why did the catholic church not want to accept the gospel of thomas?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 24, 2004

Answers

Response to the gospel of thomas

It was not the Catholic Church, but the Holy Spirit who rejected the Gospel of Thomas, along with about a dozen other gospels [Gospels of Philip; Mary; Barnabas; Bartholomew; Nicodemus; Peter; Secret Gospel of Mark; Gospel of the Ebionites; Gospel of the Nazareans; etc.] when the Church compiled the Canon of Scripture under His guidance. We believe that the Holy Spirit guided the Church to include in the Canon every text He wanted included. Some of the writings He rejected contained obvious theological problems, but some of them at face value seemed orthodox. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit did not guide the Church to include them. that's all we really need to know. If the Church's decisions in compiling the Canon were not infallible, we have no way of knowing that any text is, or is not Scriptural. If those decisions were inspired and infallible, then we know that the 73 books which form the Canon are there by the will of God, and everything that was excluded was excluded by the will of God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 24, 2004.

I would just add that there were many books that were "reviewed" to determine if they were canonical.

Remember that canonical books were (and are) used for TEACHING the faith,not as a means to an end unto themselves.

Most were rejected because of some defect,such as, forgeries, heretical beliefs, etc.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), December 28, 2004.

sdqa,

This is an argument we get into with Protestants now and then, when they try and support their abridged Bible. The real question is "who has the Authority to decide which books are and are NOT inspired"? If the answer is "the church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit" as Catholics believe, then the books they chose were the correct ones (I believe at the councils of Hippo and Carthage). OTOH, if you say there is NO authority to determine this, or we each get to decide for ourselves, then the Bible really has no meaning as far as being the True Word of God, as we could all decide for ourselves what was true and what wasn't.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 28, 2004.

and why should the gospel of thomas be untrue and the other gospels true?

'because the RCC say so and they're infalliable'

pleaseeeeeeeeeee..........

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 28, 2004.

Many of the apocryphal writings are holy but did not come by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There is the main criterion. It doesn't mean there's a forbidden aspect to them, necessarily.

Forgeries and false Christian doctrine in some parts is reason for ruling them out of the Canon. But I didn't think the gospel of Thomas was a forgery or heretical. Maybe I'm wrong.

The Church and the Holy Spirit just don't authorize it. It's that simple.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 28, 2004.

sdqa,

That's exactly right. Part of the Catholic faith is believing that Christ passed down to the church the ability with the guidance of the Holy Spirit to define infallibly what is True. Again, if this were NOT the case, what basis would you have for saying ANY of the gospels or anything else in the Bible was the Word of God and not a manmade invention?

If you just don't like or believe our faith, that doesn't bother me, but at least now you know what it is.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam`), December 28, 2004.

I doubt he even read the Gospel of Thomas, he just read about how it was " Oppressed byt he chruch"...

The Gospel of Thomas isn't een a Gospel, its 119 "sayings" attributed to Jesus, writtesn in the scond century AD, it is not frpm the Pen of Thomas the Apostle, and is a later forgery, containign many heretical, Gnostic veiws, thoug hte text is not 100% Gnostic, it is influenced in that direction.

The fact that it IS a forgery, and the fact that this Pseudographical work contains heretical notions, shidl be sufficient for anyone to reject it.

All oen has to do is read the document to see what it contains, and why it isn't included in the Cannon.

SQ, however, sems like the standard Teenager, he heard of this, and how the Hcurhc didnt cnanonise it, and blames the Churhc or censure and asusmes that this Gospel is as vlaid ( Or perhaPS MORE VLAID) THAN THRE ACCEPTED GOSPELS...

even not knowign its content...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUBNO.COM), December 28, 2004.

Lets get some focus here. First of all, Paul, if you are taking the role of defender of the Catholic religion, answer me this; Why did the catholic religion not want to accept the reforms of Martin Luther? The answer to this question is highly relevent to the question at hand about " The gospel of Thomas". Back in Luther's day, there was all sorts of fraud in the catholic religion being passed off as truth, with the pope's blessing mind you. The catholic church was even teaching that there was no salvation outside the catholic church! Men change their minds about such things,and err about such things, do you really think The Holy Spirit does? Then the matter about individual authorship and books of the new testament. Thank The Good Lord historical accuracy between "author" and NT book is not a criteria for, or against, scriptural validity. The authorship of close to half of NT scripture cannot be historicaly identified with absolute certainty. If "The gospel of Thomas" builds on the core message of Jesus Christ, if accountable Christians are being drawn closer to Christ through the reading of this work, and if through the reading of this work non-believers are receiving The Light of Christ in this darkening world, the catholic religion's stance on not embracing this part of scripture is not, well, scriptual. As far as infallibility of man is concerned, any man, except Jesus Christ, I have yet to find any scriptual basis whatsoever for this claim,i.e., papal infallibility.

Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true...Romans 3:4

bob

-- bob drobka (rad48@earthlink.net), January 05, 2005.

So Bob, what are you saying here? That anything we read that brings us closer to Christ must therefore be considered sacred Scripture? Some may very well find the Gospel of Thomas inspiring. That doesn't mean it is inspired. The Canon of Scripture was defined once and for all time under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, at the end of the 4'th Century. What is listed in that Canon is Scripture, because the Holy Spirit wanted it to be. What was rejected by the Holy Council who compiled the Canon is not Scripture, because the Holy Spirit didn't want it to be, regardless of how inspiring some people may find it. If you don't accept that, then you have no possible way of knowing that any text is scriptural, or that any text is not.

As for the "reforms of Martin Luther", the Church in fact did accept them! Luther was only one of hundreds of churchmen, many of them far more prominent than Luther, who recognized the need for reform. What the Church did not accept was, first, Luther's incredible arrogance in trying to take matters into his own hands, and second, the inevitable heresies that he began to promulgate after separating from the authority of the Church, the biblical pillar and foundation of truth. The needed reforms came about, but they were not "Luther's reforms". Luther had nothing to do with them, since he had already abandoned Christ's Church. The necessary reforms were brought about by the many clergy who remained faithful to the Church and worked for needed reform from within, which is the only way any organization can be reformed. It is a curious quirk of history that those who had nothing to do with the reformation of the Church became know as "the Reformers", and their open rebellion against God's Church, unleashing upon the world the most destructive movement Christianity has ever faced, became known as "the Reformation".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 05, 2005.

Lets get some focus here. First of all, Paul, if you are taking the role of defender of the Catholic religion, answer me this; Why did the catholic religion not want to accept the reforms of Martin Luther? The answer to this question is highly relevent to the question at hand about " The gospel of Thomas". Back in Luther's day, there was all sorts of fraud in the catholic religion being passed off as truth, with the pope's blessing mind you. The catholic church was even teaching that there was no salvation outside the catholic church!

TRUE

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 05, 2005.

'Bible Christians rely on Catholic Tradition. For instance, how do they know that the 27 books of the New Testament belong in the Bible? How do they know that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark? His name doesn't appear in the manuscripts. How do they know that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? They know these things the same way that Catholics know them, because the Catholic Church tells us so.'

this is true and this is why i doubt about the authenticity and the truth of the gospels,because i have million reasons why not to trust the RCC

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 05, 2005.

Catholics have at least TWO reasons to believe in the Church of our fathers. The first is Jesus Christ, who gave the Church to his followers.

The second is the Holy Spirit. Christ promised His Church an Advocate, the Spirit of truth; Who would come directly after He ascended into heaven. To keep us in the complete truth.

You'd believe anything if the Holy Spirit saved you from unbelief. Why should Catholics doubt Him? And the sad fact is, you've never had any contact with the Holy Spirit. You're one of his opponents.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 05, 2005.

Lets get some focus here.

{ok...}-ZAROVE

First of all, Paul, if you are taking the role of defender of the Catholic religion, answer me this; Why did the catholic religion not want to accept the reforms of Martin Luther?

{Which reforms? The 95 treitis or the others? For the 95 Trietis, the DID reform, Indulgences are no longer sold for profit, and the practice was never a docorine. The others have to do with cmpelxe theological veiws which cnanot be indulged brielfy here.}-ZaROVE

The answer to this question is highly relevent to the question at hand about " The gospel of Thomas". Back in Luther's day, there was all sorts of fraud in the catholic religion being passed off as truth, with the pope's blessing mind you.

{ But this does not judtify the Gospel of Thomas as scirtrue. Besides that, the DOCTORINES of the Cahtolc chruch at the time must be considered, not the PRACTICES of some members fo the Cahtolci heirarchy.

after all, fraud and Corruptin ar foudn in any Human endeavour, even in portestant circles. ( Jim Baker coems ot mind... and Pat rbertson, , toname two...there are others...)

The theological differences themselves had nothgin to do with fraud.}-Zarove

The catholic church was even teaching that there was no salvation outside the catholic church!

{whuch tehcniclaly it continues o do... it merley extends special graces and blesins to Proteatanrt and other Chruches for possessifn part of the truth.

There is stll no slavation outside f the Chruch, unless by the Grace of God hough Invincible Ignorance.}-Zarove

Men change their minds about such things,and err about such things, do you really think The Holy Spirit does?

{No.}-Zarove

Then the matter about individual authorship and books of the new testament. Thank The Good Lord historical accuracy between "author" and NT book is not a criteria for, or against, scriptural validity.

{Yes it is... and let me guess, you asusme all Modern theories are acurate and Mark didnt write Luke, right?

even with this as true o our crrent consideration) we woidl have to ask " Is it true"? If the frmaion in mark was nto ture or wasemonstratabley immoral, thn it woidl lakc validity.

Just like any other book, autorship is less improtant than information. I just call into qieatsion the aithorship theories of the modenr shcoalrs.}-Zarove

The authorship of close to half of NT scripture cannot be historicaly identified with absolute certainty.

{Paul write most of them... and that has been conirmed. een if tyou accept that he didnt write the pastoral episgtles,eh wrte the lion share......... that IS absolutely Certain.}-Zarove

If "The gospel of Thomas" builds on the core message of Jesus Christ, if accountable Christians are being drawn closer to Christ through the reading of this work, and if through the reading of this work non-believers are receiving The Light of Christ in this darkening world, the catholic religion's stance on not embracing this part of scripture is not, well, scriptual.

