Judging or whole truth

[joyinhim]

I have been posting a lot of my observation of overall Christian community. It is unconventional because it is not free countries' Christian way. Is it wrong for me to defend His teaching? I am doing my best to tell the whole truth about His teaching because it is not showing much in the free countries.

God is powerful. If He is living in us it will show in our daily lives. Honestly, can most of us say our lives are changed because of our faith? Why do you get so defensive when one tells the reality and the whole truth? Jesus does not want us to be a lip servants!

Yes I am a woman. I would not come to tell the whole truth about reality if men leaders were doing their job of leading. Shame on you men leaders!

 

[PDoug]

I have been posting a lot of my observation of overall Christian community. It is unconventional because it is not free countries' Christian way. Is it wrong for me to defend His teaching? I am doing my best to tell the whole truth about His teaching because it is not showing much in the free countries.

God is powerful. If He is living in us it will show in our daily lives. Honestly, can most of us say our lives are changed because of our faith? Why do you get so defensive when one tells the reality and the whole truth? Jesus does not want us to be a lip servants!

Yes I am a woman. I would not come to tell the whole truth about reality if men leaders were doing their job of leading. Shame on you men leaders!

Sometimes I'm so ashamed to be a man : : :... not! : : :. I'm just kidding.

When I was a kid, I went to Church and belonged to a Youth Fellowship. When I asked several people at that time what faith was, I never received a satisfactory answer. Many people quoted Hebrews 11:1. But Hebrews 11:1 does not provide practical instructions on how to have faith. One thing led to another and I winded up leaving the Church and Youth Fellowship out of disillusionment. What people preached in the Church and Youth Fellowship, I saw no one doing. I said to myself that something is wrong. I then decided to believe that what was said by Christ is Mark 11:22-24 was actually true. So I began practicing saying what I wanted, and believing that what I said would come to bear (consistent with Mark 11:23 on how someone should have faith). I also noticed the more I repeated what I said while having faith, the more what I asked for would be realized.

I started using the technique to get stuff that I wanted for a number of years, and at the back of my mind, I noticed that I was getting nicer because of it. In a way it didn't make sense to me, because it was inconsistent with the conventional Christian thinking I was accustomed to. Things escalated a few years ago when I was thrown headlong into a brutal spiritual testing against members of the occult. Up until that time, the occult for me was just something I saw on TV. However I winded up invoking things against these people (via faith), and I saw, heard, and perceived them invoking things against me (via means other than faith).

A full scale spiritual warfare ensued between these people and myself, and by necessity, I resorted to doing huge amounts of praying to fend them off and end the situation. That is how I've ended up in Christian forums. I started using faith as a neat way of getting things done in my life; I then became tested to see if I would stick with it, and I managed to stick with it - and a whole lot more. The following is what happened to me.

Gospel of Thomas

(69) Jesus said, "Blessed are they who have been persecuted within themselves. It is they who have truly come to know the father. Blessed are the hungry, for the belly of him who desires will be filled."

(2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All."

When I had faith consistent with Mark 11:22, I inadvertently sought after God. I then became troubled with the spiritual persecution (which is necessary for someone to undergo in order to obtain God's greatest gifts). I next became astonished (which I'm still experiencing) at the intelligence, goodness, and foresight I developed, along with just how grand the rewards men and women will have when they have faith correctly.

I'm convinced that the apostles only scratched the surface of the possibilities those who have faith can exhibit. In the days leading to the end of this age of mankind (within about 30 years) you will see and hear things that would have astonished even the apostles and those in the early church.

Everyday I shake my head at the smallness of my faith, and I keep resorting to doing a significant amount of praying to increase it (Matthew 17:19-21). I will not rest until I exhibit much of the significant spiritual abilities men and women have the potential to do.

If you are wondering why the Church doesn't work, it is because very few people have faith the way prescribed by God. Almost everyone says he has faith by directly believing in God, when having faith is not directly believing in God. Rather having faith is outlined by Christ in Mark 11:22-24.

