(August 22, 2012 at 4:42 am)Hoptoad Wrote: Forgive me if you all ready know this, the gospel of Thomas was written about by the early Christians, not included in the bible and includes sayings of Jesus not included in the bible, it was lost during the period of orthodoxy in Rome.
Besides some fragments found elsewhere, the only existing copy was found at Nag Hammiadi with some other documents and some Gnostic writings, meaning that copy has never been in the hands of the Roman authority's. I have got to admit I find some of it baffling. Still here is portion 101.
101. "Whoever does not hate [father] and mother as I do cannot be my [disciple], and whoever does [not] love [father and] mother as I do cannot be my [disciple]. For my mother [...], but my true [mother] gave me life."
Not totally complete but at the moment all we got.
That's me off for a bit, I will pop in when I can.
That's interesting. The partial verse you have quoted appears to say exactly the opposite of the one in the bible. You imply ("that copy has never been in the hands of the Romans") that it may be more authentic than what actually found its' way into the bible.
That is exactly what a sceptic would do. Investigate the source and provenance of an artifact and judge it accordingly.
This is not what christians do - even christians who are not biblical literalists and treat much of the inconvenient parts of the bible as metaphor.
Anyone who finds comfort in the certainty of the word of god as revealed in the bible cannot then fall back on the "interpretation" argument i.e."it doesn't really mean what it says". If it's not in the book then, by definition it is not the Word.
If you have ever quoted a verse in support of an argument or position, then you are implying that the passage you quote has a special authority that the New York Times or Treasure Island does not have.
Regards
Grimesy
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. — Edward Gibbon