{The Gospel of Thmas tells us not to pray, and no to pay tithes. it says women must beocme men to be saved. Many of Thomas's sayings ar eincomprehensable by design. ( secret saysins to pass on esoteric knwoeldge.)

It des NOT coincide withhte real tracigns of Jesus, an draws on away form his cor message of Love an repentance. ( It cunsils agsint rpentance as wlel...)

so, what then? accept anythign hat mentisn jesu and builtds on his message? Thast nsane...Not to mentio unsound principle.}-Zarove

As far as infallibility of man is concerned, any man, except Jesus Christ, I have yet to find any scriptual basis whatsoever for this claim,i.e., papal infallibility.

{OK, witj you here. thouhg Papal Infallability doesnt mean the Pope is inflabel all thetime, just when spekaign ex cathedra, to make a point.}-Zarove

Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true...Romans 3:4

bob

{Ok, but Thomas is ascriptural and fileld with lies, distortons, an bad teachigns, so why SHOUDL we accept it, on what merit?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 05, 2005.

Yo Zarove, I appreciated your critique. Objectivity is important, as is the willingness to hold up one’s faith to the Light of God’s Word, vs man’s word, or tradition. From the sound of your response Paul, Martin Luther has no place in history associated with protestant reform, and men were not responsible for compiling the scriptures, it was the Holy Spirit. On the history point, well, you know the catholics did not like Copernicus very much. NO, to the catholic religion this ‘ole earth belonged right s-s-m-ma-a-c-c-k-k-k in the middle of the universe and to believe otherwise was heresy! ( by the way Zarovel, don’t worry about my catholic education…The Jesuits used to be called the defenders of the faith , but I never witnessed one become defensive or regress down a blind alley, rabbit trail, or personally attack anyone who had the guts to argue with them. John, I know facing the truth is often a very difficult and painful process. The tragedy of massive, multi-generational sexual abuse perpetrated by catholic priests toward vulnerable persons has revealed your “destructive movement” that is within catholic religion, not outside of it. The cover-up has been going on for centuries. What about the lives scarred beyond repair. I have worked as a therapist and seen the absolute hopelessness of these victims whose abuser held the office of a clergyman. Was the Pope really the last to know? There is no biblical mandate from Christ promoting celibacy, why pretend that this in any way necessarily better equips one for ministry. What about the cruel, brutal tortures and deaths of suspected “heretics” at the hands of the catholic leadership at several times in European history. A destructive movement within Christianity itself I would think. Then there were the Crusades, not very Christ-like, i.e., wholesale slaughter of Jews both in Europe and the Holy Land…OF Course The Pope called for the first crusade, a destructive movement? Let me say that I am not anti-catholic. I do not believe in papal infallibility, however, and I will give you a brief presentation of why I do not. This is relevant to the question of scripture vs canon, because in the end, it is men who decide what is “canon”; I will show you what The Word say about scripture . To say that The Holy Spirit chooses canon is adding to the Bible something that is not there, or, i.e., here that catholics are falling back on their tradition, not the Word of God. First, I do have to wonder, Eugene, rather that accusing sdqa of being an “ opponent “ [of The Holy Spirit] wouldn’t it be more Christ-like to encourage sdqa that we will pray that she will in the future have a good encounter with The Holy Spirit? Your statement Eugene that You’d believe anything if the Holy Spirit saved you from unbelief Seems to me a rather dangerous one. Surely you would want to put limits on “anything” ,

To sdqa, Dear sdqa, I really want to encourage you. I was raised in the catholic religion, studied theology, philosophy under Jesuits, (who for centuries have been considered not only the “defenders of the faith” but the intelligensia, the artists the catholic clergy as well), eventually got a masters in Education, became a registered nurse. The Jesuits taught us that faith was not blind; mysteries can be illuminated and that when doubt is cultivated with reason and a desire for truth, a stronger faith is possible. Despite many years of catholic education, it wasn’t until I was about 50 years old, was attending an evangelical church, that I began to learn about, and to experience, the gifts of the Holy Spirit. One would think that with the ease that most catholics use the word “ Holy Spirit” that they would know a little more about Him. Eugene asks “ Why should Catholics doubt Him [The Holy Spirit]? Actually most catholics could not name all the gifts of The Holy Spirit, most catholics believe the gifts of the holy spirit are not relevant for today, and behind this hesitation is fear of the unknown. 1 Corinthians 12,13,14 is a great introduction to gifts of the Holy Spirit. It wasn’t until I started worshiping at evangelical services, studying the Bible from a Christ-centered perspective, verus a catholic religion/catholic tradition-centered perspective, could I experience God’s love and forgiveness direct from His throne!, hear really annointed preaching for the first time, receive healing. There are small pockets of charismatic catholics is various parts of the country, groups of people who take extra effort to build Godly relationships, take extra time to praise and worship Our Lord, and to pray in groups. Remember, THE FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH WAS COMPOSED EXCLUSIVELY OF JEWS! God’s Church= those who believe that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, throughout the earth. Come, Let us reason together, says The Lord. Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow Though they are as red as crimson, They shall be like wool. Isaiah 1:18

All scripture is inspired by God… 2 Timothy 3:16

A CASE FOR ILLUMINATION, a place for Thomas.

This is a very brief “presentation of value” to what is being referred to as The Gospel of Thomas. I think “ The sayings of Jesus according to Thomas” is an “easier” way of referring to this historical document, with no claims on who the person of Thomas was. This short presentation is intended to be Christ-centered in its approach, rather than religious in one way or another. The compelling Word of God coming forth from the prophet Isaiah some 700 years before the ministry of Jesus Christ sounds an invitation that is paradoxical. How can man reason with God about one of the greatest mysteries of the Christian faith, i.e., the redemption of humankind? I believe the answer is simple enough. We don’t understand or appreciate this great mystery, obviously, in the same capacity God does. We can not possibly discern all the miracles, grace-connected events, saved souls, that Jesus’s sacrifice would be responsible for on that day. However, The Lord desires us to have wisdom about His work, love for Him and a sense of what the cost was. Instead of using all the possible colors at His disposal to paint a masterpiece for us, He may only use just enough to help us “ get the picture”. In this sense a mystery is illuminated; The greater part is still a mystery. You’ve probably heard it said that scripture is the Word of God, not the words of God. This saying attempts to reflect the reality that Bible is not just the best-selling book of all time ! The very “breath of God” has moved various people in various generations to pick up the pen and scroll and burn the midnight oil. The term “apocrypha” refers to a large body of Jewish and Christian writings from the biblical period that were not originally included in the “ protocanonical” Bible. In April of 1546, following the Council of Trent in 1545, a “decree” was proclaimed ( by men) concerning the inclusion of additional “inspired” books of the old testatment apocrypha. These additional books were now considered “canonical”, or approved by the catholic church. But “canonical” is not the standard in most Christian circles today, as it was in 1545. Christians are, on the whole, interested with the issue of value and illumination that the apocrypha provide for the community of faith.

Jesus said: I tell my mysteries to those who are worthy of my mysteries. Gospel of Thomas Vs 62

-- rad48 (rad48@earthlink.net), January 07, 2005.

Yo Zarove, I appreciated your critique.

{Any time.}-Zarove

Objectivity is important, as is the willingness to hold up one’s faith to the Light of God’s Word, vs man’s word, or tradition.

{agreed, bt we knwo Thomas is not the Word of God.}-Zarove

From the sound of your response Paul, Martin Luther has no place in history associated with protestant reform, and men were not responsible for compiling the scriptures, it was the Holy Spirit. On the history point, well, you know the catholics did not like Copernicus very much. NO, to the catholic religion this ‘ole earth belonged right s-s-m-ma-a-c-c-k-k-k in the middle of the universe and to believe otherwise was heresy!

{Wasn't Capernicus a Faithful, devot Monk, or Proest? and didnt he dedicate his work ot he Chruhc and Pope? Coem tot hink of it, wasnt he praised both BEFORE and AFTER his death?

The Catholic psition on Heloicentrism VS Geocentirsm has been discssed before, and the Churhc had made no real stand. But usually its Gallilio that they charge who use this address withthe chruches disliking, not Capernicus, who was honorued and elevated in the Chruch Ranks.he wasnt evn so much as tried...}-Zarove

( by the way Zarovel, don’t worry about my catholic education…The Jesuits used to be called the defenders of the faith , but I never witnessed one become defensive or regress down a blind alley, rabbit trail, or personally attack anyone who had the guts to argue with them.

{Uhm... what relevance does any of this have on me? Im not even Catholic... I just hate poor schoalrship, such as the claim tha Thomas is mroe geniune tan th Cannonical Gospels, or Capernicus was hagted by the Cahtolci Chruch...}-Zarove

John, I know facing the truth is often a very difficult and painful process. The tragedy of massive, multi-generational sexual abuse perpetrated by catholic priests toward vulnerable persons has revealed your “destructive movement” that is within catholic religion, not outside of it.

{exual abse is rampent in any proffesison, and statisticlaly the Catholci chruch has had fewer than school teachers... whohave more access. Human frailty, sin, and corruption ar ein any Chruch or Secular orginisaiton, and so this is not only not germaine tot he topic,but a low blow with nor eal base.

And, by the wya, what , exaclty, does this have to do withthe Gispel of Thomas?}-Zarove

The cover-up has been going on for centuries. What about the lives scarred beyond repair. I have worked as a therapist and seen the absolute hopelessness of these victims whose abuser held the office of a clergyman.

{Funny thing is Im traingn to be a clinitian int he feild of Psycology, and havent seen this as a majorital case...}-Zarove

Was the Pope really the last to know? There is no biblical mandate from Christ promoting celibacy, why pretend that this in any way necessarily better equips one for ministry.

{ O this note, oen must continue to ask, what does toyr prsonal objection to proestly celibacty have to do at all with the topic of the Gospel of Thoams and its aceptance in scipture?}-Zarove.

What about the cruel, brutal tortures and deaths of suspected “heretics” at the hands of the catholic leadership at several times in European history.

