Jesus was a Gnostic

a reply to: DISRAELI

Don't be a child with cynical responses because you got called out for what you are.

You need to hear it so I said it. End of story.

No go on and spread some more lies about people who refuse to believe what you say.

The world is growing tired of the attitude of Christians who dedicate time to rationalizing away the corrupt origins and ridiculous lies told by Christians that have been exposed.

Equally tiring is the attitude of Christians which can be summed up almost universally in the statement:

Facts mean nothing. We are Christian, that makes us God's chosen people and our version of God is the only true God. If facts disagree with us, they are not facts, but lies of the devil. Every religion except for ours is of Satan and it is right to demean them.

Yet, 30,000 versions of Christianity exist.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
The greatest Gospel of all time is the Gospel of Thomas. Over 100 quotes from Jesus for the faithful and capable.

And the decision to parody Yahweh as the demiurge who is comically inept and can't do anything good or right because he is just totally inept and thinks he creates what his Mother or the Savior create from above because he can't do it in ingenious.

If you choose to worship the demiurge makes no difference to me. But I see him as the villain of the Bible and why we needed Jesus.

It is not that I think God is evil, just the Biblical character of Yahweh. I see the beauty in pointing to folly and appreciate the idea.

To each their own god I say.

The Gospel of Thomas had a Manichean source as attested on several occasions by Cyril of Jerusalem. It was originally written in Syraic, which it would if it came from a Manichean writer. Mani had three main disciples, one of which was Thomas and Cyril attributes the work to Thomas the disciple of Mani and specifically points out that it wasn't written by the Thomas who was a disciple of Jesus.

Everyone knows you don't like Gnostics. So your opinion and speculation of something you don't like is automatically bias. You essentially know nothing about the facts and search for people to quote who were disinformationists.

Additionally the word "Gospel" means "good news". It has come to mean that the good news is that we have been redeemed by the sacrificial grace of Christ. The 'gospel of Thomas' has no mention of Jesus being the Messiah, Jesus' death, resurrection or final Judgement of all. As such it lacks the gospel message and therefore isn't a "Gospel".

The 'gospel' of Thomas also lacks any narrative content and is just a series of 'sayings' without order or context.

Most authorities place its authorship as being about 200 years after Christ.

In summary, Chr0naut doesn't like the Gospel of Thomas so much she lies about it. Presenting once again, her unsubstantiatable opinion as solid fact.

She hates everything that is not approved by the rulers of the world. Only the Bible is worthy of respect. Thinks that this thread is a bash the Gospel of Thomas thread and isn't afraid of being a stereotype of the narrow minded and intellectually oppressive Christian.

The Gospel of Thomas is awesome.
Nag Hammadi scriptures in general awesome and legitimate and very inspiring, have a beautiful message and are a literal Revelation from God. The only important thing is what they teach, speculating about who wrote what when and why distracts from the point of the scripture. Any scripture.

I only thank God that you are not in any position to influence people who like to think. You seem to think that your religion and history are synonymous and anything related to it but not it is inferior and false.

The funniest thing about it is it (Christianity) is not history, the events in the New Testament are everything but history and that you are essentially arguing that your mythology is better than mine.

If you say so, that is your right. I am not an oppressive Fascist.

originally posted by: chr0naut

I happen to believe that the sacrifice of His life

The Bible is deliberately ambiguous.

If you listen to Jesus' core message, it is that everything is predetermined.

The good, the bad, and the ugly. Are all predetermined by the will of God.

When Jesus said, people who hear him are predestined to hear him, e.g,

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: -- KJV, John 10:27

The Jews wanted to pick up stones and stone him, because they believe that these things are not predetermined.

If life is predetermined then there should be no punishment, because you have no choice. People can choose to follow a messenger, or not follow him. Jesus says no, those following him were sent to follow him by the Father, who wills it. Those that are not of his sheep, aren't going to follow him, because they are predestined not to follow. So, he is only there walking among the peoples to "call out" his own from among the crowds. He's not trying "to convert" anyone to his faith. He is really just gathering up the already converted to bring them into one fold.

In fact, he says he deliberately speaks in "parables" so that not everyone can understand what he says,

"And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:" -- KJV, Mark 4:11

"That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." -- KJV, Mark 4:12

So, we see clearly that Jesus is not trying "to convert" anyone. In fact, he doesn't want them to be converted by hearing his word, so he deliberately uses ambiguous language. He only wants those "already converted," by the will of the Father, to hear and understand his speech, and so recognize that they are chosen.

