Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [GTh] Is Thomas Christian?

Expand Messages
  • Lee Edgar Tyler
    ... That judgment would depend upon several things. Could you really *expect* a definitive statement in Thomas to the effect Jesus said: I am not a
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 20, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Judy Redman wrote:

      >Ed writes:
      >
      >
      >>Hello, Mike,
      >>
      >>While I agree that a demand for orthodoxy even to the point
      >>of belief in
      >>the resurrection is not an appropriate litmus test for what should be
      >>considered a form of ancient Christianity, the name itself implies an
      >>identification of Jesus as "Christ." That is, it seems to me
      >>that there
      >>were movements that followed Jesus and/or his attributed
      >>teachings that
      >>would not properly fit the term "Christian." Can we really
      >>consider the
      >>Thomas community "Christian" in the absence of evidence that they
      >>thought Jesus was Christ?
      >>
      >>
      >
      >Good point. OTOH, can we consider them *not* Christian in the absence of
      >concrete evidence that they didn't?
      >
      >
      That judgment would depend upon several things. Could you really
      *expect* a definitive statement in Thomas to the effect "Jesus said: 'I
      am not a Christ'" the way Nixon said "I am not a crook"? I don't think
      so. So we would have to decide what constitutes convincing evidence
      that the Thomas community did not regard Jesus as the Christ. Would a
      complete absence of such an attribution in a text the length of Thomas
      constitute such evidence? While I'm inclined to think so, I wouldn't
      bet the farm on it.

      I am comfortable in asserting that given the present resources we have
      no warrant to label the Thomas community "Christian," if we define the
      term as a community that held Jesus to be the Christ. There is no
      problem that I can see in allowing for agnosticism on that point in our
      methodology. If next week another Mohammed Ali comes across another
      Coptic library that reveals the Thomas community thought Jesus was the
      Christ (whether they made his resurrection a dogma or not) then we'd
      need to reevaluate our taxonomy. But it seems to me to be at least
      potentially misleading or confusing to term a community "Christian" if
      we have no evidence that they believed in a Christ at all.

      Ed Tyler


      >Given that Thomas displays no interest in any other aspect of Jesus' life
      >than his teachings and is essentially a sayings source rather than a gospel
      >like the Christian canonicals, I think it is virtually impossible to know
      >what Thomas' take on the resurrection is. What GThos says about
      >understanding Jesus' words being the key to eternal life (fairly radical
      >paraphrase, I know) would certainly move it outside the orthodox Protestant
      >formulation of Christianity where salvation comes by grace through faith
      >alone, although one might well argue that the role of the Spirit is to give
      >knowledge so that understanding Christ's teachings might well be the result
      >of the indwelling of the Spirit that comes with faith in Christ. The
      >Catholic understanding gives, I think, more status to one's actions combined
      >with faith but obviously both these formulations are far newer than GThos.
      >
      >However, the first ecumenical Council of the church, held in Nicaea in 325
      >CE, formulated orthodox Christian belief as follows:
      >
      >"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and
      >invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father,
      >that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light
      >of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance
      >with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made
      >both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was
      >incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended
      >into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy
      >Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not
      >before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton);
      >or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than
      >the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to
      >change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes."
      >
      >(I got this from the Catholic Encyclopaedia and I think that it would be
      >equally or maybe even more legitimate to use lowercase and say "catholic
      >church")
      >
      >Because I am fairly new to the study of GThos and I am investigating
      >something other than this, I don't wish to be dogmatic but my impression is
      >that GThos could not be definitively labelled "not Christian" on the basis
      >of this creed. Or could it?
      >
      >Judy
      >
      >
    • Judy Redman
      ... I agree. In the case of the Thomas community, I don t think we have sufficient information to make a definitive statement either way. On the basis of the
      Message 2 of 11 , Jan 20, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Ed writes:

        > But it seems to me to be at least
        > potentially misleading or confusing to term a community
        > "Christian" if
        > we have no evidence that they believed in a Christ at all.

        I agree. In the case of the Thomas community, I don't think we have
        sufficient information to make a definitive statement either way. On the
        basis of the evidence before us the Thomas may or may not have believed in a
        Christ and if they did, may or may not have believed that Jesus was the
        Christ. I guess this means that, if we are being careful about our
        labelling, we should refer to it as "a document of the early Christian era".

