Gospel of Thomas

[1robin]

It has half of the NT sayings

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

No it doesn't, and how would you know either way? The writings of the early fathers contain 95% of the NT yet they are not inspired themselves (or are not considered to be). I just realized it was you. No wonder you accept the GOT.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

Oh I don't believe it to be true or defend it to be. Though I feel similarly to GOT as I do the rest of the NT

 

[lovemuffin]

I think most date it to the early middle ages.

I'm not sure if you are confusing the GoT with one of the other "Thomas" texts, but there are manuscript copies of fragments of the text to like 200 c.e., and the Nag Hammadi find is from the mid-fourth century, I believe. According to the wiki page there are writings that reference it from the third century. Even those who give it a relatively later date of composition expect it was written in the mid 2nd century.

 

[Nada]

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

The holy scriptures does say Jesus did not DECAY.

(NIV) Acts 2:31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay.


King James Bible
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.


Here is the Greek Interlinear of Acts 2:31

διαφθοράν=Decay

So it is saying Jesus ' body did not rot away.It was taken by God as a ransom sacrifice.It was consumed, just like the literal animal sacrifice in Egypt during the passover.The lamb was to be eaten in haste and consumed in fire before morning if any was left over.This was a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ to come.The lamb also could not have its bones broken.It was to be gutted,cleaned,put back and eaten whole in a roasted fire.Jesus also did not have his bones broken.This was prophecy fulfilled.


Exodus 12:46 "It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones.


Numbers 9:12 They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. When they celebrate the Passover, they must follow all the regulations.


John 19:36. For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, "NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN."

When morning came and the women went to the tomb,the body was already gone.



John 20:1 On the first day of the week, Mary Magʹda·lene came to the tomb early,while it was still dark, and she saw that the stone had already been taken away from the tomb.

3Then Peter and the other disciple set out for the tomb. 4The two of them began running together, but the other disciple ran faster than Peter and reached the tomb first. 5Stooping forward, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter also came, following him, and he went into the tomb. And he saw the linen cloths lying there. 7The cloth that had been on his head was not lying with the other cloth bands but was rolled up in a place by itself. 8Then the other disciple who had reached the tomb first also went in, and he saw and believed. 9For they did not yet understand the scripture that he must rise from the dead.10 So the disciples went back to their homes.

 

[outhouse]

No it doesn't

Yes it does. It would be great if people knew what they were talking about before posting.

Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biblical scholar Craig A. Evans also ascribes to this view and notes that "Over half of the New Testament writings are quoted, paralleled, or alluded to in Thomas..

and how would you know either way?

Unlike you I study credible sources, and attend classes at the best universities.

 

[outhouse]

No wonder you accept the GOT.

Just how does an atheist accept GOT?


Why do people not think before they reply?

 

[outhouse]

I have never heard any reason to consider it reliable, and have heard many reasons to consider it forged and unhistorical

It has more credibility then most NT literature because it contains less mythology, it does not make up rhetorical prose like the NT.

It is sayings that like Q in the NT that has a possibility of Galilean origin, but like Q we cannot substantiate that claim.

 

[outhouse]

The holy scriptures does say Jesus did not decay

Who cares?


It was written by people who did not witness any event

 

[Nada]

Who cares?


It was written by people who did not witness any event

Hi.Have a nice day.

 

[1robin]

Oh I don't believe it to be true or defend it to be. Though I feel similarly to GOT as I do the rest of the NT

Well that is at least consistent. I will take it this late in the day.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well that is at least consistent. I will take it this late in the day.

Sounds good to me. Though to be honest I don't think that the existence of this new text harms nor hurts the existing scripture.

 

[1robin]

I'm not sure if you are confusing the GoT with one of the other "Thomas" texts, but there are manuscript copies of fragments of the text to like 200 c.e., and the Nag Hammadi find is from the mid-fourth century, I believe. According to the wiki page there are writings that reference it from the third century. Even those who give it a relatively later date of composition expect it was written in the mid 2nd century.

It is possible I had the infancy Gospel in mind. I also made a mistake about when written in either case. It was that date markers (language used only during a time frame) from the middle ages are included in GOT or the infancy gospel.

Here are some other reasons to consider it irrelevant to Christianity or Christ.

Differences between the Gospel of Thomas and the 4 New Testament Gospels

Jesus Divine and Human (Mt. 14:33; Mk. 2:5-10; Lk. 22:67-71; Jn. 1:1, 14).
A wise teacher: divine, but not necessarily human

Messiah Jesus is the Messiah of the Old Testament prophets.
Jesus is not the Messiah predicted by the Jewish prophets (52).

Salvation By looking outward in faith to Jesus (Mark 5:34; Luke 7:51; John 6:47).
By learning secret knowledge (39) and looking inward (70).

