The Gospel Of Thomas

[Aquilifer]

You mean that part about Thomas being twins with Jesus?

Yes, that is interesting.

And perhaps even more interesting is that it didn't seem to cause a problem among many early Christians!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Yeah, I can't quite get my head around the twins business. Not to mention that it didn't faze those who believed it.

Thomas Didymus as twin of Christ would really kick the hornet's nest in this heated thread! http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...p;hl=conception

[Uncle Dale]

Yeah, I can't quite get my head around the twins business...

His name in Greek is "twin" twice -- a double-twin, if you will.

Elvis was a twin -- did you know? However his brother died at birth, as I recall.

Perhaps Jesus and Thomas were the two survivors in a set of triplets -- not necessarily

identical ones -- but at least franternal ones.

Food for thought.

UD

[Cold Steel]

I was taking a look at the coptic Gospel of Thomas the other day in preparing for my Sunday school class, and thought that I would like to ask the members of the board for their perspectives on this unusual and important book from early Christianity.

Why are you working on your Sunday School Class now? Most of our teachers wait until Saturday night so they can prepare it during Creature Feature.

Anyway, yes, the Gospel of Thomas has elements that are Gnostic, and others that are more conventional. Of particular interest is this passage, which seems to portend the coming apostasy:

The kingdom of God is like a certain woman who was carrying a jar

full of meal. While she was walking on a road still some distance

from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out

behind her on the road. She did not realize it. She had noticed no

accident. When she reached her house she set the jar down and

found it was empty. (Thomas 97)

The fact that the woman was walking on a road "still some distance from home" seems to indicate that the apostasy would happen fairly early in the church. The spiritual gifts of the church slowly leaked out until, when she got home, she had naught but the empty shell left; the spiritual gifts such as revelation, healings and other miracles that always accompany God's work were gone.

In addressing the ancient Jews, Jesus referred to their religious systems as "painted sepulchers," brilliantly white and kept on the outside, but dead and decaying on the inside. This is a very similar portrayal.

.

[RAIDERJO76]

I cannot answer for the Mormons -- but can make a statement as a 6th generation Latter Day Saint.

My profession is that there is no extra knowledge nor doctrine necessary for acceptance by God our

Father, which is not already made clear in the biblical scriptures.

There are, however, different pathways for different people and I believe that some of Jesus' inner

group of disciples were made aware of a reality not commonly perceived by most people. Such an

experience on their part did not make them any better, nor any more accepted than are other followers

of Jesus and his gospel --- that knoweldge/experience DID, however, provide them with special callings,

responsibilities, and perhaps was a part of why the early apostles laid claim to extraordinary spiritual

gifts. Do I believe that the Gospel of Thomas provides the path by which we today obtain that same

extraordinary position in the Kingdom of God? In a word, no.

The book is a relatively late compilation, which overlays a preserved oral Jesus tradition. However,

as I said previously in this thread, that gnostic overlay has warped the original Jesus message to such

an extent as to render the net results heterodox -- unreliable for doctrine.

There are numerous gems of spiritual wisdom preserved within the text -- but separating them from

their later gnostic setting is a difficult and problematic task. The truly useful parts of the text are

already canonized in their parallel passages, as given in Matthew and Luke. What little remains, beyond

that canonized portion, which is original Jesus material, is fragmentary and unnecessary for any

supplement to modern Christianity.

Readers like myself, however, find clues in Thomas which assist us in making sense of certain parts

of the Jesus story told in the canonical gospels. For that sort of use, Thomas is a priceless resource.

Uncle Dale

.

Thanks for your response. God bless.

[RAIDERJO76]

You learned all this without reading it? How do you know if it's correct?

First of all, I think it should be noted that I have read parts of it even though I haven't actually sat down and read the whole thing through, as I admit I should do.

However, it should be noted that as I said, I have done some research on it. The information I presented comes from reliable sources; I didn't just make it up.

Also, you are using an ad hominem argument that is completely irrelevant to the issue. Even though, as I've admitted, I need to read all of the Gospel of Thomas, you haven't even attempted to refute one of my points. You just looked at the fact that I haven't read it and didn't address my case against the document. Do you have a refutation of any of the evidence against the Gospel of Thomas' reliability that I presented? If so, what is it?

