Replies

In short, Kolokotronis was right -- the Protoevangelion can safely be considered to be a document that is a part of Holy Tradition, with the usual caveat that Holy Tradition is not infallible in the sense of the individual patristic writings themselves, but rather in the context of the overall message of the patristic writings, oral tradition, liturgical services, etc...

Thanks for your report on the Protoevangelion. It is that caveat that I'm trying to understand. I pinged you to another recent post on this with my attempt. :)

The editors do not say that the Protoevangelion is Gnostic, but do identify numerous other of the writings as being such (and they are -- as in the "Gospel of Thomas".)

I didn't know the "Gospel of Thomas" was considered Gnostic. So, Catholics and Orthodox fully (or mostly) reject it? (I say it that way because I figure you want about as much to do with Gnosticism as I do!) Boy, if so, then the History channel really let me down because I could have sworn they portrayed it as mainstream extra-Biblical teaching. :)

I didn't know the "Gospel of Thomas" was considered Gnostic. So, Catholics and Orthodox fully (or mostly) reject it?

The Church most definitely rejects the so-called Gospel of Thomas as Gnostic, along with a multitude of other heretic texts of similar kind.

This is precisely why it took the fathers of the Church hundreds of years to sift through all these texts and reject or accept them in forming the Christian canon (New Testament).

Typically, Gnostic and other "gospels" use actual Gospel material (verses) and introject in between their own satanic verses, or even just single words! Thus, many appear as genuine "inspired" text when in fact they are devil's deception par excellence!

Boy, if so, then the History channel really let me down because I could have sworn they portrayed it as mainstream extra-Biblical teaching

The History Channel is a major source of satanic lies. If I were the devil, I would certainly use it to disseminate lies and make them appear as "mainstream extra-Biblical teachings" because it reaches so many people and because people generally believe what they see on TV.

But they only appear balanced, and their presentation gives an air (a deceptive one for sure) of credibility. They favor certain myths and lies and pass on inaccurate information as "fact" which most people take on faith alone and never check.

Thus, I noticed that they will spend inordinate amount of time on interviews with such satanic ambassadors as Elaine Pagles (the author of the book "The Gospel of Thomas") and her small but vociferous crowd on the History Channel as well as the Learning Channel (I believe both are owned by the same global satanic network). At the same time, genuine Church sources are interviewed in passing and barely skimming the surface of an issue. Usually, it is a lower-ranking clergy member or, preferably for the editors of Satanic TV, a dissident clergy member.