Please note the following scripture.

Gospel of Thomas

(35) Jesus said, "It is not possible for anyone to enter the house of a strong man and take it by force unless he binds his hands; then he will (be able to) ransack his house."

Until the Spirit of this world is bound, it is not reasonable to expect that the above situation will change. It is he who has made everyone blind to the word of God. I'm sorry. I wish I could give you brighter news right now. However, rest assured, everything will unfold in a way that is satisfactory to God.

 

[PDoug]

joyinhim,

Per the scripture below, when all is said and done, if people say they have faith, but their faith do not bear fruit, then these people's faith must be dead:

(NASB)

James 2

17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

P.S. That is one way you know that directly believing in God is actually worthless.

 

[thessalonian]

The Gospel of Thomas is not scripture. It is a work produced by Gnosticism.

 

[PDoug]

The Gospel of Thomas is not scripture. It is a work produced by Gnosticism.

There is no evidence that the Gospel of Thomas was produced by the Gnostics. In fact, the Gospel of Thomas was produced before the Gnostics works that have been discovered, and even before the Gospels found in the Bible. Also, there are many who believe that the Gospel of Thomas was a source for the Gospels found in the Bible. If there are resemblances between some of the materials found in the Gospel of Thomas and in Gnostics works, it is only because much (if not all) of the Gnostics works are true.

No one who is driven significantly by God can be satisfied with what is written in the Bible. God drives a person to self-discovery, and that person finds out who he and all mankind are, by wading through various materials under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and assembling a picture of the truth. Just as the truth can be found is some people but not in others, God has sprinkled the truth everywhere in our world, and it is our job to distinguish God's truths from falsehoods. Remember God did not say that He would write His law merely in scriptures, but in our minds. This means He has given everyone the capacity know and distinguish the truth via faith.

Jeremiah 31

31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,"
declares the LORD.

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD.
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

Just as God provided clarity concerning salvation by faith via Paul's New Testament scriptures, God will provide clarity about everything as promised in the Book of Enoch 93:10. This means that a vast amount of authentic scriptures will be identified and released in the upcoming years. (Incidentally, the Book of Enoch was used by the early Christians.)

 

[thessalonian]

Your dreaming bud and have no authority to call this heretical book scripture. It is not. I am quite satisfied with what is in the Bible as long as it is illuminated by the light of sacred oral tradition. The gospel of thomas should be used for toilet paper.

 

[thessalonian]

Your dreaming bud and have no authority to call this heretical book scripture. It is not. I am quite satisfied with what is in the Bible as long as it is illuminated by the light of sacred oral tradition. The gospel of thomas should be used for toilet paper. The clarity you seek is in the teachings of the Catholic Church which have been passed down for 2000 years.

blessings

 

[Free]

The Gospel of Thomas is not scripture. It is a work produced by Gnosticism.

There is no evidence that the Gospel of Thomas was produced by the Gnostics. In fact, the Gospel of Thomas was produced before the Gnostics works that have been discovered, and even before the Gospels found in the Bible. Also, there are many who believe that the Gospel of Thomas was a source for the Gospels found in the Bible. If there are resemblances between some of the materials found in the Gospel of Thomas and in Gnostics works, it is only because much (if not all) of the Gnostics works are true.

But you have overlooked the obvious - resemblences between the Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas show that Thomas was dependent on the Gospels. Thomas is dated much later than the Gospels because it contains Gnostic thoughts that didn't develop until at least the mid second century. And there is much evdience that Thomas was produced by Gnositcs, a cult that was condemned by the early Church.

Also, to say that "there are many who believe that the Gospel of Thomas was a source for the Gospels" is quite misleading since those who believe that are a very small minority, at least academically speaking. In the public at large there certainly are more who believe this to be true, but that is only because the press focuses on senationalism. But that doesn't make it true.