Again, when his disciples asked about a blind man,

"And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" -- KJV, John 9:2

"Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." -- KJV, John 9:3

Jesus's claim that the blind man was born that way so that He Jesus could heal him and perform a miracle in the sight of men, indicating "predetermination" , not "punishment". So some suffering is just predetermination by the will of God, and not punishment for any sin.

That brings up the interesting question, is any suffering a punishment for sin? Clearly, the whole bible deals with sin and punishment. So, what on earth is Jesus talking about?

If everything is predetermined, then there's no punishment and no sin, just suffering and release. The punishment and sin are just interpretations given to us to help us believe we understand why there is suffering. And the suffering itself, is there to make you believe that you have freedom of choice, whereas, in fact, you don't. So, it's all a mind game. In reality, everything is under absolute control of the one Will.

That can be a harsh message for some, so there's wiggle room to believe otherwise.

God's "mercy" is demonstrated by his creating the ambiguity, so that you can have doubts that everything is under absolute control. Your life evolves in exactly the same way, either way, but what you think is happening is different, so your mind is released from the awesome truth.

A close reading of the scriptures, reveals many possible interpretations for various events, enough to suit everybody. When the Jews chose between Jesus and Barabbas, were they choosing between two men? The name Barabbas means "Son of the Father". Jesus sometimes referred to himself as "Son of the Father". The Jews said "release Barabbas". Jesus is nailed to the cross, and the spirit of Christ "son of the father" is released. The two were walking around as one flesh, Jesus the Son of Man, and Christ the Son of God, spiritually married to each other. How convenient that someone just happened to have the name "Barabbas" in the same lockup with "Jesus". So, there are stories within stories, the parables are in the drama of life itself.

But, the mystery of this parable doesn't end with just a name,

"Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. " -- KJV, John 18:40

"For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night." -- KJV, 1 Thessalonians 5:2

Barrabbas, you see, was a "thief". The Son of the Father was labeled a thief. And Christ the Son of the Father comes like a thief in the night. So, by both name and character, Barabbas and the Son of the Father are seen as one and the same.

Yet, there's enough ambiguity to believe what you will. That's the beauty of the mystery. The only people that know which version is the truth, are those that are called and chosen.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Bravo!!! You understand things. It is refreshing to see such clear thinking.

Jesus Barabbas was even removed for a time.

I don't think you mentioned that Barabbas was named Jesus also.


That they omitted the Jesus in some versions is telling.

The Messiah was crucified and the Son of the Father was released, and was A ROBBER!

It's said in Talmud that Jesus stole the Torah.

originally posted by: LenatasataneL

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
The greatest Gospel of all time is the Gospel of Thomas. Over 100 quotes from Jesus for the faithful and capable.

And the decision to parody Yahweh as the demiurge who is comically inept and can't do anything good or right because he is just totally inept and thinks he creates what his Mother or the Savior create from above because he can't do it in ingenious.

If you choose to worship the demiurge makes no difference to me. But I see him as the villain of the Bible and why we needed Jesus.

It is not that I think God is evil, just the Biblical character of Yahweh. I see the beauty in pointing to folly and appreciate the idea.

To each their own god I say.

The Gospel of Thomas had a Manichean source as attested on several occasions by Cyril of Jerusalem. It was originally written in Syraic, which it would if it came from a Manichean writer. Mani had three main disciples, one of which was Thomas and Cyril attributes the work to Thomas the disciple of Mani and specifically points out that it wasn't written by the Thomas who was a disciple of Jesus.

Everyone knows you don't like Gnostics. So your opinion and speculation of something you don't like is automatically bias. You essentially know nothing about the facts and search for people to quote who were disinformationists.

Additionally the word "Gospel" means "good news". It has come to mean that the good news is that we have been redeemed by the sacrificial grace of Christ. The 'gospel of Thomas' has no mention of Jesus being the Messiah, Jesus' death, resurrection or final Judgement of all. As such it lacks the gospel message and therefore isn't a "Gospel".

The 'gospel' of Thomas also lacks any narrative content and is just a series of 'sayings' without order or context.

Most authorities place its authorship as being about 200 years after Christ.

In summary, Chr0naut doesn't like the Gospel of Thomas so much she lies about it. Presenting once again, her unsubstantiatable opinion as solid fact.

She hates everything that is not approved by the rulers of the world. Only the Bible is worthy of respect. Thinks that this thread is a bash the Gospel of Thomas thread and isn't afraid of being a stereotype of the narrow minded and intellectually oppressive Christian.

