Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

asterism OP wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by moonlune in What weird shit are you into? by asterism

I guess I will give one thought. usually discussions around Bible vanon pop up around the gospel of tjhomas. amd frankly I think its pretty obvious that the gospel of thomas is later than most of qwhat is considered canon. do i personally dont think its some consiprcy its not in. the more interesting stuff in regards to canon is like why is Jude and 2 peter in there. and why not shepher of hermas or the clements.lr the didache

5

moonlune wrote (edited )

thanks for the input. I'm reading the chalice and the blade and she talks about how some texts were pushed out of the bible in the early days of Christianity because they were too feminists. And that some gnostic text (coupled with regular historian findings) can hint at a non-hierarchical type of church that followed mary magdalena's vision of Christianity compared to that of orthodox christians (at the time) that were followers of simon peter (it's kind of murky for me though so I might have got things wrong).

I'll probably have to trust the book because I'm not interested enough to read the gnostic gospels myself. I'd prefer to burn my neurons on deleuze with LL lmao

5

asterism OP wrote

Also if anyone wants to know antilegomena is the official name of what I am referring to.

Another interesting thing is seeing how fluid the OT books were there is a lot of evidence they were changing being added to up until The NT Canon was established.

3