This is how I understand what he is saying as well.

Rules and equations do not give rise to the universe. The model describes the universe. It takes it as given. That it is is neither modeled nor explained.

This is what you said:

Since time is not material, it does not exist in reality — val p miranda

and

it [space] is just an immaterial existent — val p miranda

Do you even understand what you wrote?

If X does not exist because it is not material then if Y is not material then Y does not exist.
If X = time and Y = space then
If time does not exist because it is not material then if space is not material then space does not exist.

As the Mad Hatter told Alice:

Either say what you mean or mean what you say.

First you deny that time exists in reality because it is not material:

Since time is not material, it does not exist in reality ... — val p miranda

but then in the case of space you say:

it is just an immaterial existent — val p miranda

In that case either materiality is not a requirement for existence or if it is then space does not exist in reality.

Who, now? — Banno

It is better that you don't know. Let's just say that if you were looking for an example of someone who contributes to the

preponderance of low quality thread of a theological bent. — Banno

he would be near to top of the list. He came here, stirred things up for a while by letting us know that we knew nothing about Christianity and that he knows all there is to know, left, and came back yesterday.

Follow up to my last post

If what exists exists in space and if space is an existent then space exists in itself. If it exists in itself it cannot be the same as itself. Space has become very crowded.

@Banno

With the return of Joe Mello the scales are closer to tipping in your favor.

↪Fooloso4 space is place — val p miranda

This is what you said, followed by my response.

A definition of space as a real immaterial existent that makes existence possible by providing place
— val p miranda

If space both exists and makes existence possible, does that mean that the existence of space make space possible by providing itself a place? Where is this place in which space is made possible? — Fooloso4

An existent is something that exists. If space exists then it cannot be what makes existence possible, unless it is causa sui. Is that what you are claiming?

If space is place then what is the place of any particular object? The place where I put the dishes is not space.

Kant (↪Mww , ↪Fooloso4) and Einstein? — Banno

Mww and I are in good company!

An evaluation of opinions includes the question of which opinions are worthy of our consideration. What is central to the life of hairdressers is not what is central:

politically, socially, intellectually, historically, and culturally important. — Fooloso4

But if a group of hairdressers showed up, it would be interesting to hear what argument they would make to support the claim that what they say about hairdressing is worthy of our attention.

Since time is not material, it does not exist in reality and, therefore, does not have a reality definition. — val p miranda

A reality definition that is limited to what is material and does not include time is an inadequate definition.

Time, however, is a concept ... — val p miranda

There are concepts of time but that does not mean that time is a concept.

A definition of space as a real immaterial existent that makes existence possible by providing place — val p miranda

If space both exists and makes existence possible, does that mean that the existence of space make space possible by providing itself a place? Where is this place in which space is made possible?

Space meets the Kantian requirements as a transcendental because it is absolute, necessary and universal. — val p miranda

Transcendental conditions, according to Kant, are the conditions for the possibility of experience. Both space and time are transcendental, that is, they are conditions of the mind that structure experience rather than derived from experience.

Do you get no comfort from the suggestion that we are all connected via the components we are made of? Conservation laws? Only the form changes, nothing is destroyed or created. — universeness

Even if the components are not destroyed that does not mean that we are not. Perhaps we are the form those components takes. When the form those components take that is me changes then I am not.

That was quite a poria! From Plato to King Charles.

With regard to justified true belief, this is a long standing but, in my opinion, incorrect interpretation of the Theaetetus. The question is: what is knowledge? The first thing to be noted is that one must have knowledge in order to correctly say what knowledge is. The proposed answer, justified true belief, is Theaetetus', not Socrates. It proves to be inadequate. If faces the same problem. What justifies an opinion? After all, the Sophists were skilled at giving justifications for opinions, both true and false. In order to determine if an argument is true, to have the ability to discern a true from a false logos, requires knowledge. But this knowledge is not itself a justified true belief.

If hairdressing were as central to human life as theology has been and continues to be, then a thread on hairdressing would not only be fine with me, it would be something I think should not be ignored.

