The Gospel of Thomas and Philip

[Naganami]

In 325A.D. The Council of Nicea gathered together to discuss matters of religious disputes in Christendom. It was a committee of 318 religious leaders whose mission was to decide what was sound teaching. It was up to these 318 individuals to decide which scripture made it into the biblical teachings that Christians follow today. But why didn't the Gospel of Thomas and Philip make it into the Bible? The Gospel of Thomas tells us that Jesus' birth was NOT a miraculous virgin birth and that Jesus' resurrection was a metaphor. Look at what the Gospel of Thomas and Philip declares:

• "Those who say that the Lord died first and then rose up are in error." (Gospel of Philip)
• "Some have said, 'Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.' They are in error. They do not know what they are saying." (Gospel of Philip)
• "His disciples said to him, 'When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?' He said to them, 'What you are looking forward to has come, but you don't know it.' (Gospel of Thomas)
• "God is a man eater, and so Humans are sacrificed to him. Before humans were sacrificed, animals were sacrificed, because those to whom they were sacrificed were not Gods." (Gospel of Philip)

This means that the virgin birth, resurrection of Jesus' and the new world Christians are praying for after Jesus's return is all a metaphor. Both Gospels do not record ANY powerful miracles being done by Jesus.

 

[allfoak]

Two of my favorite books.

 

[Stalwart]

You reject the affirmations of the Annunciation and the Resurrection in the other Books because one other - one rejected as invalid by the successors of the Apostles - says otherwise? Plain idiocy.

 

[allfoak]

You reject the affirmations of the Annunciation and the Resurrection in the other Books because one other - one rejected as invalid by the successors of the Apostles - says otherwise? Plain idiocy.

I don't see any rejecting going on in the OP.
It seems that @Naganami has seen that the historical view of the bible is just "plain idiocy".

 

[Stalwart]

I don't see any rejecting going on in the OP.
It seems that @Naganami has seen that the historical view of the bible is just "plain idiocy".

The last sentence of the OP seems to me to be a declaration that on account of this new 'evidence', the whole basis of Christian tradition is falsified.

'historical view'? I don't get it.

 

[allfoak]

The last sentence of the OP seems to me to be a declaration that on account of this new 'evidence', the whole basis of Christian tradition is falsified.

Perhaps it is, and certainly if true does indeed falsify the entire Christian tradition.
Seems to me the origin of Christianity is not what we have been told.

'historical view'? I don't get it.

The Bible is not a history book and should not be interpreted as such.

 

[Stalwart]

Perhaps it is, and certainly if true does indeed falsify the entire Christian tradition.
Seems to me the origin of Christianity is not what we have been told.

Based selectively on evidence long rejected as deficient.

The Bible is not a history book and should not be interpreted as such.

I'm inclined to agree, personally, but it's really quite irrelevant.

 

[allfoak]

Based selectively on evidence long rejected as deficient


I'm inclined to agree, personally, but it's really quite irrelevant.

Have you studied the books in question and put their wisdom to the test yourself?
If the roots of Christianity are different than what we have been told then it is quite relevant.

 

[Riders]

In 325A.D. The Council of Nicea gathered together to discuss matters of religious disputes in Christendom. It was a committee of 318 religious leaders whose mission was to decide what was sound teaching. It was up to these 318 individuals to decide which scripture made it into the biblical teachings that Christians follow today. But why didn't the Gospel of Thomas and Philip make it into the Bible? The Gospel of Thomas tells us that Jesus' birth was NOT a miraculous virgin birth and that Jesus' resurrection was a metaphor. Look at what the Gospel of Thomas and Philip declares:

• "Those who say that the Lord died first and then rose up are in error." (Gospel of Philip)
• "Some have said, 'Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.' They are in error. They do not know what they are saying." (Gospel of Philip)
• "His disciples said to him, 'When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?' He said to them, 'What you are looking forward to has come, but you don't know it.' (Gospel of Thomas)

This means that the virgin birth, resurrection of Jesus' and the new world Christians are praying for after Jesus's return is all a metaphor. Both Gospels do not record ANY powerful miracles being done by Jesus.