The Gospel of Thomas is awesome.
Nag Hammadi scriptures in general awesome and legitimate and very inspiring, have a beautiful message and are a literal Revelation from God. The only important thing is what they teach, speculating about who wrote what when and why distracts from the point of the scripture. Any scripture.

I only thank God that you are not in any position to influence people who like to think. You seem to think that your religion and history are synonymous and anything related to it but not it is inferior and false.

The funniest thing about it is it (Christianity) is not history, the events in the New Testament are everything but history and that you are essentially arguing that your mythology is better than mine.

If you say so, that is your right. I am not an oppressive Fascist.

I am a guy.

I was summarizing the current academic position on the gospel of Thomas.

The website 'Biblioteca Pleyades' states this in its preface:

...
Here, we have the opportunity to report on new chapters beyond current knowledge, such as Exopolitics, Neo-Archeology, Parascience, "Alternative" Medicine, Life in Our Universe and much more... Everything on this Site has been obtained on the Internet. The articles in this site are in Spanish (15% approx.) and English (85% approx.). Nothing herein has been produced by us.
...

Robert Eisenman, who wrote the book "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered" and that is quoted on the 'Biblioteca Pleyades' website, believed that the works of the Qumran Community was post Christian, taking the words of Christ and traditions about James the disciple and weaving them back into Judaism.

The scrolls have been carbon dated several times and identify that the strongest likelihood is of them being pre-Christian. Eisenman has several times requested that they be re-dated but each time the result has come back before Christ. There is some small likelihood that some of the documents are post Christian as carbon dating reveals a range of possible dates. But in the incidence of the majority of scrolls they are firmly pre-Christian by hundreds of years (like the Isiah scroll). Even Eisenman concedes that the dating does not fit with his published theories.

The following is from the Preface to "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered" and outline why Eisenman chose to ignore both Paleological and Carbon dating and instead to choose "textual analysis" as the only method of establishing the date:

Where dating and chronology generally are concerned, we have not relied on the methods of paleography at all. These methods have in the past too often been employed illegitimately in Qumran research to confuse the non-specialist. The paleographic sequences that were developed, while helpful, are too uncertain to have any real relevance to such a narrow chronological period. In addition, they depend on the faulty assumption of a ‘rapid’ and straight-line development of scripts at this time, a proposition that is by no means capable of proof. ‘Book’ or scribal hands are notoriously stubborn, often lasting centuries beyond the point of their initial creation; and informal or ‘semi-cursive hands are just not datable in any precise way on the basis of the kind of evidence we have before us. In other words the fact of accurately being able to date the origin of a given scribal hand - a dubious proposition in any time or place - tells us nothing about when a given individual within, for instance, a community such as that represented by the literature at Qumran actually used that hand. It is the same for the equally popular subject in Qumran research, coin data. Dropping a coin with a given date on it only tells us that the coin was not dropped before it was minted, not how long afterwards. All the more so in paleography. Even if it were possible to date a given handwriting style with any precision, we can only know that the handwriting was not used before the date of its theoretical development, not how long after. The whole construction is a tautological absurdity. Similar problems obtain for AMS Carbon 14 dating techniques. Eisenman and Davies first proposed the application of this technique in the 19 89 letter to the Israel Department of Antiquities referred to above. But the process is still in its infancy, subject to multiple variables, and too uncertain to be applied with precision to the kind of materials we have before us. Even the tests that were conducted were neither extensive nor secure enough to be of any real use in making definitive determinations. As always in this field, one is finally thrown back on the areas of literary criticism, textual analysis, and a sure historical grasp - debatable enough quantities in any field - to make determinations of this kind.

Of course, if you apply different interpretations to the texts then you can also infer all sorts of invalid dates.

a reply to: chr0naut

I am not interested in you anymore Chr0naut and your just going to have to accept that I find you terribly dishonest and want nothing to do with you.

Have a good life.

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
a reply to: AMPTAH


The Messiah was crucified and the Son of the Father was released, and was A ROBBER!

It's said in Talmud that Jesus stole the Torah.

Jesus quite clearly tells us he was a robber:

"His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strowed: " -- KJV, Matthew 25:26

"And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:" -- KJV, Luke 19:22

Now, who reaps where he doesn't sow, but the robber?

But, who was Jesus robbing? Supposedly, Jesus was robbing the devil of the souls that the devil thought would be his own harvest.