        Judy

        --
        "One can easily understand a child who is afraid of the dark. The real
        tragedy of life is when grown men and women are afraid of the light." -
        Plato

        Rev Judy Redman
        Uniting Church Chaplain
        University of New England
        Armidale 2351
        ph: +61 2 6773 3739
        fax: +61 2 6773 3749
        web: http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
        email: jredman@...


        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lee Edgar Tyler
        > Sent: Saturday, 21 January 2006 1:26 PM
        > To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [GTh] Is Thomas Christian?
        >
        >
        > Judy Redman wrote:
        >
        > >Ed writes:
        > >
        > >
        > >>Hello, Mike,
        > >>
        > >>While I agree that a demand for orthodoxy even to the point
        > >>of belief in
        > >>the resurrection is not an appropriate litmus test for what
        > should be
        > >>considered a form of ancient Christianity, the name itself
        > implies an
        > >>identification of Jesus as "Christ." That is, it seems to me
        > >>that there
        > >>were movements that followed Jesus and/or his attributed
        > >>teachings that
        > >>would not properly fit the term "Christian." Can we really
        > >>consider the
        > >>Thomas community "Christian" in the absence of evidence that they
        > >>thought Jesus was Christ?
        > >>
        > >>
        > >
        > >Good point. OTOH, can we consider them *not* Christian in
        > the absence
        > >of concrete evidence that they didn't?
        > >
        > >
        > That judgment would depend upon several things. Could you really
        > *expect* a definitive statement in Thomas to the effect
        > "Jesus said: 'I
        > am not a Christ'" the way Nixon said "I am not a crook"? I
        > don't think
        > so. So we would have to decide what constitutes convincing evidence
        > that the Thomas community did not regard Jesus as the Christ.
        > Would a
        > complete absence of such an attribution in a text the length
        > of Thomas
        > constitute such evidence? While I'm inclined to think so, I wouldn't
        > bet the farm on it.
        >
        > I am comfortable in asserting that given the present
        > resources we have
        > no warrant to label the Thomas community "Christian," if we
        > define the
        > term as a community that held Jesus to be the Christ. There is no
        > problem that I can see in allowing for agnosticism on that
        > point in our
        > methodology. If next week another Mohammed Ali comes across another
        > Coptic library that reveals the Thomas community thought
        > Jesus was the
        > Christ (whether they made his resurrection a dogma or not) then we'd
        > need to reevaluate our taxonomy.
        > Ed Tyler
        >
        >
        > >Given that Thomas displays no interest in any other aspect of Jesus'
        > >life than his teachings and is essentially a sayings source
        > rather than
        > >a gospel like the Christian canonicals, I think it is virtually
        > >impossible to know what Thomas' take on the resurrection is. What
        > >GThos says about understanding Jesus' words being the key to eternal
        > >life (fairly radical paraphrase, I know) would certainly move it
        > >outside the orthodox Protestant formulation of Christianity where
        > >salvation comes by grace through faith alone, although one
        > might well
        > >argue that the role of the Spirit is to give knowledge so that
        > >understanding Christ's teachings might well be the result of the
        > >indwelling of the Spirit that comes with faith in Christ.
        > The Catholic
        > >understanding gives, I think, more status to one's actions combined
        > >with faith but obviously both these formulations are far newer than
        > >GThos.
        > >
        > >However, the first ecumenical Council of the church, held in
        > Nicaea in
        > >325 CE, formulated orthodox Christian belief as follows:
        > >
        > >"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all
        > things visible
        > >and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only
        > begotten of the
        > >Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the
        > Father, God of
        > >God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the
        > >same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri],
        > through whom all
        > >things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our
        > >salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man,
        > suffered and rose
        > >again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the
        > >living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say:
        > There was a
        > >time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten;
        > and that
        > >He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain
        > that He is
        > >of another hypostasis or another substance [than the
        > Father], or that
        > >the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change,
        > [them] the
        > >Catholic Church anathematizes."
        > >
        > >(I got this from the Catholic Encyclopaedia and I think that
        > it would
        > >be equally or maybe even more legitimate to use lowercase and say
        > >"catholic
        > >church")
        > >
        > >Because I am fairly new to the study of GThos and I am investigating
        > >something other than this, I don't wish to be dogmatic but my
        > >impression is that GThos could not be definitively labelled "not
        > >Christian" on the basis of this creed. Or could it?
        > >
        > >Judy
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------------------------
        > Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
        > To unsubscribe from this group,
        > send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • David Renfro
        If we use terms like Early Christian , proto-Christian , Thomasine Christian , don t we prejudice our discussion with a suggestion that somehow, someway,
        Message 3 of 11 , Jan 20, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          If we use terms like "Early Christian", "proto-Christian", "Thomasine Christian", don't we prejudice our discussion with a suggestion that somehow, someway, the GThom is Christian.
          Dave R.
        • Michael Grondin
          ... Let me push this a little further, if I may, and see if I can formulate a proposal for purposes of discussion. Although there s no titles given for Jesus
          Message 4 of 11 , Jan 20, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            [Ed]:
            > But it seems to me to be at least potentially misleading or confusing to
            > term a community "Christian" if we have no evidence that they believed in
            > a Christ at all.

