Council of Nicaea

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by janielee

Yes, and that would make things such as God's omnipresence, omniscience etc. sensible.

The Boehme article you quoted was very insightful. I suspect people cannot understand it without some knowledge (intimate, experiential, conscious) of God...so perhaps the modern day followers and mainstream interpretation is more of a Dummies version - which is great to start with, but the promises of God are so much better and exciting than the beginners' page. I can imagine that Jesus, as professed in the Gospel of Thomas, was excited that His followers would see and experience this for themselves - for all are the Children of God ..

JL

Janielee,

I do not worry about the ‘dummies’.....:) I credit them for believing in God and having faith in what is unseen and also in the final analysis unknowable. What does bother me is the presumption to have certitude that prevents open-mindedness....in doing so they perhaps forfeit the grace that could be theirs.....Jonah 2:8

[sky]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

There is no indication that the Gospel of Thomas was used in any early Churches/congregations. As a 'Gospel', it does not readily provide any 'Good News' nor does it resonates with the other 4 Gospels. It resonates very closely with the Jefferson Bible, a Bible very few people use.

' As a 'Gospel', it does not readily provide any 'Good News'.


No I suppose it doesn't when it's not understood

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by sky123

'And God said, “Let us make Adam in our image, after our likeness… And God created Adam in God’s image, in the image of God, God created IT; male and female God created THEM '.


I have always seen God and The Son as one and the same .

That scripture does not mention that the "Let us" was Jesus. In the Old Testament, that "Let us" has always been questionable. Nobody really knew. Some think it might be referring to the Sons of God.

It not till the New Testament came about that the issue was made clear that the one who did the creating after being created was Jesus.
So how does one reconcile what is in the Old Testament to what is written in the New Testament? Easy. The boss (God) takes credit for what the ones under the boss do.

Before the first century was over with, people were introducing new ideas so as to change what was written and/or understood. Those changes brought about what we have today. Some people do not like Christianity today because what it has become not realizing that it has been altered dramatically from what Jesus taught. What he taught, was very great but very few are willing to look to see what he actually was teaching.

Originally Posted by Molearner

Janielee,

I do not worry about the ‘dummies’.....:) I credit them for believing in God and having faith in what is unseen and also in the final analysis unknowable. What does bother me is the presumption to have certitude that prevents open-mindedness....in doing so they perhaps forfeit the grace that could be theirs.....Jonah 2:8

Yes.

Also to clarify: it was not meant as an insult, rather like "Cakes for Dummies i.e. newbie/beginners' version

But you are right, either way

Originally Posted by sky123

' As a 'Gospel', it does not readily provide any 'Good News'.


No I suppose it doesn't when it's not understood

https://www.gospels.net/thomas

https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/s...d.php?t=137379

[sky]

Originally Posted by janielee

https://www.gospels.net/thomas

https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/s...d.php?t=137379

It's strange that some can't see any ' Good News ' in the GOT, it does need to be understood though and definitely needs one to ' Step outside the box '

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by sky123

It's strange that some can't see any ' Good News ' in the GOT, it does need to be understood though and definitely needs one to ' Step outside the box '

sky123,

Yes....it is the message that is either with or without merit. The messenger is of secondary import.

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by janielee

I find it interesting, eye opening at the least, that a group of dudes came together and decided on what the doctrines and "real words" of Jesus/God were - and threw out other translations/words that didn't conform to their views at the time.

There is much to be admired in Gospels including the Gospel of Thomas, which I recently reviewed (but assume was never part of the doctrine approved by the dudes at the political Council), and I have no doubt that there are many Christians of spirit and faith, but it's ironic that the words of "God" for most - and the dominance of many Church's interpretation - is based on a small group of men at a political convention.

JL

Janielee,

Yes....interesting and disturbing at the same time. It would almost serve as proof for the movement that asserted that God is dead......confining him to finite time and simply historical in nature. Thank God for all the mystics, poets and those of every religious and spiritual persuasion who have refused to be silenced by being deemed as heretics. God continues to speak to mankind and if we are fortunate personally.

Originally Posted by Molearner

Thank God for all the mystics, poets and those of every religious and spiritual persuasion who have refused to be silenced by being deemed as heretics. God continues to speak to mankind and if we are fortunate personally.

Yes, yes Yes, Yes YES