Welcome to Gaia! ::

I'd have to say that both are equally important and necessary. Without the proper substance, the context can possibly be misconstrued or at worst completely lost and without the proper context there is no meaning behind the substance. One without the other is dangerous because with pure context, one can become lost in their own world and with pure substance one loses perspective behind why the substance is there to begin with.

It's easy to get lost in one and forget the other but that is why we are called to be ever vigilant and watchful lest we do end up getting lost in one.

Context provides the means to understand the substance and perform right actions when the right actions are not clearly presented; and substance provides the actions that builds and reinforces the proper context.

Hermeneutics expresses that we find meaning by following what the History, Context and Genre are of each text in question.

We must know the history of what the text consists of.
We must know what context the text is written in, i.e. poetic, law, history or parable/story?
We must know what genre this was written for as in who it was meant to be read by or how it was meant to be read and sometimes for whom it was written to.

The Gospel of Thomas was written, from what can be cited, for the Alexandrians. It is also believed to have been written probably around 140 ce. It contains mostly non-canonical words of Jesus to His Disciples some of which are incompatible with the other Gospels which is why it was rejected as Canonical. Its inconsistencies, as well as a lack of manuscripts and usage in the Early Church shows that it was not accepted as a true religious text as seen by the evidence of hundreds to thousands of copies made of the basic canon of the New testament texts.

In many cases yes it is the amount of archaeological evidences which relate to the amount of usage applied, also the fact that the Council at Nicea applied these texts among at least 318 Bishops who accepted this as canonical. Considering that there are only four copies ever discovered, and even the fragments do not match up to each other in their own copies, let alone three of the four are fragmented in the Greek and the only solid text we have in full is Coptic, this says alot about its validity as a true Gospel.

With the exception of the Gospel of John the other three are synoptic, correlating with each other. The Gospel of John coincides on the accounts taken from John as an apologetic discourse of Jesus Christ. Other than time applications and the number of witnesses of the Tomb, the Four Gospels in Sacred Scripture are very consistent.

Though I do value the truth found in the canonical texts, the excluded documents and texts put much of Christianity into perspective for me. Though they may appear inconsistent with Sacred Scripture, they provide spiritual truth from a different perspective. I do respect the early Church Fathers for trying to organize the fledging religion but at the same time I feel that some perspectives were cut out purely for Church political reasons. Those perspectives could have (and for me it did) helped others to come to know of God and receive the Holy Spirit.

I will honestly say I do not know if YHWH and the God of the NT are the same deity or not. The only thing that I know that would suggest that they are is that I know that God is Light and Agape and both the OT and NT confirm this. The Gnostic scriptures support this. Now based on my experience, I know that God would not command me to stone someone for breaking one of the mitzots of the OT, would test my faith by asking me to sacrife my first born son, or destroy a city or people in his name. This is my personal evidence that supports my understanding that the God that Christ spoke of and YHWH are not the same being or at the very least that God is severely being misrepresented in the OT.

Now yes the Resurrection is very important. I know that Christ must die to be resurrected so that we may come to know the Father. I have a partial understanding of the Mystery of the Trinity and understand why it is part of Church teachings. It is the minimum needed to know of God and pretty accurately describes Him but it didn't help me when I first started my journey to come to know of God. As for the discrepancies about Christ and his nature, we are going to probably have to agree to disagree here, but though there may be historical inaccuracies and Christological disagreements between the Gospels and the Gnostic texts but I cannot deny that they are speaking of the same Christ and the same God just from different personal perspectives.

There are equal arguments that the Gospel of Thomas was written as early as 50 AD. those that cite extreme ends of the dating spectrum do so because it is expedient to their belief system.

Just a tiny bit of research is needed to show that the Christians of the early second century used different scriptures from the Christians at the end of that same century!

We learn about some of the types of changes made in the Christian texts because, ironically, they are clearly enumerated by the very people responsible for preserving them.

For example Rufinus (fourth century) says of the earlier Christian texts he is copying: Wherever, therefore, we have found in his [in this case Origen's] books anything contrary to that which was piously established by him about the Trinity in other places, either we have omitted it as corrupt and interpolated, or edited it according to that pattern that we often find asserted by himself. If, however, speaking to the trained and learned, he writes obscurely because he desires to briefly pass over something, we, to make the passage plainer, have added those things that we have read on the same subject openly in his other books….All who shall copy or read this…shall neither add anything to this writing, nor remove anything, nor insert anything, nor change anything.

In this Rufinus simultaneously and almost hypocritically pleads that others not do to him what he has done to them.