            [Judy]:
            > I agree. In the case of the Thomas community, I don't think we have
            > sufficient information to make a definitive statement either way. On the
            > basis of the evidence before us the Thomas may or may not have believed
            > in a Christ and if they did, may or may not have believed that Jesus was
            > the Christ. I guess this means that, if we are being careful about our
            > labelling, we should refer to it as "a document of the early Christian
            > era".

            Let me push this a little further, if I may, and see if I can formulate a
            proposal for purposes of discussion. Although there's no titles given for
            Jesus in GThom, there is in the Book of Thomas the Contender. If this text
            belongs to the same community, then it's significant that therein he's
            referred to with two titles - 'Lord' (the Coptic word, not the Greek) and
            'Savior' (SWTHR abbreviated and overstroked as SWR - indicating a
            "sacred name"). But he's not called 'Christ' there either. Why not?

            One explanation that strikes me as plausible is that the Thomas community
            had rejected the notion of defining Jesus in terms of the Hebrew concept of
            Messiahship - hence avoided the title 'Christ' - even though it used other
            titles that were every bit as exalted - if not more so. The chief piece of
            supporting evidence for this view is saying 52, which I take as rejecting
            the process of proof-texting from the Hebrew scriptures. As Valantasis
            remarks about this saying:

            "The narrator portrays Jesus as rejecting the textualized prophecies of the
            Israelite Scriptures - these are dead writings - in favor of the narrator's
            own constructed 'living' voice from the 'living one' who speaks the sayings
            of Jesus." (_The Gospel of Thomas_, p.130)

            But the concept of Messiahship is contained in those scriptures and
            prophecies. To embrace Messiahship then, may have been seen as treating
            those scriptures and prophecies as 'living', not 'dead', and that was
            something that the Thomas community seems to have been unwilling to do,
            for whatever reasons (which I won't get into here.)

            Aside from whether the proposal is felt to have merit, let's think of it
            this way:: suppose that I'm a person whose notion of Jesus is
            every bit as elevated as any Christian, but for whatever reason, I don't
            want to associate him with messiahship. Maybe I think that concept is too
            limited or too provincial, for example (my reasons don't have to be good
            ones). Am I a Christian? Apparently not, strictly speaking. But should we
            speak strictly in this case? Because to say that I'm non-Christian
            doesn't sound right either - since that seems to imply that I don't share
            the Christian's view of Jesus as divine, which I do (in this hypothetical
            example). Is there any term that we could use so as to avoid lengthy
            circumlocutions? 'Yeshuine', perhaps? Or is this a problem for which there
            is no good solution?

            Regards,
            Mike Grondin
          • Judy Redman
            ... [Mike] ... Where I come from, the conservative Christians would be quite happy to include someone who names Jesus as Lord and Saviour as one of them - it s
            Message 5 of 11 , Jan 21, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              > [Ed]:
              > > But it seems to me to be at least potentially misleading
              > or confusing
              > > to term a community "Christian" if we have no evidence that they
              > > believed in a Christ at all.
              >
              > [Judy]:
              > > I agree. In the case of the Thomas community, I don't
              > think we have
              > > sufficient information to make a definitive statement
              > either way. On
              > > the basis of the evidence before us the Thomas may or may not have
              > > believed in a Christ and if they did, may or may not have believed
              > > that Jesus was the Christ. I guess this means that, if we
              > are being
              > > careful about our labelling, we should refer to it as "a
              > document of
              > > the early Christian era".

