Definition, please?

[Publisher]

The Gospel of Thomas can be read in an “orthodox” light…the Gnostics loved the Gospel of John but that didn’t make it “gnostic”…while the Gnostics might use the Gospel of Thomas…doens’t make it gnostic either…it may be a contemporary of John or even earlier…it is a “sayings” gospel…not an historical “gospel.”

Many of the sayings, 114 of them, have their counterparts or slight changes in the Synoptics.

Eilene Pagels book “Beyond Belief” contrast the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas as two competing schools of Christian thought at the end of the first century and the beginning of the 2nd. Very interesting book for anyone interested in early church history and development.

 

[SedesDomi]

Way back in A.D. 55 a group of Christian evangelists in Egypt made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. When they arrived at the outskirts of that holy city, they encountered another group of Christians reading strange texts, but acting otherwise like Christians normally would, except for one thing. They cooked their bread in a new type of pan they had brought back from Mesopotamia. The Egyptian Christians thus started calling these other Christians ‘gnostic’, because they used a ‘no-stick’ frying pan.

 

[Ahimsa]

Way back in A.D. 55 a group of Christian evangelists in Egypt made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. When they arrived at the outskirts of that holy city, they encountered another group of Christians reading strange texts, but acting otherwise like Christians normally would, except for one thing. They cooked their bread in a new type of pan they had brought back from Mesopotamia. The Egyptian Christians thus started calling these other Christians ‘gnostic’, because they used a ‘no-stick’ frying pan.

 

[Montalban]

Gnosticism is a heresy, therefore the term “Gnostic Christian” has no meaning.

Them saying it doesn’t make it so. Those espousing Gnostic beliefs are not Christians, and have never been.

It’s as nonsensical as saying one is a Bhuddist Christian or a Muslim Christian.

Gnosticism is a set of beliefs incompatible with Christianity.

Although I agree that they were heretics, as you stated, if they were ‘heretics’ then they must have been Christian heretics, so you argue against yourself. If it has no meaning it is simply because you don’t understand what a Gnostic is

 

[Montalban]

Well, you may be right…but maybe not…it is your opinion…those who were called “Gnostic” did in fact worship along side the proto-orthodox…they did hold positions of authority…priests, deacons, and bishops…they considered themselves Christians, baptized as Christians, worshipped as Christians…true, the proto-orthodox labeled them heretics…Christian heretics.

I reject the term ‘proto-Orthodox’. There was and has always been (since Pentecost) Orthodox teaching.

Gnostics combined Christian teaching with other teachings and invented secret teachings etc

 

[Keikiolu]

Way back in A.D. 55 a group of Christian evangelists in Egypt made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. When they arrived at the outskirts of that holy city, they encountered another group of Christians reading strange texts, but acting otherwise like Christians normally would, except for one thing. They cooked their bread in a new type of pan they had brought back from Mesopotamia. The Egyptian Christians thus started calling these other Christians ‘gnostic’, because they used a ‘no-stick’ frying pan.

Oh… got me…! :clapping:

The Meso-POT-amian god, Teflon, was somehow involved,… but the details are sketchy.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.