Thread 40944820

What's the origin of any of these newly discovered religious "gospels" or scrolls. Think gospel of thomas, or gospel of mary, or anything alike. Could they be some kind of forgeries done by some secret group, or are there some ayys feeding us this information. What's going on, their discoveries and existence seem inorganic to me, almost as if they were made for a purpose or something.

>>40944820 (OP)
They mustve been fabricated by someone. By whom is still a mystery

>Are modern gospels all forgeries
they solve the paradox of abrahamism
if they are forgeries, they are forgeries to something more truthful

>>40944820 (OP)
Yea bro it’s totally more likely that the widespread availability of the “canon” scriptures are true and those that are hidden and misrepresented on here are forgeries. Use your brain niglet

>>40945065
Anything more recent is likely to be forgery

>>40944820 (OP)
>modern gospels
Yes, but I think what you're talking about aren't "modern," just recently discovered or discussed.

There were a lot of "gospels" back in the days of early Christianity, before they came together and decided on only four to be "canon," along with several other books. Of course, besides this "official" decision, there's no real indication that those books are any better than the ones they left out.

Gee, I wonder.

>>40946355
I really do, man.

>>40946365
hmm

>>40944820 (OP)
Yes, they were written in the 17th century.
The Vatican wrote them, in order to switch from mithraism to christianity. This was required to put the jewish bankers into power, since they now became the "chosen people".
Christianity is only 300-400 years old. Or 500, if you count the fact the 19th century had 205 years.

>>40946355
>>40946365
>>40946372
It's cool, but kinda off-topic relating to "new" "bible" gospels (I say it like that because they're new stuff trying to claim legitimacy in relation to Christianity, and the message of these new texts would be more digestable if it didn't have to try hijack/piggyback Christianity or whatever their goal is)

>>40946405
>The Vatican wrote them, in order to switch from mithraism to christianity.
>Christianity is only 300-400 years old.
Do you have anything to backup either of these claims

>>40944820 (OP)
All scripture preserved by God is preserved for a reason.

>>40946415
Should I? These documents are all forgeries. There is not a single original document from before the french revolution.

>>40946427
It's not preserved by god if it's a forgery anon

>>40946406
There's nothing "new" about them. They were secret texts reserved for the spiritually mature. Now made available to all for the end times.

>>40946447
You clearly haven't read them if you think they could possibly be "forgeries". Or else you have not been blessed by the Holy Spirit with basic understanding. God does not mislead his flock through "forgeries".

>>40946461
>They were secret texts
They "were" not if they're forgeries. That's the entire point of making forgery that tries to piggyback on reputation of existing stuff, is that it tries to present itself as legitimate by clinging on legitimacy of the thing it's clinging to. Basically it's very advanced type of manipulation, especially if it's some work which goal is to try alter people's perception of the existing thing it's trying to cling to (so it could be seen as someone or some thing trying to attack Christianity with this forgery)

>>40946482
Only a hylic could think they are forgeries. God doesn't work that way.

>>40946477
You're not a Christian, you trying to larp as one quickly outs you as either schizo or glowie

>>40946487
Why are you using gnostic lingo when we're discussing texts trying to cling to Christianity? You can't be both Gnostic and Christian, and neither of these gospels are part of the canon

>>40946495
You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. Jesus taught gnosis. That's the Gospel. The Nag Hammadi scriptures preserve the true teachings of Jesus in explicit form -- that's why they were miraculously preserved by God. Only hylics and Pharisees like you choose the carnal world of illusion over the truth of Christ.

>>40946488
You are of your father, the Devil. I rebuke thee.

>>40946527
>Jesus taught gnosis
I'm not even going to bother read rest of your post

>>40946536
You are a Satanist trying (and failing) to sow discord. Begone.

>>40946532
You're not a real Christian, you're just a bad larper. Why are you trying to slide my thread?

>>40946545
Your blatant lies are not convincing anyone. You're too easy to spot.

>>40946532
>>40946544
>>40946551

>>40946556
Is that your latest playbook, Satan? You fool no one.

I'm surprised nobody here seems to know the origin of these texts, the purpose for them to forged, what the angle of the forgery is.

>>40944820 (OP)
>their discoveries and existence seem inorganic
How so? The writings of the church fathers mention all sorts of different gospels which they deemed heretical that were floating around in the first couple centuries, and according to the beginning of the gospel of Luke "many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us," which makes it sound like there were more than just the canonical Mark and Matthew written even before Luke.

And for the gospel of Thomas, we found fragments of it even in the 1800s before we finally found the full thing, as described here http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/thomas_poxy.htm and toward the end of this article written near the end of the 1800s https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5071&context=ocj

And looking at quite recent discoveries like the gospel of Judas, that thing is such a barely readable mess with how much is missing (and from what is present is seems like it would've been difficult to read even without so much missing) that it seems unlikely someone would've invented it as part of some nefarious agenda.

>>40944820 (OP)
Are you for real? Those texts represent Christianity in development. Different ideas arising from a vaguely common substrate of Jesus-isms.