              [Mike]
              > Let me push this a little further, if I may, and see if I can
              > formulate a proposal for purposes of discussion. Although
              > there's no titles given for Jesus in GThom, there is in the
              > Book of Thomas the Contender. If this text belongs to the
              > same community, then it's significant that therein he's
              > referred to with two titles - 'Lord' (the Coptic word, not
              > the Greek) and 'Savior' (SWTHR abbreviated and overstroked as
              > SWR - indicating a "sacred name"). But he's not called
              > 'Christ' there either. Why not?
              >
              > One explanation that strikes me as plausible is that the
              > Thomas community had rejected the notion of defining Jesus in
              > terms of the Hebrew concept of Messiahship - hence avoided
              > the title 'Christ' - even though it used other titles that
              > were every bit as exalted - if not more so.

              Where I come from, the conservative Christians would be quite happy to
              include someone who names Jesus as Lord and Saviour as one of them - it's
              one of their tests for orthodoxy. I am not sure that using the *title*
              Messiah is essential if the understanding of the messianic *work* is there.
              This would be especially true if the Thomas community were largely not
              Hebrew or Aramaic speakers and largely non-Jewish in background. There
              might be seen to be little point in insisting that people learned a new word
              if they already had one that would work quite well in their own language.
              So another explanation would be that the leaders of the community had simply
              decided not to use a title that they would have to define to a group of
              non-Jewish, non-Hebrew/Aramaic speakers. To a certain extent, this hinges
              on what you understand to be the provenance and original language of GThos
              (and Thomas the Contender) and there is still contraversy over this.

              I don't know if this takes us any further forward, but I find it
              interesting. :-)

              Judy
            • David Renfro
              Mike writes: Is there any term that we could use so as to avoid lengthy circumlocutions? Yeshuine , perhaps? Or is this a problem for which there is no good
              Message 6 of 11 , Jan 21, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Mike writes:
                Is there any term that we could use so as to avoid lengthy
                circumlocutions? 'Yeshuine', perhaps? Or is this a problem for
                which there is no good solution?

                Mike,
                As you know, I've been using the term "Yeshuaism" for a while now.
                Before we can define what "Yeshuaism" is, we must decide what the
                parameters of Christianity are. And if there is merit in coining a new
                word that makes that distinction.
                Christianity, as a term, has become a broad brush with which all
                "Jesus Worship" is painted. This taints any "Thomasine Jesus Worship":
                with a "Hellenized" prejudice.
                I've been avoiding using "Yeshuaism" "Yeshuine" "Yeshuite" on this
                forum until the soft edges of "Christianity" could be defined. As this
                topic is under debate, I hope I'm not premature in suggesting,
                Yeshuaism: Non-Christian worship of Yeshua Ben Yosef.
                Dave R.
                Sanford Fl.














                ---------------------------------

                What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • David C. Hindley
                ...
                Message 7 of 11 , Jan 21, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Judy Redman" <jredman@p...> wrote:

                  <<Where I come from, the conservative Christians would be quite happy
                  to include someone who names Jesus as Lord and Saviour as one of
                  them - it's one of their tests for orthodoxy. I am not sure that
                  using the *title* Messiah is essential if the understanding of the
                  messianic *work* is there. This would be especially true if the
                  Thomas community were largely not Hebrew or Aramaic speakers and
                  largely non-Jewish in background. There might be seen to be little
                  point in insisting that people learned a new word if they already had
                  one that would work quite well in their own language. So another
                  explanation would be that the leaders of the community had simply
                  decided not to use a title that they would have to define to a group
                  of non-Jewish, non-Hebrew/Aramaic speakers. To a certain extent,
                  this hinges on what you understand to be the provenance and original
                  language of GThos (and Thomas the Contender) and there is still
                  contraversy over this.>>

                  Maybe I'm not paying sufficient attention, but hasn't this discussion
                  been glossing over the difference between a Jewish messiah
                  ("Christos" in Greek) and the LATER title applied to Jesus that
                  indicated he is a *divine redeemer* figure?

