Hey Matt, its good that you have a searching mind but be on guard in your
spirit.  Just some advice.

Lelia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ariel" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: The book of Thomas?


> Hey, Matt
>
> The book of Thomas is one of those books I told you about a while ago that
> was not accepted as true Scripture.  I'm not sure whether you mean the
book
> of Phillip or the Letter to the Philippians.  The Letter to the
Philippians
> is genuine Scripture, written by the Apostle Paul.  The Book of Phillip is
> another one of those not real Scripture books.  Whether they're worth
> reading even if they're not Scripture is questionable.  If they're not
valid
> for Scripture, there's a reason for it and it brings into question whether
> anything they say is valid.  And there might be the temptation to believe
it
> because it is so close to real Scripture.
>
> You know, you really seem to have a searching mind.  Have you ever
> considered studying Greek and Hebrew?  I think you would enjoy digging
> around in the original languages, though it might drive you crazy since
one
> word could mean "boat" or "coat hanger" and you'll keep asking "Why this
one
> and not that one?"  Grin.  Okay, I'm exaggerating with the translations
but
> you get the idea.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matt" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 11:11 AM
> Subject: The book of Thomas?
>
>
> > Hi, what do you golks know about this book of Thomas?
> > I just read a translation of it on the net I believe.
> > Confusing but why is it not included?
> > Wasn't he one of the people who followed Jesus?
> > I heard mention of it on a tv show this weekend and my brother mentioned
a
> > book of PhilipI believe which was not included.  I have asked about this
> > sort of thing before on here and I think I was more or less told that
some
> > people just sat down and decided they would write their own book and
that
> > they weren't relevent?
> > Still, seems like it is historical and worth a look?
> >
> > Matt
>