It’s simply not accurate to claim that traditional Christian teachings solely rely on the Latin Vulgate and disregard the original Hebrew.

I agree with this somewhat, but not in the way you imply. While modern day (past century or so) scholars do indeed look at other texts, the dogma espoused by "traditional Christian Teachings" rely specifically on the original teachings of the Catholic Church, the additional (or contrary) teachings of Luther, or Calvin, or other noted scholars from a very, very long time ago. All of these influences on today's dogma (the "Teachings") occurred long before we had access to the archaeological evidence or analytical tools of today. "Traditional Christian Teachings" are exactly that, traditional, having nothing to do with any contrariness found more recently in the older texts. Indeed, anywhere there is a deviation from the traditional dogma, the findings are completely ignored within the actual teachings themselves.

Where I agree is that there are plenty of extra biblical teachings in the "traditional Christian dogma." A great deal has been simply created from seemingly no where (not no where, but having nothing to do with the bible). For example, the story of Satan, or the "fall of Lucifer" has so little to do with the bible it is laughable. Both of those stories were completely (95%+) created by the Catholic Church as a social control mechanism.

The Nag Hammadi library primarily contains Gnostic texts

Sorta, but not completely true. The Nag Hammadi contains a fair bit of stuff. Also, calling the gospels (stories of Jesus) “Gnostic” is not true as applied. For example, how is a book like the Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic?" It is often attributed to having been written by the brother of Jesus (although the actual authorship is unprovable). It is one of, if not the oldest written book found that relates to the teachings of Jesus. (Scientific dating methods, language dating, etc. of partial scripts found elsewhere suggest it’s authorship may be as early as 50AD). Why do we call it "Gnostic?" Why place it in that box? It isn't canonical, but what is "canon" didn’t become canon until it was solidified into Roman law (ending debate) over three centuries after Jesus by a group of people who created a religion specifically and explicitly stated to reunite the four Roman kingdoms under one flag (the flag of God-Emperor Constantine, a self-proclaimed divine mouthpiece of God on earth, the first "pope" (although not called that at the time)).

The point is, "Gnostic" (as it is being used here) is a box created long after the writing of the texts themselves, designed to ensure what was proclaimed canon by Roman law remained the only canon (even though they kept changing it internally over the centuries). That doesn't mean that "gnostic" doesn't have a more specific meaning in the various schools of thought at the time, but with respect to the non-canonical gospels (stories of Jesus) specifically, they were (mis)placed in the "gnostic" box to ensure that the dogma created by the Roman empire, under the control of God-Emperor Constantine was not challenged (because there are some seriously non-dogma things in those other period works). Indeed, it is broadly thought that the reason these works were completely lost to time prior to the past century is because they threatened that dogma, and were thus forbidden by The Church to even exist. The Nag Hammadi library itself, because of the timing (dating) of the their burial (in the 4th century AD), is thought to have been a purposeful effort to preserve those thoughts which had become illegal under Roman law.

Another important note, “Gnostic Christianity” predates the modern version of the dogma (which is much more closely aligned with the Roman law version) by a few hundred years.

To oversimplify, there were basically two schools of thought; the “Gnostic” version and the “Saul” version (there were more than that, but this is an oversimplification). The Saul version, coming from the self-proclaimed top level spy of the Pharisees (an aristocratic Priest Class of Jews, the exact same people who rule the world behind the scenes today), and self-admitted mass murderer of Christians, won in the end.

Makes you think.

Well, at least it makes me think.

It is crucial to recognize the diversity of ancient texts and interpretive traditions rather than assuming a singular, unified source.

I agree completely. My problem is, Christian dogma (not all scholarship, but the dogma) does not follow this advice.

While studying regional contextual information is important, each cultural and religious context has its unique symbols and stories. Comparing these with the Genesis story requires careful consideration of cultural distinctions and the intended theological message.

Agree completely. However, purposefully not recognizing the influences within those symbols, stories, cultures and contexts that challenge the dogma is so common in "Traditional Christian Teachings" as to discredit the entire dogmatic system.

Traditional Christian scholars often consult original languages to enrich their understanding rather than relying solely on translations.

One of the main repeating statements here is "Christian scholarship" does this, that or the other thing. I am not talking about scholars or their work. This conversation is about Traditional Christian Teaching, which doesn't benefit from modern (post Reformation) scholarship excepting where the scholarship agrees with the already established dogma. It is the dogma that has not changed, no matter the scholarship or evidence.

it is simply not the sole source for Christian teachings.

Agreed, as I stated earlier, there are plenty of extra-biblical teachings that influence the dogma.

Christian teachings derive their richness from a tapestry of diverse sources, including an array of biblical manuscripts, early translations, and theological writings.

Prove it.

The oldest versions of texts known prior to the Latin Vulgate are, as you note, the Codex Sinaiticus  and the Codex Vaticanus. They were not available to scholars until more recently. They have been edited, and/or written over (a palimpsest, altering the original work at some point after their original creation) and yet still deviate in some very important ways from the Latin Vulgate in the new testament (notably Matthew and Mark regarding the resurrection story, and the self-proclaimed divinity of Jesus). More importantly perhaps, in these deviations the modern bible agrees with the Latin Vulgate, not the earlier works. So your suggestion that these works “changed the dogma” are not warranted in some very important pieces of evidence to the contrary.

The Latin Vulgate itself deviates a fair bit from the modern bible, but the changes didn’t come from other period works, because there were no other period works that existed in the hands of the scholars (at least not provably so). They came from papal decree or other “scholarship” (as you yourself note) created from where ever it was created from (not older works) that changed the story over time.

The oldest version of the Masoretic texts was first created in the 11th century, influenced by (or possibly even derived from) the Latin Vulgate (or the same source material for both works). In other words, at least by the timing of events, you have the listing backwards. The oldest Latin Vulgate is older than the oldest Masoretic texts. That is almost certainly why the Masoretic texts and modern bibles agree on certain key points where the Nag Hammadi and DSS disagree with both.

Theological writings from Church Fathers like Augustine, Jerome, and Origen, as well as the formulation of creeds in ecumenical councils, further shaped Christian thought.

The creeds are continual restatements of beliefs designed specifically to align thought with the dictates of the Church. (Of note: In any other system, such repetition of beliefs is called brainwashing). The creeds were created specifically to be aligned with Roman Law (see the Codex Theodosianus). The creeds, repeated weekly, biweekly, or monthly (depending on sect) are a restatement of those laws, designed to end debate on things like “the divinity of Jesus” (as it is currently understood within the Traditional Christian Teachings) the “trinity” (which wasn’t actually dogma until 383 AD), etc.. These things were made into law to end the huge amount of debate that was occurring, specifically to unite the Roman Empire, as previously stated. THAT is where the creeds come from. THAT was the purpose of the scholarship at the time. I suggest that that is also why there is some very important disagreements between what we have today, and what we have found in older works, found recently (relatively speaking).

Commentaries by theologians like Thomas Aquinas and liturgical texts such as the Liturgy of St. James and the Book of Common Prayer are essential components in the mosaic of Christian teachings. 

I’m pretty sure this is exactly what I am saying.

How does their work define the actual teachings of Jesus? Or perhaps a better question is, why does their work, created centuries or millennia after the fact, define the teachings of Jesus (as promoted, indeed, enforced by Traditional Christian Teachings) more than say, the Gospel of Thomas?

My point is there is a great deal that goes into the dogma we have today that is not from the teachings of Jesus, and is in uncontroversial disagreement with archaeology, language analytics, or even modern Christian scholarship. These pieces of evidence are completely ignored in the actual teachings we get, regardless of scholarship. Scholarship itself is not allowed to disagree with dogma. If it is, it is called heretical, even today.

There is no freedom of thought, and there is a ton of evidence that is ignored or placed into the wrong box. Works that are very likely actual teachings of Jesus (or at least have just as much archeological and contextual validity as “canon”) are ignored in favor of the dogma created by the early Church, which was, once again, uncontroversially designed to unite Rome and set up a God-Emperor (“Pope” as Divine).

It’s simply not accurate to claim that traditional Christian teachings solely rely on the Latin Vulgate and disregard the original Hebrew.

I agree with this somewhat, but not in the way you imply. While modern day (past century or so) scholars do indeed look at other texts, the dogma espoused by "traditional Christian Teachings" rely specifically on the original teachings of the Catholic Church, the additional (or contrary) teachings of Luther, or Calvin, or other noted scholars from a very, very long time ago. All of these influences on today's dogma (the "Teachings") occurred long before we had access to the archaeological evidence or analytical tools of today. "Traditional Christian Teachings" are exactly that, traditional, having nothing to do with any contrariness found more recently in the older texts. Indeed, anywhere there is a deviation from the traditional dogma, the findings are completely ignored within the actual teachings themselves.

Where I agree is that there are plenty of extra biblical teachings in the "traditional Christian dogma." A great deal has been simply created from seemingly no where (not no where, but having nothing to do with the bible). For example, the story of Satan, or the "fall of Lucifer" has so little to do with the bible it is laughable. Both of those stories were completely (95%+) created by the Catholic Church as a social control mechanism.