Job does not claim to be blameless but doesn't accept that he must be wrong by default either. — Paine

I agree.

And by bringing up Job, I was thinking that expecting good results from living a good life is sort of an argument for the normative. — Paine

Yes, this occured to me as well, as did Ecclesiastes.

... to redeem the idea of god by embracing greater and greater abstractions. — Tom Storm

That is how it seems to me as well. It is as if he looks at all the problems that arise when claims of God are made and ends up defining God out of existence.

What do you make of Bentley Hart? — Tom Storm

From the little I know of him, he looks to me to be a classical theist, although I am aware that he is frequently at odds with the classical theist Edward Feser. As I mentioned above I do not find his use of the classical argument based on the distinction between contingent beings and a necessary being at all convincing:

Hart seems to make a similar a priori assumption. He makes the distinction between what is necessary and what is contingent and applies it in toto to existence, as if what is true of the relationship between things that exist must be true of the relationship between what exists and God. Since everything in the world is contingent, there must be something non-contingent which they rely upon. There is here a shift from ontological necessity to logical necessity. — Fooloso4

There is much more sophisticated theology by people like Paul Tillich or David Bentley Hart — Tom Storm

What do you see as the advantage of Tillich's use of what Heidegger called the ontological difference, the difference between Being and beings, the claim that God is the non-existent ground of what exists? Perhaps "God" is an attempt to ground what needs no ground.

Hart seems to make a similar a priori assumption. He makes the distinction between what is necessary and what is contingent and applies it in toto to existence, as if what is true of the relationship between things that exist must be true of the relationship between what exists and God. Since everything in the world is contingent, there must be something non-contingent which they rely upon. There is here a shift from ontological necessity to logical necessity.

Philosophy is preparation for death. — Socrates

In typical Socratic fashion, this is not an answer but is intended to raise questions.

In my opinion the scope of philosophy is the scope of opinion. It is the examination and evaluation of opinions. Theology in the broadest sense of the term remains politically, socially, intellectually, historically, and culturally important.

From a philosophical perspective theological concerns are not theological endorsements. It is not simply an ontological matter of whether there are gods and how such claims are to that is to be understood, but epistemological - what can we or do we know about such things, and practical - how theological matters ought to influence our lives, as individuals and as peoples.

No, you’re assuming the story actually happened — Possibility

No, you're assuming that I am assuming it actually happened. This is what I actually said:

To anticipate the obvious objection, yes this is not meant to be taken literally, but we should take the story on its own terms. These things happen in the story and if we are to understand the story we must attend to what happens in the story. — Fooloso4

[emphasis added]

To read a novel and point out that the things that happen in the novel did not actually happen is pointless. — Fooloso4

A story’s terms should not be bound by what happens. This only limits understanding. — Possibility

A story's terms should be bound by what happens in the story.

Read it again - there is no talk of a wager made at all. — Possibility

The term is 'commonly' used even when there is no money other thing of value exchanged.

used to say that you are certain that something is true or will happen in the future:
I'd wager (that) she's interested in you.
He regrets doing that, I'll wager.

To wager is also to suggest as a likely idea:
I would wager that not one person in ten could tell an expensive wine from a cheaper one.

WAGER


.

This has taken a couple of unexpected, and for my part unintended turns. I do not wish to trespass, so will leave off.

The stakes are very high if you're wrong here. — Moses

What would you do differently if you were convinced there was no afterlife?

I'm honestly just not particularly interested in a universe where there is no afterlife/judgment. — Moses

For all you know, that might be the universe you live in. If your preference is to believe in an afterlife I do not take issue with that.

In that case I agree with Paul: "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die." — Moses

The quote is: eat and drink. No mention of being merry(1 Corinthians 15:25)

I agree with Koheleth :

So I commend the enjoyment of life, because there is nothing better for a person under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad. Then joy will accompany them in their toil all the days of the life God has given them under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 8:15)

Koheleth, did not believe in an afterlife, but unlike Paul, he believed that this life gives us occasion to rejoice, to be glad, to find satisfaction in our work.