Not only do I believe it, I believe Jesus taught it.

Okay. I suppose in a way I think this is true, because you can't be saved unless you know what the Gospel teaches. However, I wouldn't go as far as to say that we are saved by having certain knowledge. Do you think that our possession of this knowledge is what saves us? Or did you mean what you said in the sense that you can't be saved without knowing the Gospel?

Thanks, God bless.

[Uncle Dale]

...The kingdom of God is like a certain woman who was carrying a jar

...

Regardless of what we moderns might today read into this parable, the gnostics would

have interpreted the gradual loss of the flour as corresponding to their teachings of the

loss of ego, (as the ever more enlightened soul approaches profound selflessness).

Probably Jesus did not mean the parable to have that philosophical effect. Assuming that

the pericope came from him (the Jesus Seminar scholars mark it as a teaching of his

disciples), then we might compare it to his other "the kingdom is like" sayings.

As I said above, these parables are not meant as philosophy, nor as allegory, requiring

endless study and re-interpretation. The parables of Jesus were meant to have an

immediate spiritual impact upon the hearer -- to open hearts and minds to God's kingship

being a very real and expanding phenomenon.

The Jewish hearers of the parable would have quickly recognized how its theme overlapped

the old story of Elijah and the poor woman with the jar of meal. In that story a miracle

occurs, in that the contents are not depleted, as she uses the meal to bake cakes.

In some way the Jesus parable and the Elijah story must portray a similar spiritual truth --

that what we count as loss can be compensated for, by God's Lordship, in such a way that

we gain something far greater than what appears to be lost (or be in danger of being lost).

So -- the woman with the slowly emptying jar finally comes to a realization that an unexpected

change has occured. She did not see it happen. She was unaware of the process. It was beyond

her notice (or comprehension). And yet, when she makes the discovery she does not grieve

over the loss. Like the old woman in the Elijah story, she realizes that a miracle has occurred.

And -- in some way, not easily put into words, God's kingship (his promised reign of justice and

righteousness), is LIKE that enigmatic miracle.

I think that we should not concentrate too much upon what happens to the woman at the end of

the parable -- she is there to provide the motion for the alluded to transformation. But she is not

the subject of the parable (as gnostic ego-loss teachings might say). The subject of the parable

is the coming of the Kingdom, unobserved, unexpected, and unaided by conscious human effort.

Uncle Dale

[consiglieri]

Not to throw off the topic at hand, but I'd love to know which one it was and how you used it.

PS Why can't I have a cool sunday school teacher? sheesh.

I am afraid all the "cool" Sunday school teachers are taken.

As to your question, though, there are a couple of good sayings of Jesus dealing with the apostasy, from which I quoted the following, and linked it into the warning in Timothy of those who "have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof."

74 He said, "Lord, there are many around the drinking trough, but there is nothing in the well."

It is hard to put it better than that!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Perhaps Jesus and Thomas were the two survivors in a set of triplets -- not necessarily

identical ones -- but at least franternal ones.

UD

So, was the third "twin" named Alvin?

Or maybe Elvis?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Cold Steel]

Regardless of what we moderns might today read into this parable, the gnostics would

have interpreted the gradual loss of the flour as corresponding to their teachings of the

loss of ego, (as the ever more enlightened soul approaches profound selflessness).

These texts are valuable in two ways. They show us how the gnostics were interpreting what may have been legitimate sayings of Jesus (of which there are many in the gnostic texts), and two, it perhaps gives us some legitimate sayings and parables not found in mainstream literature.

Jesus' parables were coded to resonate with those who had the Spirit of God; who had "ears to hear." Just how the gnostics would have interpreted this is immaterial to its true meaning. They claimed to have the true gnosis; things other sects, including competing gnostics, didn't have. Information is power, and that's what most religious cults are after. Just as Joseph Smith was interpreted as just another religious charlatan of his day, so Jesus was viewed as just another claimant for the Jewish messiahship. Even in Christianity, look at the number of people who have claimed to be the second iteration of Christ.

Looking at the practice of sacrifice, Christians understand its significance as a teaching device. It's immaterial how modern Jews interpret it except as a means of understanding their culture, but it's clear that they lost the true meaning of it generations ago.