The Nag Hammadi library primarily contains Gnostic texts

Sorta, but not completely true. The Nag Hammadi contains a fair bit of stuff. Also, calling the gospels (stories of Jesus) “Gnostic” is not true as applied. For example, how is a book like the Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic?" It is often attributed to having been written by the brother of Jesus (although the actual authorship is unprovable). It is one of, if not the oldest written book found that relates to the teachings of Jesus. (Scientific dating methods, language dating, etc. of partial scripts found elsewhere suggest it’s authorship may be as early as 50AD). Why do we call it "Gnostic?" Why place it in that box? It isn't canonical, but what is "canon" didn’t become canon until it was solidified into Roman law (ending debate) over three centuries after Jesus by a group of people who created a religion specifically and explicitly stated to reunite the four Roman kingdoms under one flag (the flag of God-Emperor Constantine, a self-proclaimed divine mouthpiece of God on earth, the first "pope" (although not called that at the time)).

The point is, "Gnostic" (as it is being used here) is a box created long after the writing of the texts themselves, designed to ensure what was proclaimed canon by Roman law remained the only canon (even though they kept changing it internally over the centuries). That doesn't mean that "gnostic" doesn't have a more specific meaning in the various schools of thought at the time, but with respect to the non-canonical gospels (stories of Jesus) specifically, they were (mis)placed in the "gnostic" box to ensure that the dogma created by the Roman empire, under the control of God-Emperor Constantine was not challenged (because there are some seriously non-dogma things in those other period works). Indeed, it is broadly thought that the reason these works were completely lost to time prior to the past century is because they threatened that dogma, and were thus forbidden by The Church to even exist. The Nag Hammadi library itself, because of the timing (dating) of the their burial (in the 4th century AD), is thought to have been a purposeful effort to preserve those thoughts which had become illegal under Roman law.

Another important note, “Gnostic Christianity” predates the modern version of the dogma (which is much more closely aligned with the Roman law version) by a few hundred years.

To oversimplify, there were basically two schools of thought; the “Gnostic” version and the “Saul” version (there were more than that, but this is an oversimplification). The Saul version, coming from the self-proclaimed top level spy of the Pharisees (an aristocratic Priest Class of Jews, the exact same people who rule the world behind the scenes today), and self-admitted mass murderer of Christians, won in the end.

Makes you think.

Well, at least it makes me think.

It is crucial to recognize the diversity of ancient texts and interpretive traditions rather than assuming a singular, unified source.

I agree completely. My problem is, Christian dogma (not all scholarship, but the dogma) does not follow this advice.

While studying regional contextual information is important, each cultural and religious context has its unique symbols and stories. Comparing these with the Genesis story requires careful consideration of cultural distinctions and the intended theological message.

Agree completely. However, purposefully not recognizing the influences within those symbols, stories, cultures and contexts that challenge the dogma is so common in "Traditional Christian Teachings" as to discredit the entire dogmatic system.

Traditional Christian scholars often consult original languages to enrich their understanding rather than relying solely on translations.

One of the main repeating statements here is "Christian scholarship" does this, that or the other thing. I am not talking about scholars or their work. This conversation is about Traditional Christian Teaching, which doesn't benefit from modern (post Reformation) scholarship excepting where the scholarship agrees with the already established dogma. It is the dogma that has not changed, no matter the scholarship or evidence.

it is simply not the sole source for Christian teachings.

Agreed, as I stated earlier, there are plenty of extra-biblical teachings that influence the dogma.

Christian teachings derive their richness from a tapestry of diverse sources, including an array of biblical manuscripts, early translations, and theological writings.

Prove it.

The oldest versions of texts known prior to the Latin Vulgate are, as you note, the Codex Sinaiticus  and the Codex Vaticanus. They were not available to scholars until more recently. They have been edited, and/or written over (a palimpsest, altering the original work, created at some point after their original creation) and yet still deviate in some very important ways from the Latin Vulgate in the new testament (notably Matthew and Mark regarding the resurrection story, and the self-proclaimed divinity of Jesus). More importantly perhaps, in these deviations the modern bible agrees with the Latin Vulgate, not the earlier works. So your suggestion that these works “changed the dogma” are not warranted in some very important pieces of evidence to the contrary.

The Latin Vulgate itself deviates a fair bit from the modern bible, but the changes didn’t come from other period works, because there were no other period works that existed in the hands of the scholars (at least not provably so). They came from papal decree or other “scholarship” (as you yourself note) created from where ever it was created from (not older works) that changed the story over time.

The oldest version of the Masoretic texts was first created in the 11th century, influenced by (or possibly even derived from) the Latin Vulgate (or the same source material for both works). In other words, at least by the timing of events, you have the listing backwards. The oldest Latin Vulgate is older than the oldest Masoretic texts. That is almost certainly why the Masoretic texts and modern bibles agree on certain key points where the Nag Hammadi and DSS disagree with both.

Theological writings from Church Fathers like Augustine, Jerome, and Origen, as well as the formulation of creeds in ecumenical councils, further shaped Christian thought.

The creeds are continual restatements of beliefs designed specifically to align thought with the dictates of the Church. (Of note: In any other system, such repetition of beliefs is called brainwashing). The creeds were created specifically to be aligned with Roman Law (see the Codex Theodosianus). The creeds, repeated weekly, biweekly, or monthly (depending on sect) are a restatement of those laws, designed to end debate on things like “the divinity of Jesus” (as it is currently understood within the Traditional Christian Teachings) the “trinity” (which wasn’t actually dogma until 383 AD), etc.. These things were made into law to end the huge amount of debate that was occurring, specifically to unite the Roman Empire, as previously stated. THAT is where the creeds come from. THAT was the purpose of the scholarship at the time. I suggest that that is also why there is some very important disagreements between what we have today, and what we have found in older works, found recently (relatively speaking).

Commentaries by theologians like Thomas Aquinas and liturgical texts such as the Liturgy of St. James and the Book of Common Prayer are essential components in the mosaic of Christian teachings. 

I’m pretty sure this is exactly what I am saying.

How does their work define the actual teachings of Jesus? Or perhaps a better question is, why does their work, created centuries or millennia after the fact, define the teachings of Jesus (as promoted, indeed, enforced by Traditional Christian Teachings) more than say, the Gospel of Thomas?

My point is there is a great deal that goes into the dogma we have today that is not from the teachings of Jesus, and is in uncontroversial disagreement with archaeology, language analytics, or even modern Christian scholarship. These pieces of evidence are completely ignored in the actual teachings we get, regardless of scholarship. Scholarship itself is not allowed to disagree with dogma. If it is, it is called heretical, even today.

There is no freedom of thought, and there is a ton of evidence that is ignored or placed into the wrong box. Works that are very likely actual teachings of Jesus (or at least have just as much archeological and contextual validity as “canon”) are ignored in favor of the dogma created by the early Church, which was, once again, uncontroversially designed to unite Rome and set up a God-Emperor (“Pope” as Divine).

It’s simply not accurate to claim that traditional Christian teachings solely rely on the Latin Vulgate and disregard the original Hebrew.

I agree with this somewhat, but not in the way you imply. While modern day (past century or so) scholars do indeed look at other texts, the dogma espoused by "traditional Christian Teachings" rely specifically on the original teachings of the Catholic Church, the additional (or contrary) teachings of Luther, or Calvin, or other noted scholars from a very, very long time ago. All of these influences on today's dogma (the "Teachings") occurred long before we had access to the archaeological evidence or analytical tools of today. "Traditional Christian Teachings" are exactly that, traditional, having nothing to do with any contrariness found more recently in the older texts. Indeed, anywhere there is a deviation from the traditional dogma, the findings are completely ignored within the actual teachings themselves.

Where I agree is that there are plenty of extra biblical teachings in the "traditional Christian dogma." A great deal has been simply created from seemingly no where (not no where, but having nothing to do with the bible). For example, the story of Satan, or the "fall of Lucifer" has so little to do with the bible it is laughable. Both of those stories were completely (95%+) created by the Catholic Church as a social control mechanism.

The Nag Hammadi library primarily contains Gnostic texts

Sorta, but not completely true. The Nag Hammadi contains a fair bit of stuff. Also, calling the gospels (stories of Jesus) “Gnostic” is not true as applied. For example, how is a book like the Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic?" It is often attributed to having been written by the brother of Jesus (although the actual authorship is unprovable). It is one of, if not the oldest written book found that relates to the teachings of Jesus. (Scientific dating methods, language dating, etc. of partial scripts found elsewhere suggest it’s authorship may be as early as 50AD). Why do we call it "Gnostic?" Why place it in that box? It isn't canonical, but what is "canon" didn’t become canon until it was solidified into Roman law (ending debate) over three centuries after Jesus by a group of people who created a religion specifically and explicitly stated to reunite the four Roman kingdoms under one flag (the flag of God-Emperor Constantine, a self-proclaimed divine mouthpiece of God on earth, the first "pope" (although not called that at the time)).

