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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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 of chance, 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.