So yes, we can understand how the gnostics tried to capitalize on the teachings and parables of Jesus, but what's important is not how they interpreted them, but that they conveyed them in the first place. Thus, it's quite legitimate for us to apply our own understanding of the parable.

When she reached her house she set the jar down and

found it was empty. (Thomas 97)

[Uncle Dale]

...

So yes, we can understand how the gnostics tried to capitalize on the teachings and parables of Jesus,

but what's important is not how they interpreted them, but that they conveyed them in the first place.

...

Of couse the "Q sayings" of Jesus are not unique to the Gospel of Thomas -- most of them are also

preserved in Matthew and Luke. Mark was probably aware of them, but chose to make very limited

use of such oral traditions (possibly because they were the "property" of some other group of Jesus

followers, with whom Mark did not fellowship).

So, other than a few extra fragments, not found in Matthew and Luke, the gnostics' "conveying them"

to us (by hit and miss efforts), is nothing unique. In a few instances their interpretations or uses of the

Jesus sayings may be valid, but I am suspicious of all that they touched.

That still leaves the question unanswered, of WHO did "convey" these teachings down to the time of

Matthew and Luke's literary productions. If the writer of Matthew was indeed the Apostle of that name,

then we may be dealing with an apostolic tradition. But, again, Mark's failure to make use of the sayings

puts that conclusion in doubt.

Whoever DID initially preserve the Q sayings of Jesus, that "lost" group of disciples did not seem

to be much interested in the Passion narrative, nor in the Pauline-Petrine-Johannine theology of

atonement and salvation.

For this reason, I'll call the initial preservers of the Q sayings "proto-gnostics." That is not to say that

they were gnostics-in-the-bud, but they must have shared some philosophy or religious outlook with

the later gnostic preservers and writers.

There is obviously an untold story here -- and I would love to know more about the writer of Mark,

and what he knew of the community that initially preserved the Q sayings -- of the Qumranim --

and of James the Just's congregation at Jerusalem.

UD

[maklelan]

I have personally never read the Gospel of Thomas. However, I've done some research on it and it doesn't seem to have any historical value.

Every historical text has historical value. It may not have any theological value for you, but that's something entirely different.

This is largely because of the dating of this document. The Gospel of Thomas refers of over half of the New Testament writings. It shows familiarity with fourteen or fifteen of the twenty-seven New Testament writings.

So what? How doesthis negate it's historical value?

As far as I know, we don't have a single Christian writing prior to A.D. 150 that includes half of the New Testament.

Try 1 Clement.

Not only this, but the "Gospel" doesn't have any pre-Synoptic material,

Can you provide an example of any New Testament text that does have "pre-Synoptic" material?

and it includes Johnine material.

So what?

And most biblical scholars don't date the Gospel of John any earlier than the 90's!

I date it closer to 100 C.E.

Also, many Syrian forms show up in the Gospel of Thomas.

What does "Syrian forms" mean?

For example, it is familiar with the Diatessaron, which was written in A.D. 175. Therefore, the Gospel of Thomas had to be written no earlier than A.D. 175.

And how do you arrive at the conclusion that it is influenced by the Diatessaron?

This "Gospel" contains many Syrian ideas, such as calling Thomas "Judas Thomas." Only the Syrian Church referred to Thomas as Judas Thomas. Other Syrian ideas include elitism and mysticism, as well as being into ascetics.

I promise you the Syrian church was not the only group during that time period that was "into" these things.

Also, when read in Syrian, the way the 114 sayings are set up appears to be used as a memorization aid.

And in the Coptic and Greek this is not the case?

Also, if "Thomas Christians" existed in the first century, why don't any first century writers refer to them (as far as I know)?

I don't think any did exist in the first century.

The Gospel of Thomas also teaches several things contrary to what Christianity teaches. First of all, the Bible teaches that salvation is by grace, and is received through faith. It teaches that our salvation rests completely on Christ.

If it is received through faith then it does not rest completely on Christ. Either it is completely arbitrary (and thus not received through faith), or it rests on our faith, and thus it is not completely dependent upon Christ. Which one is it?

The Gospel of Thomas, on the other hand, teaches us that we receive salvation through knowledge, and of ourselves.

So you don't think that knowing Christ or having knowledge of the gospel is necessary for salvation? If it's then just a big crap shoot it doesn't really matter what anyone believes, does it?

