The Gospel of Thomas [Moved]

Aug 5, 2010
272
11
43
Pennsylvania.
✟7,957.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
What is so heretical about the gospel of Thomas, found in the Nag Hamadi scripture. Much of what is found in the text can be found in the bible. The gospel of Thomas should be viewed as a source of Truth.

Afterall, if much of it is the words of Jesus then why can't the rest of it be the words of Jesus? It places a new perspective on the word of Christ if what can be found within it can be believed to be true.
 

Biker Angel

Never coming back to this mad house
Sep 12, 2009
1,209
206
California
✟10,001.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What is so heretical about the gospel of Thomas, found in the Nag Hamadi scripture. Much of what is found in the text can be found in the bible. The gospel of Thomas should be viewed as a source of Truth.

Afterall, if much of it is the words of Jesus then why can't the rest of it be the words of Jesus? It places a new perspective on the word of Christ if what can be found within it can be believed to be true.
We don't need to add another gospel book to the bible, we need to live by the ones that have already made it into the bible and that we often ignore for the ones that haven't.

And I solemnly declare to everyone who hears the words of prophecy written in this book: If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book.
Rev. 22:18
 
Upvote 0

Freedom63

Universal Reconciliationist (Eventually)
Aug 4, 2011
1,108
37
Indiana
✟1,527.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
We don't need to add another gospel book to the bible, we need to live by the ones that have already made it into the bible and that we often ignore for the ones that haven't.


Rev. 22:18

Your revelation quote is not likely meant to include our present canon but rather the Revelation itself. We know for a fact some has been added and some taken away since that was told to John...so if we apply it to the whole bible as you imply there is simply no way to accept our bibles at all because they violate this warning.
 
Upvote 0

Brenda Morgan

Newbie
Jul 30, 2011
264
1
✟7,920.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Your revelation quote is not likely meant to include our present canon but rather the Revelation itself. We know for a fact some has been added and some taken away since that was told to John...so if we apply it to the whole bible as you imply there is simply no way to accept our bibles at all because they violate this warning.

Yes,,,,,,,,As we know, the KJV of the Bible originally included extra books not found in the Bible today.
 
Upvote 0

Biker Angel

Never coming back to this mad house
Sep 12, 2009
1,209
206
California
✟10,001.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Your revelation quote is not likely meant to include our present canon but rather the Revelation itself.
There are many Christians who would argue against that. You say "not likely" as tho your not sure yourself.

We know for a fact some has been added and some taken away since that was told to John...
I doubt that you can come up with verses to prove that.

so if we apply it to the whole bible as you imply there is simply no way to accept our bibles at all because they violate this warning.
Millions of Christians all over the world accept the bible just fine believing that verse applies to the whole bible, so don't imply that I'm the first or the only one who believes that.

The gospel of Thomas is Apocrypha and does not belong in the bible. Or God would have put it there.
 
Upvote 0

Biker Angel

Never coming back to this mad house
Sep 12, 2009
1,209
206
California
✟10,001.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originaly posted by Freedom63
I no longer believe the bible is The Word of God and 100% infallible,

(Yet I truly do believe it is inspired and contains much of God's spoken word in written form)
Well there's your problem right there.
 
Upvote 0

Biker Angel

Never coming back to this mad house
Sep 12, 2009
1,209
206
California
✟10,001.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes,,,,,,,,As we know, the KJV of the Bible originally included extra books not found in the Bible today.
Catholic bible has Apocryphal books not found in Protestant Bibles of today. IMO That's where the extra books ended up.....not all of them tho.
 
Upvote 0

Freedom63

Universal Reconciliationist (Eventually)
Aug 4, 2011
1,108
37
Indiana
✟1,527.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Millions of Christians all over the world accept the bible just fine believing that verse applies to the whole bible, so don't imply that I'm the first or the only one who believes that.

The gospel of Thomas is Apocrypha and does not belong in the bible. Or God would have put it there.

I was not "implying" anything...simply stating a belief that is held by millions of Christians. Try not to get your panties in such a snit...;)
 
Upvote 0

Biker Angel

Never coming back to this mad house
Sep 12, 2009
1,209
206
California
✟10,001.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I was not "implying" anything...simply stating a belief that is held by millions of Christians. Try not to get your panties in such a snit...;)
Don't you go worrying your little head off over my leather biker pants now. I might start thinking your a weirdo or something.;)
 
Upvote 0

CryptoLutheran

Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman
Sep 13, 2010
3,015
391
Pacific Northwest
✟12,709.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Gospel of Thomas isn't in the Canon because it was never part of the books which could have made it. It was never part of what the Church received and read in the churches, which was the single most important criterion for canonicity.

Think of the Canon in part as a legal document, like a constitution (this analogy is far from perfect), sometimes amendments are brought before the government's legislative body which may pass and be included, others don't pass and are rejected; while others were never brought before any legislative body whatsoever.