The point is, "Gnostic" (as it is being used here) is a box created long after the writing of the texts themselves, designed to ensure what was proclaimed canon by Roman law remained the only canon (even though they kept changing it internally over the centuries). That doesn't mean that "gnostic" doesn't have a more specific meaning in the various schools of thought at the time, but with respect to the non-canonical gospels (stories of Jesus) specifically, they were (mis)placed in the "gnostic" box to ensure that the dogma created by the Roman empire, under the control of God-Emperor Constantine was not challenged (because there are some seriously non-dogma things in those other period works). Indeed, it is broadly thought that the reason these works were completely lost to time prior to the past century is because they threatened that dogma, and were thus forbidden by The Church to even exist. The Nag Hammadi library itself, because of the timing (dating) of the their burial (in the 4th century AD), is thought to have been a purposeful effort to preserve those thoughts which had become illegal under Roman law.

Another important note, “Gnostic Christianity” predates the modern version of the dogma (which is much more closely aligned with the Roman law version) by a few hundred years.

To oversimplify, there were basically two schools of thought; the “Gnostic” version and the “Saul” version (there were more than that, but this is an oversimplification). The Saul version, coming from the self-proclaimed top level spy of the Pharisees (an aristocratic Priest Class of Jews, the exact same people who rule the world behind the scenes today), and self-admitted mass murderer of Christians, won in the end.

Makes you think.

Well, at least it makes me think.

It is crucial to recognize the diversity of ancient texts and interpretive traditions rather than assuming a singular, unified source.

I agree completely. My problem is, Christian dogma (not all scholarship, but the dogma) does not follow this advice.

While studying regional contextual information is important, each cultural and religious context has its unique symbols and stories. Comparing these with the Genesis story requires careful consideration of cultural distinctions and the intended theological message.

Agree completely. However, purposefully not recognizing the influences within those symbols, stories, cultures and contexts that challenge the dogma is so common in "Traditional Christian Teachings" as to discredit the entire dogmatic system.

Traditional Christian scholars often consult original languages to enrich their understanding rather than relying solely on translations.

One of the main repeating statements here is "Christian scholarship" does this, that or the other thing. I am not talking about scholars or their work. This conversation is about Traditional Christian Teaching, which doesn't benefit from modern (post Reformation) scholarship excepting where the scholarship agrees with the already established dogma. It is the dogma that has not changed, no matter the scholarship or evidence.

it is simply not the sole source for Christian teachings.

Agreed, as I stated earlier, there are plenty of extra-biblical teachings that influence the dogma.

Christian teachings derive their richness from a tapestry of diverse sources, including an array of biblical manuscripts, early translations, and theological writings.

Prove it.

The oldest versions of texts known prior to the Latin Vulgate are, as you note, the Codex Sinaiticus  and the Codex Vaticanus. They were not available to scholars until more recently. They have been edited, and/or written over (a palimpsest, altering the original work, created at some point after their original creation) and yet still deviate in some very important ways from the Latin Vulgate in the new testament (notably Matthew and Mark regarding the resurrection story, and the self-proclaimed divinity of Jesus). More importantly perhaps, in these deviations the modern bible agrees with the Latin Vulgate, not the earlier works. So your suggestion that these works “changed the dogma” are not warranted in some very important pieces of evidence to the contrary.

The Latin Vulgate itself deviates a fair bit from the modern bible, but the changes didn’t come from other period works, because there were no other period works that existed in the hands of the scholars (at least not provably so). They came from papal decree or other “scholarship” (as you yourself note) created from where ever it was created from (not older works) that changed the story over time.

The oldest version of the Masoretic texts was first created in the 11th century, influenced by (or possibly even derived from) the Latin Vulgate (or the same source material for both works). In other words, at least by the timing of events, you have the listing backwards. The oldest Latin Vulgate is older than the oldest Masoretic texts. That is almost certainly why the Masoretic texts and modern bibles agree on certain key points where the Nag Hammadi and DSS disagree with both.

Theological writings from Church Fathers like Augustine, Jerome, and Origen, as well as the formulation of creeds in ecumenical councils, further shaped Christian thought.

The creeds are continual restatements of beliefs designed specifically to align thought with the dictates of the Church. (Of note: In any other system, such repetition of beliefs is called brainwashing). The creeds were created specifically to be aligned with Roman Law (see the Codex Theodosianus). The creeds, repeated weekly, biweekly, or monthly (depending on sect) are a restatement of those laws, designed to end debate on things like “the divinity of Jesus” (as it is currently understood within the Traditional Christian Teachings) the “trinity” (which wasn’t actually dogma until 383 AD), etc.. These things were made into law to end the huge amount of debate that was occurring, specifically to unite the Roman Empire, as previously stated. THAT is where the creeds come from. THAT was the purpose of the scholarship at the time. I suggest that that is also why there is some very important disagreements between what we have today, and what we have found in older works, found recently (relatively speaking).

Commentaries by theologians like Thomas Aquinas and liturgical texts such as the Liturgy of St. James and the Book of Common Prayer are essential components in the mosaic of Christian teachings. 

I’m pretty sure this is exactly what I am saying.

How does their work define the actual teachings of Jesus? Or perhaps a better question is, why does their work, created centuries or millennia after the fact, define the teachings of Jesus (as promoted, indeed, enforced by Traditional Christian Teachings) more than say, the Gospel of Thomas?

My point is there is a great deal that goes into the dogma we have today that is not from the teachings of Jesus, and is in uncontroversial disagreement with archaeology, language analytics, or even modern Christian scholarship. These pieces of evidence are completely ignored in the actual teachings we get, regardless of scholarship. Scholarship itself is not allowed to disagree with dogma. If it is, it is called heretical, even today.

There is no freedom of thought, and there is a ton of evidence that is ignored or placed into the wrong box. Works that are very likely actual teachings of Jesus (or at least have just as much validity as “canon”) are ignored in favor of the dogma created by the early Church, which was, once again, uncontroversially designed to unite Rome and set up a God-Emperor (“Pope” as Divine).

It’s simply not accurate to claim that traditional Christian teachings solely rely on the Latin Vulgate and disregard the original Hebrew.

I agree with this somewhat, but not in the way you imply. While modern day (past century or so) scholars do indeed look at other texts, the dogma espoused by "traditional Christian Teachings" rely specifically on the original teachings of the Catholic Church, the additional (or contrary) teachings of Luther, or Calvin, or other noted scholars from a very, very long time ago. All of these influences on today's dogma (the "Teachings") occurred long before we had access to the archaeological evidence or analytical tools of today. "Traditional Christian Teachings" are exactly that, traditional, having nothing to do with any contrariness found more recently in the older texts. Indeed, anywhere there is a deviation from the traditional dogma, the findings are completely ignored within the actual teachings themselves.

Where I agree is that there are plenty of extra biblical teachings in the "traditional Christian dogma." A great deal has been simply created from seemingly no where (not no where, but having nothing to do with the bible). For example, the story of Satan, or the "fall of Lucifer" has so little to do with the bible it is laughable. Both of those stories were completely (95%+) created by the Catholic Church as a social control mechanism.

The Nag Hammadi library primarily contains Gnostic texts

Sorta, but not completely true. The Nag Hammadi contains a fair bit of stuff. Also, calling the gospels (stories of Jesus) “Gnostic” is not true as applied. For example, how is a book like the Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic?" It is often attributed to having been written by the brother of Jesus (although the actual authorship is unprovable). It is one of, if not the oldest written book found that relates to the teachings of Jesus. (Scientific dating methods, language dating, etc. of partial scripts found elsewhere suggest it’s authorship may be as early as 50AD). Why do we call it "Gnostic?" Why place it in that box? It isn't canonical, but what is "canon" didn’t become canon until it was solidified into Roman law (ending debate) over three centuries after Jesus by a group of people who created a religion specifically and explicitly stated to reunite the four Roman kingdoms under one flag (the flag of God-Emperor Constantine, a self-proclaimed divine mouthpiece of God on earth, the first "pope" (although not called that at the time)).

The point is, "Gnostic" (as it is being used here) is a box created long after the writing of the texts themselves, designed to ensure what was proclaimed canon by Roman law remained the only canon (even though they kept changing it internally over the centuries). That doesn't mean that "gnostic" doesn't have a more specific meaning in the various schools of thought at the time, but with respect to the non-canonical gospels (stories of Jesus) specifically, they were (mis)placed in the "gnostic" box to ensure that the dogma created by the Roman empire, under the control of God-Emperor Constantine was not challenged (because there are some seriously non-dogma things in those other period works). Indeed, it is broadly thought that the reason these works were completely lost to time prior to the past century is because they threatened that dogma, and were thus forbidden by The Church to even exist. The Nag Hammadi library itself, because of the timing (dating) of the their burial (in the 4th century AD), is thought to have been a purposeful effort to preserve those thoughts which had become illegal under Roman law.