{what of it, this thread is askign why Thomas is not considered cannonical...its not yoyr pesonal " Lets attack the Cahtolics" thread...}-Zarove

A destructive movement within Christianity itself I would think. Then there were the Crusades, not very Christ-like, i.e., wholesale slaughter of Jews both in Europe and the Holy Land…

{Jews? The Crusades whre agaisnt hte MUSLIMS, not hre Jews... see, the Muslims, called then Mohammadans, where aggressing on the Byzantine, the firts crusade was sdefensive, the later Cerusades to reclaimjerusalem form Muslim conqeast likewise did not rellay invlvoe klilling Jews, but MUSLIMS. righ tor wrong, the facts peak agsint tou.

and aain, what has ths to do with the Gospel of Thomas?}-Zarove

OF Course The Pope called for the first crusade, a destructive movement?

{The ifrts crusade want abotu killign innocent and harmless Jews, ti was about Defendign the Byzantine empire form invasionand later haivng eurpe fall to the blade of Islam...}-Zarove

Let me say that I am not anti-catholic.

{This I ocidl eaisly have missed in such a diatribe...and find th emost odubtful claim you have made.}-Zarove

I do not believe in papal infallibility, however, and I will give you a brief presentation of why I do not.

{Why? This thread is not for you to dicuss Papal Invalability but dfor to discuss the Gospel of thomas...}-Zarove

This is relevant to the question of scripture vs canon, because in the end, it is men who decide what is “canon”;

{If you belve God di not guide these men, then are we lost and lind without the Light of God to help us on our way?}-Zarove

I will show you what The Word say about scripture . To say that The Holy Spirit chooses canon is adding to the Bible something that is not there, or, i.e., here that catholics are falling back on their tradition, not the Word of God.

{The Bible,entiosn scripture, and that some sciroptur is to be rejected. The spacific word "Cannon" isnt used, but the concept existed before christ withte Jews even, and IS mentioned in scutotures...}-Zarove

First, I do have to wonder, Eugene, rather that accusing sdqa of being an “ opponent “ [of The Holy Spirit] wouldn’t it be more Christ- like to encourage sdqa that we will pray that she will in the future have a good encounter with The Holy Spirit? Your statement Eugene that You’d believe anything if the Holy Spirit saved you from unbelief Seems to me a rather dangerous one. Surely you would want to put limits on “anything” ,

{If you know eugine you accept htis is the wya he is, besodes, SQ has shown nothign but hostility, so peopel actgn abraisively is undetdandable. een Jesus got upset...}-Zarove

To sdqa, Dear sdqa, I really want to encourage you. I was raised in the catholic religion, studied theology, philosophy under Jesuits, (who for centuries have been considered not only the “defenders of the faith” but the intelligensia, the artists the catholic clergy as well), eventually got a masters in Education, became a registered nurse.

{Masters in edcation, and nurse, are two ivergent fields. houg you CAN have two egrees and be accredited in bo, the wya you worded this leaves oen to queatsion.}-Zarove

The Jesuits taught us that faith was not blind; mysteries can be illuminated and that when doubt is cultivated with reason and a desire for truth, a stronger faith is possible.

{Sound doctorine that...}-Zarove

Despite many years of catholic education, it wasn’t until I was about 50 years old, was attending an evangelical church, that I began to learn about, and to experience, the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

{Then you decided to make sles pitched that disparaged your former churhc and mocked those n it while sayig you arent anti-Cahtolic...}- Zarove

One would think that with the ease that most catholics use the word “ Holy Spirit” that they would know a little more about Him.

{Beleiv you me, I know soem evangelicans wo knwo a much abouthte Holy spirit as the worse and hardest hearted Infidel... and many charitable Catholcis who truely fllow the prompting of the Holy spirit. No chruhc limits this psirit, and this spirit is foiudn in all of them, to varieyn degrees, dependant on the penetant souls longings and sincere esire for truth.}-Zarove

Eugene asks “ Why should Catholics doubt Him [The Holy Spirit]? Actually most catholics could not name all the gifts of The Holy Spirit, most catholics believe the gifts of the holy spirit are not relevant for today, and behind this hesitation is fear of the unknown. ]

{No, thats chufhc of hcirst whihc denies miracles happen, Catolcis belie in these gifts. Many evangleicans know little of them too, but he way, so whats your point? that we have a crisis whre peopel don bothe rlarngin abut God and is word? srry, thats too broad in all chruhces...}-Zarove

1 Corinthians 12,13,14 is a great introduction to gifts of the Holy Spirit. It wasn’t until I started worshiping at evangelical services, studying the Bible from a Christ-centered perspective, verus a catholic religion/catholic tradition-centered perspective, could I experience God’s love and forgiveness direct from His throne!,

{Thats nce, but relaly, I dot see the poitn of this diatribe on this thread, as its nto germaine tot he topic of the Gospel of Thomas...}- Zarove

hear really annointed preaching for the first time, receive healing.

{what of those like me wo are still crippled and now attend pentacostal services? sorry, God healig you is not proof that catolic chruhc is ecil or a sham, any more than this is relevant to he Gospel of Thoams. ( sory to harp but check the thread title...)}-Zarove

There are small pockets of charismatic catholics is various parts of the country, groups of people who take extra effort to build Godly relationships, take extra time to praise and worship Our Lord, and to pray in groups.

{and peknty of evangelicans who trwat it liek a once a week social club and disregard the Bibel when ti contradicts tre way of life, and who allow same-sex "Unions" and "Blesings", lesbian preachers, and an apprach tot he ibel that says its nto needed when it disagrees with there feleligns. Poitn being?}-Zarove

Remember, THE FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH WAS COMPOSED EXCLUSIVELY OF JEWS!

{wich is relevant how? jesus was Jewish and he Jewish mesiah... and you expect soemthign else?}-Zarove

God’s Church= those who believe that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, throughout the earth. Come, Let us reason together, says The Lord. Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow Though they are as red as crimson, They shall be like wool. Isaiah 1:18

{Nice but ultiaty you didnt address the Gospel of Thomas and just took potshots atthe Cahtolci curhc... whichmakes this a waste o toime post...}-Zarove

All scripture is inspired by God… 2 Timothy 3:16

A CASE FOR ILLUMINATION, a place for Thomas.

This is a very brief “presentation of value” to what is being referred to as The Gospel of Thomas. I think “ The sayings of Jesus according to Thomas” is an “easier” way of referring to this historical document, with no claims on who the person of Thomas was. This short presentation is intended to be Christ-centered in its approach, rather than religious in one way or another. The compelling Word of God coming forth from the prophet Isaiah some 700 years before the ministry of Jesus Christ sounds an invitation that is paradoxical. How can man reason with God about one of the greatest mysteries of the Christian faith, i.e., the redemption of humankind? I believe the answer is simple enough. We don’t understand or appreciate this great mystery, obviously, in the same capacity God does. We can not possibly discern all the miracles, grace-connected events, saved souls, that Jesus’s sacrifice would be responsible for on that day. However, The Lord desires us to have wisdom about His work, love for Him and a sense of what the cost was. Instead of using all the possible colors at His disposal to paint a masterpiece for us, He may only use just enough to help us “ get the picture”. In this sense a mystery is illuminated; The greater part is still a mystery. You’ve probably heard it said that scripture is the Word of God, not the words of God. This saying attempts to reflect the reality that Bible is not just the best-selling book of all time ! The very “breath of God” has moved various people in various generations to pick up the pen and scroll and burn the midnight oil. The term “apocrypha” refers to a large body of Jewish and Christian writings from the biblical period that were not originally included in the “ protocanonical” Bible. In April of 1546, following the Council of Trent in 1545, a “decree” was proclaimed ( by men) concerning the inclusion of additional “inspired” books of the old testatment apocrypha. These additional books were now considered “canonical”, or approved by the catholic church. But “canonical” is not the standard in most Christian circles today, as it was in 1545. Christians are, on the whole, interested with the issue of value and illumination that the apocrypha provide for the community of faith.

Jesus said: I tell my mysteries to those who are worthy of my mysteries. Gospel of Thomas Vs 62

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 07, 2005.

Just wonderful; but I'm unable to read this five thousand word post, and I was really trying. Especially when I noticed my name in a few sentences. Who knoooows what they were saying about me. --Mot as well be in Sanskrit.

Again, wonderful if you can read it. Here was a person who wrote intelligibly, lost in this maze of language. ''Dear sdqa, I really want to encourage you. I was raised in the catholic religion, studied theology, philosophy under Jesuits, (who for centuries have been considered not only the “defenders of the faith” but the intelligensia, the artists the catholic clergy as well), eventually got a masters in Education, became a registered nurse.''

Is it rad 48? OK. Well; rad; the degrees are just folly to God, you realise. ''FOLLY''. (Man's wisdom.) God did not reveal much to your colleagues, though He might do so now; but apparently not. He came more for the lowly anawim; who were actually denigrated by Pharisees in 33 A.D. Jesus wasn't one, but He loved them. He called a boatload of fishermen and a tax collector to lead the Catholic Church. Out of Galilee.

I think that's revealing. No Phd's. No Jesuit curriculum. Wow.

''This hesitation is fear of the unknown,'' you said. But we have no fear and there is NO unknown for a faithful Catholic. Really. Your words are misplaced, they aren't ''Kosher'', rad48. What is there to fear about books without an imprimatur? They're a dime a dozen. (We ARE taliking about the so-called gospel of Thomas? Or is this monkey-puzzle of a thread so intricate I'm going in circles?) Please explain. Why be afraid when books surface, that God never inspired? We should fear the books He DID inspire.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 07, 2005.

GREAT POST RAD!

finally someone who understands something about christianity

-- jerry (doofykorn@hotmail.com), January 08, 2005.

but i really doubt about the authenticity of the gospels because it was the roman catholic church who put the bible together and i really have tons and tons of reasons to distrust them

anyway,great post rad

what is actually the difference between evangelism and lutheranism?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 08, 2005.

Hs post was gibberish ,nothign but Anti-Catholci Rhetoric that got us off topic.

y the way, the cannonical gosples whre universlaly recognised by ALL chrisaisn, een the waldenses, where the Gospel of Thomas was not.

