Gospel of Thomas

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thomas was unknown at the time and place of canonization, so it wasn't "wiped out."

But many others were. Do you deny this?

@sojourner has yet to support the initial claim.

 

[sojourner]

And what do you think now?

I think you're being snarky.

 

[sojourner]

But many others were. Do you deny this?

No, but we're talking about Thomas specifically.

There was a painstaking process in which they read several different scriptures to see which ones lined up best.

Not necessarily.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think you're being snarky.

Mostly you think you can avoid answering the question by attacking the questioner. It's petty and it's transparent.

 

[roger1440]

Primary Sources - Gospel Of Thomas | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

What do we think here? Could it be that the Gospel of Thomas is a long lost collection of Jesus' private teachings? Or is it a kind of fake that misrepresents his teachings?

I'm just wondering what you all think about it.

The Gospel of Thomas may be older then the canonical gospels. It is a collection of sayings; many of them are one liners. “Jesus said this”, Jesus said that”, “Jesus said the other thing”. There is no continuity that binds these sayings. Each saying is independent from the next. There is no story line or narrative. The canonical gospels read much differently. Each of the canonical gospels reads as a story with a climatic end. The Gospel of Thomas may have been one of the sources used to create the canonical gospels. It is possible Thomas may be the hypothetical gospel of “Q”.

 

[outhouse]

The Gospel of Thomas may be older

Probably is.

It has some support for being younger, but its a hard piece to date.

”. There is no continuity that binds these sayings

Continuity is not needed.

. Each of the canonical gospels reads as a story with a climatic end.

Because they were steeped in rhetorical prose, and all compilations or pre existing written and oral traditions.

Mark did not have a climatic end.

. The Gospel of Thomas may have been one of the sources used to create the canonical gospels

Probably not.

Half can be found in the NT text and it is probably gnostic, which places it later.

It is possible Thomas may be the hypothetical gospel of “Q”.

No, that is just not supportable and amounts to unsubstantiated uneducated personal opinion

 

[George-ananda]

Well, its origination is frustrantingly lost to history. Not fully versed on it, its teachings seem to my opinion to be of a higher level than the traditional gospels.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No, but we're talking about Thomas specifically.

True. Though I don't recall saying that Thomas was not included at this exact time. It really isn't that important to my point. Though I didn't know it wasn't so I appreciate the new information.

Not necessarily.

It is the historical account of how it was done. I am sure there was some extreme bias but I would also at least like to give them the benefit of the doubt that they would put a fair amount of effort into attempting to keep a canonization of their version of the faith as contradiction free as possible. So it is reasonable to assume that there was a painstaking process gone into determining which scriptures were "legitimate". But I do agree with you that it as biased towards their version of things rather than a pure scholarly attempt to find the common ground.

 

[roger1440]

1) The canon was settled by the mid-400s c.e. Thomas wasn't discovered until the 20th century.

You make it sound like no one knew of its existence until the 20th century. I think more appropriately it was “rediscovered” in the 20th century.

 

[outhouse]

. I think more appropriately it was “rediscovered” in the 20th century.

True.

And on a side note we only have a fraction of the text that circulated in the first two hundred years. And only one version of some stories that had many versions during that time.

 

[paarsurrey]

This means his body was not allowed to decay in the grave

Jesus' body was laid in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea for treatment of Jesus' wounds he got on the Cross, since the treatment started in the spacious and airy grave so there is no question of his body being decayed.
Regards

 

[1robin]

Primary Sources - Gospel Of Thomas | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

What do we think here? Could it be that the Gospel of Thomas is a long lost collection of Jesus' private teachings? Or is it a kind of fake that misrepresents his teachings?

I'm just wondering what you all think about it.

This text fails every single qualification for inspired cannon. If you want some of those qualifications and how it failed I can give them but this is pretty much a for gone conclusion at this point.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This text fails every single qualification for inspired cannon. If you want some of those qualifications and how it failed I can give them but this is pretty much a for gone conclusion at this point.

The problem with the cannon qualifications is that they are purely subjective and self assuring. It must be written by a prophet, apostle or someone assoicated with two of the former. It must be truthful. Must be affirmed by Jesus or a prophet/apostle, must be recognized and respected by the church.

All of those are arbitrary to the church. But I can agree that this text is DEFINITELY not cannon. The question posed would be "which is legitimate if either?

 

[metis]

The problem with the cannon qualifications is that they are purely subjective and self assuring. It must be written by a prophet, apostle or someone assoicated with two of the former. It must be truthful. Must be affirmed by Jesus or a prophet/apostle, must be recognized and respected by the church.

All of those are arbitrary to the church. But I can agree that this text is DEFINITELY not cannon. The question posed would be "which is legitimate if either?

Plus the books were written decades after the fact whereas all sorts of later opinions and "visions" were being added, and I believe this is where the deification of Jesus comes in. When Gandhi died, that same exact process began, but since Gandhi had always made it clear he was just human, the deification movement was cut short.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Plus the books were written decades after the fact whereas all sorts of later opinions and "visions" were being added, and I believe this is where the deification of Jesus comes in. When Gandhi died, that same exact process began, but since Gandhi had always made it clear he was just human, the deification movement was cut short.

Ghandi could have created his own new sect of Hinduism based off of new beliefs and total abandonment of the cast system actually. In fact Ghandi himself is one of the most influential people on Hinduism as we know it. So he is actually an excellent example of how people can be glorified as demi-gods.

 

[metis]

Ghandi could have created his own new sect of Hinduism based off of new beliefs and total abandonment of the cast system actually. In fact Ghandi himself is one of the most influential people on Hinduism as we know it. So he is actually an excellent example of how people can be glorified as demi-gods.

Yes, and I would add that he was also one of the most influential in world history.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, and I would add that he was also one of the most influential in world history.

Gandhi was a worldly politician; he was not fit for being a founder of a revealed religion. Moses was a great founder of a revealed religions, not a worldly politician like Gandhi. There lies the difference.
Regards

 

[outhouse]

This text fails every single qualification for inspired cannon.

It has half of the NT sayings

And is very similar to the possible Q source that was plagiarized into the gospel accounts.

 

[metis]

Gandhi was a worldly politician; he was not fit for being a founder of a revealed religion. Moses was a great founder of a revealed religions, not a worldly politician like Gandhi. There lies the difference.
Regards

You obviously are not really very familiar with Gandhi, nor do you seem to understand what "revealed religions" actually entails.

 

[1robin]

The problem with the cannon qualifications is that they are purely subjective and self assuring. It must be written by a prophet, apostle or someone assoicated with two of the former. It must be truthful. Must be affirmed by Jesus or a prophet/apostle, must be recognized and respected by the church.

All of those are arbitrary to the church. But I can agree that this text is DEFINITELY not cannon. The question posed would be "which is legitimate if either?

You are right. I should not have put cannon there but inspiration is a qualification that should be there, though it is one that is hard to prove.

As for the cannon the authorities operated from a minimalistic standard. At the risk of losing something they attempted to only accept the best. That is why they demanded that only apostles (those commissioned by God) and eye witnesses writing be accepted.

Any way as to GOT. I have never heard any reason to consider it reliable, and have heard many reasons to consider it forged and unhistorical. IOW every reason exists to separate it from any texts thought authoritative on Christ or Christianity. It might contain something that is true, but it's pedigree is so horrific I do not consider it of any value. You can find dozens of web sites giving hundreds of reasons to deny it has any historical value concerning Christ or the faith. I think most date it to the early middle ages.