Another important note, “Gnostic Christianity” predates the modern version of the dogma (which is much more closely aligned with the Roman law version) by a few hundred years.

To oversimplify, there were basically two schools of thought; the “Gnostic” version and the “Saul” version (there were more than that, but this is an oversimplification). The Saul version, coming from the self-proclaimed top level spy of the Pharisees (an aristocratic Priest Class of Jews, the exact same people who rule the world behind the scenes today), and self-admitted mass murderer of Christians, won in the end.

Makes you think.

Well, at least it makes me think.

It is crucial to recognize the diversity of ancient texts and interpretive traditions rather than assuming a singular, unified source.

I agree completely. My problem is, Christian dogma (not all scholarship, but the dogma) does not follow this advice.

While studying regional contextual information is important, each cultural and religious context has its unique symbols and stories. Comparing these with the Genesis story requires careful consideration of cultural distinctions and the intended theological message.

Agree completely. However, purposefully not recognizing the influences within those symbols, stories, cultures and contexts that challenge the dogma is so common in "Traditional Christian Teachings" as to discredit the entire dogmatic system.

Traditional Christian scholars often consult original languages to enrich their understanding rather than relying solely on translations.

One of the main repeating statements here is "Christian scholarship" does this, that or the other thing. I am not talking about scholars or their work. This conversation is about Traditional Christian Teaching, which doesn't benefit from modern (post Reformation) scholarship excepting where the scholarship agrees with the already established dogma. It is the dogma that has not changed, no matter the scholarship or evidence.

it is simply not the sole source for Christian teachings.

Agreed, as I stated earlier, there are plenty of extra-biblical teachings that influence the dogma.

Christian teachings derive their richness from a tapestry of diverse sources, including an array of biblical manuscripts, early translations, and theological writings.

Prove it.

The oldest versions of texts known prior to the Latin Vulgate are, as you note, the Codex Sinaiticus  and the Codex Vaticanus. They were not available to scholars until more recently. They have been edited, and/or written over (a palimpsest, altering the original work, created at some point after their original creation) and yet still deviate in some very important ways from the Latin Vulgate in the new testament (notably Matthew and Mark regarding the resurrection story, and the self-proclaimed divinity of Jesus). More importantly perhaps, in these deviations the modern bible agrees with the Latin Vulgate, not the earlier works. So your suggestion that these works “changed the dogma” are not warranted in some very important pieces of evidence to the contrary.

The Latin Vulgate itself deviates a fair bit from the modern bible, but the changes didn’t come from other period works, because there were no other period works that existed in the hands of the scholars (at least not provably so). They came from papal decree or other “scholarship” (as you yourself note) created from where ever it was created from (not older works) that changed the story over time.

The oldest version of the Masoretic texts was first created in the 11th century, influenced by (or possibly even derived from) the Latin Vulgate (or the same source material for both works). In other words, at least by the timing of events, you have the listing backwards. The oldest Latin Vulgate is older than the oldest Masoretic texts. That is almost certainly why the Masoretic texts and modern bibles agree on certain key points where the Nag Hammadi and DSS disagree with both.

Theological writings from Church Fathers like Augustine, Jerome, and Origen, as well as the formulation of creeds in ecumenical councils, further shaped Christian thought.

The creeds are continual restatements of beliefs designed specifically to align thought with the dictates of the Church. (Of note: In any other system, such repetition of beliefs is called brainwashing). The creeds were created specifically to be aligned with Roman Law (see the Codex Theodosianus). The creeds, repeated weekly, biweekly, or monthly (depending on sect) are a restatement of those laws, designed to end debate on things like “the divinity of Jesus” (as it is currently understood within the Traditional Christian Teachings) the “trinity” (which wasn’t actually dogma until 383 AD). These things were made into law to end the huge amount of debate that was occurring, specifically to unite the Roman Empire, as previously stated. THAT is where the creeds come from. THAT was the purpose of the scholarship at the time. I suggest that that is also why there is some very important disagreements between what we have today, and what we have found in older works, found recently (relatively speaking).

Commentaries by theologians like Thomas Aquinas and liturgical texts such as the Liturgy of St. James and the Book of Common Prayer are essential components in the mosaic of Christian teachings. 

I’m pretty sure this is exactly what I am saying.

How does their work define the actual teachings of Jesus? Or perhaps a better question is, why does their work, created centuries or millennia after the fact, define the teachings of Jesus (as promoted, indeed, enforced by Traditional Christian Teachings) more than say, the Gospel of Thomas?

My point is there is a great deal that goes into the dogma we have today that is not from the teachings of Jesus, and is in uncontroversial disagreement with archaeology, language analytics, or even modern Christian scholarship. These pieces of evidence are completely ignored in the actual teachings we get, regardless of scholarship. Scholarship itself is not allowed to disagree with dogma. If it is, it is called heretical, even today.

There is no freedom of thought, and there is a ton of evidence that is ignored or placed into the wrong box. Works that are very likely actual teachings of Jesus (or at least have just as much validity as “canon”) are ignored in favor of the dogma created by the early Church, which was, once again, uncontroversially designed to unite Rome and set up a God-Emperor (“Pope” as Divine).

It’s simply not accurate to claim that traditional Christian teachings solely rely on the Latin Vulgate and disregard the original Hebrew.

I agree with this somewhat, but not in the way you imply. While modern day (past century or so) scholars do indeed look at other texts, the dogma espoused by "traditional Christian Teachings" rely specifically on the original teachings of the Catholic Church, the additional (or contrary) teachings of Luther, or Calvin, or other noted scholars from a very, very long time ago. All of these influences on today's dogma (the "Teachings") occurred long before we had access to the archaeological evidence or analytical tools of today. "Traditional Christian Teachings" are exactly that, traditional, having nothing to do with any contrariness found more recently in the older texts. Indeed, anywhere there is a deviation from the traditional dogma, the findings are completely ignored within the actual teachings themselves.

Where I agree is that there are plenty of extra biblical teachings in the "traditional Christian dogma." A great deal has been simply created from seemingly no where (not no where, but having nothing to do with the bible). For example, the story of Satan, or the "fall of Lucifer" has so little to do with the bible it is laughable. Both of those stories were completely (95%+) created by the Catholic Church as a social control mechanism.

The Nag Hammadi library primarily contains Gnostic texts

Sorta, but not completely true. The Nag Hammadi contains a fair bit of stuff. Also, calling the gospels (stories of Jesus) “Gnostic” is not true as applied. For example, how is a book like the Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic?" It is often attributed to having been written by the brother of Jesus (although the actual authorship is unprovable). It is one of, if not the oldest written book found that relates to the teachings of Jesus. (Scientific dating methods, language dating, etc. of partial scripts found elsewhere suggest it’s authorship may be as early as 50AD). Why do we call it "Gnostic?" Why place it in that box? It isn't canonical, but what is "canon" didn’t become canon until it was solidified into Roman law (ending debate) over three centuries after Jesus by a group of people who created a religion specifically and explicitly stated to reunite the four Roman kingdoms under one flag (the flag of God-Emperor Constantine, a self-proclaimed divine mouthpiece of God on earth, the first "pope" (although not called that at the time)).

The point is, "Gnostic" (as it is being used here) is a box created long after the writing of the texts themselves, designed to ensure what was proclaimed canon by Roman law remained the only canon (even though they kept changing it internally over the centuries). That doesn't mean that "gnostic" doesn't have a more specific meaning in the various schools of thought at the time, but with respect to the non-canonical gospels (stories of Jesus) specifically, they were (mis)placed in the "gnostic" box to ensure that the dogma created by the Roman empire, under the control of God-Emperor Constantine was not challenged (because there are some seriously non-dogma things in those other period works). Indeed, it is broadly thought that the reason these works were completely lost to time prior to the past century is because they threatened that dogma, and were thus forbidden by The Church to even exist. The Nag Hammadi library itself, because of the timing (dating) of the their burial (in the 4th century AD), is thought to have been a purposeful effort to preserve those thoughts which had become illegal under Roman law.

Another important note, “Gnostic Christianity” predates the modern version of the dogma (which is much more closely aligned with the Roman law version) by a few hundred years.

To oversimplify, there were basically two schools of thought; the “Gnostic” version and the “Saul” version (there were more than that, but this is an oversimplification). The Saul version, coming from the self-proclaimed top level spy of the Pharisees (an aristocratic Priest Class of Jews, the exact same people who rule the world behind the scenes today), and self-admitted mass murderer of Christians, won in the end.

Makes you think.

Well, at least it makes me think.

It is crucial to recognize the diversity of ancient texts and interpretive traditions rather than assuming a singular, unified source.

I agree completely. My problem is, Christian dogma (not all scholarship, but the dogma) does not follow this advice.

While studying regional contextual information is important, each cultural and religious context has its unique symbols and stories. Comparing these with the Genesis story requires careful consideration of cultural distinctions and the intended theological message.