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
a reply to: chr0naut

I am not interested in you anymore Chr0naut and your just going to have to accept that I find you terribly dishonest and want nothing to do with you.

Have a good life.

I quoted the website's preface and the preface of Eisenmans work itself to show that what I am saying is not dishonest. I have tried to reason with you and have provided links from academically reputable sources.

Additionally, this is a public forum, not your personal public broadcast system. Your interest in me is not required for me to refute what you have said.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
a reply to: AMPTAH


The Messiah was crucified and the Son of the Father was released, and was A ROBBER!

It's said in Talmud that Jesus stole the Torah.

Jesus quite clearly tells us he was a robber:

"His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strowed: " -- KJV, Matthew 25:26

"And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:" -- KJV, Luke 19:22

Now, who reaps where he doesn't sow, but the robber?

But, who was Jesus robbing? Supposedly, Jesus was robbing the devil of the souls that the devil thought would be his own harvest.

You know that the point of this parable was that even a bad guy expects us to handle our responsibilities properly. The wealthy guy dealing with his servants in the parable wasn't God. But God also expects us to be faithful with what we have been given.

The parable before it had young women locked out of a wedding feast because they didn't think to prepare. They were irresponsible.

The scripture goes on immediately afterwards describing that our responsibility is for the care of others.

If we don't carry that responsibility (healing the sick, feeding the hungry & thirsty, visiting the imprisoned, helping the stranger and clothing the naked) then we will be rejected.

originally posted by: Caroline13456
Imagine what might have happened with Jesus' teachings if this persecution in the 300s had never happened...

Good thread/topic

Blue Wolf

Gradually I came to believe that the purpose of the Roman persecutions on Christians were not to erase Christianity at all but to erase those communities and books that kept the original teaching of Jesus.

I would not call Jesus - whatever, because it was not Jesus who followed someone else, it were they who followed the Master. We still don't know what exactly Jesus taught. Not even from the Gnostic gospels. Perhaps he said much more mind blowing teaching

1. For ex. what was his teaching and practice on the sexual life. (was he married, one question)
2. what was his teaching on angels and off-world life
3. why the Church never disclosed the first, instead exchanging it with the celibate teaching.
4. Why it is still taboo the question of beings from other planets, if they were well known to ancient civilizations of Egypt, Babylon, and other parts of the world. What Moses had as experience and practical advice to build the Ark of Covenant was off-world too, regardless of what name we would give it. Bible words as "clouds" are equal to "craft" and "heaven" to "sky, space". (still interchangeable in many languages other than english, including Latin that uses one word cielo).
All of that was not a secret in Jesus' time and most likely he talked about that with his apostles. It became a secret in Christian time. For what reason that all was not just banned but absolutely impossible to talk until Galileo. Only three names of Archangels were allowed, while we know from Bible at least 7 names, the Jews have even more.

For the last time, every Dead Sea Scrolls Scholar knows about the Ebionim and the other translators who published the majority of the Scrolls all mention many, many times, the Ebionim, not in the commentary but the texts.

Chron0aut can not ever be wrong and has turned this into a worthless debate about a settled issue because she can't admit that he got caught claiming knowledge that was a lie.

But the fact is that the Nazarenes got declared Gnostic heretics.

And Jesus was a Nazarene.


That James was an Ebonite is just a side note of interest. If you don't want to think he was it's not my business. I put it out there for the purpose of encouraging people to learn what the Church hides.

I encourage you to make your own conclusions and don't allow Chr0not to do it for you with 5 minutes of Googling for his/her specific opinion. Honesty is not his or her goal.

But who would dispute Jesus being a Nazarene? Not even him.

So they were Gnostic heretics according to the church.

Making Jesus also a Gnostic.

Ironic? Hell yeah. True? As historical as it gets. So obsessing over the Ebionites is his way of derailing the thread to avoid the uncomfortable facts.

Weird? Indeed. Dishonest? Very much. Bias? You know it.

But his right. You don't have to fall for it.

a reply to: LenatasataneL

Your just making claims...i'd appreciate some reasons to believe your claims

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
For the last time, every Dead Sea Scrolls Scholar knows about the Ebionim and the other translators who published the majority of the Scrolls all mention many, many times, the Ebionim, not in the commentary but the texts.

Chron0aut can not ever be wrong and has turned this into a worthless debate about a settled issue because she can't admit that he got caught claiming knowledge that was a lie.

But the fact is that the Nazarenes got declared Gnostic heretics.

And Jesus was a Nazarene.


