More on Gnosticism, by Sir Richard Arcos

On the subject of Dr. Lagdon's 'original Christianity', better known as Gnosticism, beliefnet notes that one 'gnostic scholar' ( so called): "theorizes that Thomas is presented as a doubter in the New Testament in order to discredit the spurious Gospel of Thomas." However, it seems more likely that the gnostic writer used Thomas because he was a doubter until given a fuller revelation. I notice that this 'scholar' is assuming that John is of a very late date, an assumption that is only possible if you have an a priori opposition to the miraculous. Dr. Rainy has demonstrated that this is a false assumption, but I think that you ought to read Carson and Moo's Introduction to the New Testament (IVP, 2006) on the matter if you don't want to get bogged down in Dr. Rainy's prose (you don't). Either way, this 'scholar' is engaging in mere guesswork and interpreation. As we have no idea exactly when the gospel of Thomas was written, we simply can't say. Suffice it to say that there is no warrant for this, save the modern vogue for building up the 'Gospel' of Thomas to semi-canonical status. A collection of sayings, it isn't really a Gospel at all, presenting as it does no coherent narrative. And no coherent anything else either. Read Phillip today. It's turgid and incomprehensible rubbish, here's a gem:
'Light and Darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, nor evil evil, nor is life life, nor death death. For this reason each one will dissolve into its earliest origin. But those who are exalted above the world are indissoluble, eternal.'
And if you can understand that, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din! That's nearly as bad as Mary Baker Eddy's Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures!!
Here's a good example of gnostic elitism: 'Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect. So also with "the Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit" and "life" and "light" and "resurrection" and "the Church (Ekklesia)" and all the rest - people do not perceive what is correct but they perceive what is incorrect, unless they have come to know what is correct. The names which are heard are in the world [...] deceive. If they were in the Aeon (eternal realm), they would at no time be used as names in the world. Nor were they set among worldly things. They have an end in the Aeon.' This sounds very heretical: 'One single name is not uttered in the world, the name which the Father gave to the Son; it is the name above all things: the name of the Father. For the Son would not become Father unless he wore the name of the Father. Those who have this name know it, but they do not speak it. But those who do not have it do not know it.'

More of this next time. If Dr. Langdon really wants to become a member of the Eddyist ('Christian Science') cult, I wish him luck. 'As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord'.