Agree completely. However, purposefully not recognizing the influences within those symbols, stories, cultures and contexts that challenge the dogma is so common in "Traditional Christian Teachings" as to discredit the entire dogmatic system.

Traditional Christian scholars often consult original languages to enrich their understanding rather than relying solely on translations.

One of the main repeating statements here is "Christian scholarship" does this, that or the other thing. I am not talking about scholars or their work. This conversation is about Traditional Christian Teaching, which doesn't benefit from modern (post Reformation) scholarship excepting where the scholarship agrees with the already established dogma. It is the dogma that has not changed, no matter the scholarship or evidence.

it is simply not the sole source for Christian teachings.

Agreed, as I stated earlier, there are plenty of extra-biblical teachings that influence the dogma.

Christian teachings derive their richness from a tapestry of diverse sources, including an array of biblical manuscripts, early translations, and theological writings.

Prove it.

The oldest versions of texts known prior to the Latin Vulgate are, as you note, the Codex Sinaiticus  and the Codex Vaticanus. They were not available to scholars until more recently. They have been edited, and/or written over (a palimpsest, altering the original work, created at some point after their original creation) and yet still deviate in some very important ways from the Latin Vulgate in the new testament (notably Matthew and Mark regarding the resurrection story, and the self-proclaimed divinity of Jesus). More importantly perhaps, in these deviations the modern bible agrees with the Latin Vulgate, not the earlier works. So your suggestion that these works “changed the dogma” are not warranted in some very important pieces of evidence to the contrary.

The Latin Vulgate itself deviates a fair bit from the modern bible, but the changes didn’t come from other period works, because there were no other period works that existed in the hands of the scholars (at least not provably so). They came from papal decree or other “scholarship” (as you yourself note) created from where ever it was created from (not older works) that changed the story over time.

The oldest version of the Masoretic texts was first created in the 11th century, influenced by (or possibly even derived from) the Latin Vulgate (or the same source material for both works). In other words, at least by the timing of events, you have the listing backwards. The oldest Latin Vulgate is older than the oldest Masoretic texts. That is almost certainly why the Masoretic texts and modern bibles agree on certain key points where the Nag Hammadi and DSS disagree with both.

Theological writings from Church Fathers like Augustine, Jerome, and Origen, as well as the formulation of creeds in ecumenical councils, further shaped Christian thought.

The creeds are continual restatements of beliefs designed specifically to align thought with the dictates of the Church. (Of note: In any other system, such repetition of beliefs is called brainwashing). The creeds were created specifically to be aligned with Roman Law (see the Codex Theodosianus. The creeds, repeated weekly, biweekly, or monthly (depending on sect) are a restatement of those laws, designed to end debate on things like “the divinity of Jesus” (as it is currently understood within the Traditional Christian Teachings) the “trinity” (which wasn’t actually dogma until 383 AD). These things were made into law to end the huge amount of debate that was occurring, specifically to unite the Roman Empire, as previously stated. THAT is where the creeds come from. THAT was the purpose of the scholarship at the time. I suggest that that is also why there is some very important disagreements between what we have today, and what we have found in older works, found recently (relatively speaking).

Commentaries by theologians like Thomas Aquinas and liturgical texts such as the Liturgy of St. James and the Book of Common Prayer are essential components in the mosaic of Christian teachings. 

I’m pretty sure this is exactly what I am saying.

How does their work define the actual teachings of Jesus? Or perhaps a better question is, why does their work, created centuries or millennia after the fact, define the teachings of Jesus (as promoted, indeed, enforced by Traditional Christian Teachings) more than say, the Gospel of Thomas?

My point is there is a great deal that goes into the dogma we have today that is not from the teachings of Jesus, and is in uncontroversial disagreement with archaeology, language analytics, or even modern Christian scholarship. These pieces of evidence are completely ignored in the actual teachings we get, regardless of scholarship. Scholarship itself is not allowed to disagree with dogma. If it is, it is called heretical, even today.

There is no freedom of thought, and there is a ton of evidence that is ignored or placed into the wrong box. Works that are very likely actual teachings of Jesus (or at least have just as much validity as “canon”) are ignored in favor of the dogma created by the early Church, which was, once again, uncontroversially designed to unite Rome and set up a God-Emperor (“Pope” as Divine).

It’s simply not accurate to claim that traditional Christian teachings solely rely on the Latin Vulgate and disregard the original Hebrew.

I agree with this somewhat, but not in the way you imply. While modern day (past century or so) scholars do indeed look at other texts, the dogma espoused by "traditional Christian Teachings" rely specifically on the original teachings of the Catholic Church, the additional (or contrary) teachings of Luther, or Calvin, or other noted scholars from a very, very long time ago. All of these influences on today's dogma (the "Teachings") occurred long before we had access to the archaeological evidence or analytical tools of today. "Traditional Christian Teachings" are exactly that, traditional, having nothing to do with any contrariness found more recently in the older texts. Indeed, anywhere there is a deviation from the traditional dogma, the findings are completely ignored within the actual teachings themselves.

Where I agree is that there are plenty of extra biblical teachings in the "traditional Christian dogma." A great deal has been simply created from seemingly no where (not no where, but having nothing to do with the bible). For example, the story of Satan, or the "fall of Lucifer" has so little to do with the bible it is laughable. Both of those stories were completely (95%+) created by the Catholic Church as a social control mechanism.

The Nag Hammadi library primarily contains Gnostic texts

Sorta, but not completely true. The Nag Hammadi contains a fair bit of stuff. Also, calling the gospels (stories of Jesus) “Gnostic” is not true as applied. For example, how is a book like the Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic?" It is often attributed to having been written by the brother of Jesus (although the actual authorship is unprovable). It is one of, if not the oldest written book found that relates to the teachings of Jesus. (Scientific dating methods, language dating, etc. of partial scripts found elsewhere suggest it’s authorship may be as early as 50AD). Why do we call it "Gnostic?" Why place it in that box? It isn't canonical, but what is "canon" didn’t become canon until it was solidified into Roman law (ending debate) over three centuries after Jesus by a group of people who created a religion specifically and explicitly stated to reunite the four Roman kingdoms under one flag (the flag of God-Emperor Constantine, a self-proclaimed divine mouthpiece of God on earth, the first "pope" (although not called that at the time)).

The point is, "Gnostic" (as it is being used here) is a box created long after the writing of the texts themselves, designed to ensure what was proclaimed canon by Roman law remained the only canon (even though they kept changing it internally over the centuries). That doesn't mean that "gnostic" doesn't have a more specific meaning in the various schools of thought at the time, but with respect to the non-canonical gospels (stories of Jesus) specifically, they were (mis)placed in the "gnostic" box to ensure that the dogma created by the Roman empire, under the control of God-Emperor Constantine was not challenged (because there are some seriously non-dogma things in those other period works). Indeed, it is broadly thought that the reason these works were completely lost to time prior to the past century is because they threatened that dogma, and were thus forbidden by The Church to even exist. The Nag Hammadi library itself, because of the timing (dating) of the their burial (in the 4th century AD), is thought to have been a purposeful effort to preserve those thoughts which had become illegal under Roman law.

Another important note, “Gnostic Christianity” predates the modern version of the dogma (which is much more closely aligned with the Roman law version) by a few hundred years.

To oversimplify, there were basically two schools of thought; the “Gnostic” version and the “Saul” version (there were more than that, but this is an oversimplification). The Saul version, coming from the self-proclaimed top level spy of the Pharisees (an aristocratic Priest Class of Jews, the exact same people who rule the world behind the scenes today), and self-admitted mass murderer of Christians, won in the end.

Makes you think.

Well, at least it makes me think.

It is crucial to recognize the diversity of ancient texts and interpretive traditions rather than assuming a singular, unified source.

I agree completely. My problem is, Christian dogma (not all scholarship, but the dogma) does not follow this advice.

While studying regional contextual information is important, each cultural and religious context has its unique symbols and stories. Comparing these with the Genesis story requires careful consideration of cultural distinctions and the intended theological message.

Agree completely. However, purposefully not recognizing the influences within those symbols, stories, cultures and contexts that challenge the dogma is so common in "Traditional Christian Teachings" as to discredit the entire dogmatic system.

Traditional Christian scholars often consult original languages to enrich their understanding rather than relying solely on translations.

One of the main repeating statements here is "Christian scholarship" does this, that or the other thing. I am not talking about scholars or their work. This conversation is about Traditional Christian Teaching, which doesn't benefit from modern (post Reformation) scholarship excepting where the scholarship agrees with the already established dogma. It is the dogma that has not changed, no matter the scholarship or evidence.

it is simply not the sole source for Christian teachings.

Agreed, as I stated earlier, there are plenty of extra-biblical teachings that influence the dogma.

Christian teachings derive their richness from a tapestry of diverse sources, including an array of biblical manuscripts, early translations, and theological writings.

Prove it.