                  In the former case "christian" (small "c") would mean
                  essentially "messianist," and cannot necessarily be restricted to
                  followers of Jesus alone. Others may also have claimed to be, or had
                  been ascribed, the mantle of Jewish messiahship, and they would have
                  had followers too. This concept can be applied to any formally
                  anointed ruler figure, including the Jewish High Priest or perhaps
                  one of the Herodian client kings. This has significance when
                  considering what kind of people an author like Tacitus means when he
                  speaks of "christians". In Roman eyes, "messianism" is tantamount
                  to "rebellion against the Roman order" (except perhaps in the case of
                  an officially recognized client king or High Priest). This is
                  apparently what folks are referring to as "low" christology. While
                  there is difference of modern opinion about how "high"
                  the "christology" of early Jewish followers of Jesus was, I'd be
                  inclined to think that the earliest followers, both Jewish and
                  gentile, would have been strictly messianists, and thus best
                  described as "christians" (small "c").

                  The later use of the term "christos" seems to be associated with
                  followers of Jesus *as some form of redeemer*. This is apparently
                  what folks are referring to as "high" christology. Followers of Jesus
                  the divine redeemer would thus be "Christians" (big "C"). When WE
                  think of "Christian", we are thinking of the latter use. Those
                  followers of Jesus who re-thought the concept of messiahship and
                  transformed it from a distinctly Jewish title of earthly authority to
                  a title of divine redeemership, would be "Christians". Probably also
                  Gnostics (big "G") would belong in this latter class. Even after
                  Jesus' death, many of his followers probably did not immediately
                  elevate him to divine redeemer status, and some may never have. Maybe
                  we could tuck Ebionites into this last category and treat them
                  as "christians" (small "c").

                  The author of Gospel of Thomas does not seem to put itself into
                  either camp. Jesus is someone who they believed said profound things.
                  Mikes' suggestion of something like "Yeshuan" (or simply a "follower"
                  of Jesus, or collectively a "Jesus movement") seems good. If the
                  term "gnostic" (small "g") is taken to be those who love profound
                  truths (in writings) not readily seen on the surface, as opposed to
                  Gnostics (big "G") who believe in (a) divine redeemer figure(s), then
                  the Thomas community would be "gnostics" and not "christians"
                  or "Christians."

                  Respectfully,

                  Dave Hindley
                  Cleveland, Ohio USA
                • David Arbuckle
                  Hello all, I have not posted on this list much as I have been busy on other yahoo groups, but have followed this thread with great interest. I have always
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jan 21, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello all,


                    I have not posted on this list much as I have been
                    busy on other yahoo groups, but have followed this
                    thread with great interest.

                    I have always thought that the sayings in Thomas
                    that have parallels in the NT seem to the laymen (me)
                    to be more primitive then their counterparts in the
                    NT. I have always filed that in my brain as proof that
                    Thomas was earlier at least in part then the NT. It
                    seems that if I am right, and the fact that Acts is
                    quite late, and that it is generally regarded as the
                    the source that most use as the origin of that term
                    (christian) that maybe the term 'christian' had not
                    even been coined as yet when Thomas was first penned.

                    It would seem to make sense that the followers of
                    Yeshua of the Thomasine community and the author(s) of
                    Thomas may not have been even aquainted with the term.


                    At any rate, I personally like the term Yeshuines,
                    Yeshuaism over christian or christianity as it brings
                    the focus back to the man instead of the deity that
                    would appear to be a late invention.

                    my two cents.

                    dave

                    --- Lee Edgar Tyler <leeedgartyler@...> wrote:

