1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured The Gospel of Thomas and Philip

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by Naganami, Jan 13, 2017.

  1. Naganami

    Naganami Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    Ratings:
    +17
    Religion:
    Non-religious
    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.
     
    #1 Naganami, Jan 13, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2017
    • Like Like x 3
  2. allfoak

    allfoak Alchemist

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    4,602
    Ratings:
    +1,620
    Religion:
    My Life
    Two of my favorite books:).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Stalwart

    Stalwart Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    137
    Ratings:
    +49
    Religion:
    Christianity
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. allfoak

    allfoak Alchemist

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    4,602
    Ratings:
    +1,620
    Religion:
    My Life
    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".
     
  5. Stalwart

    Stalwart Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    137
    Ratings:
    +49
    Religion:
    Christianity
    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.
     
  6. allfoak

    allfoak Alchemist

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    4,602
    Ratings:
    +1,620
    Religion:
    My Life
    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.
    The Bible is not a history book and should not be interpreted as such.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Stalwart

    Stalwart Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    137
    Ratings:
    +49
    Religion:
    Christianity
    Based selectively on evidence long rejected as deficient.

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

    allfoak Alchemist

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    4,602
    Ratings:
    +1,620
    Religion:
    My Life
    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.
     
  9. Riders

    Riders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    4,920
    Ratings:
    +1,139
    Religion:
    Unitarian Universalism,Pagan,Zen
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Naganami

    Naganami Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    Ratings:
    +17
    Religion:
    Non-religious

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. psychoslice

    psychoslice Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    15,613
    Ratings:
    +4,133
    Religion:
    my own religion
    Yes I second that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    9,000
    Ratings:
    +7,748
    Religion:
    none
    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. Naganami

    Naganami Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    Ratings:
    +17
    Religion:
    Non-religious
    You mean the bible is just a word of fiction..?
     
  14. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    9,000
    Ratings:
    +7,748
    Religion:
    none
    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. Rise

    Rise Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Messages:
    464
    Ratings:
    +52
    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.
    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.

    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.
     
    #15 Rise, Jan 15, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2017
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. Musing Bassist

    Musing Bassist Aesthetic Traditionalist

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,349
    Ratings:
    +1,026
    Religion:
    Catholicism
    Your quotation is also pure myth.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. Kemosloby

    Kemosloby Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    5,122
    Ratings:
    +1,230
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. Musing Bassist

    Musing Bassist Aesthetic Traditionalist

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,349
    Ratings:
    +1,026
    Religion:
    Catholicism
    Easter is the celebration of Christ's resurrection, which is certainly mentioned in the Bible. It's the foundation of the Christian faith.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. psychoslice

    psychoslice Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    15,613
    Ratings:
    +4,133
    Religion:
    my own religion
    Where is it mentioned in the bible ?.
     
  20. Kemosloby

    Kemosloby Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    5,122
    Ratings:
    +1,230
    Religion:
    Christian
    The resurrection is in the bible, but definitely not an Easter celebration. It's Passover, which is one of the feasts established by God.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...