So it was not just the Catholic Church.

And even the "Alternative" gospels egenerlaly agree on most of the main points, even of we can show them to be frauds.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 08, 2005.

GREAT nothing.
Go back, start over and leave out all that megillah about how you lost your innocence on the college circuit. That happens to all academics. If you're really wise and a positive thinker, rad48, as you tell us you are, don't mislead young rads. They haven't learned the basics yet, and here they might have a chance.

Zarove may be hard to read, but he isn't posting nonsense. Why introduce yourself now at such a disadvantage? A dislexic and confusing contributor is going to show better wisdom than you with all your learning. He raises the bar for us. Come join in a sincerely religious discussion. Take this pilgrimage seriously, make it count.

If there must be ridicule and defiance it should be from these young punks on a lark. They have an excuse, they're only beginning. And we ought to help them.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 08, 2005.

to Zarove, eugene,

your god is too small. Do you really think God stopped speaking to His people when the ink dried on the new testament? Do you really, your clever retorts asisde, think that God does not speak to His people today. The quality of the dialogue has been much too reductionistic, superficial, and legalistic, for my continued participation. If you were not so myopic you would have been able to see the "thread" giving value to other ancient Christian writings outside of your comfort zone. Apostolic Succesion/papal infallibilitiy is based on the catholic tradition of St Peter at the first "pope". Just as any other man, except Christ, Peter displayed his share of "error" while he on the earth, was even rebuke once as "satan" by Jesus himself. There is no instistution, or person, perfected yet on earth that can exercise judgement, without subject to err, concerning faith and morals. To assert that this is true is to deny Christ His Kingship and LOrdship over all, and such assertion in made in the spirit of the anti-christ. IF you cannot get over the symbolic language in "The secret saying that The Living Jesus Spoke" suring you have never attempted to understand the Book of Revelations, which is wrapped in much more mysterious language. Think man! This is for the individual to discover, not for papal bull.

-- rad48 (rad@earthlink.net), January 09, 2005.

http://www.gospelthomas.com/

this site can give you line by line insight into words used in the original manuscript, historical data, etc.

-- rad48 (rad48@earthlink.net), January 09, 2005.

God certainly does speak to His people today. His ''myopic'' people have Christ alive and active in their midst; and we live in communion with Him. He speaks directly, heart to heart.

What we DO know for finished is the age of new revelations and doctrine. --NO FURTHER BOOKS. He completed that work and we have nothing to add to it.

There are those who deride the faithful for awaiting His second coming; as you deride us for not soaking up new gospels out of the blue. We happen to be restless for the day of the Lord. Possibly you aren't?

But if it had happened shortly after His ascension into heaven, (His new advent in glory;) you and I would not have been added to the roll of faithful Christians, nor our parents and millions of other souls. For in the final days, the entire nation of Israel, the Jews, will receive what is the only NEW revelation in time. The Messiah will be KNOWN to them, they'll come to Him and worship Him with us. Then will come that last day.

So that; we await no other new announcements. We live in Christ's New and everlasting Covenant; as His Holy Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 09, 2005.

to Zarove, eugene,

your god is too small.

{Is he? what do you relalu know of my theology?}-Zarove

Do you really think God stopped speaking to His people when the ink dried on the new testament?

{No, but this is a dubious conclusion to arrive at simpley because I rejected the gospel of Thomas. ou know, Mormns claim that the continuous revelaiton occured n the 1800;s and thats whre th doctorine and covenants came orm, shoudl I bee,ive them?

There is a diffeence between saying God cna still reveal things, and acpetign everyhtign that claim to b revealed form God...}-Zarove

Do you really, your clever retorts asisde, think that God does not speak to His people today.

{Did I say this? No. I said that the gopsel of Thomas was a forgery, which is a hugely distinct stateent. its no liek the Gospel of thoams was wirten within the last 30 years you know...}-Zarove

The quality of the dialogue has been much too reductionistic, superficial, and legalistic, for my continued participation.

{The word for my invlement is "academic'. acadeically spaking, ti si doubtful at best that the Gopsel of thomas dates back to the early firts century, and is clealry not fom the Penn of Thomas the apsolte...This is neither Legalism, nor is it superficial.}-Zarove

If you were not so myopic you would have been able to see the "thread" giving value to other ancient Christian writings outside of your comfort zone.

{You mean like the early Fathers of the Chruhc? Oh Im sorry, we shodl igore them, but lets have a lot abohte Gnostics and other heretics...

This sin abotu comfort zones, tis baut responcibility. ddnt Paul tell us not to accept just any old thing we hear?}-Zarove

Apostolic Succesion/papal infallibilitiy is based on the catholic tradition of St Peter at the first "pope". Just as any other man, except Christ, Peter displayed his share of "error" while he on the earth, was even rebuke once as "satan" by Jesus himself.

{which mens little tot he discusion of the Gospel of Thomas r its merit. tryugn to shame us by makign acusatios of how legalistic and superifcial we are whel disparagign Peter the apostle wll nto vlaidate the Gospel of Thomas...}-Zarove

There is no instistution, or person, perfected yet on earth that can exercise judgement, without subject to err, concerning faith and morals.

{but any fool can see that Thomas is a document of no moral worth, it counsils agin prayer, fastign,a dn tithes, for instance...even just as plain reading, ti snot worht the pen and paper it wa origioally written on and with...}-Zarove

To assert that this is true is to deny Christ His Kingship and LOrdship over all, and such assertion in made in the spirit of the anti-christ.

{So its either accpetance of the Gopsle of Thomas and all th Heresies it contains, otr else we ar ei the spirit of anti-Christ for standign up tot he pali word of scripture and rebuking tis false gospel, is that wha your saying?}-Zarove

IF you cannot get over the symbolic language in "The secret saying that The Living Jesus Spoke" suring you have never attempted to understand the Book of Revelations, which is wrapped in much more mysterious language.

{Its mor ehtan the secret syings, it sht e dubious authorshipa nd Gnostic leanigns that concerns us...}-Zarove

Think man! This is for the individual to discover, not for papal bull.

{Its also Gnostic and heretical, even form a NON-Catlci perspective, yand you want me to what? acept it on our sy o base don or disapraging us as closed midned if we dont? Pot-heads say the same thing. Ive never tried marjuana, and hik its a bad ifdea, andhey say " Never knwo till you try"...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 09, 2005.

one other great post rad

-- jerry (doofykorn@hotmail.Com), January 10, 2005.

If by Good post you mean uttelry failing to reresent any merit for the Gospel of Thomas, which he wishes us to use, and endorses, and nto botherign tellign us WHY its a grea work to help us grow in christ, and instead bashign us about and callign us narrw minded and legalistic for rejecitng an obviously flawed and forged work, then I agree.

But form the vantage of fairness, oen must ask, what poin did he make? he neither gave any argumet on the mert of Thomas, nor did he refute any of ourobjectiisn to thomas.

He merely accused us of havign too narrow a vewi on god and claimed we where all too infirior, wile praising himself by implication. This was not a great post, or een a vlaid poin beign made, ti was jujst a apthetic attemt to make us loog and feel bad s he can win by defualt, to deflect fom the obvosu dfects i his own stand.

If you want t justidy a works spiritual impoetants, discuss the work itsself, not your opponants hwo disagree.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 10, 2005.

what do you have against the gospel of thomas zarove?

i don't get it?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 10, 2005.

1: Fraudulent second century work.

2: heretical, even dangerous teachings, such as NOT doing good to others, NOT praying, NOT fasting, NOT paying tithes, ect...

3: denial of the basic understanding of God.

4: The "secret" sayings are not in keepign with God revealign things plainly.

we covered this before...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 10, 2005.

why is it fraudelant?

prove it?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 10, 2005.

Thomas is a secnd century Gnostic text... Thomas as dead befor the start of the Second century...Thwrefore whemt he text proports ot be wrttne by thomas, it obviously is lying.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 10, 2005.

Sdqa wants Thomas to be true. But in fact he claims the Bible isn't true in the first place. This is arguing from contrariness alone; not spiritual enthusiasm.

Jerry is pleased with rad's last post, ''one other great post rad,'' (he forgot how to spell ''another''.) A great fan base, rad; really intelligent.

Rad48 is the source of howlers like the following:

''If you were not so myopic you would have been able to see the "thread" giving value to other ancient Christian writings outside of your comfort zone. --Apostolic Succesion/papal infallibilitiy is based on the Catholic tradition of St Peter as the first Pope.''

What this shows is that rad48 is only interested in traditions which aren't based on the truth. Here's an tradition dating back to the very beginning of Christianity; but since it upholds something TRUE, Peter is the first Pope; it isn't in rad48's ''comfort zone''. She rejects it as false.

Yet, it's historically certain. Plenty of sources uphold that tradition. Because it's absolutely true!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 10, 2005.

peter was never a pope

he never had that title and nobody ever called him a pope

catholics made later of him a pope to make the story of the rock on which the church will built fit anc claim that jesus was talking about their church then

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 10, 2005.

You have the title confused with the occupation of Saint Peter.

When Christ called Peter, his name wasn' even Peter, it was Simon Bar-Jonah. His occupation was fisherman, on the sea of Galilee. He had boats, and he fished for a living. But Jesus needed him for His apostle. He took him away, and taught Him the Christian truth. This truth was what we came to know as the Holy Gospel. It was quite a difference from what Jews had been taught before.

Of the twelve apostles shown us in the Bible, one was favored by Jesus, it was this fisherman. He loved them all, but He singled out their leader, a strong but impetuous man. He changed that man's name to Peter, meaning Rock.

The ancient customs of Israel made a change of name signify a new man, given new power and dignity. Simon was no longer a fisherman. He was Leader of the apostles; 2nd only to the Church's founder, Jesus. That's why Jesus gave him the name, Rock.

To be a Leader, is to be a Father. Asians all realise this. They honor a father more than brothers, sisters or mothers.

Pope means Father, and that's all. Jesus made Simon PETER, the new Leader and father; Father of His Church.