                    > Judy Redman wrote:
                    >
                    > >Ed writes:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >>Hello, Mike,
                    > >>
                    > >>While I agree that a demand for orthodoxy even to
                    > the point
                    > >>of belief in
                    > >>the resurrection is not an appropriate litmus test
                    > for what should be
                    > >>considered a form of ancient Christianity, the
                    > name itself implies an
                    > >>identification of Jesus as "Christ." That is, it
                    > seems to me
                    > >>that there
                    > >>were movements that followed Jesus and/or his
                    > attributed
                    > >>teachings that
                    > >>would not properly fit the term "Christian." Can
                    > we really
                    > >>consider the
                    > >>Thomas community "Christian" in the absence of
                    > evidence that they
                    > >>thought Jesus was Christ?
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >
                    > >Good point. OTOH, can we consider them *not*
                    > Christian in the absence of
                    > >concrete evidence that they didn't?
                    > >
                    > >
                    > That judgment would depend upon several things.
                    > Could you really
                    > *expect* a definitive statement in Thomas to the
                    > effect "Jesus said: 'I
                    > am not a Christ'" the way Nixon said "I am not a
                    > crook"? I don't think
                    > so. So we would have to decide what constitutes
                    > convincing evidence
                    > that the Thomas community did not regard Jesus as
                    > the Christ. Would a
                    > complete absence of such an attribution in a text
                    > the length of Thomas
                    > constitute such evidence? While I'm inclined to
                    > think so, I wouldn't
                    > bet the farm on it.
                    >
                    > I am comfortable in asserting that given the present
                    > resources we have
                    > no warrant to label the Thomas community
                    > "Christian," if we define the
                    > term as a community that held Jesus to be the
                    > Christ. There is no
                    > problem that I can see in allowing for agnosticism
                    > on that point in our
                    > methodology. If next week another Mohammed Ali
                    > comes across another
                    > Coptic library that reveals the Thomas community
                    > thought Jesus was the
                    > Christ (whether they made his resurrection a dogma
                    > or not) then we'd
                    > need to reevaluate our taxonomy. But it seems to me
                    > to be at least
                    > potentially misleading or confusing to term a
                    > community "Christian" if
                    > we have no evidence that they believed in a Christ
                    > at all.
                    >
                    > Ed Tyler
                    >
                    >
                    > >Given that Thomas displays no interest in any other
                    > aspect of Jesus' life
                    > >than his teachings and is essentially a sayings
                    > source rather than a gospel
                    > >like the Christian canonicals, I think it is
                    > virtually impossible to know
                    > >what Thomas' take on the resurrection is. What
                    > GThos says about
                    > >understanding Jesus' words being the key to eternal
                    > life (fairly radical
                    > >paraphrase, I know) would certainly move it outside
                    > the orthodox Protestant
                    > >formulation of Christianity where salvation comes
                    > by grace through faith
                    > >alone, although one might well argue that the role
                    > of the Spirit is to give
                    > >knowledge so that understanding Christ's teachings
                    > might well be the result
                    > >of the indwelling of the Spirit that comes with
                    > faith in Christ. The
                    > >Catholic understanding gives, I think, more status
                    > to one's actions combined
                    > >with faith but obviously both these formulations
                    > are far newer than GThos.
                    > >
                    > >However, the first ecumenical Council of the
                    > church, held in Nicaea in 325
                    > >CE, formulated orthodox Christian belief as
                    > follows:
                    > >
                    > >"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker
                    > of all things visible and
                    > >invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only
                    > begotten of the Father,
                    > >that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the
                    > Father, God of God, light
                    > >of light, true God of true God, begotten not made,
                    > of the same substance
                    > >with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom
                    > all things were made
                    > >both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our
                    > salvation descended, was
                    > >incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose
                    > again the third day, ascended
                    > >into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the
                    > dead. And in the Holy
                    > >Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was
                    > not, and He was not
                    > >before He was begotten; and that He was made our of
                    > nothing (ex ouk onton);
                    > >or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or
                    > another substance [than
                    > >the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or
                    > mutable, or subject to
                    > >change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes."
                    > >
                    > >(I got this from the Catholic Encyclopaedia and I
                    > think that it would be
                    > >equally or maybe even more legitimate to use
                    > lowercase and say "catholic
                    > >church")
                    > >
                    > >Because I am fairly new to the study of GThos and I
                    > am investigating
                    > >something other than this, I don't wish to be
                    > dogmatic but my impression is
                    > >that GThos could not be definitively labelled "not
                    > Christian" on the basis
                    > >of this creed. Or could it?
                    > >
                    > >Judy
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > Gospel of Thomas Homepage:
                    > http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
                    > To unsubscribe from this group,
                    > send a blank email to
                    > gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    > gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.