Let's talk unblack metal!

Depending on how discerning/particular about what constitutes "Christian," I'd recommend digging into their lyrics and beliefs a little more before you buy.  I agree, musically they're great.  But I saw some posts on their FB that didn't sit well with me.  Everyone's got different standards and what bothers me may not bother you (and vice-versa), but they're definitely more towards the fringe end of the spectrum than not when it comes to doctrine.

We have lyric videos to the open public to see
So what's this fringe doctrine ur accusing them of?

Hey Duane, good to see you here.

I apologize, I didn't mean to "accuse" them of anything.  I was just referencing something they posted publicly on their FB page which didn't sit well with me and that may be important for others to know.  (I had to go search for it: it's from their February 18th post of their song Adonai.)  With reference to their song Adonai, they said that it is "in line" with the gospel of Thomas (which is not canon).  Someone mentioned it not being in the 66 books (aka the Bible) to which Temple of Perdition responded,

"The 66 books were chosen by man to fit mans agenda by a system of control and power. These books were common place before that and highly regarded. I will not ever subscribe to what is Constantine decree of what is godly and what is not."

A central - perhaps THE central - element to orthodox Christianity is that the Bible is the infallible Word of God.  Their beliefs are by definition unorthodox.  Like I said, everyone's got different opinions of what constitutes "Christian" music and for me that crosses a line.  I don't want to encourage anyone NOT to buy their music, but I figured if it's something that's important to me, it might be for others.

Thanks for the quote Kerrick. Good to know! I'd wondered what you were speaking of.

Seems like some members have a different idea of where the canon came or should come from. According to the scholars I've read, it was not chosen at a council (though this is when most of us would say it became "official") but the books had largely been determined well before that (at least 20 of the New Testament books were universally affirmed in the late 2nd century) and were selected according to their apostolic origin, of which the Gospel of Thomas has none. It never was nor will be considered authentically written by Thomas and most scholars put it in the mid 2nd century. It's classic psuedopigraphia and has some truly odd leanings toward gnostic sayings. It's not even apocryphal. I think "highly regarded" is a great stretch! 

The text has many parallels to the written canonical Gospels but this most commonly quoted passage illustrates the oddity of some of it, Thomas 114 "Simon Peter said to them, Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she to may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." Even if there are seemingly valuable elements to the writing, does this sound fitting?

His quote of Constantine being involved in selecting the canon is fiction from Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code." If there was a real complaint it would be that the canon was "officially" determined at the Council of Carthage in 397 well after Constantine's death. Saying Constantine had something to do with it means someone is misinformed, perhaps even by a work of fiction.

To credit some of the more direct comments here, though I didn't quote it, much of this comes from "The Historical Reliability of the New Testament" by Craig L. Blomberg. There are other sources I can offer if anyone cares for them.

Thanks again Kerrick!

Sure thing, and likewise, thank you for the info as well!  The "gospel" of Thomas makes for some interesting and fascinating (and quite "metal") song lyrics material, though I'm not aware of any respected theologians or scholars who ascribe any legitimacy to it whatsoever.

The Dan Brown/Constantine thing is very interesting to me.  I remember when that book came out and it made quite a stir - especially amongst conservative Christians.  At the time, I didn't understand why it should be such a big deal, though this is a prime example of how susceptible we are to (mis)information and why books like this ARE a big deal.  We're all guilty of failing at this, but it shows how crucial it is to seek and have good teaching.

I noticed the references to Thomas before I even heard about the Facebook post. It's definitely an interesting route to take, but for me personally, I'm more concerned over the central message of the song rather than the references it makes (but that's just me). 

I actually listened to the full album last week, and it's pretty amazing! I'd love to own it.

Cool!  For me the more concerning thing was the "66 books" comment though like I said, everyone draws the line of what they'll choose to listen to or not at a different place.  Those who have been around here for longer can attest: what constitutes "Christian music/bands" is a topic that comes up frequently and usually with it some impassioned posts haha.

I'll also note that I am probably affected more than most by the people, beliefs, attitudes, and such behind the music.  It's impossible for me to disassociate them, for better or worse.  Therefore, when I find a band made up of humble and friendly members who write lyrics I am generally aligned with, I'll enjoy their music that much more.  But conversely, if I stumble upon a band who writes stellar music but I am particularly "un-simpatico" with their members or whose lyrics contain theology or values that I am strongly against, I'll be unable enjoy their material.  So all that to say, I'm probably more sensitive to that kind of stuff which will come out in my posts from time to time.