The Nag Hammadi

Not that the Nag Hammadi Library isn't every important to the understanding of early Christianity. But there are problems with your prepositions. Most of the extra biblical books found there were never ever "part of the bible". We pretty much know exactly how the bible was formed and those books were never up for contention to be part of it. It is not as though they were ripped from the pages of a completed book, they were never part of it.

The Gospel of Thomas is very interesting on its own, and is pretty hotly debated as to when it was written. And some think that it either could be or is proof of text similar to the Q document.

I don't really think that the Gospel of Thomas really "undermines the church authority by doing away with priests and temples. Jesus realized you don't need a middleman to access the divine." In anymore way then the other 4 Gospels. That's more a product of the Pauline Epistles.

It takes a certain level of spiritual maturity to understands the message.

It's been my experience that most people are just not ready for it.

That's the way it's always been. One picks the apples as they ripen, not uproot the whole tree to take them all at once as Christianity suggests.

People enter the kingdom one at a time. As they're ready.


x

All you did was provide a vague and elusive statements in regards to my corrections to your original post.

The Gospel of Thomas is just a collection of saying said to have been made by Jesus. They do not contain any meaning higher than any other Gospel.

If you wish to contend that they do, please enlighten us on them.

I have a yogic background. What I see here is not unlike what I've seen in various teachings found in India. To me, Jesus was a yogi, not a rabbi. The Gospel of Thomas is a concise collection of what Jesus said as opposed to all the religious fluff in the modern bible. It's like Jesus lite. And it has a distinct mystical flavor to it that is common to people who have had authentic mystical experiences. In other words, Jesus wasn't a product of his religious upbringing. His experiences came from outside that.

His message is the same as mine. To be autonomous as a soul rather than use a middleman like the church.

If you can do this for yourself, what need is there of the church?

The answer is you don't need the church and never have. It's your birthright to access the divine. Religion becomes a moot point after that realization.

You and I see this library far differently than the average person because we take the time to look at things. But we still see it differently based upon our personal backgrounds.

"Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death."

Years ago, that wouldn't have made much sense to me. But as my own path unfolded, my ability to find that interpretation has also unfolded.


x