Thank you for putting this post up. I have been trying to say similar stuff about the whole bible not being historically correct on another thread. This is a really good post though thanks.

 

[Naganami]

You reject the affirmations of the Annunciation and the Resurrection in the other Books because one other - one rejected as invalid by the successors of the Apostles - says otherwise? Plain idiocy.

I'm saying the Council of Nicea hid this because the Christian religion was created to establish control over the ignorant. Its NO wonder why Pope Leo X declared, "It has served us well, this myth of christ." (1475-1521). Why? Because it establishes control over the ignorant and creates wealth for them. Its all about power.

 

[psychoslice]

Thank you for putting this post up. I have been trying to say similar stuff about the whole bible not being historically correct on another thread. This is a really good post though thanks.

Yes I second that.

 

[Augustus]

In 325A.D. The Council of Nicea gathered together to discuss matters of religious disputes in Christendom. It was a committee of 318 religious leaders whose mission was to decide what was sound teaching. It was up to these 318 individuals to decide which scripture made it into the biblical teachings that Christians follow today...I'm saying the Council of Nicea hid this because the Christian religion was created to establish control over the ignorant. Its NO wonder why Pope Leo X declared, "It has served us well, this myth of christ." (1475-1521). Why? Because it establishes control over the ignorant and creates wealth for them. Its all about power.

They gathered to discuss the issue of Arianism, not "to decide which scripture made it into the biblical teachings that Christians follow today."

This kind of ruins the rest of your argument. There was no grand conspiracy, sorry. It's just a work of fiction.

 

[Naganami]

They gathered to discuss the issue of Arianism, not "to decide which scripture made it into the biblical teachings that Christians follow today."

This kind of ruins the rest of your argument. There was no grand conspiracy, sorry. It's just a work of fiction.

You mean the bible is just a word of fiction..?

 

[Augustus]

You mean the bible is just a word of fiction..?

No, it's literally fiction that the Biblical canon was decided upon at Nicaea, the idea came from a story a couple of hundred years ago.

The Bible is a combination of myth, folk history, folk wisdom, philosophy, law, poetry, etc. It's not a work of pure, literal fact but fiction would not be a useful term to describe its genre.

 

[Rise]

In 325A.D. The Council of Nicea gathered together to discuss matters of religious disputes in Christendom. It was a committee of 318 religious leaders whose mission was to decide what was sound teaching. It was up to these 318 individuals to decide which scripture made it into the biblical teachings that Christians follow today. The Gospel of Thomas tells us that Jesus' birth was NOT a miraculous virgin birth and that Jesus' resurrection was a metaphor. Look at what the Gospel of Thomas and Philip declares:

The council of Nicea never had anything to do with issues of what was considered scripture. That is a commonly repeated lie that is easily disproved by looking at the original sources of what actually took place there.

But why didn't the Gospel of Thomas and Philip make it into the Bible?

Show us a single primary source piece of evidence that would give us any reason whatsoever to believe that the Gospel of Thomas and Philip are even first century documents, let alone that they represent what Jesus passed on to the apostles.
You won't find anything.

We have several early canon lists, book compilations, and early church writings which will attest to the veracity of the books we have in the New Testament - And not a single one gives any hint that the Gospel of Thomas or Philip could remotely be considered as authentic.

In fact, church fathers as early as the 3rd century, prior to Nicea, are recorded as directly refuting any idea that Thomas is an authentic Gospel.

It is generally believed that Philip was written in the 3rd century. In contrast, it cannot be disputed that the authentic Gospels were written long prior to that.