No one who is driven significantly by God can be satisfied with what is written in the Bible. God drives a person to self-discovery, and that person finds out who he and all mankind are, by wading through various materials under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and assembling a picture of the truth.

And do you really think that the Holy Spirit guides people to "truth" which directly contradicts Holy Scripture?

The evidence highly favors a late date for Thomas due to its developed Gnostic content and dependence on the Gospels.

I suggest you keep looking for the truth.

 

[Gary]

The best way to evaluate the credibility of the Gospel of Thomas is by way of comparison to the New Testament Gospels, which often the same critics have grave doubts about. When this comparison is made, the Gospel of Thomas comes up seriously short.....

Read on:
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/bible/thomas.htm

 

[PDoug]

Your dreaming bud and have no authority to call this heretical book scripture. It is not. I am quite satisfied with what is in the Bible as long as it is illuminated by the light of sacred oral tradition. The gospel of thomas should be used for toilet paper. The clarity you seek is in the teachings of the Catholic Church which have been passed down for 2000 years.

blessings

Everyone who has faith has the authority and obligation to make judgments about what writings are authentic, and what writings are not. That is what the following suggests:

Philippians 2

12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyedâ€â€not only in my presence, but now much more in my absenceâ€â€continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,
13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

No one can go to God in the end and say that he relied on someone or some institution's judgment when making the ultimate determinations concerning how to establish and foster a relation with Him. Everyone is outfitted by God with intelligence, and we are all required to find our way back to Him using it.

God has said through His word that a person is saved and made righteous by faith (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:28, Romans 4:1-8). God has said further that the faith a person has must bear fruit in order for it to be authentic:

(NASB)

James 2

17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

Finally, God has said that a person obtains the (Holy) Spirit through (real) faith (Galatians 3:14); is controlled by the Spirit (Romans 8:9) when the person has the Spirit in him; and is given the capacity by the Spirit to make judgments about all things:

1 Corinthians 2

14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:

Therefore the burnden lies ultimately on the individual (not on some institution he may belong) to make the proper determination regarding what scriptures are authentic.

As for your remark regarding using the Gospel of Thomas as toilet paper:

Gospel of Thomas

(93) Jesus said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs, lest they cast them on the dung- heap; cast not the pearls to the swine lest they grind it [to bits].

As I've wrote several times before, the Catholic Church has no history of bearing fruit, and hence has no authority from God to make proper judgments concerning the soundness of scripture. Remember also, the Catholic Church teaches salvation by works which directly contradicts Galatians 5:4, which warns that all you practice these things, will lose their salvation.

 

[Merry Menagerie]

I have been posting a lot of my observation of overall Christian community. It is unconventional because it is not free countries' Christian way. Is it wrong for me to defend His teaching? I am doing my best to tell the whole truth about His teaching because it is not showing much in the free countries.

God is powerful. If He is living in us it will show in our daily lives. Honestly, can most of us say our lives are changed because of our faith? Why do you get so defensive when one tells the reality and the whole truth? Jesus does not want us to be a lip servants!

Yes I am a woman. I would not come to tell the whole truth about reality if men leaders were doing their job of leading. Shame on you men leaders!

The problem is, that everyone has their own opinion on what the 'truth' is. When we shove it down people's throats then yes it can become judgemental. Especially when not backed up by scripture.

 

[PDoug]

The problem is, that everyone has their own opinion on what the 'truth' is. When we shove it down people's throats then yes it can become judgemental. Especially when not backed up by scripture.

This is impossible if everyone has real faith. Therefore there is a fundamental problem with Christians not having real faith.

 

[PDoug]

The Gospel of Thomas is not scripture. It is a work produced by Gnosticism.

There is no evidence that the Gospel of Thomas was produced by the Gnostics. In fact, the Gospel of Thomas was produced before the Gnostics works that have been discovered, and even before the Gospels found in the Bible. Also, there are many who believe that the Gospel of Thomas was a source for the Gospels found in the Bible. If there are resemblances between some of the materials found in the Gospel of Thomas and in Gnostics works, it is only because much (if not all) of the Gnostics works are true.