There's no doubt that the speech impediment presents a challenge; but it's not a deficiency. — Moses

If it was not a deficiency he would not have needed Aaron to speak on his behalf.

11 The Lord said to him, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord? — Moses

Right, he gave him a mouth that he was unable to use to speak to the people.

The Lord's work is not deficient; it is exactly as intended. — Moses

And yet in the garden was a tree that bore fruit that was bad or evil. God cursed the ground and caused the labor of childbirth to be painful after Adam and Eve ate of it. In the story of the Flood we are told:

The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. (Genesis 6:6)

The flood that God caused killed all but two (or 7) of every kind of land dwelling animal. Isaiah says:

Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things. (45:7)

The disabled are just another part of the human condition; not beings to be regarded as inferior. — Moses

We are all inferior to others in one way or another, but this is not the same as saying that some of us or all of us are inferior beings.

IMHO the specifics don't matter too much. — Moses

What I was responding to is this:

But upon further scrutiny Jesus logic dictates that this life matters immensely because it determines where one ends up. — Moses

It may be that the specifics of an afterlife don't matter too much, but whether or not there is an afterlife does. But logic does not dictate that there is an afterlife. It is because we do not know that there are no agreed upon specifics. In my opinion, logic dictates that we should not live in accordance with something that may not be. That this life matters immensely because for all we know there is only this life.

I'm curious as to why Plato isn't ancient Greek. — Moses

Plato was an ancient Greek. He was not "the ancient Greeks", any more than you are the contemporary Americans or Europeans or Chinese. Your views need not be the same as those of where you are from. In the case of Plato they were not.

I've considered his doctrine of forms to be a bit ableist — Moses

Plato did not have a doctrine of forms. The Forms are identified in the Phaedo as hypothetical. They are the result of what Socrates calls his second sailing.

I'm referring to the beautiful dialogue on disability that occurs in Exodus 4 where God affirms disability instead of treating it as a deficiency. — Moses

Does he? God acknowledges the deficiency and says:

I will help both of you speak and will teach you what to do. He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him.(4:15-16)

It is wonderful that the mythology of the Jews would choose a disabled person as their main prophet and his partnership with Aaron signifies a union between abled and disabled. — Moses

I read this in light of the question of authority, who is to lead the people. See Numbers 12. One aspect of this theme is the relation of brothers and birthright. Traditionally it is the older brother who inherits the birthright, but in several stories it is the younger brother, who by one means or another, takes the birthright. Aaron was the older brother. Even though Moses had a speech impediment and Aaron speaks well, Aaron plays a subordinate and spoke on Moses' behalf as his assistant. This is related to the question of the authority of the Levites and Aaron the Levite (4:14) The union of Moses and Aaron seems to be a symbolic representation of the union of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The differing beliefs were united. The gods of their fathers were identified as the same god. See the question regarding god's name.

But it seems to me that you’re personifying in order to make this query - a character even in a story does not imply personification or being in the sense that we, Job or his friends are beings, much less imply human motivation or morality. Neither God nor the adversary are temporally or physically located characters — Possibility

I think it is rather the case that you are imposing assumptions on the text. In my opinion, as a general principle of interpretation, the attempt must be made to understand the story on its own terms. Is there any indication that the author(s) of the story do not mean that they are temporally or physically located characters? See, for example, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, "God: An Anatomy". The ancient peoples of the Levant did think of their gods as temporally or physically located characters with intentions, desires, and emotions.

The story is an heuristic device. — Possibility

And how can we learn from it if, for example, the wager is only an

apparent ‘wager’ — Possibility

?

In the story the wager was not an "apparent wager". A wager was made. If we are to understand the story then we must accept that in the story a wager was made. To read a novel and point out that the things that happen in the novel did not actually happen is pointless.

How does Job know they are wrong? Is that a keeping of faith or a better understanding of what righteousness is like? — Paine

He does not say that they are wrong. He does not claim to be blameless.

He challenges Eliphaz the Temanite:

Teach me, and I will be quiet;
show me where I have been wrong.