That James was an Ebonite is just a side note of interest. If you don't want to think he was it's not my business. I put it out there for the purpose of encouraging people to learn what the Church hides.

I encourage you to make your own conclusions and don't allow Chr0not to do it for you with 5 minutes of Googling for his/her specific opinion. Honesty is not his or her goal.

But who would dispute Jesus being a Nazarene? Not even him.

So they were Gnostic heretics according to the church.

Making Jesus also a Gnostic.

Ironic? Hell yeah. True? As historical as it gets. So obsessing over the Ebionites is his way of derailing the thread to avoid the uncomfortable facts.

Weird? Indeed. Dishonest? Very much. Bias? You know it.

But his right. You don't have to fall for it.

The Nazirite oath existed for thousands of years before Jesus was born. Jesus life was compliant with the conditions of that oath as mentioned several times in the canonical Gospels.

When did someone in authority within the Church declare that the Nazarenes were Gnostic?

I understand that there were/are Gnostics who made the claim that they were following on from Nazirite roots but that doesn't make them Nazarene.

The Church acknowledges that Jesus was called a Nazarene and has never, to my knowledge, made a pronouncement that Nazarenes are Gnostic. The Nazirite vow is clearly delineated in the Old Testament, we know what Nazarenes believed. It is core, strict, orthodox and traditional Judaism, not a post Christian heresy (the Church HAS pronounced the philosophies of Gnosticism to be heretical).

Interesting facts about the Dead Sea Scrolls, a book called Tongues of Fire (Acts) , talks of the Urim and Thummim being used to determine if a prophet was true or not.

It gives a negative ruling on a future false prophet who shall come through with tongues of fire. 1Q29; 3, 4Q376 col. 2:1

Charter of a Jewish Sectarian Organization

In the society of the Yahad there shall be 12 laymen and 3 priests who are blameless...

12 Apostles and 3 pillars. Those are some accurate prophecies.

Charter for Israel in the Last Days1QSa, 1Q28a

The Messianic Banquet:

For he shall bless the first portion of the bread and the wine, reaching for the bread first!!


I can't believe nobody noticed this, these are prophecies that come true in the New Testament.

Oh, and Priestly Blessings for the Last Days 1Q28b, 2Qsb

On the coming Messiah:

"With Righteousness He may judge the Poor (Ebionim)."

The Sons of Light, Sons of Zadok, Nazarenes, Ebionim, Chasidim are mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Whoever says that they are not does not know what they are talking about. All the Scroll Scholars from Wise, Allegro, Eisenmen etc. will confirm this so it is not just Eisenmen. I love the fact that someone thinks that the Nazarenes being declared Gnostic is normal and nothing to worry about. It is the Irony of ironies. Frig the Ebionites, although:

"Blessed are the Poor in Spirit."


The Ebionim are blessed in Spirit.

The poor in Spirit are not blessed.


Use ya heads people. If the Nazarenes are Gnostic, as the heresiologists say, then Jesus was a Gnostic too. And James, because he was one too, he was the Zaddik, the Righteous one or as we know him, the Just.

He was really the top dog. After the Messiah.

Scrolls, New Testament

I found this all on my own in the published edition by Wise, Abegg, Jr. & Cook.

The Eisenmen version I own too. It is only the previous unreleased material that he published. He is a more than qualified Scholar and Professor and nobody doubts his ability. But that book has the Ebionim in it too. He is controversial because he wrote a book that theorizes James as a or the Righteous teacher.

A totally unrelated issue to translating ancient documents and the man has a right to have theories. He is a sharp guy and to question one thing because of an unrelated book he wrote is a hole ish and wrong.

Deal with it the Nazarenes were Gnostic, Jesus was Gnostic and the church has been lying for centuries. This is not new or shocking.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

There is always Google if you are not educated about the Nazarenes and them being deemed Gnostic heretics.

The Panarion is a good start.


The first Christians were the Ebionites and Nazarenes.

The Church invented a man named Ebion to dishonestly erase the truth of their origins.

Ebionites

More info

Ancient Judaism Nazarenes and Ebionites

Whoever that obsessed person was getting proven wrong and just doesn't want to admit what history tells us is opposite from his or her bias opinion, is ridiculously wrong.

Anyone can find someone on the internet that agrees with them, insult a Scholar and Professor in a dishonest rant, and claim that the Bible is the word of God and not corrupt.

We all know at least one.

a reply to: chr0naut

The Ebionites and Nazarenes are 2 sides of the same coin.

Iranaeus of the Apostolic fathers lumps Ebionites in with other Gnostic sects.

