Skip to main content


Showing posts from April, 2022

The problem with Luke-Acts

  We are on a journey where we discover the truth about the Bible. In this article we will be looking at Luke and Acts. Two very important books - but also two books that are not perfect. Both books clearly shows the same pattern of mistakes that were made by the author. Mistakes that you need to be aware of in order to discover the true teachings of Jesus.  The author of Luke-Acts was either a companion of Paul or someone that followed his teachings closely. Paul came from a strong religious background and that had an influence on his teachings. As we have seen in the article ' Paul's words are not God's words ' - Paul was not taught by Jesus and had very little contact with the apostles. There were some fundamental flaws in the teachings of Paul and the author of Luke-Acts took some of these flaws to the next level. Before you continue with this article, if you haven't already, you must first read the following articles for some background: The Lie about the Bible

The Gospel of Thomas

  The Gospel of Thomas is mostly rejected by mainstream Christianity. The reason is simple - the teachings in the Gospel of Thomas goes against a lot of what the 'Christian Church' is teaching us.  It was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945 among a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library. The reason it was only discovered in 1945 is that the early church destroyed all copies of the gospel. When was the Gospel of Thomas written? Scholars have proposed dates of composition as early as AD 60 and as late as AD 250. Most scholars however agree that it is between AD 60 to AD 140. Even a later date is not that late seeing that the Gospel of John was only written around AD 90 – 100. The date is important. An early date would be a big problem for mainstream Christianity because it would mean that the gospels in the New Testament dependent on the Gospel of Thomas, making the Gospel of Thomas more reliable.  The argument for a late date for Thomas The main argumen