Second of all, the Bible teaches that Jesus died for our sins. The Gospel of Thomas teaches that He died to give us knowledge.

Yeah, that's pretty silly.

These are the main reasons that I have concluded that the Gospel of Thomas doesn't have any spiritual or historical value or authority.

Spiritual value, no, but to conclude that it has no historical value shows an abhorrent lack of historiographical competence.

Also, I have a question. Do you, as a Mormon, believe that a secret knowledge is necessary for salvation? If so, what is this knowledge? Thanks, God bless.

Secret? No. But we do believe, as do you, that certain knowledge is absolutely necessary for salvation; and much of the world does not have that knowledge.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Can you provide an example of any New Testament text that does have "pre-Synoptic" material?

...

Possibly the angelic salutation to Mary -- which may indeed be very early liturgical material, pre-dating

compilation of the Q sayings, Paul's letters, and the evangelism that led to synoptic gospel writing.

I am not certain of that -- but it is the first place I would look for such preserved archaic material.

Hail, Mary, full of grace.....

UD

[RAIDERJO76]

Every historical text has historical value. It may not have any theological value for you, but that's something entirely different.

Fair enough.

So what? How doesthis negate it's historical value?

Because it suggests that it's late.

Try 1 Clement.

Okay. This doen't change the fact that the Gospel of Thomas referring to this many New Testament sources indicates a late date.

Can you provide an example of any New Testament text that does have "pre-Synoptic" material?

My point is that the Gospel of Thomas has forms that reflect the later developments in Matthew or Luke.

So what?

So what? The fact that it contains Johnine material suggests that it's late. You claimed that you date the Gospel of John to around 100. If Thomas contains material that was written in 100, you can't give it the same authority that you'd give documents written much earlier in the first century (i.e. the Synoptics).

I date it closer to 100 C.E.

Okay. I can't contribute anything in this area currently because I'm ignorant when it comes to the dating of the Gospel of John.

However, this has nothing to do with our conversation. The fact that you date John at 100 when I believe it was written in the 90's only gives me the advantage. All this does is suggests that Thomas was even later (if John was written in 100).

What does "Syrian forms" mean?

By this, I'm just referring to my points that Thomas is acquainted with the Diatessaron, contains Syrian ideas, and appears to contain a memorization aid when read in Syriac.

And how do you arrive at the conclusion that it is influenced by the Diatessaron?

First of all, the Gospel of Thomas contains the Syrian forms of the blended sayings of the Gospels presented in the Diatessaron. Second of all, it is acquainted with the order and arrangement of material in the Diatessaron.

I promise you the Syrian church was not the only group during that time period that was "into" these things.

Maybe. However, you can't dismiss the fact that Thomas contains all of these ideas that were embraced by the Syrian Church. You also can't dismiss the fact that it refers to Thomas as "Judas Thomas" when only the Syrian Church refers to him by that name (as far as we know).

And in the Coptic and Greek this is not the case?

As far as I know, it isn't. Are you familiar with what I'm talking about regarding this point of mine, or would you like me to explain further, so you can see what I mean?

I don't think any did exist in the first century.

Okay, I don't either.

If it is received through faith then it does not rest completely on Christ. Either it is completely arbitrary (and thus not received through faith), or it rests on our faith, and thus it is not completely dependent upon Christ. Which one is it?

Both, just in different senses. We are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. We receive this through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:23-24).

So you don't think that knowing Christ or having knowledge of the gospel is necessary for salvation? If it's then just a big crap shoot it doesn't really matter what anyone believes, does it?

In a way, you're right. This is in the sense that you can't receive Christ through faith without knowing what the Gospel is. Despite the fact that I believe this knowledge (the knowledge of the Gospel) is necessary in order to receive Jesus' grace, I don't believe that it's what saves us, or that we receive Jesus' grace through it. Rather, through it we become concious that in order to be saved we need to have faith in Christ to receive His grace, which is what saves us. Does that make sense? If not, would you like me to elaborate? If it does make sense, do you agree with it?

Yeah, that's pretty silly.

What I said, or the fact that the Gospel of Thomas teaches that Jesus died in order for us to receive knowledge?