Iranaeus Ebionites Gnostic heretics

This should end the debate and make you think that maybe you were arguing your beliefs, what you want to be true, and instead of searching for the truth you search for anyone who agrees with you.

Eusebius on the Nazarenes in the Panarion is the source of the Nazarenes being slandered to de Judaize Christianity. Again lumped in with Gnostics.

Panarion 29 Nazarenes

Ebionites

Though reading your comments I don't reckon Jesus himself could convince you that grass is green if you even accidentally said it was blue, it would probably remain blue to you just to avoid admitting you don't know what you are talking about.

But at least you are not going to be fooling anyone today.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
The greatest Gospel of all time is the Gospel of Thomas. Over 100 quotes from Jesus for the faithful and capable.

And the decision to parody Yahweh as the demiurge who is comically inept and can't do anything good or right because he is just totally inept and thinks he creates what his Mother or the Savior create from above because he can't do it in ingenious.

If you choose to worship the demiurge makes no difference to me. But I see him as the villain of the Bible and why we needed Jesus.

It is not that I think God is evil, just the Biblical character of Yahweh. I see the beauty in pointing to folly and appreciate the idea.

To each their own god I say.

The Gospel of Thomas had a Manichean source as attested on several occasions by Cyril of Jerusalem. It was originally written in Syraic, which it would if it came from a Manichean writer. Mani had three main disciples, one of which was Thomas and Cyril attributes the work to Thomas the disciple of Mani and specifically points out that it wasn't written by the Thomas who was a disciple of Jesus.

Everyone knows you don't like Gnostics. So your opinion and speculation of something you don't like is automatically bias. You essentially know nothing about the facts and search for people to quote who were disinformationists.

Additionally the word "Gospel" means "good news". It has come to mean that the good news is that we have been redeemed by the sacrificial grace of Christ. The 'gospel of Thomas' has no mention of Jesus being the Messiah, Jesus' death, resurrection or final Judgement of all. As such it lacks the gospel message and therefore isn't a "Gospel".

The 'gospel' of Thomas also lacks any narrative content and is just a series of 'sayings' without order or context.

Most authorities place its authorship as being about 200 years after Christ.

In summary, Chr0naut doesn't like the Gospel of Thomas so much she lies about it. Presenting once again, her unsubstantiatable opinion as solid fact.

She hates everything that is not approved by the rulers of the world. Only the Bible is worthy of respect. Thinks that this thread is a bash the Gospel of Thomas thread and isn't afraid of being a stereotype of the narrow minded and intellectually oppressive Christian.

The Gospel of Thomas is awesome.
Nag Hammadi scriptures in general awesome and legitimate and very inspiring, have a beautiful message and are a literal Revelation from God. The only important thing is what they teach, speculating about who wrote what when and why distracts from the point of the scripture. Any scripture.

I only thank God that you are not in any position to influence people who like to think. You seem to think that your religion and history are synonymous and anything related to it but not it is inferior and false.

The funniest thing about it is it (Christianity) is not history, the events in the New Testament are everything but history and that you are essentially arguing that your mythology is better than mine.

If you say so, that is your right. I am not an oppressive Fascist.

I am a guy.

I was summarizing the current academic position on the gospel of Thomas.

The website 'Biblioteca Pleyades' states this in its preface:

...
Here, we have the opportunity to report on new chapters beyond current knowledge, such as Exopolitics, Neo-Archeology, Parascience, "Alternative" Medicine, Life in Our Universe and much more... Everything on this Site has been obtained on the Internet. The articles in this site are in Spanish (15% approx.) and English (85% approx.). Nothing herein has been produced by us.
...

Robert Eisenman, who wrote the book "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered" and that is quoted on the 'Biblioteca Pleyades' website, believed that the works of the Qumran Community was post Christian, taking the words of Christ and traditions about James the disciple and weaving them back into Judaism.

The scrolls have been carbon dated several times and identify that the strongest likelihood is of them being pre-Christian. Eisenman has several times requested that they be re-dated but each time the result has come back before Christ. There is some small likelihood that some of the documents are post Christian as carbon dating reveals a range of possible dates. But in the incidence of the majority of scrolls they are firmly pre-Christian by hundreds of years (like the Isiah scroll). Even Eisenman concedes that the dating does not fit with his published theories.