But you have overlooked the obvious - resemblences between the Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas show that Thomas was dependent on the Gospels. Thomas is dated much later than the Gospels because it contains Gnostic thoughts that didn't develop until at least the mid second century. And there is much evdience that Thomas was produced by Gnositcs, a cult that was condemned by the early Church.

Also, to say that "there are many who believe that the Gospel of Thomas was a source for the Gospels" is quite misleading since those who believe that are a very small minority, at least academically speaking. In the public at large there certainly are more who believe this to be true, but that is only because the press focuses on senationalism. But that doesn't make it true.

Please note the following excerpt from here:

One of the most interesting facets of the study of the Gospel of Thomas, the Coptic manuscript that has made such an impact on Biblical studies at the end of the present century, is that so many sayings in the canonical Gospel of Mark are also found in Thomas. In the chapters on Jesus' public ministry (Mark 1:1-8:22 and 11:1-12:44), thirty five separate sayings may be counted that are neither Markan redaction nor occasional comments by Jesus in the course of stories about his miracles. Of those 36, no fewer than 21 can also be found in Thomas in one form or another.

There are three possible explanations for this state of affairs. First, perhaps Thomas drew sayings from Mark and the other synoptic gospels that depend on Mark. Second, Mark may have drawn sayings from Thomas. Third, both Thomas and Mark separately may have drawn sayings from the same oral or written sources. John Horman (1996) has argued in detail that Thomas and Mark drew upon a common written Greek text.

The theory that Thomas drew sayings from Mark does not seem tenable. Stephen Patterson (1993) has recently argued persuasively that there are no good reasons to believe that any of the synoptic gospels served as a source for Thomas. Another case for the independence of Thomas has been made recently by Bradley McLean (1995). Some have sought to show that there are Markan or Lukan or Matthean redactional elements in the Gospel of Thomas (Blomberg 1984, Tuckett 1988). However, there are several ways that independent material in Thomas could misleadingly appear to have been derived originally from redacted passages in the synoptics:

1. The scribes who copied Thomas almost certainly harmonized elements of Thomasine sayings with the canonical versions with which they were familiar. Such harmonization is a well known phenomenon in the text traditions of the synoptic gospels themselves especially in the Coptic textual tradition.

2. It is likely that whoever translated Thomas from Greek to Coptic did so in light of his knowledge of the sayings as they are found in the canonical gospels and so some harmonizing is to be expected in Coptic Thomas.

3. Coincidence and chance undoubtedly played a role. If, for example, Luke made a slight change in a saying that he found in Mark, Thomas may have coincidentally thought it proper to make the same change in a saying that he found in oral tradition, or oral tradition may have contained that supposed change.

4. Insofar as fragments of passages in Luke or Matthew are said to indicate redaction, this presupposes that we have at hand for comparison a perfect version of the same text of Mark that Matthew or Luke used. We do not. In some cases, what appear to be minor redactional changes made by Matthew or Luke may actually reflect the original text of Mark.

5. Redactional material in Luke or Matthew may derive from those authors' knowledge of material in Thomas. Gregory Riley (1995) has recently argued that Luke 12:14 and 5:39 indicate that some parts of Luke's gospel "must post-date and be dependent on sayings formed in Thomas Christianity."

Such considerations would be without much merit if there were a considerable number of sayings in Thomas that certainly reflect the redactional tendencies of Mark or Matthew or Luke. There are few, if any, that do. Those arguing for the dependence of Thomas on the synoptics are therefore forced to concern themselves with a single word here, a phrase there. Such textual details are best accounted for by harmonization processes such as those enumerated above. Today, thanks especially to Patterson's work, we can say that the independence of Thomas from the synoptics is as reliable a conclusion as is the existence, at one time, of the document we call Q. Neither conclusion will ever be universally accepted, but I think both should be.

