And finally...

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).

Your assertions here point to a fundamental contention of yours: that Christian dogma deviates "significantly" from the actual teachings of Jesus and conflicts with archaeological evidence, language studies, and modern Christian scholarship - and brings us full circle to the start of our discussion. To address these claims, I'd like to delve into a few points and ask a few questions:

1. Discrepancies Between Dogma and Evidence: Could you provide specific examples or instances where traditional Christian teachings contradict archaeological evidence or linguistic analysis? What particular aspects of Christian dogma do you believe are at odds with modern scholarship or historical findings? This would help me clarify the specific areas where you perceive disagreement.

2. Freedom of Thought and Scholarship: Are there documented instances where modern Christian scholarship that contradicts traditional dogma has been labeled as heretical? How do these claims align with the scholarly discourse and academic debates within Christian theology, which often involve critical analysis and diverse perspectives?

3. The Gospel of Thomas and Orthodox Canon: The Gospel of Thomas is indeed a significant ancient text. However, the Gospel of Thomas, along with other non-canonical texts, was excluded from the New Testament canon for various reasons, including late authorship, lack of apostolic authority, and theological differences. How do you reckon with the criteria that early Christian communities used to discern canonical texts from non-canonical ones?

Fantastic discussion! And you bring up extremely important points, Fren. I feel like I'm in Graduate school again!!

And finally...

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).

Your assertions here point to a fundamental contention of yours: that Christian dogma deviates "significantly" from the actual teachings of Jesus and conflicts with archaeological evidence, language studies, and modern Christian scholarship - and brings us full circle to the start of our discussion. To address these claims, I'd like to delve into a few points and ask a few questions:

1. Discrepancies Between Dogma and Evidence: Could you provide specific examples or instances where traditional Christian teachings contradict archaeological evidence or linguistic analysis? What particular aspects of Christian dogma do you believe are at odds with modern scholarship or historical findings? This would help me clarify the specific areas where you perceive disagreement.

2. Freedom of Thought and Scholarship: Are there documented instances where modern Christian scholarship that contradicts traditional dogma has been labeled as heretical? How do these claims align with the scholarly discourse and academic debates within Christian theology, which often involve critical analysis and diverse perspectives?

3. The Gospel of Thomas and Orthodox Canon: The Gospel of Thomas is indeed a significant ancient text. However, the Gospel of Thomas, along with other non-canonical texts, was excluded from the New Testament canon for various reasons, including late authorship, lack of apostolic authority, and theological differences. How do you reckon with the criteria that early Christian communities used to discern canonical texts from non-canonical ones?

Fantastic discussion! And you bring up extremely important points, Fren!