Clement of Rome is generally seen as the earliest of the Christian authors after the New Testament. Clement quotes from many books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, 1 Samuel, 2 I Chronicles, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Malachi), and the New Testament books Matthew, Mark, Luke, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. But Clement also quotes from the apocryphal books of the Wisdom of Solomon and Judith. Furthermore, Clement quotes from other scriptural passages, passages that are not known from any writings. I will list these in roughly the order they might have been found in our current Bibles if they contained them. For example, Clement quotes Moses as saying: "I am smoke from a vessel," a quotation that is not found in any known biblical or apocryphal work. Clement further cites a passage from Psalms 28:5 "Thou shalt raise me up and I shall acknowledge thee." This reading of the Psalm, however, is not taken from any extant manuscript.

Clement quotes the following passage as scripture, although its source is currently unknown:

Wretched are the double-minded, who doubt in their soul, who say: This we have heard against our fathers and behold, we have grown old and none of them have happened even to us. O fools, compare yourselves to a tree-take the vine-first it sheds the leaf, then the bud comes, then the leaf, then the blossom, and after that the sour grape, then comes forth the ripened grape.

The homily known as 2 Clement also contains variations in quotations of the scriptures. Consider the following passage, which comes from a gospel but is not found in any of the gospels known to us:

Ye shall be as sheep in the midst of wolves. And Peter answering, said to him What if the wolves should scatter the sheep? Jesus saith to Peter: The sheep shall not fear the wolves after they kill them; ye also shall not fear those who shall kill you and cannot do anything against you, but ye shall fear him who hath power after your death to cast soul and body into the hell of fire.

The sentiments are generally found in gospels but not as they are here. 2 Clement attributes the following saying to Jesus also:

"If ye are gathered to me in my bosom and do not my commandments, I shall cast you out and shall say to you: Depart from me, workers of iniquity; I know not whence ye are."

Of course, this passage looks like it came from the Sermon on the Mount, but if the passage is from Matthew, it is a different form of Matthew than what we now have.

The scriptures found in the new testament evolved through two centuries;

Look what happens when you take the clumsy passage from second Peter and remove the obvious interpolations, note how smoothly it flows:

(12) Having your behavior honest among the Gentiles, that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. (15) For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men; (16) As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. (19) For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. (20) For what glory is it if, when ye are buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if, when ye do well and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God"

This is entirely consistent with the clementine recognitions: "But He is soon found by those who diligently seek Him through love of the truth, and whose souls are not taken possession of by wickedness. For He is present with those who desire Him in the innocence of their spirits, who bear patiently, and draw sighs from the bottom of their hearts through love of the truth"."

We can say with certainty, though, that Origen -- a man who was known to many as the greatest Bible scholar in the history of the church, unfailingly quoted scripture as he received it. We can also say with certainty that Origen's scriptures were different than what we have as witnessed by his Commentary on John: "None of these testimonies, however, sets forth distinctly the Savior's exalted birth; but when the words are addressed to Him, 'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee', this is spoken to Him by God", Origen is commenting on, and quoting a verse in the Gospel of John that is no longer there!

I found mildly offensive your assertion of our beliefs; But I will blame your source. Who ever told you that we Gnostics don't believe in the crucifixion is an out an out liar! The Gnostic church has been publicly and openly attacked from the Papacy for nearly two millenia; On alternate years the various popes have either declared us to be wiped out, or public enemy number one!

The Gospel of Philip states: "Do not despise the lamb, for without it, it is not possible to see the king. No one will be able to go in to the king if he is naked. "

The treatise on the Resurrection states:Then, indeed, as the Apostle said, "We suffered with him, and we arose with him, and we went to heaven with him". Now if we are manifest in this world wearing him, we are that one`s beams, and we are embraced by him until our setting, that is to say, our death in this life. We are drawn to heaven by him, like beams by the sun, not being restrained by anything. This is the spiritual resurrection which swallows up the psychic in the same way as the fleshly"

As to the assertion that he was an unborn spirit, that is a Marcionite belief, not a Gnostic one.

Lastly, the Gospel of John; the earliest known usage of John is among Gnostic circles. These include the Naassene Fragment quoted by Hippolytus Ref. 5.7.2-9 (c. 120-140), the Valentinian texts cited in Clement of Alexandria's Excerpta ex Theodotou (c. 140-160), a Valentinian Exposition to the Prologue of the Gospel of John quoted in Irenaeus' Adv. Haer. 1.8.5-6 (c. 140-160), and the commentary of Heracleon on John (c. 150-180, quoted in Origen's own commentary).

If you want to know what Gnostics believe, please feel free to ask.