The oldest versions of texts known prior to the Latin Vulgate are, as you note, the Codex Sinaiticus  and the Codex Vaticanus. They were not available to scholars until more recently. They have been edited, and/or written over (at some point after their creation) and yet still deviate in some very important ways from the Latin Vulgate in the new testament (notably Matthew and Mark regarding the resurrection story, and the self-proclaimed divinity of Jesus). More importantly perhaps, in these deviations the modern bible agrees with the Latin Vulgate, not the earlier works. So your suggestion that these works “changed the dogma” are not warranted in some very important pieces of evidence to the contrary.

The Latin Vulgate itself deviates a fair bit from the modern bible, but the changes didn’t come from other period works, because there were no other period works that existed in the hands of the scholars (at least not provably so). They came from papal decree or other “scholarship” (as you yourself note) created from where ever it was created from (not older works) that changed the story over time.

The oldest version of the Masoretic texts was first created in the 11th century, influenced by (or possibly even derived from) the Latin Vulgate (or the same source material for both works). In other words, at least by the timing of events, you have the listing backwards. The oldest Latin Vulgate is older than the oldest Masoretic texts. That is almost certainly why the Masoretic texts and modern bibles agree on certain key points where the Nag Hammadi and DSS disagree with both.

Theological writings from Church Fathers like Augustine, Jerome, and Origen, as well as the formulation of creeds in ecumenical councils, further shaped Christian thought.

The creeds are continual restatements of beliefs designed specifically to align thought with the dictates of the Church. (Of note: In any other system, such repetition of beliefs is called brainwashing). The creeds were created specifically to be aligned with Roman Law (see the Codex Theodosianus. The creeds, repeated weekly, biweekly, or monthly (depending on sect) are a restatement of those laws, designed to end debate on things like “the divinity of Jesus” (as it is currently understood within the Traditional Christian Teachings) the “trinity” (which wasn’t actually dogma until 383 AD). These things were made into law to end the huge amount of debate that was occurring, specifically to unite the Roman Empire, as previously stated. THAT is where the creeds come from. THAT was the purpose of the scholarship at the time. I suggest that that is also why there is some very important disagreements between what we have today, and what we have found in older works, found recently (relatively speaking).

Commentaries by theologians like Thomas Aquinas and liturgical texts such as the Liturgy of St. James and the Book of Common Prayer are essential components in the mosaic of Christian teachings. 

I’m pretty sure this is exactly what I am saying.

How does their work define the actual teachings of Jesus? Or perhaps a better question is, why does their work, created centuries or millennia after the fact, define the teachings of Jesus (as promoted, indeed, enforced by Traditional Christian Teachings) more than say, the Gospel of Thomas?

My point is there is a great deal that goes into the dogma we have today that is not from the teachings of Jesus, and is in uncontroversial disagreement with archaeology, language analytics, or even modern Christian scholarship. These pieces of evidence are completely ignored in the actual teachings we get, regardless of scholarship. Scholarship itself is not allowed to disagree with dogma. If it is, it is called heretical, even today.

There is no freedom of thought, and there is a ton of evidence that is ignored or placed into the wrong box. Works that are very likely actual teachings of Jesus (or at least have just as much validity as “canon”) are ignored in favor of the dogma created by the early Church, which was, once again, uncontroversially designed to unite Rome and set up a God-Emperor (“Pope” as Divine).

It’s simply not accurate to claim that traditional Christian teachings solely rely on the Latin Vulgate and disregard the original Hebrew.

I agree with this somewhat, but not in the way you imply. While modern day (past century or so) scholars do indeed look at other texts, the dogma espoused by "traditional Christian Teachings" rely specifically on the original teachings of the Catholic Church, the additional (or contrary) teachings of Luther, or Calvin, or other noted scholars from a very, very long time ago. All of these influences on today's dogma (the "Teachings") occurred long before we had access to the archaeological evidence or analytical tools of today. "Traditional Christian Teachings" are exactly that, traditional, having nothing to do with any contrariness found more recently in the older texts. Indeed, anywhere there is a deviation from the traditional dogma, the findings are completely ignored within the actual teachings themselves.

Where I agree is that there are plenty of extra biblical teachings in the "traditional Christian dogma." A great deal has been simply created from seemingly no where (not no where, but having nothing to do with the bible). For example, the story of Satan, or the "fall of Lucifer" has so little to do with the bible it is laughable. Both of those stories were completely (95%+) created by the Catholic Church as a social control mechanism.

The Nag Hammadi library primarily contains Gnostic texts

Sorta, but not completely true. The Nag Hammadi contains a fair bit of stuff. Also, calling the gospels (stories of Jesus) “Gnostic” is not true as applied. For example, how is a book like the Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic?" It is often attributed to having been written by the brother of Jesus (although the actual authorship is unprovable). It is one of, if not the oldest written book found that relates to the teachings of Jesus. (Scientific dating methods, language dating, etc. of partial scripts found elsewhere suggest it’s authorship may be as early as 50AD). Why do we call it "Gnostic?" Why place it in that box? It isn't canonical, but what is "canon" didn’t become canon until it was solidified into Roman law (ending debate) over three centuries after Jesus by a group of people who created a religion specifically and explicitly stated to reunite the four Roman kingdoms under one flag (the flag of God-Emperor Constantine, a self-proclaimed divine mouthpiece of God on earth, the first "pope" (although not called that at the time)).

The point is, "Gnostic" (as it is being used here) is a box created long after the writing of the texts themselves, designed to ensure what was proclaimed canon by Roman law remained the only canon (even though they kept changing it internally over the centuries). That doesn't mean that "gnostic" doesn't have a more specific meaning in the various schools of thought at the time, but with respect to the non-canonical gospels (stories of Jesus) specifically, they were (mis)placed in the "gnostic" box to ensure that the dogma created by the Roman empire, under the control of God-Emperor Constantine was not challenged (because there are some seriously non-dogma things in those other period works). Indeed, it is broadly thought that the reason these works were completely lost to time prior to the past century is because they threatened that dogma, and were thus forbidden by The Church to even exist. The Nag Hammadi library itself, because of the timing (dating) of the their burial (in the 4th century AD), is thought to have been a purposeful effort to preserve those thoughts which had become illegal under Roman law.

Another important note, “Gnostic Christianity” predates the modern version of the dogma (which is much more closely aligned with the Roman law version) by a few hundred years.

To oversimplify, there were basically two schools of thought; the “Gnostic” version and the “Saul” version (there were more than that, but this is an oversimplification). The Saul version, coming from the self-proclaimed top level spy of the Pharisees (an aristocratic Priest Class of Jews, the exact same people who rule the world behind the scenes today), and self-admitted mass murderer of Christians, won in the end.

Makes you think.

Well, at least it makes me think.

It is crucial to recognize the diversity of ancient texts and interpretive traditions rather than assuming a singular, unified source.

I agree completely. My problem is, Christian dogma (not all scholarship, but the dogma) does not follow this advice.

While studying regional contextual information is important, each cultural and religious context has its unique symbols and stories. Comparing these with the Genesis story requires careful consideration of cultural distinctions and the intended theological message.

Agree completely. However, purposefully not recognizing the influences within those symbols, stories, cultures and contexts that challenge the dogma is so common in "Traditional Christian Teachings" as to discredit the entire dogmatic system.

Traditional Christian scholars often consult original languages to enrich their understanding rather than relying solely on translations.

One of the main repeating statements here is "Christian scholarship" does this, that or the other thing. I am not talking about scholars or their work. This conversation is about Traditional Christian Teaching, which doesn't benefit from scholarship excepting where the scholarship agrees with the already established dogma. It is the dogma that has not changed, no matter the scholarship or evidence.

it is simply not the sole source for Christian teachings.

Agreed, as I stated earlier, there are plenty of extra-biblical teachings that influence the dogma.

Christian teachings derive their richness from a tapestry of diverse sources, including an array of biblical manuscripts, early translations, and theological writings.

Prove it.

The oldest versions of texts known prior to the Latin Vulgate are, as you note, the Codex Sinaiticus  and the Codex Vaticanus. They were not available to scholars until more recently. They have been edited, and/or written over (at some point after their creation) and yet still deviate in some very important ways from the Latin Vulgate in the new testament (notably Matthew and Mark regarding the resurrection story, and the self-proclaimed divinity of Jesus). More importantly perhaps, in these deviations the modern bible agrees with the Latin Vulgate, not the earlier works. So your suggestion that these works “changed the dogma” are not warranted in some very important pieces of evidence to the contrary.

The Latin Vulgate itself deviates a fair bit from the modern bible, but the changes didn’t come from other period works, because there were no other period works that existed in the hands of the scholars (at least not provably so). They came from papal decree or other “scholarship” (as you yourself note) created from where ever it was created from (not older works) that changed the story over time.

The oldest version of the Masoretic texts was first created in the 11th century, influenced by (or possibly even derived from) the Latin Vulgate (or the same source material for both works). In other words, at least by the timing of events, you have the listing backwards. The oldest Latin Vulgate is older than the oldest Masoretic texts. That is almost certainly why the Masoretic texts and modern bibles agree on certain key points where the Nag Hammadi and DSS disagree with both.