Is there any wickedness on my lips?
Can my mouth not discern malice? (6:24-30)

In the next chapter he asks God:

If I have sinned, what have I done to you,
you who see everything we do?
Why have you made me your target?
Have I become a burden to you?
Why do you not pardon my offenses
and forgive my sins? (7:20-21)

I am not sure about the distinction you make between a keeping of faith and an understanding of righteousness.

I'm talking about the afterlife or the fate of the soul. — Moses

Yes, I know. The problem is, what is the real meaning of the afterlife according to the gospels? Things are not as clear as you might think. In Matthew the kingdom of heaven on earth. Some believed in bodily resurrection, while others believed in the resurrection of the soul, and still others did not make this division, it was the person that was resurrected.

Sure, but what does that mean? The Ancient Greeks apparently had no issues killing disabled babies or sending off boys to be "mentored" by older men. — Moses

Plato was not the Ancient Greeks. In the Republic we find his most sustained discussion of justice. I will not go into it here. I will only point out that at the center of the dialogue devoted to the question of what justice is Socrates talks about the turning of the soul to truth illuminated by the Good.

In Plato's Phaedo we find the dualism of body and soul and the afterlife of the soul that became enormously influential for Christian ideas of the afterlife.

Moses — Moses

Let's look at what happened when Moses brought down the second set of tablets:

Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies.So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him.Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.'" The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died.Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day." (Exodus 32:25-29)

The wager is on whether that kind of self-knowledge is alive or only an illusion of good fortune. — Paine

I see the wager somewhat differently. The adversary (the satan) says:

Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.” (1:10-11)

The claim is that it is because of his good fortune he is blameless and upright, and that if he were to suffer he would no longer be so. God accepts the wager and permits the adversary to inflict Job.

Job's friends, on the other hand, take the opposite view, they claim that he must not be blameless because if he was he would not suffer. We know, however, that he is blameless. Ostensibly we know why he suffers, to test the adversary's theory by testing Job.

Job does not know about this wager and challenges God. God's answer is that he would not understand. While I am sympathetic to the idea that we do not know why things happen as they do, the more troubling question is why God would permit the adversary to do what he did. This is a challenge Job could not raise, but we can. In not understanding God's will we also do not understand His justice, which seems in this case to be injustice. In addition, not being able to understand the reason why things happen as they do seems to be because the are without reason. There is no good reason why God would enter into the wager and allow this to happen. Throughout all this Job remains faithful to God while God is not faithful to Job. A pious reading is that Job has the kind of faith we should all aspire to. But my impious, adversarial reading is that Job's faith is unreasonable.

To anticipate the obvious objection, yes this is not meant to be taken literally, but we should take the story on its own terms. These things happen in the story and if we are to understand the story we must attend to what happens in the story.

Initially when I read the Gospels I thought of JC as a nihilist in this sense i.e. this world doesn't matter, it's all about the next.

But upon further scrutiny Jesus logic dictates that this life matters immensely because it determines where one ends up. — Moses

Where will one end up? The messianic promise in for the kingdom of heaven on earth. It is "at hand" or "near," but it has been over 2,000 years and it is still not here. Why should we think it will come?

Good luck trying to live a long happy life after one goes around killing or robbing. — Moses

I prefer Socrates' solution from the Apology. We do not know what happens at death. If there are rewards and punishments then the just will be rewarded and need not fear punishment. If there is nothing beyond death then it does not makes sense to live this life in the expectation of another. But here again the just life is best.

But in the Republic there is the challenge of "perfect injustice". One who is perfectly unjust will get away with being unjust because everyone will be fooled and regard him as perfectly just. He will enjoy a reputation for being just, while someone who is just may be accused and suffer from a reputation of being unjust.

I made the same point regarding nihilism in one of the other of the three (!) threads on Jesus.

Maybe you will get a response.