That's the only reason we call him and his successors Pope. It's our father in the faith. (Our Pappa, ''Pope''.)

Don't confuse the title for something NEW. Peter was the leader as soon as Christ gave to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to bind and to loose. It's his occupation: the occupation, or DUTY was given him by Jesus Christ, not by the Church, and not by Catholics. Christ appointed him the first father, or Pope, of His Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 10, 2005.

off course peter was the leader,but he didn't have the TITLE of pope in his time

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 10, 2005.

wihc proves what, exactly?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 10, 2005.

Peter was bishop of Rome when he was martyred. We have evidence of this fact. His legitimate successors were the bishops of the same see; Rome. His authority passes down to those successors even to this day. Nobody but protestants (some) deny that. They can't.

If these subsequent bishops of Rome were given a title like Father, Pope-- later on, that doesn't change their direct succession as bishops to the See of Rome, in which Saint Peter was the Church's highest leader. Therefore, being called Pope is no disqualification.

Jesus didn't have any title like Redeemer or Lamb of God while He lived. Yet Christians immediately think of Jesus when those titles are used today. Nobody says He was never the Redeemer of Mankind because he didn't carry a title around during His lifetime. That's a nonsensical objection.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 10, 2005.

Test [i]Test[/i]

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 05, 2005.

Note the following from the discussion above:

“The Gospel of Thmas tells us not to pray, and no to pay tithes. it says women must beocme men to be saved. Many of Thomas's sayings ar eincomprehensable by design. ( secret saysins to pass on esoteric knwoeldge.)

It des NOT coincide withhte real tracigns of Jesus, an draws on away form his cor message of Love an repentance. ( It cunsils agsint rpentance as wlel...)

so, what then? accept anythign hat mentisn jesu and builtds on his message? Thast nsane...Not to mentio unsound principle.}-Zarove”

The scriptures relevant to this comment are as follows:

Gospel of Thomas

6) His disciples questioned Him and said to Him, "Do you want us to fast? How shall we pray? Shall we give alms? What diet shall we observe?" Jesus said, "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." . . . 14) Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will give rise to sin for yourselves; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if you give alms, you will do harm to your spirits. When you go into any land and walk about in the districts, if they receive you, eat what they will set before you, and heal the sick among them. For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but that which issues from your mouth - it is that which will defile you." . . . 114) Simon Peter said to Him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of Life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Remember with God, it all about having faith. That is what Christ meant when He said the following:

John 10

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" 33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." 34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods ? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken-- 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

Christ indicated in verse 38, that even though the Jews did not believe Him, they should have at least believed Christ’s miracles. Christ further indicated that after they believed Christ’s miracles, they would start recognizing Christ as being who He said He was. The question therefore is, what does it mean to believe in Christ’s miracles? Given the fact that Christ’s miracles were Christ having faith (i.e. Christ saying what He wanted and believing that it would happen – Mark 11:14, 21-24), to believe in Christ’s miracles is to believe in the practice of having faith. This is consistent with Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:28, Romans 4:1-8 which indicate what is needed for someone to be saved.

Please also note the following scripture:

Luke 11

37And as He spoke, a certain Pharisee asked Him to dine with him. So He went in and sat down to eat. 38When the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that He had not first washed before dinner. 39Then the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees make the outside of the cup and dish clean, but your inward part is full of greed and wickedness. 40Foolish ones! Did not He who made the outside make the inside also? 41But rather give alms of such things as you have; then indeed all things are clean to you.

42"But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass by justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. 43Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. 44Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like graves which are not seen, and the men who walk over them are not aware of them."

45Then one of the lawyers answered and said to Him, "Teacher, by saying these things You reproach us also."

46And He said, "Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. 47Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48In fact, you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs. 49Therefore the wisdom of God also said, "I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,' 50that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.

It can be seen therefore from the above scripture, that Christ showed disdain for the outward practice of rituals (such as people having to pay tithes/alms) – particularly when they did not have faith (which is what produces righteousness and love in a person – Romans 9:30. This is consistent with the Gospel of Thomas verses 6, 14 concerning the paying of tithes.

Matthew 6

5"And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. 7And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

It can be seen from the scripture above, that Christ finds it objectionable when you pray a particular way (while not having faith, and for outward show). The fact of the matter is when you pray in the undesirable manner, you condemn yourselves as Christ alluded to in the Gospel of Thomas verses 6, 14.

Regarding Gospel of Thomas verse 114, the following scriptures also indicate that women will become like men, after those who have faith have been transformed into their new selves.

Romans 8

28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Matthew 22

23The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24saying: "Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27Last of all the woman died also. 28Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her." 29Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.

My conscience is absolutely clear that the Gospel of Thomas is scripture. The problem is that no one can truly recognize it to be such, the same way the Jews were not able to recognize Christ as being who He said He was in John 10:31-38, unless that person has faith. The question therefore becomes, how can so many people who claim to have faith disagree over the Gospel of Thomas being scripture? If the Holy Spirit resides in all of them (because of their faith - Galatians 3:14), how can this situation and so much other discord exist within the Church? Simple, because most people’s faiths are not real. Most people observe manmade inventions called faith, over the way Christ in Mark 11:22-24 said faith should be had. That is why the Catholic Church rejected the Gospel of Thomas: because the Catholic Church, like virtually all other Churches, follow notions of how to have faith, that runs counter to the instructions Christ gave.

Quite frankly I absolutely love the Gospel of Thomas. It acts as a gauge to my level of faith, and shows it progressively increasing, as I understand the scriptures more and more. Remember, you need to have faith (correctly) to be able to understand the scriptures (Galatians 3:14, 1 Corinthians 2:6-16), and this is especially true for the Gospel of Thomas.

(Please read here, and here concerning how to have faith correctly. Also please read here for how to have faith and gain results, and please read here for practical steps on how you may have faith.)

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 06, 2005.

Test.

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 06, 2005.

The links in the bottom paragraph of my message (two messages above) did not turn out okay. Please ignore that paragraph, and observe the paragraph below.

(Please read here, and here concerning how to have faith correctly. Also please read here for how to have faith and gain results, and please read here for practical steps on how you may have faith.)

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 06, 2005.

In othe words, you want us to accept a second sentuty Pseudographical texttgat leans early Gnostic becase you personally liek it and can put a posiitce spi on some of it sore bizzare teachigns to force them to fit the other texts...

Not buyng it...

Nor do I appriciate you sayign my faiht inst relay because I reject this work.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 06, 2005.

the gospel of thomas is from 50 AD and not the second century...it is written by thomas dydymus, a disciple of jesus

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 06, 2005.

[I] In othe words, you want us to accept a second sentuty Pseudographical texttgat leans early Gnostic becase you personally liek it and can put a posiitce spi on some of it sore bizzare teachigns to force them to fit the other texts... Not buyng it...

Nor do I appriciate you sayign my faiht inst relay because I reject this work.

-- ZAROVE.[/I]

What I’m suggesting is that you examine how you pursue having faith, and see if it rests soundly on scripture. It is only by having faith correctly, that you will be able to distinguish things that are from God, from things that are not. That is the point Christ was making to the Jews in John 10:31-38. The fact that the Gospel of Thomas superficially resembles Gnostic teachings and are carried around among Gnostic teachings, means nothing in and of itself. (Gnostics also carry around and read the Bible.) As far as I can tell, every saying of Christ in the Gospel of Thomas has counterpart sayings in the four Gospels in the Bible. The Gospel of Thomas merely provides more insight into their meaning. E.g. the Catholic Church found the following verse objectionable in the Gospel of Thomas.

Gospel of Thomas

108) Jesus said, "He who will drink from my mouth will become like Me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will become revealed to him."

But this scripture has its counterparts below:

John 17

20“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Isaiah 9

6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Romans 3

29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

The scriptures above indicate that all those who bear the title God (e.g. the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) form a union and hence are one and in each other. Isaiah 9:6 indicates that this implies that not only is an individual who bears the title God, Himself, that individual is also the same as everyone else in the union at the same time. (That is why Christ was identified not only as Himself, but also as the Counselor (who is the Holy Spirit - John 14:26) and the Everlasting Father.) Therefore in as much as someone who has faith belongs to the union of God (John 17:20-23), that person is himself, but also God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). This fact backs up the Gospel of Thomas verse 108, where it is indicated that Christ said, “He who will drink from my mouth will become like Me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will become revealed to him.”

I cannot overemphasize it, you must ensure you have authentic faith to be able to discern the things of God - particularly God's secret words. Otherwise you will be like the Jews in John 10:31-38 who had no appreciation of Christ, or of the things He said.

(Please read here, and here concerning how to have faith correctly. Also please read here for how to have faith and gain results, and please read here for practical steps on how you may have faith.)

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 06, 2005.

In several years frequenting this forum I've met just one other contributor more idiotic than this one, P. Douglas. That was so long ago I can't recall. He used the name Dr. Sin I think. So apropos.

The ''gospel'' of Thomas is a fraudulent document. The Catholic Church alone speaks with authority and could not discern anything inspired about it; that settles it.

If P. Douglas wants to waste [his/her] time reading spurious texts and assigning them credibility by distorting the inspired scripture's meanings, he is free to do it. He shouldn't waste our time touting something so patently absurd. None of his posts above can be given the slightest credit for truth.

P. Douglas oversteps repeatedly; giving himself full authority from out of nowhere to say: ''you pursue having faith, and see if it rests soundly on scripture. It is only ''by having faith correctly,'' that you will be able to distinguish --LOUSE UP? things that are from God, from things that are not.'' ''Faith correctly'' is empty rhetoric. How can someone who concocts his own biblical standards for authentiicity claim to be faithful? It is God who reveals, we don't reveal anything TO God, making trash up.

''----I cannot overemphasize it, you must ensure you have authentic faith to be able to discern the things of God - particularly God's secret words. Otherwise you will be like the Jews in John 10,'' -- Said the scholar. But indeed he does over-emphasise and bowdlerize scripture passages; to give us his/her tedious blend of ignorance and self-importance. (THERE ARE NO SECRET WORDS, P. Douglas. We are given the total truth in the Holy Catholic Church. No secrets remain at all.)

