You tell me? I just read what you told me to read. I don't do the heavy theology stuff ...
Last edited:
Who created God?
- Thread starter muhammad_isa
- Start date
Can you provide alternative translations? Or do we have to dispute the parts of it you don't like, as usual?
Hmm .. you talk about ignoring history and evidence..
It is important to ascertain the truth of what these "Early Christian Fathers" are reported to have said.
The whole theological belief of Roman Christianity relies on this assumption.
I personally consider it unnecessary to study coptic for just a couple of verses. If you want to interpret the whole GoT
as not being subordinate, that is your prerogative.
Two alternative translations:
The Father opens his bosom, but his bosom is the Holy Spirit. He reveals his hidden self which is his son
Translated by Robert M. Grant
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/got.html
The Father reveals his bosom. - Now his bosom is the Holy Spirit. - He reveals what is hidden of him - what is hidden of him is his Son
Translated by Harold W. Attridge and George W. MacRae
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gostruth.html
The Father opens his bosom, but his bosom is the Holy Spirit. He reveals his hidden self which is his son
Translated by Robert M. Grant
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/got.html
The Father reveals his bosom. - Now his bosom is the Holy Spirit. - He reveals what is hidden of him - what is hidden of him is his Son
Translated by Harold W. Attridge and George W. MacRae
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gostruth.html
The rest follows from the original premise. It is, as you say, a sermon/homily. It's not convincing to disregard the parts you don't like and selectively paste in the parts you do like, out of context
I'm not disregarding anything..
..so, if you are happy it is not subordinate, then why was it repressed by the Roman Empire?
If it really does agree with mainstream beliefs, why was it claimed to be heresy?
I would say that the reason for that, was because those that were using that text in their sermons were NOT "mainstream".
i.e. they were not "true Romans"
@RJM Corbet ..basically, is the GoT an evil gnostic sermon as early Christian Fathers are reported to have claimed.
..or is it acceptable? Which is it?
..or is it acceptable? Which is it?
Last edited:
It is quite acceptable to me.
No, there you try to force the issue. All religions have an early history.
It was obviously buried along with other stuff, probably in a hurry. Anything else is speculation. But I am not a dogmatist or a theologian. I have no problem reading the GOT as supporting the concept of Trinity, although to strict theologians it may err in nit-picking degree. IMO
Regardless of how later followers may have interpreted it, the whole original Arian dispute was a storm in a teacup, as Constantine himself made clear. The divinity of Christ was not an issue for early Christians. Along with the Resurrection and the Eucharist, the belief stems from the earliest church in Rome. Nicea just rubber-stamped it -- the majority belief -- and sorted out the position of the Holy Spirit. It's all been discussed already to exhaustion here ...
Is that so..
Perhaps you'd like to carry out a word count on the GoT..
How many times does it mention "Father" .. and how many times "Son" ?
There is no doubt in my mind .. the GoT was repressed !
I think @muhammad_isa has confused himself here, in assuming a Gnostic text he assumes it must be anti-Trinitarian.
He's wrong, but he'll never admit it. The text is fundamentally Christological, but quite Trinitarian as well speaks for itself:
"The Father opens his bosom, but his bosom is the Holy Spirit. He (the Holy Spirit) reveals his (the Father's) hidden self which is his Son (Christ Jesus)... "
The Son is the Name by which the Father knows Himself ... the Name the Father nurtured in his bosom before the creation of the Aeons ...
It gets all a bit Gnostic with its 'Error' and its emanationism, but otherwise it's surprisingly orthodox. The author of the homily (it's not itself a gospel), either Valentinus or a disciple, follows closely the Gospel of John, and references the other Gospels, and St Paul.
A note: The title "The Gospel of Truth' is taken from the opening words, the beginning of a long sentence, a common practice is the Hebrew Scriptures, and presumably followed here because there was no other attribution of the text, but there is no evidence that this was Gnostic practice, so 'Gospel of Truth' is a given title, for the want of anything definite.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've just done a quick word count in the NT..
Father ------> 387
Son ---------> 391
Father ------> 387
Son ---------> 391
Fine .. so why have we got the Early Christian Fathers denouncing it?
It was found with other "gnostic material" hidden in a cave.
That's a ridiculous conclusion. How many times in the NT does Jesus mention Father? But you dispute the parts you don’t like.
https://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-the-gospel-of-truth/
The Son Reveals The Word Of The Father
The Son appeared, informing them of the Father, the illimitable one. He inspired them with that which is in the mind, while doing his will. Many received the light and turned toward him … For he came in the likeness of flesh and nothing blocked his way because what is incorruptible is irresistible.
Moreover, while saying new things, speaking about what is in the heart of the Father, he proclaimed the faultless word. Light spoke through his mouth, and his voice brought forth life. He gave them thought and understanding and mercy and salvation, and the spirit of strength derived from the infinity and sweetness of the Father …
He became a path for those who went astray and knowledge for those who were ignorant, a discovery for those who sought, and a support for those who tremble, a purity for those who were defiled.
The Son Is The Name And Revelation Of The Father
The name of the Father is the Son. It is he who, in the beginning, gave a name to him who came from him, while he remained the same, and he conceived him as a son. He gave him his name, which belonged to him—he, the Father, who possesses everything that exists around him.
He possesses the name; he has the Son. It is possible for the son to be seen. The name, however, is invisible, for it alone is the mystery of the invisible about to come to ears completely filled with it through the Father’s agency. Moreover, as for the Father, his name is not pronounced but is revealed through a Son. Thus, then, the name is great.
He is the Father, his name is the Son. He did not, therefore, keep it secretly hidden, but it came into existence, and the Son himself disclosed the name. The name, then, is that of the Father, just as the name of the Father is the beloved Son.
I hope you will forgive me for not emphasising the relevant words in big print and bold type.
Anyway, it's your hang-up … I’ve had enough
Last edited:
stranger
the divine ignorance (and friends)
OK, you don't care, but according to encyclopedia.com,
To say that God is infinite is simply to say that He is not finite. More positively God's infinity enhances those attributes which denote His perfection, such as, He is infinite in goodness, infinite in power, infinite in wisdom and love. There are no limits, bounds, or constraints, whether external or internal, imposed on His perfect being.
If He is not finite, then He can't be a trinity because 3 is finite
Well, we don't have to call it 3, see. Neither do we have to call it trinity. I call father, son, and holy spirit, the MEANS. The means for what? The means to reach, to pursue his children in the dark places he knows they will go. It's the heart for them, the love for them, the means to fill each one of them with himself. How far back does that go? Does it have a beginning?
One day they will all return to him so that God may be all in all, everyone lost in the scorching flame of divine love (which never diminishes like temporal love, but only grows stronger... (enough). Then we can consider that the means would have fulfilled it's purpose... But until that time, no, still there. But we're locked up here with loaded words and definitions; not our fault it's just that so much time has passed and so much fighting has been done that we no longer know up from down.
stranger
the divine ignorance (and friends)
I wouldn't touch a hair on the head of dogma, exoterism. Just leave it in place, it's there for a reason. But there comes a time when it will just no longer do. The bird's wanting out of the cage, the beast strains at the bars of it's prison. The prisons nourished for a long time, they did their job, but those wild ones need bigger spaces now.
stranger
the divine ignorance (and friends)
Love is love, that is what it does. It is simple in that way. In moving through time, it has accumulated man-made (the product of conscious thought, effort, action which is not actionless) aggregates which veil it, I guess you could say, and make it hard to see anymore.