Did you know in the early days of the church there were several gospels? Not Just Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John...

Did you know in the early days of the church there were several gospels? Not Just Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There was the gospel of Thomas, gospel of Judas, gospel of Philip. Want to know who decided which gospels were inspired and which were not? Catholics. You're welcome. Nowhere in the Bible does it say what books belong in the Bible.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say what books belong in the Bible. It was a council of men who put the Bible together. Catholic men.

Directed by a Pagan who only converted on his deathbed.

OT and NT are one coherent whole testifying to each other through fulfilled prophecies, Jesus and the Apostles quotes etc..

And to Arianism at that

Catholic church turns around and starts persecuting Cathars and people who believe in Gnosis. Coincidence?

That's what the pagans want you to believe.

Luther was right that the Catholic Church was corrupt, but he was wrong on the pureness of the Bible which was still corrupted by a council lead by a Pagan.

>the gospels are not even consistent with one another

What did he mean by this?

>but muh prophecies

pic related

Cathars were really just Marcionites, not big "G" Gnostics. That is to say they were ascetics and believed the material realm was evil and believed in the dualist interpretation but they believed Jesus to be the essential element of salvation.

Gnostics like the catharsis believed that the God of the OT and NT were two separate gods thanks to the influence of Manichaeism in the paulician sect which spread from Anatolia to the Balkans and then to Western Europe. That's a heresy even To the prods.

Lol No.

Eusebius disproves this stupid meme.

>Catholics.
lolno

They still have uninspired books in their canon.

I'd say Mark, Hebrew Matthew, and the Gospel of Peter because of his relation and the similarity of the gospel to Mark are the most reliable. After that the rest of the canon and maybe Thomas. Everything else looks like an offshoot.

Septuagint

-It was used by Evangelists
-It was cited by in many Epistles
-It was used by first christians


>Uninspired

Kjers still haven't accepted Yeshua the Unct as their savior and still adhere to rabbinical rulings.

Then you don't know what you're talking about.

The Gospel of Mark is Mark remembering and writing down what Peter told him.

The gospel of Peter is a forgery, a hoax, at least a century later, with nothing to do about Peter at all. Same with Thomas. Not written by Thomas. Centuries later.

Frauds. Hoaxes. Gnostic gospels, and therefore lies.

Well that's convenient :^)

>Septuagint
>Written by Greeks for Ptolmey
>Cathlics claim they inspired
>Still remove 3 & 4 Esdras, 3 & 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, & the Prayer of Manasseh.

Early christians would wonder why your bible is so light

I find lies quite inconvenient in the long run.

Peter is very similar to Mark. Pic related contends the traditional ascription of the bible texts.
>inb4 ad hominem

Written by Greeks for Ptolmey
Nope. It was wrote by rabbis

Cathlics claim they inspired
Still remove 3 & 4 Esdras, 3 & 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, & the Prayer of Manasseh.

Well, maybe Orthodoxy is closer to the truth.

Early christians would wonder why your bible is so light
Protestant Bible is even lighter. What are you trying to say me?