.................................................................. ...................

--Let's give God thanks P. Douglas came here. [He/she] needed to know how darkened his spirit is without light from Christ's holy Church to guide him. He's come to the right place. May God give him grace to forgive ME for my blunt assessment of his farce. Hope he can stay to learn the truth now.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 06, 2005.

The ''gospel'' of Thomas is a fraudulent document. The Catholic Church alone speaks with authority and could not discern anything inspired about it; that settles it.

How can the Catholic Church speak with God’s authority when it does not have authentic faith? You talk as if an established body, once grounded in God, is always grounded in God. Did God not have to go repeatedly outside of the organizations of religious leaders of Israel, and raise up prophets to speak to Israel – including Israel’s Jewish leaders, whose organizations were once grounded in God? Didn’t Christ select His disciples, not from the religious leaders of Israel, but from fishermen, tax collectors, and the like?

No one speaks with God’s authority unless that person has real faith! And in as much as you can tell someone genuinely sanctioned by God by the fruit he bears (Matthew 7:15-20), and hence whether or not his faith is real (John 15:2, Romans 9:30): the way you responded to my message, the recent widespread incidents of child sexual abuse, the Catholic Church’s doctrine of justification by works that runs counter to Galatians 5:4 (which warns that anyone who practices it will fall from grace), all attest that the Catholic Church does not have real faith to begin with.

I suggest you make use of the links that are provided in the paragraph below. You can see if the reasoning provided in the articles are deficient or not, and make up your minds whether you want to follow or consider them. However I repeat what I said before: you cannot begin to truly distinguish the things from God, from things that are not from God until you have faith (John 10:31- 38). Having faith correctly is everything (Ephesians 2:8-9)!

(Please read here, and here concerning how to have faith correctly. Also please read here for how to have faith and gain results, and please read here for practical steps on how you may have faith.)

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 06, 2005.

Incidentally, I'm a guy.

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 06, 2005.

Thanks, I hate that he/she part; and it's good to know who you're talking to.

''No one speaks with God’s authority unless that person has real faith!'' -- You're making self-serving rules to sustain your unsustainable faith. There is only ONE Church; and Christ founded her FOREVER. That is the Church of His holy apostles. To speak with God's authority, you must be an apostle of Jesus Christ. ONLY they have ever had Christ's authoriy. The apostles have passed on that same authority to their successors, and on down from successor to successor. No other authority exists; not even the scriptures, unless the Church backs their interpretation.

I saw your web log. It's quite elegant. Unfortunately it's replete with errors and spiritually insolvent. No grace can proceed froom it at all; though you are to be complimented for your desires to reach out to souls.

There's a GREAT place for you and others who feel as you do-- In the Catholic Church of your own blessed ancestors. Your family tree has roots that are COMPLETELY Catholic in the past. You should return to the True Faith (Santa Fe) you were stripped of by false ministers somewhere in your family's recent past. A good man like you will be at home only in Christ's own fold. Until then you're a lost sheep, P. Douglas. And that's a shame.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 06, 2005.

''No one speaks with God’s authority unless that person has real faith!'' -- You're making self-serving rules to sustain your unsustainable faith.

What rules have I made up? Doesn’t Matthew 7:15-20 indicate that genuine prophets bear good fruit? Doesn’t Romans 9:30 indicate that righteousness (which is good fruit) arises in someone as a result of his faith? Therefore doesn’t it follow that a true prophet has real faith?

There is only ONE Church; and Christ founded her FOREVER. That is the Church of His holy apostles. To speak with God's authority, you must be an apostle of Jesus Christ. ONLY they have ever had Christ's authoriy. The apostles have passed on that same authority to their successors, and on down from successor to successor. No other authority exists; not even the scriptures, unless the Church backs their interpretation.

What you are saying is conjecture. As I showed in my previous message, the fact that an organization was once grounded in God (like Israel’s religious organizations), does not mean that it will always be grounded in God. Also Matthew 7:15-20 does not say the way you tell a true representative of God is by the organization he belongs, but rather by the fruit he bears.

I saw your web log. It's quite elegant. Unfortunately it's replete with errors and spiritually insolvent. No grace can proceed froom it at all; though you are to be complimented for your desires to reach out to souls.

If you want to discuss the contents of my blog on my blog site on or in this thread, that is fine with me. All I say in my blog, is that Christ’s instructions on how we should have faith in Mark 11:22-24, is the only instructions on how to have faith present in the scriptures. If we place inventions of man on how to have faith above the instructions God gave, and then follow these inventions, it is unreasonable to think that our faiths are real. (Note: Christ indicated in Mark 11:22-24 that having faith is saying what you want and believing it will happen, or asking God for what you want and believing you will receive it.)

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 06, 2005.

''--Doesn’t Matthew 7:15-20 indicate that genuine prophets bear good fruit?

No. You are confusing man's works for a license to dispense a false gospel. --''Doesn’t Romans 9:30 indicate that righteousness (which is good fruit) arises in someone as a result of his faith?''

No; he's not talking about your false belief and sans-apostolic faith. What grace can come from following a faith that disputes the apostles? ''--Therefore doesn’t it follow that a true prophet has real faith? Why? Is any old prophet teaching ''real'' faith? Not unless he teaches the Holy Gospel as it came from the apostles and Christ. It wouldn't be the true faith. You may have all the faith in the world in doctrines that were not taught by Christ, and you have nothing to rightly expect for it. There is only ONE faith. Chapter 1, Gal. :1 to :9-- the Catholic faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 06, 2005.

"How can the Catholic Church speak with God’s authority when it does not have authentic faith? You talk as if an established body, once grounded in God, is always grounded in God. Did God not have to go repeatedly outside of the organizations of religious leaders of Israel, and raise up prophets to speak to Israel – including Israel’s Jewish leaders, whose organizations were once grounded in God? Didn’t Christ select His disciples, not from the religious leaders of Israel, but from fishermen, tax collectors, and the like?

No one speaks with God’s authority unless that person has real faith! And in as much as you can tell someone genuinely sanctioned by God by the fruit he bears (Matthew 7:15-20), and hence whether or not his faith is real (John 15:2, Romans 9:30): the way you responded to my message, the recent widespread incidents of child sexual abuse, the Catholic Church’s doctrine of justification by works that runs counter to Galatians 5:4 (which warns that anyone who practices it will fall from grace), all attest that the Catholic Church does not have real faith to begin with. "

GREAT SAID MAN!

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 06, 2005.

How come, sdqa???? Because P. Douglas notes how men are fallible? The Church has always taught the reality of sin. We don't deny we're sinners. Some priests as well; serious sinners.

That is no inherent feature of Christ's Holy Church, however. Even Christ Himself, who had called twelve apostles; given them His grace, instructed and loved them all--

--Had one of them fall out in mortal sin. --Judas sold Our Lord for 30 pieces of silver. Jesus prophesied that there would come scandals. That doesn't change the holiness of his Church.

A man like P. Douglas thinks we Catholics must concede the fall of the Catholic Church because of scandal. But what scandal he can positively point to is isolated and uncommon. We have thousands upon thousands of holy, dedicated priests. The Church counts numberless saints and holy martyrs in her long history; as well as innumerable good works. She raised up the most important figures in medicine, education and art. She built most of the world's outstanding universities. And along with that, she brought GAZILLIONS of souls to Christ, from every nation.

You fail to count in her favor the immense good she has done; accumulated over many centuries. Here you think to belittle her for the sinful actions of a few evil men; men she trusted. They're no worse than Judas; and Jesus had given His trust and love to that traitor. After Judas betrayed Him, why didn't the Church cease to be? Or cease to be holy?

By P. Douglas and spqa's criterion, there wouldn't have BEEN any Church, afterwards. Yet, She changed the face of the earth. Because Christ is with her, and she still teaches the Holy Faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 06, 2005.

Just to be clear Christ indicated below, how someone is to have faith:

Mark 11

22 ”Have faith in God," Jesus answered. 23 "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Someone has faith by saying what he wants and believing it will happen, or asking God for what he wants and believing he will receive it.

''--Doesn’t Matthew 7:15-20 indicate that genuine prophets bear good fruit? No. You are confusing man's works for a license to dispense a false gospel.

Matthew 7

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

How can anyone reasonably look at the scripture above and say that it does not indicate that real prophets bear good fruit? Do you understand the concept of faith producing good works in someone, without that person making an effort to do so? That is what the following scripture means:

Romans 9

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;

Therefore if you real faith, you have no choice but to act righteously. This point is confirmed in the following scripture, which indicates that you are actually controlled by the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit lives in you. If you are controlled by the Holy Spirit, this means you have no choice but to act according to the Holy Spirit’s wishes. You cannot be preaching false doctrines if your faith is strong, and you are controlled by the Holy Spirit!

Romans 8

9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

(Note, Galatians 3:14 indicates that we receive the Holy Spirit via faith.)

''Doesn’t Romans 9:30 indicate that righteousness (which is good fruit) arises in someone as a result of his faith?''

No; he's not talking about your false belief and sans-apostolic faith. What grace can come from following a faith that disputes the apostles?

What I take to be having faith is the same as what Christ said having faith is in Mark 11:22-24. How can my practice of having therefore be false?

Therefore doesn’t it follow that a true prophet has real faith? Why? Is any old prophet teaching ''real'' faith? Not unless he teaches the Holy Gospel as it came from the apostles and Christ. It wouldn't be the true faith.

If a true prophet bears fruit as indicated in Matthew 7:15-20, and only true faith bears fruit (see scripture below) doesn’t it follow that a true prophet has real faith?

(NASB)

James 2

17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

The fact of the matter is, as I indicated above, if someone has strong, real faith, he can only speak the words of God – which would be consistent with the true Gospel.

You may have all the faith in the world in doctrines that were not taught by Christ, and you have nothing to rightly expect for it. There is only ONE faith. Chapter 1, Gal. :1 to :9-- the Catholic faith.

What Paul was talking about in Galatians 1:1-9, was the preaching of the gospel of justification by works – which the Catholic Church, I might add, has embraced in place of the real and original, true gospel of justification by faith.

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 06, 2005.