Theological writings from Church Fathers like Augustine, Jerome, and Origen, as well as the formulation of creeds in ecumenical councils, further shaped Christian thought.

The creeds are continual restatements of beliefs designed specifically to align thought with the dictates of the Church. (Of note: In any other system, such repetition of beliefs is called brainwashing). The creeds were created specifically to be aligned with Roman Law (see the Codex Theodosianus. The creeds, repeated weekly, biweekly, or monthly (depending on sect) are a restatement of those laws, designed to end debate on things like “the divinity of Jesus” (as it is currently understood within the Traditional Christian Teachings) the “trinity” (which wasn’t actually dogma until 383 AD). These things were made into law to end the huge amount of debate that was occurring, specifically to unite the Roman Empire, as previously stated. THAT is where the creeds come from. THAT was the purpose of the scholarship at the time. I suggest that that is also why there is some very important disagreements between what we have today, and what we have found in older works, found recently (relatively speaking).

Commentaries by theologians like Thomas Aquinas and liturgical texts such as the Liturgy of St. James and the Book of Common Prayer are essential components in the mosaic of Christian teachings. 

I’m pretty sure this is exactly what I am saying.

How does their work define the actual teachings of Jesus? Or perhaps a better question is, why does their work, created centuries or millennia after the fact, define the teachings of Jesus (as promoted, indeed, enforced by Traditional Christian Teachings) more than say, the Gospel of Thomas?

My point is there is a great deal that goes into the dogma we have today that is not from the teachings of Jesus, and is in uncontroversial disagreement with archaeology, language analytics, or even modern Christian scholarship. These pieces of evidence are completely ignored in the actual teachings we get, regardless of scholarship. Scholarship itself is not allowed to disagree with dogma. If it is, it is called heretical, even today.

There is no freedom of thought, and there is a ton of evidence that is ignored or placed into the wrong box. Works that are very likely actual teachings of Jesus (or at least have just as much validity as “canon”) are ignored in favor of the dogma created by the early Church, which was, once again, uncontroversially designed to unite Rome and set up a God-Emperor (“Pope” as Divine).

It’s simply not accurate to claim that traditional Christian teachings solely rely on the Latin Vulgate and disregard the original Hebrew.

I agree with this somewhat, but not in the way you imply. While modern day (past century or so) scholars do indeed look at other texts, the dogma espoused by "traditional Christian Teachings" rely specifically on the original teachings of the Catholic Church, the additional (or contrary) teachings of Luther, or Calvin, or other noted scholars from a very, very long time ago. All of these influences on today's dogma (the "Teachings") occurred long before we had access to the archaeological evidence or analytical tools of today. "Traditional Christian Teachings" are exactly that, traditional, having nothing to do with any contrariness found more recently in the older texts. Indeed, anywhere there is a deviation from the traditional dogma, the findings are completely ignored within the actual teachings themselves.

Where I agree is that there are plenty of extra biblical teachings in the "traditional Christian dogma." A great deal has been simply created from seemingly no where (not no where, but having nothing to do with the bible). For example, the story of Satan, or the "fall of Lucifer" has so little to do with the bible it is laughable. Both of those stories were completely (95%+) created by the Catholic Church as a social control mechanism.

The Nag Hammadi library primarily contains Gnostic texts

Sorta, but not completely true. The Nag Hammadi contains a fair bit of stuff. Also, calling the gospels (stories of Jesus) “Gnostic” is not true as applied. For example, how is a book like the Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic?" It is often attributed to having been written by the brother of Jesus (although the actual authorship is unprovable). It is one of, if not the oldest written book found that relates to the teachings of Jesus. (Scientific dating methods, language dating, etc. of partial scripts found elsewhere suggest it’s authorship may be as early as 50AD). Why do we call it "Gnostic?" Why place it in that box? It isn't canonical, but what is "canon" didn’t become canon until it was solidified into Roman law (ending debate) over three centuries after Jesus by a group of people who created a religion specifically and explicitly stated to reunite the four Roman kingdoms under one flag (the flag of God-Emperor Constantine, a self-proclaimed divine mouthpiece of God on earth, the first "pope" (although not called that at the time)).

The point is, "Gnostic" (as it is being used here) is a box created long after the writing of the texs themselves, designed to ensure what was proclaimed canon by Roman law remained the only canon (even though they kept changing it internally over the centuries). That doesn't mean that "gnostic" doesn't have a more specific meaning in the various schools of thought at the time, but with respect to the non-canonical gospels (stories of Jesus) specifically, they were (mis)placed in the "gnostic" box to ensure that the dogma created by the Roman empire, under the control of God-Emperor Constantine was not challenged (because there are some seriously non-dogma things in those other period works). Indeed, it is broadly thought that the reason these works were completely lost to time prior to the past century is because they threatened that dogma, and were thus forbidden by The Church to even exist. The Nag Hammadi library itself, because of the timing (dating) of the their burial (in the 4th century AD), is thought to have been a purposeful effort to preserve those thoughts which had become illegal under Roman law.

Another important note, “Gnostic Christianity” predates the modern version of the dogma (which is much more closely aligned with the Roman law version) by a few hundred years.

To oversimplify, there were basically two schools of thought; the “Gnostic” version and the “Saul” version (there were more than that, but this is an oversimplification). The Saul version, coming from the self-proclaimed top level spy of the Pharisees (an aristocratic Priest Class of Jews, the exact same people who rule the world behind the scenes today), and self-admitted mass murderer of Christians, won in the end.

Makes you think.

Well, at least it makes me think.

It is crucial to recognize the diversity of ancient texts and interpretive traditions rather than assuming a singular, unified source.

I agree completely. My problem is, Christian dogma (not all scholarship, but the dogma) does not follow this advice.

While studying regional contextual information is important, each cultural and religious context has its unique symbols and stories. Comparing these with the Genesis story requires careful consideration of cultural distinctions and the intended theological message.

Agree completely. However, purposefully not recognizing the influences within those symbols, stories, cultures and contexts that challenge the dogma is so common in "Traditional Christian Teachings" as to discredit the entire dogmatic system.

Traditional Christian scholars often consult original languages to enrich their understanding rather than relying solely on translations.

One of the main repeating statements here is "Christian scholarship" does this, that or the other thing. I am not talking about scholars or their work. This conversation is about Traditional Christian Teaching, which doesn't benefit from scholarship excepting where the scholarship agrees with the already established dogma. It is the dogma that has not changed, no matter the scholarship or evidence.

it is simply not the sole source for Christian teachings.

Agreed, as I stated earlier, there are plenty of extra-biblical teachings that influence the dogma.

Christian teachings derive their richness from a tapestry of diverse sources, including an array of biblical manuscripts, early translations, and theological writings.

Prove it.

The oldest versions of texts known prior to the Latin Vulgate are, as you note, the Codex Sinaiticus  and the Codex Vaticanus. They were not available to scholars until more recently. They have been edited, and/or written over (at some point after their creation) and yet still deviate in some very important ways from the Latin Vulgate in the new testament (notably Matthew and Mark regarding the resurrection story, and the self-proclaimed divinity of Jesus). More importantly perhaps, in these deviations the modern bible agrees with the Latin Vulgate, not the earlier works. So your suggestion that these works “changed the dogma” are not warranted in some very important pieces of evidence to the contrary.

The Latin Vulgate itself deviates a fair bit from the modern bible, but the changes didn’t come from other period works, because there were no other period works that existed in the hands of the scholars (at least not provably so). They came from papal decree or other “scholarship” (as you yourself note) created from where ever it was created from (not older works) that changed the story over time.

The oldest version of the Masoretic texts was first created in the 11th century, influenced by (or possibly even derived from) the Latin Vulgate (or the same source material for both works). In other words, at least by the timing of events, you have the listing backwards. The oldest Latin Vulgate is older than the oldest Masoretic texts. That is almost certainly why the Masoretic texts and modern bibles agree on certain key points where the Nag Hammadi and DSS disagree with both.

Theological writings from Church Fathers like Augustine, Jerome, and Origen, as well as the formulation of creeds in ecumenical councils, further shaped Christian thought.

The creeds are continual restatements of beliefs designed specifically to align thought with the dictates of the Church. (Of note: In any other system, such repetition of beliefs is called brainwashing). The creeds were created specifically to be aligned with Roman Law (see the Codex Theodosianus. The creeds, repeated weekly, biweekly, or monthly (depending on sect) are a restatement of those laws, designed to end debate on things like “the divinity of Jesus” (as it is currently understood within the Traditional Christian Teachings) the “trinity” (which wasn’t actually dogma until 383 AD). These things were made into law to end the huge amount of debate that was occurring, specifically to unite the Roman Empire, as previously stated. THAT is where the creeds come from. THAT was the purpose of the scholarship at the time. I suggest that that is also why there is some very important disagreements between what we have today, and what we have found in older works, found recently (relatively speaking).

