Gospel of Thomas

[Monk Of Reason]

Wow, that's the first time I've seen roughly 300 years being referred to as "several years".

But you are correct as there were competing groups, with the largest being the Gnostics, and they had their own scriptures that they said were the authentic ones. And even the canon that was selected was done with quite some argument, especially over the books of Revelations (the "millennial reign" caused a problem) and Hebrews (author?), as well as books we call the "Apocrypha" (undecided as to whether they should or shouldn't be included, so that decision was put off).

I meant it ironically.

The very history of Christianity is objective divergent. Every few years new and new branches of existing Christian sects break off. Its constant. I can't think of a single time in the history of Christianity where its faith was uniform across the board. Even prior to its official inception there is nothing but chaos and competing groups that ALL say that they are the "real" Christians.

You have everyone from the Gnostics that predate the biblical cannon to the Mormons of today all claiming to have the "truth". The Eastern Orthodox claims that the Roman Catholics have moved from the original teachings while the RCC claims that of the EOC. The reality is that it can be tracked that every single sect of Christianity has been an adaptation or change from a previous belief. So much so we don't even KNOW what the original beliefs were. I mean we have some basic ideas from the common elements at play but come on. Christianity is far more convoluted and varied across its sects than Islam or Judaism. I don't think either of them are real either but at least they have their **** together right now. Islam and Judiasm both underwent great change but for the most part there are only a few sects in comparison to the hodgepodge of Christianity.

 

[lovemuffin]

I forget his name but the actual cannization of the bible came after someone else started to make their own "cannon" that was different than the regular christian Cannon.

There are others who made lists of texts but my guess is you are referring to Marcion.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There are others who made lists of texts but my guess is you are referring to Marcion.

I believe I may be. I don't recall the name off hand.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks for the constructive feedback. Next time I ask a question for discussion I'll either list every possible answer for the question or I won't throw out any answers to get people started.

I'm sorry that these are the only alternatives you seem able or willing to consider, but that is your deficiency, not mine.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Selection criteria, reasonable or not, are still arbitrary and subjective.

Nonsense.

 

[Orbit]

Nonsense.

God didn't whisper in anyone's ear and say "these are the ones. Use these".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

God didn't whisper in anyone's ear and say "these are the ones. Use these".

And from that you infer that all selection criteria are arbitrary? Seriously? Someone really needs to learn what the word 'arbitrary' means.

 

[JRMcC]

I'm sorry that these are the only alternatives you seem able or willing to consider, but that is your deficiency, not mine.

The "canon" was decided by Church Councils and is in fact arbitrary. The Gospel of Thomas is just as valid/invalid as anything that made it into the official Bible.

That's pretty close to what I'm thinking.

As you can see above my opinion doesn't fall into either of the two categories I mentioned. I can't tell if you're being foolish or rude.

 

[JRMcC]

God didn't whisper in anyone's ear and say "these are the ones. Use these".

I don't know what the selection criteria were. I certainly don't think the canonized texts are the divinely inspired ones. And unless the canon was selected for its historical accuracy I agree that the selection is arbitrary in some sense.

 

[metis]

I don't know what the selection criteria were. I certainly don't think the canonized texts are the divinely inspired ones. And unless the canon was selected for its historical accuracy I agree that the selection is arbitrary in some sense.

But there's no way of actually knowing exactly what was historically accurate and what was not as different groups made claims theirs was the most accurate. We see the same thing today with thousands of Christian denominations, each pretty much claiming that they're closest to the truth.

 

[JRMcC]

But there's no way of actually knowing exactly what was historically accurate and what was not as different groups made claims theirs was the most accurate. We see the same thing today with thousands of Christian denominations, each pretty much claiming that they're closest to the truth.

True!

I think well named just about said it all in post 16.

 

[Nada]

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.

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.

 

[paarsurrey]

The "canon" was decided by Church Councils and is in fact arbitrary.

The Church Councils canonized NT Bible unauthorized.
Regards

 

[lovemuffin]

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.

That's the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which is not the same text we were discussing, just fwiw

Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[outhouse]

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.

1/2 of the text is already in the gospels.

I used to think it might be sayings generated from that geographic area, but its not.

Its my opinion it Is later gnostic sayings based on the many text floating around the Diaspora that we have been long lost.

Many of the NT teachings are Johns to begin with, nothing can be traced to Jesus with any certainty.

 

[outhouse]

IMO, this "gospel " is uninspired apocrypha that has no place in the Bible. There are many such tall tales that are not part of the "All Scripture...inspired by God." (2 Timothy 3:16)

This just shows how little some people know about he text, and how the text became canon.


1/2 of the material is already in the NT

 

[outhouse]

- As evidence against an excessively literalistic hermeneutic of Christian sacred texts, and as a reminder that the mode of reading texts as "histories" in a modern sense doesn't necessarily best reflect traditional readings. The Gospel of Thomas makes no attempt at giving a history, it's a collection of sayings that are obviously expected to be read in a more nuanced and symbolic way. The authors obviously intend a more "spiritualized" reading. Again I think this is a point that Christians need to hear more and take into account in their approach to Christian tradition and the Bible.

Excellent point.


Added to that the header in the beginning claims you will become "Like Jesus" if you can fully understand the text. The early church could not have canonized that.

 

[outhouse]

More then anything.

This text shows us the diversity in the early movement, and is a reflection of the early evolution of the movement.


Sadly the text is to late and only has Hellenistic origins, and no real Aramaic origins can be followed back to any Galilean origin.

 

[lovemuffin]

Added to that the header in the beginning claims you will become "Like Jesus" if you can fully understand the text. The early church could not have canonized that.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Galatians 3:27 says (and the eastern orthodox liturgy has sung) that "as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." It's certainly possible to nuance different meanings of becoming "like" Jesus and say some are rejected and some are not, but I don't see any reason to think the Gospel of Thomas would necessarily fall into the first camp, compared to similar passages in the epistles. For example:

"His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire" (2 Peter 1:3-4)

"And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit." (2 Cor 3:18)

"Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2)​

And if it's a question of the manner in which one might become "like" Jesus, it doesn't seem to me that "fully understanding the text" is that different as an expression from "who has ears to hear can hear". In any case, obviously the text wasn't canonized, for whatever reason, but it doesn't seem clear to me that there's some obvious theological reason for that.

 

[sojourner]

Its just one of the several slightly different versions of the Early christian church and its teachings that were eventually wiped out when they canonized everything with "close enough" versions.

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