I like to think that the gospel is an attempt at helping people come to terms with their own existential angst that they experience — Dermot Griffin

I think you are mistaking the message and intent of the gospel for something completely foreign to it in terms of time and place. Although someone today might find solace from their existential angst, that is not what the message in Matthew is about. Put differently, based on what you say:

the message of the gospel becomes perverted. — Dermot Griffin

Although understandable, what is being ignored is what he says after what you quote ends, after imploring them to

... seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.

Two points to note. The first has to do with "tomorrow".

Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come ...
So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. (24:42)

The righteous should not be anxious about tomorrow because tomorrow, if not today or this hour, may be the day the Lord will come.

Second, what is promised when he says "all these things will be yours as well" is not food and drink and clothing for the body, but what will happen on the day of judgment for the righteous:

... the blessed of my Father, [will] inherit the reign that hath been prepared for you from the foundation of the world. (25:34)

Rather than find solace from their existential angst the message should have been the source of existential angst for anyone who believed it. The day of judgment did not come as promised. To counter this the belief in a "second coming" arose, as hour after hour and day after day went by and a new generation arose who believed it would come in their time. Eventually, the belief and hope that the end was "near" was reinterpreted to mean something other than near in time.

Do you think there any teachings in other gospels that you think were intentionally barred from canon or teachings that contradict major teachings in the synoptic gospels? Thank you for directing me to gThomas. — Moses

Here is a nice brief overview from the perspective of five scholars. At the bottom there is a link to a statement by
Another scholar.

One thing that emerges is that the canon has more to do with the preferences of the Christian communities themselves than with any attempt to establish historical accuracy. This is an important point that is not well understood. The standards and practices of contemporary historians were not the standard practices of gospel writers. The "true" teachings of Jesus did not mean a historical determination of what he actually said and did. It is rather revealing the meaning of his teaching as they understood it, which meant the creation of accounts (logoi) about what he said and did.

In order to understand the problem of cities we have to follow the story of knowledge. The story of knowledge, is the story of production. It begins with a single tree that produces fruit that is both good and bad or evil. Adam who knew Eve produce Cain who worked the soil and to Abel who kept flocks.

We are not told why God did not find favor with Cain's offering, but it may be because God cursed Adam to work the ground and what Cain produced was from his working the ground. After killing Abel he becomes a wanderer but eventually built a city. (4:17)

He knew his wife. His progeny includes Lamach and his two wives. One of the sons of the first wife was the father of those who lived in tents and raise livestock, and the other of those who played stringed instruments and pipes. The son of the other wife forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. (4:20 -22)

Those who live in tents and raise livestock do not have remain in one place. They go where the flocks can forage. They are not, strictly speaking producers. Those who work the land are producers and are tied to one place. They have the knowledge to produce instruments, but their instruments are not weapons. It is only in cities that bronze and iron weapons are forged. Perhaps part of the problem with cities is an increase of people living in the same place, which requires developing different ways to live in order to find a place.

Lamach, like Cain, kills a man, and at this point the story turns abruptly back to Adam and Eve.

This is Jesus thinking that applies regardless of whether the apocalypse/rapture is near at hand at not -- we're all going to die and what's far more important than our lives is the final destination of our soul according to JC. — Moses

He is contrasting biological life with everlasting life.The needs of the body with those of the soul. Yes, we are all going to die, but without food and drink the death of the body will be soon. But he says not to worry about the body.

It is obvious that he does not mean this literally because he continues to eat and drink. He presides over the Passover seder. But it is also not meant literally that God will provide you with food and drink. It is this other life, the life that is at hand for the righteous that will be provided for.

He also says no one knows the time or place of the rapture. — Moses

The statement in Matthew and Mark is not so vague. Both say:

But about that day or hour no one knows ...

The day or hour implies soon. The next statement in Mark is:

Be on guard! Be alert!

It comes a bit later in Matthew:

Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come ...
So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

This is not something that will happen in some indeterminate future. It will happen any day now.

What is too often overlooked is the messianic promise. Jesus claimed that the Kingdom was at hand or near. Ordinary life with its ordinary concerns was about to end. He believed there was no need to prepare for tomorrow. This is why he could say:

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? (Matthew 6:25)

What he could not know is that the promise was not and still has not been fulfilled.

