Thanks for the explanation. I only have time to briefly discus this gospel of thomas today, I need to be off, it's a day of obligation after all.
Hence I’ll look at something like the Gospel of Thomas with an open mind, and see the beauty of the New Testament in the lean form of 114 sayings by the wisest teacher men have known, Jesus
That's a big assumption. That it even is. You seem to object to verse 114 in particular being included. But the issue is that that verse is in alignment with so many other gnostic beliefs on gender, change, transformation and alchemy. It is consistent with all the other gnostic stuff.
is basically just “use your wisdom to interpret scripture, never thinking you already have ‘all the answers’, but instead humbly seeking His wisdom in His word”.
That's a milquetoast motte definition of gnosticism, as is gospel of Thomas itself. That definition isn't all that objectionable on its face, and nor is this one example text. It is not nearly overtly objectionable as their other gnostic materials (that it was found amongst!). It does nevertheless have lines that should raise an eyebrow in the observant and cause deep unease.
The whole thing about damning the flesh that depends on the body, and the body dependant on the flesh, prayer and fasting leading to sin and condemnation, secret knowledge for Thomas, destroying heaven and heavens above (other books refer to the destruction of the heavens meaning sky, but heaven and the heaven above? Should be a bit worrying) And just all through it a load of contradictions. Contradictions internally and with the true gospels, like with James vs Peter leading the church. It's set it opposition. One or the other must be rejected, and I think it's clear which.
I need to be off, it's a day of obligation after all.
Ah, if you’re Catholic know that I have no qualms with the individuals, just the system that controls them
That's a milquetoast motte definition of gnosticism, as is gospel of Thomas itself. That definition isn't all that objectionable on its face, and nor is this one example text.
What’s your definition?
That's a big assumption. That it even is. You seem to object to verse 114 in particular being included.
Well, most of the quotes are in the Bible too. And no, I personally have no issue with verse 114, that text is included in the source I copied and pasted…
One or the other must be rejected, and I think it's clear which.
The one currently controlled by pedophiles, who have used lies to cook up additions to canon and then used those additions to justify killing hundreds of thousands? Or you mean the one which says “think for yourself”?
The one currently controlled by pedophiles, who have used lies to cook up additions to canon and then used those additions to justify killing hundreds of thousands? Or you mean the one which says “think for yourself”?
The one which discourages the degeneracy, rather than like in 114, encouraging it.
The devil encourages you to open your mind too you know.
What’s your definition?
Ask 10 gnostics get 100 answers, but a focus on secret knowledge, loyalty to some other gods (usually thoth/hermes, sophia, some higher god of knowledge/wisdom above the demiurge...), a strong body-spirit duality with the flesh being corrupt, syncretic mishmashes of various other belief systems, and emphasis on alchemy and transformation and attaining the spiritual heaven or godliness through knowledge... It's more a set of beliefs which they'll share some commonalities on.
Thanks for the explanation. I only have time to briefly discus this gospel of thomas today, I need to be off, it's a day of obligation after all.
That's a big assumption. That it even is. You seem to object to verse 114 in particular being included. But the issue is that that verse is in alignment with so many other gnostic beliefs on gender, change, transformation and alchemy. It is consistent with all the other gnostic stuff.
That's a milquetoast motte definition of gnosticism, as is gospel of Thomas itself. That definition isn't all that objectionable on its face, and nor is this one example text. It is not nearly overtly objectionable as their other gnostic materials (that it was found amongst!). It does nevertheless have lines that should raise an eyebrow in the observant and cause deep unease.
The whole thing about damning the flesh that depends on the body, and the body dependant on the flesh, prayer and fasting leading to sin and condemnation, secret knowledge for Thomas, destroying heaven and heavens above (other books refer to the destruction of the heavens meaning sky, but heaven and the heaven above? Should be a bit worrying) And just all through it a load of contradictions. Contradictions internally and with the true gospels, like with James vs Peter leading the church. It's set it opposition. One or the other must be rejected, and I think it's clear which.
Ah, if you’re Catholic know that I have no qualms with the individuals, just the system that controls them
What’s your definition?
Well, most of the quotes are in the Bible too. And no, I personally have no issue with verse 114, that text is included in the source I copied and pasted…
The one currently controlled by pedophiles, who have used lies to cook up additions to canon and then used those additions to justify killing hundreds of thousands? Or you mean the one which says “think for yourself”?
I'm glad we agree there can only be one.
The one which discourages the degeneracy, rather than like in 114, encouraging it.
The devil encourages you to open your mind too you know.
Ask 10 gnostics get 100 answers, but a focus on secret knowledge, loyalty to some other gods (usually thoth/hermes, sophia, some higher god of knowledge/wisdom above the demiurge...), a strong body-spirit duality with the flesh being corrupt, syncretic mishmashes of various other belief systems, and emphasis on alchemy and transformation and attaining the spiritual heaven or godliness through knowledge... It's more a set of beliefs which they'll share some commonalities on.
Verse 114 is about the union of the spiritual and the material, yin and yang - not some weird tranny shit or however you’re interpreting it
Aka loyalty to God above satan (the god of this world, need I remind you, the Bible states)
You realize Genesis is sourced from the Sumerians right? Almost word-for-word
What’s inherently wrong with this? What you’ve just described is “learning and improving oneself” in flowery (spiritual) language