Comment: What I was referring to in

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Gnostics, Christians, Q etc. (see in situ)

What I was referring to in

What I was referring to in parables is not the same thing as Gnosticism. I wasn't talking about salvation through gaining secret knowledge. I think God makes things clear to those he saves, but he saves them based on his grace and work on the Cross of Jesus.

You said: "I disagree that the Gospel of Thomas is "silly and reprehensible". Why is that?"

I don't know where to begin. Did you not read the part about women not being worthy of life, and how they would have to become male to be saved? That goes against scripture in Galatians where men and women are equal in Gods sight despite having different gender roles.

You said "It is true, but only partially as some Christian churches were using many texts which were not included in the Bible."

Some christian churches were boasting in blatant immorality and incest as well, that is why other churches corrected them. But the criteria for canonization included consistency of use. If some offshoot was bringing other stuff in which nobody else had heard of, or which contradicted scriptures which were established as reliable, that is not a good reason to accept the stuff.

You said "It is all about the power game. From my perspective Irenaeus and other Church Fathers were destroying the multidimensionality of the Christian Tradition..."

What is notable is that Iranaeus was a student of Polycarp who was a friend and student of the apostle John who was chosen by Jesus. John appointed polycarp as a bishop to lead the church in Smyrna. Iranaeus knew that the bishops and leaders of the christian church were well known and that they didn't teach gnosticism, and he also made use of scripture which was established as reliable, and which contradicted gnosticism. Your talk of multidimentionality reminds me of your somewhat relativistic talk elsewhere. How did you come to the conclusion that it was a power game?

You said: "Q might be an imaginary hypothesis, but there was pretty sure something like it, that is, a collection of sayings of Jesus which the writers of the synoptic Gospels used..."

Q is short for the german word for 'source'. Obviously there was a source(probably the writers own experience and the unanimity of the church), but the idea that the source was Q (i.e. a unified written collection of sayings) is an idea which has no real evidence.

"It is always the winners who write the history, and this also applies to the Christian history."

This rationale doesn't really work in this instance to further your argument. The fact that God is involved in scriptures inspiration and preservation would secure it's success. If the purpose of scripture is to teach and sanctify God's church, then it would follow that God would give that scripture to the church. Here is an article you might check out: http://www.str.org/site/News2?id=5473

you said: "but there is no certainty of the original writers these Gospels either."
While it's true that not every books authorship is totally certain, I don't think it is as encompassing as you portray it. Authorship of all the gospels was strongly attested by the early church. The fact that they don't all say who wrote them "in them" is a problem for some people. There is certainty that the gospels which are in the bible were established as reliable and accepted by the church early on and the same can't be said for the Gospel of Thomas.