The overall theme of the New Testament is in my opinion a rebellion against nihilism and Paul definitely gets into that. — Dermot Griffin

Some regard Paul's teachings as a form of nihilism. For example, your quote above:

"If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world?" (Colossians 2:20) — Dermot Griffin

As in many other places, Paul is contrasting the natural world, the cosmos, with the spiritual life promised.

... it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body ... (1 Corinthians 15:44)

The problem is, the promise was not fulfilled, as he had expected, during his lifetime or in the next generation or in any generation since then.

Another example. Paul claimed that man is a slave to sin, powerless and in need of God's grace in order to be saved.

It is crucial to note that this is a strict dichotomy. An individual is considered to be either righteous or unrighteous. There is no overlap between the two. There are no partly righteous and partly unrighteous individuals.

What if someone who is righteous stumbles? Is this precluded when you claim?:

The righteous NEVER commit sin. — ThinkOfOne

But presumably it is possible if one must remain vigilant because the flesh is weak.

If someone who is righteous does stumble are they then unrighteous? And if they repent are they then once again righteous? Is there something like a three strike rule?

The problem is with your strict dichotomy:

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.(1 John 1:8-9)

If the righteous NEVER sin then none of us are righteous. It is, according to 1 John, not through us but by forgiveness that we are without sin. John is here closer to Paul than to Matthew or Mark.

Many years ago I took a course to learn Greek (I think it was soon after the gospels were written), but soon after my attention way pulled in a different direction and did not practice enough to become proficient. I forgot most of what I learned. I did purchase the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon and was able to consult it to look up terms and phrases that seemed important.

Now I usually use biblehub.com and biblegateway.com . They provide several different translations, including Young's Literal Translation. Bible Hub also has a tab that gives you the Greek term and English together as well as a concordance and commentaries.

If the teaching appears in multiple places I think we can say with a high degree of confidence that JC preached it. — Moses

It is generally assumed that in such cases there was a common source or sources, such as Q, from which the gospel stories were taken. Whether the source was Jesus himself is another matter.

During the early Jesus movement writing gospels was a common practice. They were based in large part on inspiration, what was believed to be the indwelling of spirit. The Church Fathers, seeking to establish a unified Catholic or universal Church, put an end to that.

How can we reconcile Jesus' adherence in Matthew to the commandments :

‘Honor your father and your mother,’ [10 Commandments] and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die [Exodus 21:17]’ (Matthew 15:4)

with the commandment against killing [10 Commandments] that Jesus cites at Matthew 19:18?

I think the answer can be found in another passage from Matthew:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. (7:1)
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the the speck from your brother’s eye. (7.5)

What is at issue is not adherence to the commandments but who is fit to carry out judgment.

This is addressed later in Matthew beginning at 25:31. The people of every nation will be separated in two, those who will be blessed and those who will be cursed. Those who are blessed will inherit the kingdom. Those who will be cursed:

Go into everlasting fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels! (25:41)

What we find here is not simply a morality of peace and love, but a traditional morality of good and evil, rewards and punishment

I am afraid we are not rid of [Myths] because we still have faith in grammar. — Twilight of the Idols

373 ... (Theology as grammar.) — Philosophical Investigations

Man chooses what is canon ... Some books are more authoritative than others. — Moses

The Church Fathers, on their own authority decided what books were authoritative. For some scholars the concern is with texts that were excluded, texts that were condemned, declared heretical, and banned. The Gospel of Thomas is quite different than the canonical gospels. It consists of sayings of Jesus.

I'd be interested to know in what way he perverts the word of Jesus — Moses

The problem with this is that Paul's influence is all over the gospels, both those that are sympathetic and those that are antithetic. Unless it can be determined what Jesus actually said we cannot say what is the word of Jesus. Here we return to the intertextual disputes and the suppression of texts based on self-appointed authority of the Church Fathers.

But not everyone is concerned with such things. For some it is simply a matter of the sayings that resonate with them, regardless or alleged authenticity. I recommend you read the Gospel of Thomas. Translations are available free online.