Црква је пре свега, Божја кућа.
to ovo jevanđelje pobija, aj prvo pročitaj šta piše....
Da je ovo jevanđelje u Bibliji,Crkva ne bi mogla da manipuliše širokim narodnim masama.
Pazi Lemaja, činjenica da Sveto pismo nije baš originalno delo jevanđelista i da je ko zna koliko puta do sada prepravljano od strane moćnih i uticajnih. Tako da teško je polemisati na osnovu materijala koji je verovatno u mnogim stvarima udaljen od originalnog. Čuh već za ovo jevanđelje, ali i za njega se postavlja svakako pitanje verodostojnosti. Ako želimo objektivnu analizu svega, potrebni su objektivni podaci a ovde toga manjka. Ljudi ne mogu da se usaglase oko događaja koji su se desili pre 100 a ne pre par hiljada godina jer je tu ono čuveno "pobeednici pišu istoriju".
Netačno.
Evo dokaza iz Vikipedijie:
Navodim podatke o datumu nastanka 4 biblijska jevanđelja - (Po Mateju, Marku, Luki i Jovanu)
A minority of scholars believe that the gospel could have been written as early as 63.38
Most critical scholars believe that Mark was written around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Herod's Temple in year 70.293031 Some scholars3233 have argued for an earlier date. 34 35
Most critical scholars place the date c 80-90,6263 although some argue for a date c. 60-65.64
edit AD 75 to 100
Most contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source used by Luke (see Markan Priority).65 If it is true that Mark was written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70,66 they theorize that Luke would not have been written before 70. Some who take this view believe that Luke's prediction of the destruction of the temple could not be a result of Jesus predicting the future but with the benefit of hindsight regarding specific details. They believe that the discussion in Luke 21:5-30 is specific enough (more specific than Mark's or Matthew's) that a date after 70 seems necessary, if disputed.6768 These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100. Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred.69 Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on Jesus' divine nature, the end times, and salvation that are similar to the those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.70
Some scholars from the Jesus Seminar argue that the birth narratives of Luke and Matthew are a late development in gospel writing about Jesus.32 In this view, Luke might have originally started at 3:1,32 with John the Baptist.
The terminus ad quem, or latest possible date, for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (late 2nd/early 3rd century)71 and the mid to late 2nd century writings that quote or reference Luke. The work is reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.72 Christian scholar Donald Guthrie claims that the Gospel was likely widely known before the end of the 1st century, and was fully recognized by the early part of the second,73 while Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its usage," prior to ca. 150.74 In the middle of the 2nd century, an edited version of the Gospel of Luke was the only gospel accepted by Marcion, a heretic who rejected Christianity's connection to Jewish scripture.75
The gospel was apparently written near the end of the 1st century.7677 Bart Ehrman argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that he believes clearly do not belong to their context, and believes that these suggest redaction.78
The so-called "Monarchian Prologue" to the Fourth Gospel (c. 200) supports AD 96 or one of the years immediately following as to the time of its writing.79 Scholars set a range of c. 90–100.80 The gospel was already in existence early in the 2nd century.81 John was composed in stages (probably two or three).82 There is credible evidence that the Gospel was written no later than the middle of the 2nd century. Since the middle of the 2nd century writings of Justin Martyr use language very similar to that found in the Gospel of John, the Gospel is considered to have been in existence at least at that time.83 The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which records a fragment of this gospel, is usually dated to the first half of the 2nd century.84
Conservative scholars consider internal evidences, such as the lack of the mention of the destruction of the Temple and a number of passages that they consider characteristic of an eyewitness,85citation needed sufficient evidence that the gospel was composed before 100 and perhaps as early as 50–70: in the 1970s, scholars Leon Morris and John A.T. Robinson independently suggested earlier dates for the gospel's composition.868788
The noncanonical Dead Sea Scrolls suggest an early Jewish origin, parallels and similarities to the Essene Scroll, and Rule of the Community.89 Many phrases are duplicated in the Gospel of John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are sufficiently numerous to challenge the theory that the Gospel of John was the last to be written among the four Gospels90 and that it shows marked non-Jewish influence.91
NARAVNO, jasna stvar, samo što bi sad trebalo još milion godina da bi rulja to ukapirala
Što se zvanične crkve tiče, mislim da je ona u početku bila zaista Božja institucija, i da nije bila prevara, ali da je tokom vremea kroz razne kompromise, uplitanje politike i zemaljskih interesa, postala, može se reći prevara, i dobrano odstupila od Biblije. Ja u to nisam siguran, i nek mi Bog oprosti ako griješim. Što se same Biblije tiče, mislim da ona nije prevara, i da se Bog postarao da se njegova riječ u Bibliji sačuva u originalnom obliku.