Commentaries by theologians like Thomas Aquinas and liturgical texts such as the Liturgy of St. James and the Book of Common Prayer are essential components in the mosaic of Christian teachings. 

I’m pretty sure this is exactly what I am saying.

How does their work define the actual teachings of Jesus? Or perhaps a better question is, why does their work, created centuries or millennia after the fact, define the teachings of Jesus (as promoted, indeed, enforced by Traditional Christian Teachings) more than say, the Gospel of Thomas?

My point is there is a great deal that goes into the dogma we have today that is not from the teachings of Jesus, and is in uncontroversial disagreement with archaeology, language analytics, or even modern Christian scholarship. These pieces of evidence are completely ignored in the actual teachings we get, regardless of scholarship. Scholarship itself is not allowed to disagree with dogma. If it is, it is called heretical, even today.

There is no freedom of thought, and there is a ton of evidence that is ignored or placed into the wrong box. Works that are very likely actual teachings of Jesus (or at least have just as much validity as “canon”) are ignored in favor of the dogma created by the early Church, which was, once again, uncontroversially designed to unite Rome and set up a God-Emperor (“Pope” as Divine).

It’s simply not accurate to claim that traditional Christian teachings solely rely on the Latin Vulgate and disregard the original Hebrew.

I agree with this somewhat, but not in the way you imply. While modern day (past century or so) scholars do indeed look at other texts, the dogma espoused by "traditional Christian Teachings" rely specifically on the original teachings of the Catholic Church, the additional (or contrary) teachings of Luther, or Calvin, or other noted scholars from a very, very long time ago. All of these influences on today's dogma (the "Teachings") occurred long before we had access to the archaeological evidence or analytical tools of today. "Traditional Christian Teachings" are exactly that, traditional, having nothing to do with any contrariness found more recently in the older texts. Indeed, anywhere there is a deviation from the traditional dogma, the findings are completely ignored within the actual teachings themselves.

Where I agree is that there are plenty of extra biblical teachings in the "traditional Christian dogma." A great deal has been simply created from seemingly no where (not no where, but having nothing to do with the bible). For example, the story of Satan, or the "fall of Lucifer" has so little to do with the bible it is laughable. Both of those stories were completely (95%+) created by the Catholic Church as a social control mechanism.

The Nag Hammadi library primarily contains Gnostic texts

Sorta, but not completely true. The Nag Hammadi contains a fair bit of stuff. Also, calling the gospels (stories of Jesus) “Gnostic” is not true as applied. For example, how is a book like the Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic?" It is often attributed to having been written by the brother of Jesus (although the actual authorship is unprovable). It is one of, if not the oldest written book found that relates to the teachings of Jesus (by scientific dating methods, language dating, etc. of partial scripts found elsewhere it’s authorship may be as early as 50AD). Why do we call it "Gnostic?" Why place it in that box? It isn't canonical, but what is "canon" didn’t become canon until it was solidified into Roman law (ending debate) over three centuries after Jesus by a group of people who created a religion specifically and explicitly stated to reunite the four Roman kingdoms under one flag (the flag of God-Emperor Constantine, a self-proclaimed divine mouthpiece of God on earth, the first "pope" (although not called that at the time)).

The point is, "Gnostic" (as it is being used here) is a box created long after the writing of the texs themselves, designed to ensure what was proclaimed canon by Roman law remained the only canon (even though they kept changing it internally over the centuries). That doesn't mean that "gnostic" doesn't have a more specific meaning in the various schools of thought at the time, but with respect to the non-canonical gospels (stories of Jesus) specifically, they were (mis)placed in the "gnostic" box to ensure that the dogma created by the Roman empire, under the control of God-Emperor Constantine was not challenged (because there are some seriously non-dogma things in those other period works). Indeed, it is broadly thought that the reason these works were completely lost to time prior to the past century is because they threatened that dogma, and were thus forbidden by The Church to even exist. The Nag Hammadi library itself, because of the timing (dating) of the their burial (in the 4th century AD), is thought to have been a purposeful effort to preserve those thoughts which had become illegal under Roman law.

Another important note, “Gnostic Christianity” predates the modern version of the dogma (which is much more closely aligned with the Roman law version) by a few hundred years.

To oversimplify, there were basically two schools of thought; the “Gnostic” version and the “Saul” version (there were more than that, but this is an oversimplification). The Saul version, coming from the self-proclaimed top level spy of the Pharisees (an aristocratic Priest Class of Jews, the exact same people who rule the world behind the scenes today), and self-admitted mass murderer of Christians, won in the end.

Makes you think.

Well, at least it makes me think.

It is crucial to recognize the diversity of ancient texts and interpretive traditions rather than assuming a singular, unified source.

I agree completely. My problem is, Christian dogma (not all scholarship, but the dogma) does not follow this advice.

While studying regional contextual information is important, each cultural and religious context has its unique symbols and stories. Comparing these with the Genesis story requires careful consideration of cultural distinctions and the intended theological message.

Agree completely. However, purposefully not recognizing the influences within those symbols, stories, cultures and contexts that challenge the dogma is so common in "Traditional Christian Teachings" as to discredit the entire dogmatic system.

Traditional Christian scholars often consult original languages to enrich their understanding rather than relying solely on translations.

One of the main repeating statements here is "Christian scholarship" does this, that or the other thing. I am not talking about scholars or their work. This conversation is about Traditional Christian Teaching, which doesn't benefit from scholarship excepting where the scholarship agrees with the already established dogma. It is the dogma that has not changed, no matter the scholarship or evidence.

it is simply not the sole source for Christian teachings.

Agreed, as I stated earlier, there are plenty of extra-biblical teachings that influence the dogma.

Christian teachings derive their richness from a tapestry of diverse sources, including an array of biblical manuscripts, early translations, and theological writings.

Prove it.

The oldest versions of texts known prior to the Latin Vulgate are, as you note, the Codex Sinaiticus  and the Codex Vaticanus. They were not available to scholars until more recently. They have been edited, and/or written over (at some point after their creation) and yet still deviate in some very important ways from the Latin Vulgate in the new testament (notably Matthew and Mark regarding the resurrection story, and the self-proclaimed divinity of Jesus). More importantly perhaps, in these deviations the modern bible agrees with the Latin Vulgate, not the earlier works. So your suggestion that these works “changed the dogma” are not warranted in some very important pieces of evidence to the contrary.

The Latin Vulgate itself deviates a fair bit from the modern bible, but the changes didn’t come from other period works, because there were no other period works that existed in the hands of the scholars (at least not provably so). They came from papal decree or other “scholarship” (as you yourself note) created from where ever it was created from (not older works) that changed the story over time.

The oldest version of the Masoretic texts was first created in the 11th century, influenced by (or possibly even derived from) the Latin Vulgate (or the same source material for both works). In other words, at least by the timing of events, you have the listing backwards. The oldest Latin Vulgate is older than the oldest Masoretic texts. That is almost certainly why the Masoretic texts and modern bibles agree on certain key points where the Nag Hammadi and DSS disagree with both.

Theological writings from Church Fathers like Augustine, Jerome, and Origen, as well as the formulation of creeds in ecumenical councils, further shaped Christian thought.

The creeds are continual restatements of beliefs designed specifically to align thought with the dictates of the Church. (Of note: In any other system, such repetition of beliefs is called brainwashing). The creeds were created specifically to be aligned with Roman Law (see the Codex Theodosianus. The creeds, repeated weekly, biweekly, or monthly (depending on sect) are a restatement of those laws, designed to end debate on things like “the divinity of Jesus” (as it is currently understood within the Traditional Christian Teachings) the “trinity” (which wasn’t actually dogma until 383 AD). These things were made into law to end the huge amount of debate that was occurring, specifically to unite the Roman Empire, as previously stated. THAT is where the creeds come from. THAT was the purpose of the scholarship at the time. I suggest that that is also why there is some very important disagreements between what we have today, and what we have found in older works, found recently (relatively speaking).

Commentaries by theologians like Thomas Aquinas and liturgical texts such as the Liturgy of St. James and the Book of Common Prayer are essential components in the mosaic of Christian teachings. 

I’m pretty sure this is exactly what I am saying.

How does their work define the actual teachings of Jesus? Or perhaps a better question is, why does their work, created centuries or millennia after the fact, define the teachings of Jesus (as promoted, indeed, enforced by Traditional Christian Teachings) more than say, the Gospel of Thomas?

My point is there is a great deal that goes into the dogma we have today that is not from the teachings of Jesus, and is in uncontroversial disagreement with archaeology, language analytics, or even modern Christian scholarship. These pieces of evidence are completely ignored in the actual teachings we get, regardless of scholarship. Scholarship itself is not allowed to disagree with dogma. If it is, it is called heretical, even today.

There is no freedom of thought, and there is a ton of evidence that is ignored or placed into the wrong box. Works that are very likely actual teachings of Jesus (or at least have just as much validity as “canon”) are ignored in favor of the dogma created by the early Church, which was, once again, uncontroversially designed to unite Rome and set up a God-Emperor (“Pope” as Divine).