As for the date of Thomas, Patterson (1993:120) argues that

While the cumulative nature of a sayings collection understandably makes the Gospel of Thomas difficult to date with precision, several factors weigh in favor of a date well before the end of the first century: the way which Thomas appeals to the authority of particular prominent figures (Thomas, James) against the competing claims of others (Peter, Matthew); its genre, the sayings collection, which seems to have declined in importance after the emergence of the more biographical and dialogical forms near the end of the first century; and its primitive christology, which seems to presuppose a theological climate more primitive even than the later sayings of the synoptic sayings gospel, Q. Together these factors suggest a date for Thomas in the vicinity of 70-80 C.E.

These are solid lines of reasoning. When scholars put forth a later date for Thomas they generally do so because Thomas is said to show the influence of gnostic ideas. However, even if this were so it would not be determinative of a date, only of the cast of mind of the particular community from which Thomas originated and perhaps of the interests of Thomas' copyists through the centuries. Gnostic or proto-gnostic ideas certainly circulated in the first century in Christian circles (e.g. the Gospel of John). I would say that we can date both Thomas and Mark to the same period, ca. 70 C.E..

You can see other references concerning the Gospel of Thomas here.

And do you really think that the Holy Spirit guides people to "truth" which directly contradicts Holy Scripture?

The evidence highly favors a late date for Thomas due to its developed Gnostic content and dependence on the Gospels.

I suggest you keep looking for the truth.

Please show me where that is the case.

Even after considering the weight the article above lends to the credibility of the Gospel of Thomas, as I've said several times before, the way someone ultimately makes sound judgments regarding scripture, is to ensure that that person has real faith.

 

[Merry Menagerie]

The problem is, that everyone has their own opinion on what the 'truth' is. When we shove it down people's throats then yes it can become judgemental. Especially when not backed up by scripture.

This is impossible if everyone has real faith. Therefore there is a fundamental problem with Christians not having real faith.

If everyone had read faith then we would'nt be here discussing this ;)

 

[PDoug]

If everyone had read faith then we would'nt be here discussing this ;)

Yep. Most people have not legally left the starting blocks, and they are running around ignoring their senses, which tell them that something is wrong about the way they are running the race.

 

[cj]

Yep. Most people have not legally left the starting blocks, and they are running around ignoring their senses, which tell them that something is wrong about the way they are running the race.

PDoug, do you know why you were saved?

In love,
cj

 

[PDoug]

PDoug, do you know why you were saved?

In love,
cj

Yes. I'm saved because I have faith consistent with Christ's instructions on how to do so (Mark 11:22-24), and I bear fruit because of it, in a manner described here. Also, the more I have faith, the more my intelligence (Jeremiah 31:31-34, 1 Corinthians 2:6-16) and capacity to do things via faith (e.g. heal sicknesses) increases (Matthew 17:19-21).

 

[Free]

PDoug,

Anyone who is a Christian and has even the slightest bit of discernment should know that the Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic text that is very anti-Christ. Stephen Patterson is a member of the Jesus Seminar, which exists for the sole purpose of undermining the Bible and everything Christian. The very idea behind the "search for the historical Jesus" presupposes that the Jesus of traditional, orthodox Christianity is not the Jesus of the early Church or the Bible.

I will try and get a reply done sometime soon, but I have a paper to write so I don't know when I will get to it. But I will not let such heretical statements about the Gospel of Thomas go unanswered.

 

[PDoug]

PDoug,

Anyone who is a Christian and has even the slightest bit of discernment should know that the Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic text that is very anti-Christ.

If you mean that the Gospel of Tomas is Gnostic in the sense that it contains sayings by Christ not meant for the world in general at around the time of the early church, but only for mature christians: then you are correct.

Matthew 13

10 The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"
11 He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
12 Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'
16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.
17 For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

I see nothing wrong with most Gnostics texts, particularly Gnostics texts found in the Nag Hammadi Library. As the above scripture and the ones below indicate, God's greatest wisdom is supposed to sound like gibberish to someone having no faith, or lacking considerable faith.