The following is from the Preface to "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered" and outline why Eisenman chose to ignore both Paleological and Carbon dating and instead to choose "textual analysis" as the only method of establishing the date:

Where dating and chronology generally are concerned, we have not relied on the methods of paleography at all. These methods have in the past too often been employed illegitimately in Qumran research to confuse the non-specialist. The paleographic sequences that were developed, while helpful, are too uncertain to have any real relevance to such a narrow chronological period. In addition, they depend on the faulty assumption of a ‘rapid’ and straight-line development of scripts at this time, a proposition that is by no means capable of proof. ‘Book’ or scribal hands are notoriously stubborn, often lasting centuries beyond the point of their initial creation; and informal or ‘semi-cursive hands are just not datable in any precise way on the basis of the kind of evidence we have before us. In other words the fact of accurately being able to date the origin of a given scribal hand - a dubious proposition in any time or place - tells us nothing about when a given individual within, for instance, a community such as that represented by the literature at Qumran actually used that hand. It is the same for the equally popular subject in Qumran research, coin data. Dropping a coin with a given date on it only tells us that the coin was not dropped before it was minted, not how long afterwards. All the more so in paleography. Even if it were possible to date a given handwriting style with any precision, we can only know that the handwriting was not used before the date of its theoretical development, not how long after. The whole construction is a tautological absurdity. Similar problems obtain for AMS Carbon 14 dating techniques. Eisenman and Davies first proposed the application of this technique in the 19 89 letter to the Israel Department of Antiquities referred to above. But the process is still in its infancy, subject to multiple variables, and too uncertain to be applied with precision to the kind of materials we have before us. Even the tests that were conducted were neither extensive nor secure enough to be of any real use in making definitive determinations. As always in this field, one is finally thro

Eisenmen theorizes, he wrote a book on James and you are unqualified to critique him about anything. And your argument is irrelevant.

originally posted by: ASIAHXPAORSBA
a reply to: chr0naut

The Ebionites and Nazarenes are 2 sides of the same coin.

Iranaeus of the Apostolic fathers lumps Ebionites in with other Gnostic sects.

Iranaeus Ebionites Gnostic heretics

This should end the debate and make you think that maybe you were arguing your beliefs, what you want to be true, and instead of searching for the truth you search for anyone who agrees with you.

Eusebius on the Nazarenes in the Panarion is the source of the Nazarenes being slandered to de Judaize Christianity. Again lumped in with Gnostics.

Panarion 29 Nazarenes

Ebionites

Though reading your comments I don't reckon Jesus himself could convince you that grass is green if you even accidentally said it was blue, it would probably remain blue to you just to avoid admitting you don't know what you are talking about.

But at least you are not going to be fooling anyone today.

Truthfully, how long before your current logon is also banned? What you are consistently doing is DISHONEST.

Also, the Ebionites and Nazarines were NOT 2 sides of the same coin.

The Nazarines were ultra-orthodox Jews who had taken an oath of dedication to God. The Nazirite oath had existed for thousands of years before the Ebionites existed. The Nazarenes did not know of Jesus for much of their history of thousands of years. They were dedicated, not to the Messiah, who had not come, but to YHWH. The Nazirite vow does NOT include a vow of poverty.

The Ebionites were a post-Christian Messianic Jewish group who held that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah but they rejected His divinity. They held that to follow Christ, people must obey the Jewish laws and traditions (however, In the book of Acts, the Christian church leaders; James, Peter and John, had determined that it was disingenuous that gentile Christians follow Jewish Laws and traditions). Theirs was an order of poverty (the title relates to "Ebionim" - 'the poor ones') and they took vows of poverty. Iranaeus, Origen and Epiphanius all said that these Ebionites were Gnostic.

Epiphanius of Salamis (not Eusubius) wrote "Panarion". In it he spoke of a sect originally called "Jessaeans" but who changed their name to the "Nazoreans". It is obvious that this group did not follow the Nazirite vow in belief, or in their actions, and were not Nazarene's in the sense that Jesus was called a Nazarene. It is this group that Epiphanius describes as Gnostic, not the true Nazarene's who take the Nazirite oath.

There are cults and sects around today who take upon themselves "religiousy" sounding names but who don't believe in the things that are in their very title, we all know that. They do it to deceive because their real 'source' is the father of lies.

originally posted by: ASIAHXPAORSBA

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
The greatest Gospel of all time is the Gospel of Thomas. Over 100 quotes from Jesus for the faithful and capable.

And the decision to parody Yahweh as the demiurge who is comically inept and can't do anything good or right because he is just totally inept and thinks he creates what his Mother or the Savior create from above because he can't do it in ingenious.