Look, the Gosle of Thimas ocntians weird theries and ideas, that ar eincompatabel with scuroture. Your tortured renderigns of the queastiinabe verses its itsself a sign of the dubious aporoach you have toward sroture.

Why shoid we accept it as Scroture? Besides the "Parrallels" wich can ebne acoutned for by thomas copin he other scrotures?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 06, 2005.

How come, sdqa???? Because P. Douglas notes how men are fallible? The Church has always taught the reality of sin. We don't deny we're sinners. Some priests as well; serious sinners.

What you said above is a significant flaw in the Catholic Church’s thinking, which stems from its justification by works doctrine, which flies in the face of Galatians 5:4, and many other scriptures in the New Testament. If you have faith, you are not a sinner! Your faith keeps you righteous (Romans 3:28, Romans 4:1-8)! You Catholics need to understand that faith causes your behavior to improve all on its own! That is what Romans 9:30 means! Also James in James 2 was not talking about having faith alongside with doing works (which would have contradicted Galatians 5:4 and other scriptures): James was talking about having a type of faith that (all on its own) produces good works in a person!

(NASB)

James 2

17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

Philippians 3

9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ–the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

Eugene, you seem to place a lot of confidence in the Catholic Church. Please be careful not to hold its teachings above those in the scriptures. Nothing at all should be placed above the scriptures - which is the word of God. I hope you come to recognize Christ’s instructions on how to have faith in Mark 11:22-24 as the only legitimate way to have faith. When or if you do, you will recognize for yourself that the Gospel of Thomas is in fact scripture.

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 06, 2005.

Look, the Gosle of Thimas ocntians weird theries and ideas, that ar eincompatabel with scuroture. Your tortured renderigns of the queastiinabe verses its itsself a sign of the dubious aporoach you have toward sroture.

Why shoid we accept it as Scroture? Besides the "Parrallels" wich can ebne acoutned for by thomas copin he other scrotures?

n ZAROVE

The sayings of Christ in the Gospel of Thomas were made superficially unusual on purpose (John 16:25). They can only be made sense of with the Spirit of God, who comes to someone only by that person having real faith (Galatians 3:14).

1 Corinthians 2

6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him”– 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: 16“For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 06, 2005.

P. Douglas:
You're copying/pasting huge gobs of your precious writings onto our forum. This is unacceptable under our rules. Don't continue this hulla baloo; just keep learning and discussing, or dispute if you must. DON'T INDOCTRINATE.

''Someone has faith by saying what he wants and believing it will happen, or asking God for what he wants and believing he will receive it.'' for now; there's no time tonight to correct every one of your errors. But, don't worry. We can do it with time.

>''Someone has faith by saying what he wants and believing it will happen, or asking God for what he wants and believing he will receive it.'' --is correct enough; it's a Catholic doctrine, P.D.

However, --this isn't FAITH. This is PETITIONING with true faith. It is no different from ''Give us this day our daily bread.'' To this extent, it's perfectly Catholic.

''Faith'' is faith in Christ and the Holy Gospel. --That's the faith you seem to sorely lack. Our faith is the faith of the holy apostles. The True Faith, (Santa Fe) that delivers us from sin and damnation. All His Gospel.

This faith is given his people by God in our Church, because Jesus Christ so willed it. We believe the words of Jesus, and that TAKES unshakable faith. We know, for instance, Jesus is the Bread of Life. We have been given His very Body and Blood to eat and to drink. How unshakable is your faith? Will you accept the words of Christ? Does it matter to you what the world believes; or are you prepared to say:

''Jesus is my Lord and Saviour, He will never mislead me. He says HE is the Bread of Life; I must have FAITH, --faith enough to see this. Because it's TRUE.''

Your blessed ancestors, I repeat, had such faith. They were followers of the holy apostles and lived the untainted Holy Faith of their own fathers. Catholics all; going back directly to the apostles and Jesus Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 06, 2005.

P. Douglas: You're copying/pasting huge gobs of your precious writings onto our forum. This is unacceptable under our rules. Don't continue this hulla baloo; just keep learning and discussing, or dispute if you must. DON'T INDOCTRINATE.

Can you please show me where I’ve copied and pasted my writings from my blog into my messages here? The only things that I’ve copied per se, have been scripture quotations. You may find one or two sentences that are close matches to stuff that is in my blog, but that is only because I’ve written stuff in those sentences so often, in various places. If you can point out e.g. an entire paragraph, or at least two consecutive sentences found both in my blog and in my messages on this site, I would really appreciate it.

>''Someone has faith by saying what he wants and believing it will happen, or asking God for what he wants and believing he will receive it.'' --is correct enough; it's a Catholic doctrine, P.D.

However, --this isn't FAITH. This is PETITIONING with true faith. It is no different from ''Give us this day our daily bread.'' To this extent, it's perfectly Catholic.

''Faith'' is faith in Christ and the Holy Gospel. --That's the faith you seem to sorely lack. Our faith is the faith of the holy apostles. The True Faith, (Santa Fe) that delivers us from sin and damnation. All His Gospel.

According to Christ in Mark 11:22-24 (see below) having faith is saying what you want and believing that it will happen, or asking God for things and believing you will receive them. It is true that the above is also petitioning. It follows therefore that what God calls having faith, is the same as petitioning. Remember however when you make petitions, you must believe that you will receive what you ask for in order for you to receive it. If you don’t, God will not hear you (James 1:5-8).

Mark 11

22 “Have faith in God," Jesus answered. 23 "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Didn’t Christ indicate in the scripture above that ‘saying and believing’ or ‘asking and believing’ is having faith in God? How then do you conclude that I lack having faith in Christ/God, when I follow Christ’s instructions above on how to do so? Can you please show me the term “faith in the Gospel” in the scriptures? The scriptures ultimately talk about only one type of faith: that is faith in God, and Christ indicated in the scripture above, how someone should go about having it.

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 07, 2005.

The problem is even modern scholars confirm the docutem to be a hoax, not the real deal. Holy Psitrit is not prompting you to accept htis document, vanity is.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 07, 2005.

Dear P.,
You quibble because you were warned not to get on your soap-box, indoctrinating the readers of this site. It's understandable you wish to make a point. but you are proselytizing.

The other one of your quibbles is the insistence on, ‘saying and believing’ or ‘asking and believing’ is having ''faith'' in God?--''

Well, you keep asking God to renounce His Church; the One Church founded by Jesus Christ. (You sure seem to ask that.)

He will never concede you that petition. You could go on and believe that you have received it, and it will be yours-- --However, it's not so feasible. God, Jesus Christ has already promised to be with his Church until the end of the world.

Faith is not what you believe it to mean if you only bowdlerize the Word of God. Furthermore, this pseudo-faith you're announcing isn't the key to understanding the scriptures. That's ridiculous.

To pretend you've found the truth in a spurious book (Gospel of Thomas) because of the advantage you gain from this presumptuous ''asking and believing'' faith you bought into, is sheer fantasy. That was not the message of Mark 11:22-24 / You've hatched a fantasy up.

We want you to attend here. (I've been waiting for other Catholics to test you; they procrastinate) It's very importanr, P. Douglas. You have a priceless opportunity now, to hear the Holy Gospel straight from Christ's Holy Church! We can show it to you. Of course, you're reluctant, I don't blame you. But try to realise; your own blessed ancestors who are in glory today, were Catholics. Not fallen away Catholics, as so many of your kind are. You can still join Jesus Christ --IN THIS LIFETIME!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 07, 2005.

The problem is even modern scholars confirm the docutem to be a hoax, not the real deal. Holy Psitrit is not prompting you to accept htis document, vanity is.

Below is an excerpt from one scholar’s assessment of the Gospel of Thomas:

If Thomas were dependent upon the synoptic gospels, it would be possible to detect in the case of every Thomas-synoptic parallel the same tradition-historical development behind both the Thomas version of the saying and one or more of the synoptic versions. That is, Thomas' author/editor, in taking up the synoptic version, would have inherited all of the accumulated tradition-historical baggage owned by the synoptic text, and then added to it his or her own redactional twist. In the following texts this is not the case. Rather than reflecting the same tradition-historical development that stands behind their synoptic counterparts, these Thomas sayings seem to be the product of a tradition-history which, though exhibiting the same tendencies operative within the synoptic tradition, is in its own specific details quite unique. This means, of course, that these sayings are not dependent upon their synoptic counterparts, but rather derive from a parallel and separate tradition.

The above excerpt is taken from this page which provides excerpts from a few commentaries, along with many links to other commentaries about the Gospel of Thomas.

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 07, 2005.

You do ealise they likewise advocate Markian Priority right?

Those scholas eject Thomas as auentic, they just think its related to Q, or possible is Q. Based on the ida that a "Sayings source" and an "Events Gospel" served as the basis of Marks gospel, which was copied by Mathew and Luke, also using the "Sayings source" to come up with agreed to tatements.

I reejct this theory as well, thus the abve is not tenable, not based on ht eperjorative of a Christain anyay...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 07, 2005.

Below is the link to the Gospel of Thomas commentaries I tried to give you before.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 07, 2005.

Dear P., You quibble because you were warned not to get on your soap-box, indoctrinating the readers of this site. It's understandable you wish to make a point. but you are proselytizing.

So it is okay for you to try and convince me that Catholicism is the truth, but I cannot try and convince you about a single side issue - albeit a fundamental one?

The other one of your quibbles is the insistence on, ‘saying and believing’ or ‘asking and believing’ is having ''faith'' in God?--''

Well, you keep asking God to renounce His Church; the One Church founded by Jesus Christ. (You sure seem to ask that.)

It is Christ in Mark 11:22-24 who indicated that “‘saying and believing’ or ‘asking and believing’ is having ''faith'' in God”. I’ll I’ve done is pointed it out.

He will never concede you that petition. You could go on and believe that you have received it, and it will be yours-- --However, it's not so feasible.

I don’t get it. Didn’t Christ promise in Mark 11:22-24 that if you ‘say and believe’ or ‘ask and believe’, what you ask for will be granted to you? Are you saying that I should not believe what God is saying in this scripture? Granted, it is not that simple. You need to persist at praying over something, and build up your faith in order for having faith to be more and more effective (Matthew 17:19- 21), and so that it can be applied to more and more challenging situations, but the basic promise is still sound. (You can look here for more information.)