Što se Boga tiče, mislim da tu najbolje situaciju opisuju Isusove riječi: "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” (ne da mi se sad tražiti srpsku verziju). Dakle zvanična crkva, kao institucija, po meni nije potrebna za odnos sa Bogom.
Možeš li mi objasniti ovo, molim te.
jovičiću, nadala sam se da ćeš se uključiti! :) jako malo znam o jevanđeljima i njihovom nastanku... ali sam htela da pokrenem raspravu o ovom jevanđelju jer je nekako najbliže onome u šta ja verujem... pa da vidim šta svi vi mislite o tome...
Nasa verzija je: Gde kod se okupe trojica u moje ime tu je i crkva. Bukvalan prevod je nesto drugaciji ali ja sam samo za ovo cuo u par navrata a i ti si na jednoj temi spomenuo. I mislim da cu da obidjem religijsku temu jer cesto popizdim i onda krenem da pricam razne nebuloze. :)
Prije svega, hrišćanski teolozi su tumačili Bibliju na osnovu grčke filozofije i uvodili razne biblijski neutemeljene doktrine. Npr. doktrina o svetom trojstvu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum
Ovdje se opisuje kako je doktrina o svetom Trojstvu vrlo upitna.
A tu je i politika. Da bi se hrišćanstvo lakše širilo razne paganske stvari su hristijanizovane, da bi pagani lakše prihvatili hrišćanstvo, iako Bog ni u kom slučaju ne voli mješanje prave vjere sa paganizmom. I srpski običaj slavljenja slave, jeste pagansko naslijeđe i više ima veze sa nacioalnim folklorom nego sa religijom.
Pa ovo ne kaze samo Jevandjelje po Tomi, crkva je samo prihvaceni naziv za hram, kao sto napisah crkva je zajednica hriscana a ne zgrada.
Posle ću pročitati ostatak, al samo mala agresija na prve postove, crkva je po definiciji zajednica ljudi koji veruju, to je veza s bogom, kao što je brak zajednica između čoveka i žene koji se vole, nastavljaju vrstu ili šta li, pa je tek posle stvorena institucija od toga.
Tako da je crkva svuda gde si in a relationship with God. :)
Dok vas smrt ne rastavi :)
Nije ušlo zato što verovatno nije to crkvi odgovaralo, kao i mnoga ostala...
eto vidite, neko ovde laže
o tome se radi, ako ne znate hebrejski, nikada nećete znati da l vas neko jebe u mozak vašim svetim spisima i njihovim ideološkim prevodima.
Dok nas smrt ne sastavi :)
zavisi u šta želiš da veruješ :)
Posto jedan pop parla engleski sve u 16 pitacu ga da li je ovo nasa verzija kako sam ja naveo ili se treba prevesti bukvalno.
Pre neko veče na tv-u bio (po hiljaditi put) film Stigmata (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0145531/ ), čija se radnja vrti oko Jevanđelja po Tomi koje nije ušlo u Bibliju, što me nateralo da vikipedišem dotično Jevanđelje.
Za ovo jevađelje se smatra da je pisano oko 150 n.e (znači znatno pre ostalih) i da ga je pisao učenik Isusovog učenika, znači druga ruka, što je mnogo verodostojnije od ostalih jevanđelja. Okosnica Tomine priče o Isusu je da se Bog ne nalazi u crkvi, već u nama samima, kao i u svakom drvetu, kamenu, itd. zatim da treba da voliš i poštuješ na prvom mestu sebe, ne spominju se nikakve "obavezne" molitve, niti da je Isus izvodio bilo kakva čuda, već samo prenosi Isusova učenja, koja su više filozofska nego strogo religijska.
voila vikipedija, na kraju imate i linkove za samo Jevanđelje: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas
Dakle, po vama, zašto ovo jevanđelje nije ušlo u best of kompilaciju (poznatiju kao Biblija), i da li je ovo Jevanđelje zapravo dokaz da je crkva jedna velika prevara, kao one piramidalne šeme, samo toliko dobro organizovana da traje već dva milenijuma i da je izazvala mnoge ratove i krvoprolića, što ni dafiment banka nije uspela...