If you choose to worship the demiurge makes no difference to me. But I see him as the villain of the Bible and why we needed Jesus.

It is not that I think God is evil, just the Biblical character of Yahweh. I see the beauty in pointing to folly and appreciate the idea.

To each their own god I say.

The Gospel of Thomas had a Manichean source as attested on several occasions by Cyril of Jerusalem. It was originally written in Syraic, which it would if it came from a Manichean writer. Mani had three main disciples, one of which was Thomas and Cyril attributes the work to Thomas the disciple of Mani and specifically points out that it wasn't written by the Thomas who was a disciple of Jesus.

Everyone knows you don't like Gnostics. So your opinion and speculation of something you don't like is automatically bias. You essentially know nothing about the facts and search for people to quote who were disinformationists.

Additionally the word "Gospel" means "good news". It has come to mean that the good news is that we have been redeemed by the sacrificial grace of Christ. The 'gospel of Thomas' has no mention of Jesus being the Messiah, Jesus' death, resurrection or final Judgement of all. As such it lacks the gospel message and therefore isn't a "Gospel".

The 'gospel' of Thomas also lacks any narrative content and is just a series of 'sayings' without order or context.

Most authorities place its authorship as being about 200 years after Christ.

In summary, Chr0naut doesn't like the Gospel of Thomas so much she lies about it. Presenting once again, her unsubstantiatable opinion as solid fact.

She hates everything that is not approved by the rulers of the world. Only the Bible is worthy of respect. Thinks that this thread is a bash the Gospel of Thomas thread and isn't afraid of being a stereotype of the narrow minded and intellectually oppressive Christian.

The Gospel of Thomas is awesome.
Nag Hammadi scriptures in general awesome and legitimate and very inspiring, have a beautiful message and are a literal Revelation from God. The only important thing is what they teach, speculating about who wrote what when and why distracts from the point of the scripture. Any scripture.

I only thank God that you are not in any position to influence people who like to think. You seem to think that your religion and history are synonymous and anything related to it but not it is inferior and false.

The funniest thing about it is it (Christianity) is not history, the events in the New Testament are everything but history and that you are essentially arguing that your mythology is better than mine.

If you say so, that is your right. I am not an oppressive Fascist.

I am a guy.

I was summarizing the current academic position on the gospel of Thomas.

The website 'Biblioteca Pleyades' states this in its preface:

...
Here, we have the opportunity to report on new chapters beyond current knowledge, such as Exopolitics, Neo-Archeology, Parascience, "Alternative" Medicine, Life in Our Universe and much more... Everything on this Site has been obtained on the Internet. The articles in this site are in Spanish (15% approx.) and English (85% approx.). Nothing herein has been produced by us.
...

Robert Eisenman, who wrote the book "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered" and that is quoted on the 'Biblioteca Pleyades' website, believed that the works of the Qumran Community was post Christian, taking the words of Christ and traditions about James the disciple and weaving them back into Judaism.

The scrolls have been carbon dated several times and identify that the strongest likelihood is of them being pre-Christian. Eisenman has several times requested that they be re-dated but each time the result has come back before Christ. There is some small likelihood that some of the documents are post Christian as carbon dating reveals a range of possible dates. But in the incidence of the majority of scrolls they are firmly pre-Christian by hundreds of years (like the Isiah scroll). Even Eisenman concedes that the dating does not fit with his published theories.

The following is from the Preface to "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered" and outline why Eisenman chose to ignore both Paleological and Carbon dating and instead to choose "textual analysis" as the only method of establishing the date:

Eisenmen theorizes, he wrote a book on James and you are unqualified to critique him about anything. And your argument is irrelevant.

I was quoting Eisenman himself. His academic standing speaks for his authority and I meant no personal slight. He theorized something that later data has called into question. You, however, appear to be presenting his theories as if they were fait accompli, fact.

You know nothing of my qualifications. My argument does not stand or fall upon my own credentials.

a reply to: chr0naut

You don't have any credentials. You have an agenda.

Enforce the image Christianity wants.

I didn't present anything of Eisenmen's, I just said he's qualified to translate, that he theorized about James and wrote a book and that you are only slamming him to bolster your argument.

Everything has been called into question about the Dead Sea Scrolls. Everyone used to think Essenes wrote them but that has been all but abandoned because it's clear from the Scrolls that they are not peaceful Essenes at all and never call themselves that or anything like it.

So it's a pointless thing to mention unless you want him discredited because he proves you don't know what you are talking about.