The Nature of God One God (Mk. 12:29)
Many gods (30); possibly even some form of pantheism (77).

Man Incapable of saving himself; must look outward to Jesus (Jn. 6:47).
Capable of saving himself by learning secret knowledge and looking inward (3, 70).

etc........

Frequently Asked Questions about the Gospel of Thomas|Information on the Gospel of Thomas

Now either GOT or the NT Gospels are wrong or both. The one thing that is certain is the GOT contradicts the 4 NT Gospels in ways foundational to the faith.

 

[outhouse]

Frequently Asked Questions about the Gospel of Thomas|Information on the Gospel of Thomas

Not a credible source.

It is apologetic and non academic.

 

[roger1440]

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

Yeah, any guy that has the guts to meet Churchill half naked wearing nothing but a diaper we gotta give credit too.

 

[Unification]

It is not considered part of the canon.It is considered apocryphal.There are passages in that book that state Jesus killed people.

Gospel of Thomas
11
2 And Jesus, seeing what had happened, said to him, “Your fruit (shall be) without root and your shoot shall be dried up like a branch scorched by a strong wind.”
3 And instantly that child withered.

3 1 While he was going from there with his father Joseph, a child running tore into his shoulder. And Jesus said to him, “You shall no longer go our way.” And instantly he died. At once the people, seeing that he was dead, cried out and said, “Where was this boy born that his word becomes a deed?”
2 When they saw what had happened the parents of the dead boy blamed his father Joseph, saying, “Because you have this boy you cannot live with us in this village. If you wish to be here, teach him to bless and not to curse.”

So,we can see that this book is not in harmony with the rest of the holy scriptures.It paints Jesus as a brat killer kid with powers.There are other books like this that are not part of the original canon.

A child in scripture is a seed of knowledge or a thought.

Dead is separation from "God."

 

[Unification]

While that is true.

The text itself, however, continuously reflects Gnostic teachings by continuously referring to Jesus's sayings as "secret" and "mysterious", which were common gnostic phrases.

Paul was a gnostic in many ways.

 

[Unification]

If I'm understanding you, I think the argument you're making is that the wording of the Gospel of Thomas would have been too closely associated with very specifically gnostic ideas about metaphysics, and about the nature of salvation and "knowledge", in order to be made orthodox. I think it's a valid point, but I guess what I'm saying is that this is something of a matter of interpretation, and it's not clear to me at all that the text, in and of itself, is impossible to read in a less explicitly "gnostic" way.

Outside of the context of establishing the canon of the N.T., I think the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius are a pretty good example of the idea I'm getting at. They are obviously heavily influenced by Neo-platonism, and it's not a great stretch to interpret parts of Pseudo-Dionysius in an explicitly Neoplatonic way that would have been at odds with Christian orthodoxy. Instead, his writings were interpreted into orthodoxy, as they were read and expounded upon by Maximus Confessor, John Scythopolis and other more orthodox sources who valued them and filed down the Neoplatonic edges, so to speak.

In a similar way, if we begin by assuming that the text of the Gospel of Thomas must be read with the gnostic understanding explicitly presupposed, then it's clear that you are right that it would be excluded on those grounds. But I think an appreciation of the history of interpretation of texts makes clear that it is by no means necessary, either logically or historically, to make those presuppositions. An enterprising orthodox theologian could quite easily give a different gloss to the text, and render "understanding the mystery" in an orthodox, and not gnostic, way. It would not be that different from a reading of 2 Peter 1:3-4, in which becoming "partakers of the divine nature" depends on promises granted "through the knowledge of Him who called to us."

Now, clearly it's no more necessary to interpret the Gospel of Thomas in a more orthodox way than it is to interpret it as explicitly gnostic, but my point was only that it didn't seem clear to me that it was literally impossible for Thomas to be given an orthodox gloss. As you yourself said, 1/2 of it is already in the canonical texts...

All of the scriptures should be interpreted in a gnostic way.

 

[psychoslice]

I like the gospel of Thomas, but I think its too deep for the average Christian believer.

 

[JoStories]

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”.

Why is it necessary to have continuity? Does having the particular book tell a story with a climatic ending make it any more or less important or germane? IMO, no. In fact, these 'one liners' are much more the type of message that Christ would have taught. Is it so hard to imagine that Jesus would have stated that if one looks anywhere that he could be found?

 

[JoStories]

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.

How is that gospel any more or less reliable than another? On what do you base your suppositions? All of the gospels that were included were random. Men chose what would be included and there is no evidence that God inspired them. History points and we are discussing reliable historical data here, to the fact that they wanted a book that would define a religion that they could use to contain the masses. What is your criteria for inclusion or exclusion?