Spiritual value, no, but to conclude that it has no historical value shows an abhorrent lack of historiographical competence.

You have a valid point. When I claim that it doesn't have any historical value, I mean that in the sense that we shouldn't look at it for information on what happened during Jesus' time.

Secret? No. But we do believe, as do you, that certain knowledge is absolutely necessary for salvation; and much of the world does not have that knowledge.

Agreed. Do you believe that this knowledge is what saves us, or that it simply helps us to be concious of how to be saved?

Thanks a lot for your response, and I look forward to further discussion. God bless.

[maklelan]

Because it suggests that it's late.

But that has little to do with the text's historical value. It can teach us more about the nature of second century C.E. Christianity than can the synoptic gospels.

You claimed that you date the Gospel of John to around 100. If Thomas contains material that was written in 100, you can't give it the same authority that you'd give documents written much earlier in the first century (i.e. the Synoptics).

I never said anything about authority. The text is very obviously a pseudepigraphical Gnostic text. That much is not in question. I am responding to the assertion that it has no historical value.

However, this has nothing to do with our conversation. The fact that you date John at 100 when I believe it was written in the 90's only gives me the advantage.

Only if you're right, and I'm skeptical of that.

Maybe. However, you can't dismiss the fact that Thomas contains all of these ideas that were embraced by the Syrian Church. You also can't dismiss the fact that it refers to Thomas as "Judas Thomas" when only the Syrian Church refers to him by that name (as far as we know).

That's fine with me.

As far as I know, it isn't. Are you familiar with what I'm talking about regarding this point of mine, or would you like me to explain further, so you can see what I mean?

I know exactly what you're talking about. I'm presenting a paper at the SBL regional conference next March about rhetorical devices in an apocryphal text. I'm very aware of what you're talking about, but large structural rhetorical devices are very rarely rendered useless in translation.

Both, just in different senses. We are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. We receive this through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:23-24).

But that means that our reception of salvation is contingent upon our actions, i.e., whether or not we decide to exercise the faith to receive it.

In a way, you're right. This is in the sense that you can't receive Christ through faith without knowing what the Gospel is. Despite the fact that I believe this knowledge (the knowledge of the Gospel) is necessary in order to receive Jesus' grace, I don't believe that it's what saves us, or that we receive Jesus' grace through it. Rather, through it we become concious that in order to be saved we need to have faith in Christ to receive His grace, which is what saves us. Does that make sense? If not, would you like me to elaborate? If it does make sense, do you agree with it?

I understand what you're saying, but ultimately what salvation comes down to, in your weltanschauung, is a decision on our part to exercise that faith or not. Is that an accurate distillation of your soteriological perspective?

What I said, or the fact that the Gospel of Thomas teaches that Jesus died in order for us to receive knowledge?

The teaching in the Gospel of Thomas.

You have a valid point. When I claim that it doesn't have any historical value, I mean that in the sense that we shouldn't look at it for information on what happened during Jesus' time.

Agreed.

Agreed. Do you believe that this knowledge is what saves us, or that it simply helps us to be concious of how to be saved?

It helps us to become conscious of it, but at the same time, we have to have it or we cannot be saved.

Thanks a lot for your response, and I look forward to further discussion. God bless.

Same to you.

[Cold Steel]

Mark was probably aware of them, but chose to make very limited use of such oral traditions (possibly because they were the "property" of some other group of Jesus followers, with whom Mark did not fellowship). ... In a few instances [the gnostics'] interpretations or uses of the Jesus sayings may be valid, but I am suspicious of all that they touched. ... I would love to know more about the writer of Mark,

and what he knew of the community that initially preserved the Q sayings -- of the Qumranim --

and of James the Just's congregation at Jerusalem.

So would we all. But it's possible that many of the sayings of Jesus are actually legitimate and that they were fairly well known, never in disputeâ??only the interpretations, or how they were used.

If the Restoration is of God, as many of us believe, then the parable here is significant in the plainness of its interpretation and is a view of not only the Apostasy and its aftermath, but the plain and precious parts of the gospel and its teachings that were removed by the Great and Abominable Church of the Devil. In reality, the spiritual gifts and teachings were lost in such a way that no one realized it. Eventually, only the form itself remained, the vitality and viability having been lost forever.