(I've been waiting for other Catholics to test you; they procrastinate)

If you want other Catholics to discuss stuff with me on this board that is fine. I’d be happy to discuss stuff with them.

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 07, 2005.

Do you relaly want me to rip apart yor "Gospel of tho,as"?

Lets pu it this way, besides "The Holy psirit" guiding you ( whchis moe like "Popular concensus and cool fad theory" leadign you) what real evidenc do you have, thats independant of the Bible an your re-interrptation fo thomas to read in a consistant way withhte rest of scriptue?

What do you relaly have?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 07, 2005.

'' --but I cannot try and convince you about a single side issue - albeit a fundamental one?''

If faith weren't being taught now for 2,000 years in the Catholic Church, it would do me well to entertain you. But we already know about faith. I hoped to show you faith as God expects it from us; but you side-stepped the Gospel.

Later you come back: ''Are you saying that I should not believe what God is saying in this scripture?'' Reply: You may believe as you please. But you conclude what isn't intended as our lesson in those verses. That doesn't mean you aren't to believe God. The Church has scores of verses Christians have to place their complete faith in --which aren't even addressed by your characteristic faith. God definitely says we're to believe them all! This means you've ignored Gold for some loose Straw.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 07, 2005.

Do you relaly want me to rip apart yor "Gospel of tho,as"? Lets pu it this way, besides "The Holy psirit" guiding you ( whchis moe like "Popular concensus and cool fad theory" leadign you) what real evidenc do you have, thats independant of the Bible an your re- interrptation fo thomas to read in a consistant way withhte rest of scriptue?

What do you relaly have?

-- ZAROVE

As I said at the beginning, I have faith the way God says I should in Mark 11:22-24, which causes me to recognize the Gospel of Thomas as scripture. What I'm saying is consistent with John 10:31-38 in which Christ indicated to the Jews that if they believed His miracles (which was Christ having faith) they would come to recognize that He was who He said He was. The fact of the matter is that God has repeatedly made His word known throughout history in unexpected ways, and the only way a person can reliably recognize God’s words, is if that person has real faith. E.g. the Jews just plain never recognized Christ as not only the embodiment of God’s words, but as God Himself. We could argue till to the cows come home about different scholars’ assessments about the Gospel of Thomas, but when all is said and done, the only way you are going to know for sure that the Gospel of Thomas is real scripture, is if you have real faith.

Quite frankly the way I knew that the Bible was really and truly the word of God, was by my practicing having faith per Christ’s instructions in Mark 11:22-24. First of all, it really works. (Please read here for more information.) Second, strange side effects start happening to you, like you instinctively knowing certain things to be so, and after you search for it in the Bible, you see it written down there. Another important side effect that happens is that your behavior improves without your realizing it. After having faith for a while, you wind up looking at your behavior and saying, “Wow, I’ve mysteriously changed.” This was how I knew justification by faith was real, and that faith actually causes your behavior to improve, even when don’t make the slightest direct effort to improve it yourself. (See Romans 9:30.)

I’m not selling snake oil. If you want to call me dishonest, or a buffoon, or anything else, that is fine with me. (Not that I’m saying that is what you want to do.) If you want to stick to Catholicism that is fine with me too. Just consider having faith the way God Himself said you should in Mark 11:22-24. When you do, you will see for yourself that it works, and you will later come to recognize, among other things, that the Gospel of Thomas is true.

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 07, 2005.

Im nogt Catholic. That said, I know the Gopel of Thomas is nothign but a Gnostic fraud, I can prive it if you wnt. Not that reaosn shall enter your mind...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 07, 2005.

PLEASE, P. Douglas!

Whatever you may choose to believe is your business. Don't palm it off as a discovery.

''you are going to know for sure that the Gospel of Thomas is real scripture, is if you have real faith.''

Or-- if your faith is truly conformed to all that God truly teaches us, you will easily reject every fraud when it's fraudulent. You've elected to accept this fraud on the grounds that ''I cannot be wrong when I stick to this faith I have. It's correctly determined by my private formula.''

A self-serving way to always be right. The Catholic Church relies on the formal promises of Jesus Christ and the help of the Holy Spirit. Not on the rulings of a man who read the Bible.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 07, 2005.

If you would like for me to join in anymore of your discussions, feel free to email me at my address. Also, feel free to visit my blog and make comments. As the Italians say, “Chow!”

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 07, 2005.

"you instinctively knowing certain things to be so, and after you search for it in the Bible, you see it written down there."

A: The problem is that five people who read the same passage without any source of authoritative interpretation all "instinctively know certain things to be so", but what one of them "instinctively knows to be so" directly contradicts what another "instictively knows to be so", resulting in the abomination known as denominationalism, a direct violation of the stated will of God, "that they all may be ONE". Jesus said "by their fruits shall ye know them". The fruit of the manmade traditions of sola scriptura and personal interpretation have been the fragmentation of Christianity, and doctrinal chaos. This cannot be the will of God or the work of the Spirit.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 08, 2005.

Paul M., as I've indicated several times before, what makes all the difference is that you have faith correctly - the way God says you should in Mark 11:22-24. If you do not, then you do not have real faith, and you are not being lead by the Holy Spirit. Having faith correctly is paramount!

(NASB)

James 2

17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 08, 2005.

Notice, P.D. ''Paul M., as I've indicated several times before, what makes all the difference is that you have faith correctly,''

With all respect for Paul, let me say this: There's an obvious reply to the above. WHAT MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE --Is what Christ's CHURCH teaches us. The Church of the holy apostles. Not what one fellow from outside that Church says, or whatever BEE he's got in his bonnet.

Have faith ''correctly'' is just this: believe the whole doctrine taught from antiquity by Christ's disciples. All other suggestions are alien to us; not Holy Haith. Galatians 1, :7-:9 forbids the faithful to hear even an angel of light when his words contradict the teachings of the apostles. You fill that description.

You never made any sign of concern or, disagreement either, when I reminded you of your blessed ancestors. They are now in glory; members of the Church Triumphant. It was their Catholic faith that won them everlasting life. Not a concocted idea of ''correct faith''. You must bring them to mind now; just a word of good counsel. --Ciao.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2005.

WHAT MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE --Is what Christ's CHURCH teaches us. The Church of the holy apostles. Not what one fellow from outside that Church says, or whatever BEE he's got in his bonnet.

There you go again, placing Church doctrine above what’s written in the scriptures. If God indicates in Mark 11:22-24 that you should have faith a particular way, are you going to trump what God says, with what an institution says? As for this ‘one fellow from the outside argument’ … did you hear the story about the guy who went around Israel, who had the nerve to claim to be the only begotten Son of God (and God Himself)? First of all, this guy was a mere son of a carpenter, he did not come out of the ranks of the religious organizations established by God, and to add insult to injury, he selected His disciples from among the common folk around Him! As I indicated to you before, per Matthew 7:15-20, the way recognize someone from God, is not from the institution he originates, but from the fruit he bears.

Have faith ''correctly'' is just this: believe the whole doctrine taught from antiquity by Christ's disciples. All other suggestions are alien to us; not Holy Haith. Galatians 1, :7-:9 forbids the faithful to hear even an angel of light when his words contradict the teachings of the apostles. You fill that description.

So if someone’s words are consistent with the scriptures but inconsistent with a Church doctrine, are you saying that person’s words are wrong? By extension what you are saying is, the Catholic doctrine trumps the scriptures.

You never made any sign of concern or, disagreement either, when I reminded you of your blessed ancestors. They are now in glory; members of the Church Triumphant. It was their Catholic faith that won them everlasting life. Not a concocted idea of ''correct faith''. You must bring them to mind now; just a word of good counsel. --Ciao.

I will leave you with this: it is God and His word you must fear and dread above all others – not the Catholic Church’s.

-- P. Douglas (patmore_douglas@hotmail.com), February 08, 2005.

Don't leave before reading:

''There you go again, placing Church doctrine above what’s written in the scriptures. If God indicates in Mark 11:22-24 that you should have faith a particular way, are you going to trump what God says, with what an institution says?''

The ''institution'' is God's CHURCH; not some crazy rival of the scriptures. CATHOLICS know every truth in the Holy Bible; because it was taught originally by the apostles; whom YOU give litte credit, it appears. They are NOT trumped by your false interpretation of a scriptural passage, no matter how wonderfully it is written. You just aren't a competent authority, P Douglas. As I said above; you hatched up a fantasy and you're intent on spreading all your errors by boosting your imagined ''correct faith.''

But what good is a ''faith'' coming from OUTSIDE Christ's Church? Jesus said, ''If he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as the heathen and the publican.'' We don't need trumps. We need truth; and it's found in the Catholic Church; not in a weblog on the Internet.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2005.

man i think your whole life is about the church...the church this,the church that...do you also dream about the church at night? with a big poster of the pope above your bed...i'd like to see you 500 years ago being condemned as a heretic by your church...i wonder how you'd react then...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 08, 2005.

Hey, I could just tell you --None of your business.

But my posts here aren't for defending anything I do. Forget about my personal feelings, I'm here because I'm a Catholic. You don't care, but I feel just fine about it. Isn't this a Catholic site? Why should we just talk about the things YOU love? Your depravity?

If we didn't have a Catholic Church in the world we wouldn't have Christianity at all. We'd all be at the mercy of the devil (He knows no mercy, so picture that). Chances are, we would all be on the same path you're taking; straight to Hell. Christ gave us the Church to bring all souls to HIM, by the Holy Gospel. To the present, She's done all right, but a few little fishes like yourself still get away. Yet the Church never quits trying to net you and the other punks. She's your only hope, Boy Wonder.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2005.

.i'd like to see you 500 years ago being condemned as a heretic by your church...i wonder how you'd react then...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 08, 2005.

.i'd like to see you 500 years ago being condemned as a heretic by your church...i wonder how you'd react then...

You already said that. It didn't make much sense the first time, either.

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), February 08, 2005.