• "Those who say that the Lord died first and then rose up are in error." (Gospel of Philip)
• "Some have said, 'Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.' They are in error. They do not know what they are saying." (Gospel of Philip)
• "His disciples said to him, 'When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?' He said to them, 'What you are looking forward to has come, but you don't know it.' (Gospel of Thomas)
• "God is a man eater, and so Humans are sacrificed to him. Before humans were sacrificed, animals were sacrificed, because those to whom they were sacrificed were not Gods." (Gospel of Philip)

This means that the virgin birth, resurrection of Jesus' and the new world Christians are praying for after Jesus's return is all a metaphor. Both Gospels do not record ANY powerful miracles being done by Jesus.

All of this undermines your original premise, because none of that was on the table for debate at Nicea. Look at the original sources for yourself if you doubt this. Nobody there disputed the fact that the Lord Jesus was born of a virgin, died, and rose again. Nobody disputed that the resurrection and a restored earth are a future event at the return of Jesus and His saints. Nobody at Nicea remotely dreamed of saying that God was an evil man eater, or wasn't really God.

The only issue contended at Nicea was the exact nature of how Jesus was one with the Father. Of the 316 Bishops invited to attend, 314 agreed with the fact that Jesus and the Father are one being yet distinct persons, whereas the other two believed Jesus and the Father were two distinct beings.

Regardless of what you choose to believe on that subject, none of it is going to help you to advance the idea that anything you quoted from the Gospel of Philip reflects the truth of what Jesus taught. It all contradicts the most reliable and oldest source documents we have, those found in the Bible.

In fact, what you quoted from the Gospel of Philip is disqualified even on the basis that it contradicts Old Testament prophecy of the future and revelation about the nature of God - something which Jesus never did in the authentic Gospels.

 

[Glaurung]

I'm saying the Council of Nicea hid this because the Christian religion was created to establish control over the ignorant. Its NO wonder why Pope Leo X declared, "It has served us well, this myth of christ." (1475-1521). Why? Because it establishes control over the ignorant and creates wealth for them. Its all about power.

Your quotation is also pure myth.

 

[Kemosloby]

In 325A.D. The Council of Nicea gathered together to discuss matters of religious disputes in Christendom. It was a committee of 318 religious leaders whose mission was to decide what was sound teaching. It was up to these 318 individuals to decide which scripture made it into the biblical teachings that Christians follow today. But why didn't the Gospel of Thomas and Philip make it into the Bible? The Gospel of Thomas tells us that Jesus' birth was NOT a miraculous virgin birth and that Jesus' resurrection was a metaphor. Look at what the Gospel of Thomas and Philip declares:

• "Those who say that the Lord died first and then rose up are in error." (Gospel of Philip)
• "Some have said, 'Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.' They are in error. They do not know what they are saying." (Gospel of Philip)
• "His disciples said to him, 'When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?' He said to them, 'What you are looking forward to has come, but you don't know it.' (Gospel of Thomas)
• "God is a man eater, and so Humans are sacrificed to him. Before humans were sacrificed, animals were sacrificed, because those to whom they were sacrificed were not Gods." (Gospel of Philip)

This means that the virgin birth, resurrection of Jesus' and the new world Christians are praying for after Jesus's return is all a metaphor. Both Gospels do not record ANY powerful miracles being done by Jesus.

I doubt the council of Nicea had anything to do with what went into the bible. Scratching the surface on the wiki article it says the most important thing that happened at the council of nicea was deciding when to celebrate Easter. And Easter does not even appear in the bible.

 

[Glaurung]

I doubt the council of Nicea had anything to do with what went into the bible. Scratching the surface on the wiki article it says the most important thing that happened at the council of nicea was deciding when to celebrate Easter. And Easter does not even appear in the bible.

Easter is the celebration of Christ's resurrection, which is certainly mentioned in the Bible. It's the foundation of the Christian faith.

 

[psychoslice]

Easter is the celebration of Christ's resurrection, which is certainly mentioned in the Bible. It's the foundation of the Christian faith.

Where is it mentioned in the bible ?.

 

[Kemosloby]

Easter is the celebration of Christ's resurrection, which is certainly mentioned in the Bible. It's the foundation of the Christian faith.

The resurrection is in the bible, but definitely not an Easter celebration. It's Passover, which is one of the feasts established by God.