostly an excuse that the catholic shurch uses for not including those books in their scripture. The more interesting "secret" books are those that were not included int he Old Testament. There is some crazy stuff that is recorded about the time before man, very interesting reading.

aressandro10 · Sep 16, 2003

care to give example?

gray · Sep 17, 2003

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean to pinpoint any society or religion, I was simply stating the reason it hasn't been included into the Bible.

If there were things recorded before the time of man, doesn't that make Genesis a lie? Since it states "in the beginning..." and goes on to record God's creation until he made man?

Yes, please do...

Ian · Sep 17, 2003

I don't mean that they were recorded before man, I mean that they are about things that happened before man. Surely you don't think that Satan's betrayal occured during the time of man? There are many sotries which relate to this and many more of similar tone that tell of other things.

Majed · Sep 17, 2003

how could i have missed this thread!!!?

Layce Erayce · Sep 17, 2003

ah yes. everybody knows that lucifer led a rebellion against the 'hosts' but the angels led by Michael the archangel defeated the rebelling third and the were cast down on the earth.

is that in the bible or was that taken from one of the books ian's talking about?

btw off-topic: everybody knows that methuselah was the longest living man in the bible- 969 years. but did we know that they year he died was the year the noah's flood took place??

gray · Sep 18, 2003

7 And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. - Revelation 12

Genesis 5:22 says that Enoch walked with God for 300 years AFTER his son Methuselah was born. In Hebrew, the name Methuselah means, "When he is dead it shall be sent." Some Bible Scholars believe that God told Enoch that He was going to destroy the inhabitants of the earth when Methuselah died and this is why Enoch walked with God. It seems to me, though, if God confided this information to Enoch, he must have already been walking with God!

Methuselah lived for 969 years. Some speculate this is because God was going to destroy the earth after Methuselah died and He was prolonging his life, giving man more time for repentance. Methuselah was Noah's grandfather and some believe he may actually have died in the flood. Certainly, it is a possibility. Methuselah was 187 years old when his son, Lamech was born. He lived 782 years after Lamech was born. Lamech was 182 years old when Noah was born, so Methuselah would have been 369. Noah was 600 years old when the flood started, so Methuselah would have been 969 at the beginning of the flood. *phew that was confusing* :sleepy:So Methuselah either died just prior to the flood as was mentioned before or he died IN the flood. Personally, I do not believe he died in the flood. The Bible tells us that Noah was a righteous man who found grace in the Lord's eyes. He had enough faith to work for 100 years building a boat in odedience to God's command. He surely learned some of his belief in God at home from his parents and grandparents. Lamech, Noah's father, died 5 years before the flood. I believe, had Methuselah been alive when the flood of waters started, he would have been on the ark! I hope that explains it

Ian · Sep 18, 2003

That's more or less how it goes in the officially sanctioned scriptures, but there are many many many other descriptions of that conflict and many other occurances which "the church" would rather you not know about for one reason or another,

Layce Erayce · Sep 18, 2003

gray thnx for the process

i kinda went through all that as well. without knowing it all i just did the math and discovered this.....

ian do you know where i may be able to get my hands on the other descriptions of the conflict?

Ian · Sep 18, 2003

ummm....no, not really, I mean I've got all the ones I have from of Friends, I haven't the foggiest where they got them, but I'll ask someone next time I go to Meeting.

Layce Erayce · Sep 18, 2003

would appreciate that.

going back to the idolatory thing- what is your definition of idolatry?

gray · Sep 20, 2003

Maybe this question wasn't meant for me, but what the hey

My definition of idolatry doesn't just have to be bowing down before golden calfs... it can be anything that you prioritise before God.

Your idol could be your work/money, when you work so hard that you don't think about God at all, or your idols can be Juventus, when you worship the players, think about them more than anything else in the world, and would rather meet them instead of God.

Going back to the worn-out crucifix discussion, the reason I don't think that wearing a crucifix or any other symbol to remind myself of Christ's ultimate sacrifice, is that i'd sooner throw away that chain than i would disown God. God will still be in my mind even if i didn't have the symbol, but the crucifix without meaning, without God, is useless.

Layce Erayce · Sep 20, 2003

gray you and me we have something of the same doctrine. what denomination are you?

gray · Sep 20, 2003

Protestant (Presbyterian)

Layce Erayce · Sep 20, 2003

funky. its disappointing we agree with each other so much :down:

nothing to learn, to discuss, to debate, to argue...

gray · Sep 20, 2003

Hehe, if u wanna look at it that way..

which denom. are you? Honestly though, I don't care much for denominations...that's of no concern to me whatsoever, as long as the foundations are the same, and the head of the family's the same... it's all good

Controversy Thread part 2: Religious discussion (23 Viewers)

CULE

Senior Member

CULE

Senior Member

CULE

Senior Member

Senior Member

CULE

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

CULE

Senior Member

CULE

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 23)