1 Corinthians 1

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

1 Corinthians 2

6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
7 No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him"â€â€
10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.

Even I have been guilty of doubting the authenticity of Gnostic scriptures, but after months doing large amounts of praying/fasting (i.e. having faith - Mark 11:22-24) I have come to recognize Gnostics texts are rich with God's great wisdom and knowledge.

There are a number of indicators that point to the authenticity of Gnostics texts:

1) The character of the writing. Gnostics texts have the same straightforward, non-boasting style as scriptures in the Bible - such as Paul's epistles. This is consistent with Matthew 7:15-20.

2) The texts show real (spiritual) intelligence - consistent with what you see in Paul's epistles, and other scriptures in the Bible. In other words, Gnostics texts aren't stitched-up, regurgitation of pieces of knowledge, that show no real understanding on the part of the speakers.

3) Gnostics texts are highly consistent with many things written in the Bible. (They may appear superficially inconsistent in a number of areas, but when examined closely [much like Paul's writings], they are seen to be in fact consistent with scriptures found in the Bible.)

4) Gnostics texts generally recognize that a legitimate relationship with God is centered around praying and fasting.

5) Accounts of the behavior of the Gnostics, showed that they in fact bore tell-tale good fruits such as humility and straightforwardness. In fact Gnostics were condemned for this behavior by the ones who accused them of heresy after the end of the early church. E.g. Gnostics' accusers condemned them for the way they drew lots to see how the various roles in a meeting should be distributed among the participants in the meeting. Gnostics' accusers insisted that roles members played during meetings should be constant: they had no confidence in the reliance of lots - something that the apostles used on a lot during their time.

Unless you do a large amount of praying and fasting, do not expect to appreciate the Gnostics texts found in the Nag Hammadi Library. Also, be careful about disparaging these texts. Because they are far richer than the texts found in the Bible, they are significantly greater works by the Holy Spirit. If you disparage these works, you will run into the real danger of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, and this can cause your heart to harden to the word of God in general - by being less inclined to have legitimate faith.

 

[Free]

Wow, PDoug, it is difficult to know where to start. You clearly are very ignorant of Gnostic beliefs and what the early Church thought of them. You seem to fail to understand that the very essence of Gnosticism is very anti-Christ. It is no wonder why so many "New Agers" so readily accept Gnosticism. It has no place in the life of someone who claims to be a believer.

If you mean that the Gospel of Tomas is Gnostic in the sense that it contains sayings by Christ not meant for the world in general at around the time of the early church, but only for mature christians: then you are correct.

That is not even a sense of Gnosticism. Gnosticism has nothing to do with Christianity other than it is heresy. The writers of the NT speak out against Gnosticism and the early Church vehemently fought against its false teachings.

Unless you do a large amount of praying and fasting, do not expect to appreciate the Gnostics texts found in the Nag Hammadi Library.

And what do you say of the thousands throughout the centuries who have fasted and prayed and found them to be utterly false? Are you above they? How about John, are you above him? Perhaps you should read 1 John a little closer.

If I fast and pray I know without a doubt that God will reveal the deep things of Holy Scripture within me and show me how utterly false Gnosticism is. There are few things that I am absolutely certain of, but this is one of them.

Also, be careful about disparaging these texts. Because they are far richer than the texts found in the Bible, they are significantly greater works by the Holy Spirit. If you disparage these works, you will run into the real danger of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, and this can cause your heart to harden to the word of God in general - by being less inclined to have legitimate faith.

In disparaging these texts I run zero risk of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Pay attention: in accepting the Gnostic texts and believing they are the work of the Holy Spirit, you risk any salvation you did have as you have diluted and convoluted the Truth. You are in grave error.

The fact that you think Gnostic texts "are far richer than the texts found in the Bible," shows how convoluted your thinking has become. You have put them above the Bible when they are works of Satan.

Again, when I get more time I will respond to your supporting points for Gnosticism.