The Gospel of Thomas [Moved]

[Lilly Owl]

I believe what scripture teaches.

 

[Yoder777]

It sounds like you may have some confusion over what is gnostic and what is Christian.

Where in the Bible does it suggest we all have the spark of divine within us that we need to learn to commune with. These are gnostic concepts.

Who said anything about gnosticism? Doesn't the Bible say that we are children of God and partakers of the divine nature? Didn't Jesus say, in the Gospel of John, "ye are gods"?

 

[Yoder777]

Jesus Christ died for us because we needed a Savior because of sin and there is no righteous in any of us. None are righteous. Not one. It is only by covering of the blood of Jesus Christ that we are found righteous, and that is through His righteousness, not ours.

What you posted is the antithesis to what Jesus Christ was sent to earth to do (die for our sins because a sinless Sacrifice was required). Anything contrary to God's Plan of salvation is not Biblical.

I am so glad that I no longer believed that God sacrificed Himself to Himself to appease Himself for sins committed to Himself. Jesus willingly died to reveal the forgiveness of God, not to appease the blood thirst of God.

Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The satisfaction theory of atonement, the belief that Jesus died to appease God's wrath, was formulated by Anselm, a thousand years after the death of Jesus.

Satisfaction theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[brinny]

I am so glad that I no longer believed that God sacrificed Himself to Himself to appease Himself for sins committed to Himself. Jesus willingly died to reveal the forgiveness of God, not to appease the blood thirst of God.

Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The satisfaction theory of atonement, the belief that Jesus died to appease God's wrath, was formulated by Anselm, a thousand years after the death of Jesus.

Satisfaction theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

God, in essence sacrificed Himself through His only begotten Son, for us. It is because He loved us to that extent and that dire extent was necessary because sin is heinous and separated us from a holy God.

The God Who purposely sent His only begotten Son to be born, and then to absorb our sins, dying a disgraceful, criminal's death -Was He, this God, within His rights to do so? Didn't His holy-ness require it? Was it a hateful thing He has done? Is this the God who some would deny, saying God would never do such a thing because God is a God of love? God HAD to do such a thing. It is because of this:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." ~John 3:16

Are we to think that God took lightly the sacrifice of His only begotten Son? God did what He MUST. Why? Because He LOVES us. Love involves SACRIFICE. Sin is such an abomination, that God was COMPELLED to absorb it onto Himself, through His Son. Who ELSE could have SAVED us. It required a PERFECT Sacrifice. He did what NONE else could do.

 

[newbeliever02072005]

Mod Hat On


Thread moved from Christian Apologetics to Unorthodox Theology


Please keep in mind the rules when posting


Thank you,



MOD HAT OFF

 

[newbeliever02072005]

Mod Hat On


Thread under review ~


Mod Hat Off

 

[whitebeaches]

Mod Hat On

This thread is being reopened. This thread has undergone a little cleaning due to the flaming rule. Please remember the board rules when posting and please no flaming. Thank you and may you have a nice day.​

Mod Hat Off​

 

[DennisTate]

I am so glad that I no longer believed that God sacrificed Himself to Himself to appease Himself for sins committed to Himself. Jesus willingly died to reveal the forgiveness of God, not to appease the blood thirst of God.

.....

The satisfaction theory of atonement, the belief that Jesus died to appease God's wrath, was formulated by Anselm, a thousand years after the death of Jesus.

...

I am glad that you mention this! The priests and rulers of the Jews that had been appointed by King Herod, had freedom of choice....are we thinking that if they had chosen NOT to scourge and murder Rabbi Jesus/Yehoshua....would we at this time NOT have a Messiah?????

 

[DennisTate]

Who said anything about gnosticism? Doesn't the Bible say that we are children of God and partakers of the divine nature? Didn't Jesus say, in the Gospel of John, "ye are gods"?

Good point!

In Genesis even certain fallen angels are referred to as sons of God!!!!

Genesis 6:2 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."

Our destiny is to be higher than angels so......



Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."

 

[Ishraqiyun]

And I solemnly declare to everyone who hears the words of prophecy written in this book: If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book.
​

Rev. 22:18

The Gospel of Thomas doesn't represent an attempt to add something to the book of Revelation. That being the case this particular verse would have nothing to do with it.

 

[Yoder777]

I don't want to get into an extended debate about the Gospel of Thomas, but I will say that its final passage is very likely a later addition to the text, especially since it violates the spirit of the rest of the text.

 

[brinny]

I don't want to get into an extended debate about the Gospel of Thomas, but I will say that its final passage is very likely a later addition to the text, especially since it violates the spirit of the rest of the text.

how is it possible to not debate it, as surely it is understood that not everyone believes it is inspired of God? If one does not believe it is, it can be assumed there will be debate, and an extended debate most likely. How can there not be, unless this thread is just a fan club for the book of thomas? Surely that is not what it is?

 

[DennisTate]

The Gospel of Thomas doesn't represent an attempt to add something to the book of Revelation. That being the case this particular verse would have nothing to do with it.

If an astonishing amount of writing was taking place during the time of King Solomon then surely we should not be shocked if lots of books would be written about the life of Rabbi Jesus/Yehoshua!

Ecclesiastes 12:12 "And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books [there is] no end; and much study [is] a weariness of the flesh."

 

[Soulgazer]

The Bible represents several parts of aboriginal Christianity which were seperate and distinct in belief and praxis for close to 300 years. "Thomas" was not "scripture" per say, but more like quotations to be used as "talking points" from the pulpit. Even today in churches like ours that do use it, it is not a central scripture.

According to the experts, the core of Thomas was written just before Paul started his ministry, but was an open document--- meaning as more sayings were recalled or handed down, were recorded or added to the document(s)--- as no one wanted to be guilty of the sin of ommission---and was probably finished somewhere in the second century.

It is a wonderful and spiritually rich document, and certainly people only make themselves poorer by ignoring it, but it was never meant to be included in the anthology that has come to be known as the "Bible"---and contrary, the "Bible" was intended to be only the centerpiece for a very large collection of scripture, but the rest of the scriptures were never vulgated, and so fell into such entropy as was common for hand copy, that in the sixteenth century the Church discontinued their use. If you had lived as recently as 1600, you most certainly would have been priveledged to hear scripture that is lost to us today.

 

[C.O.Ioves]

Deleted

 

[Der Alte]

I am so glad that I no longer believed that God sacrificed Himself to Himself to appease Himself for sins committed to Himself. Jesus willingly died to reveal the forgiveness of God, not to appease the blood thirst of God.

Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The satisfaction theory of atonement, the belief that Jesus died to appease God's wrath, was formulated by Anselm, a thousand years after the death of Jesus.

Satisfaction theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is a questionable source for theological questions.