[consiglieri]

Why are you working on your Sunday School Class now? Most of our teachers wait until Saturday night so they can prepare it during Creature Feature.

If I had half a brain, I would do just that.

As it is, with less than half, I prepare all week by reading the assignment several times and marking scriptures and reading commentaries and marking them up.

I don't commit much to writing, though, because I wait to do that on Sunday during sacrament meeting.

It makes it more exciting that way.

It also makes it certain I will have about five times more material than I can cover in class.

We will be covering Hebrews this Sunday.

All are welcome.

All welcome.

This church has many hearts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Hammer]

I was taking a look at the coptic Gospel of Thomas the other day in preparing for my Sunday school class, and thought that I would like to ask the members of the board for their perspectives on this unusual and important book from early Christianity.

The first thing I note is that it is often considered to be a Gnostic book. On the other hand, about half of the 114-sayings of Jesus it contains can be found in the New Testament gospels, or at least appear to be variants on New Testament logia.

I managed to work into the class discussion on apostasy one of the non-canonical logia from the Gospel of Thomas. (That was fun!)

As we discussed a wee bit about early Gnostic Christians (which came up because of Paul's warnings in 1 Timothy which appear to be directed at the Gnostics), a class member brought up that Gnostics and Mormons seem to have in common the view that secret knowledge exists for the initiated which is necessary to salvation.

I also pointed out the numerous distinct dissimilarities between Gnostic and Mormon thought.

I am interested in hearing from board members of all religious points of view.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I liked the insightful statement that if one ate a lion, he became somewhat a lion andif a lion ate man, he became somewhat man.

[consiglieri]

I liked the insightful statement that if one ate a lion, he became somewhat a lion andif a lion ate man, he became somewhat man.

I think there are a number of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas that strike us as strange mostly because they are unfamiliar.

By contrast, I think there are a number of strange logia that made it into the New Testament, only we don't tend to view them as strange due to their familiarity.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[structurecop]

By contrast, I think there are a number of strange logia that made it into the New Testament, only we don't tend to view them as strange due to their familiarity.

"Had Alexandria triumphed and not Rome, the extravagant and muddled stories that I have summarized here would be coherent, majestic, and perfectly ordinary."

-- Jorge Luis Borges

[consiglieri]

"Had Alexandria triumphed and not Rome, the extravagant and muddled stories that I have summarized here would be coherent, majestic, and perfectly ordinary."

-- Jorge Luis Borges

What an apropos quote.

Thank you, Tyler.

I think I came across that when I was reading a collection of essays about the Gospel of Judas.

The Forgotten Gospel, or something like that.

Is that your source?

I . . . forgot.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[structurecop]

The Forgotten Gospel, or something like that.

Is that your source?

I . . . forgot.

LoL. The aptly-named Sir Not Appearing in the Thread.

The book I read it in, if memory serves, was The Other Bible (which does not, surprisingly, feature the Other Jesus of Mormonism).

[RAIDERJO76]

But that has little to do with the text's historical value. It can teach us more about the nature of second century C.E. Christianity than can the synoptic gospels.

I never said anything about authority. The text is very obviously a pseudepigraphical Gnostic text. That much is not in question. I am responding to the assertion that it has no historical value.

Only if you're right, and I'm skeptical of that.

That's fine with me.

I know exactly what you're talking about. I'm presenting a paper at the SBL regional conference next March about rhetorical devices in an apocryphal text. I'm very aware of what you're talking about, but large structural rhetorical devices are very rarely rendered useless in translation.

But that means that our reception of salvation is contingent upon our actions, i.e., whether or not we decide to exercise the faith to receive it.

I understand what you're saying, but ultimately what salvation comes down to, in your weltanschauung, is a decision on our part to exercise that faith or not. Is that an accurate distillation of your soteriological perspective?

The teaching in the Gospel of Thomas.

Agreed.

It helps us to become conscious of it, but at the same time, we have to have it or we cannot be saved.

Same to you.

I think that you are right in saying the the Gospel of Thomas does have historical value, despite the fact that it may not be very accurate. I was just trying to get the point accross the it shouldn't be considered a divinely inspired Gospel.

I pretty much agree with you regarding salvation. I believe that we are saved by grace through faith. Do you agree?

Thanks, and I apologize for taking so long to respond.