The books that are in, passed the Church's "legislature" by standing the test of time through centuries of consent among Christians and churches all over the Christian world; other books did not make it, they were filtered slowly because they didn't receive that mutual consent among Christian Faithful. Then there were books that simply were never part of the process at all, they were never read in any of the churches, they were never part of the Church's liturgical reading, never part of the Church's hymn and prayer life, never part of the universal life of the Christian Church. The Gospel of Thomas is part of this last group.

While Thomas isn't overtly Gnostic, at least not like other Nag Hammadi texts, it is still quite Gnostic in content, or perhaps "Gnostic-lite". It was written too late to be of any serious value to the churches, it never had a wide enough readership within the churches to "stick". These are just a few reasons, but in the long run it simply wasn't ever in the running and thus was never part of the Christian canon of Holy Scripture.

If you find personal value in Thomas, then good on you, though I would caution that one be able to understand that the text, if not heretical, comes quite close in a number of cases and should be read appropriately.

I find a number of statements in Thomas to be quite fascinating and worthy of note; but I also recognize that many are clearly Gnostic in character and therefore have no part of Christian orthodoxy.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
Millions of Christians all over the world accept the bible just fine believing that verse applies to the whole bible, so don't imply that I'm the first or the only one who believes that.

The gospel of Thomas is Apocrypha and does not belong in the bible. Or God would have put it there.
Millions of Christians around the world, especially in the United States, know absolutely nothing about the Bible or the history of where it came from.

They just repeat whatever their pastor told them, regardless of how in error it is. God did not create the Bible. Humans did.

And the Apocrypha exists in the Catholic and I think Eastern Orthodox Bible. Protestants are not the only Christians on this planet you know.
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
Well there's your problem right there.

An inerrant Bible has long since been disproved. It's a modern concept, not a historical one. The Fundamentalist movement of the 19th/20th Century is what really pushed the 100% infallibility doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
The Gospel of Thomas isn't in the Canon because it was never part of the books which could have made it. It was never part of what the Church received and read in the churches, which was the single most important criterion for canonicity.

Think of the Canon in part as a legal document, like a constitution (this analogy is far from perfect), sometimes amendments are brought before the government's legislative body which may pass and be included, others don't pass and are rejected; while others were never brought before any legislative body whatsoever.

The books that are in, passed the Church's "legislature" by standing the test of time through centuries of consent among Christians and churches all over the Christian world; other books did not make it, they were filtered slowly because they didn't receive that mutual consent among Christian Faithful. Then there were books that simply were never part of the process at all, they were never read in any of the churches, they were never part of the Church's liturgical reading, never part of the Church's hymn and prayer life, never part of the universal life of the Christian Church. The Gospel of Thomas is part of this last group.

While Thomas isn't overtly Gnostic, at least not like other Nag Hammadi texts, it is still quite Gnostic in content, or perhaps "Gnostic-lite". It was written too late to be of any serious value to the churches, it never had a wide enough readership within the churches to "stick". These are just a few reasons, but in the long run it simply wasn't ever in the running and thus was never part of the Christian canon of Holy Scripture.

If you find personal value in Thomas, then good on you, though I would caution that one be able to understand that the text, if not heretical, comes quite close in a number of cases and should be read appropriately.

I find a number of statements in Thomas to be quite fascinating and worthy of note; but I also recognize that many are clearly Gnostic in character and therefore have no part of Christian orthodoxy.

-CryptoLutheran
Ironically, based on the arguing over its authenticity and heretical nature, Revelation technically shouldn't exist in the Bible. The Church fought for 400 years against putting that in.
 
Upvote 0

CryptoLutheran

Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman
Sep 13, 2010
3,015
391
Pacific Northwest
✟12,709.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Ironically, based on the arguing over its authenticity and heretical nature, Revelation technically shouldn't exist in the Bible. The Church fought for 400 years against putting that in.

Moreso in the East than in the West. Early Western Fathers such as Sts. Irenaeus and Justin Martyr regarded it as authentically canonical and accepted as Scripture. The Muratorian Fragment points out that it wasn't universally accepted and other churches used the Apocalypse of Peter--and I don't think it was fully accepted by the East until the time of St. John of Damascus who argued for its full and final inclusion. Interestingly enough I believe it's the only book in the New Testament that isn't read in the regular lectionary by the Orthodox--but it is read I think once a year in its entirety.

For clarification--and just added information for the thread--the Council of Trent while retaining most of the Deuterocanonicals did trim a few; thus the Orthodox Old Testament contains more books than the Catholic/Tridentine Canon. And some Protestant Bibles still preserve the Deuterocanonicals in their own appendix, though most Protestant English Bibles dropped them completely in the 18th or 19th century.

The Luther Bible still retains them, and I believe certain official translations in use by the Church of England retain them.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

mrmccormo

Newbie
Jul 27, 2011
557
64
✟8,541.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And the Apocrypha exists in the Catholic and I think Eastern Orthodox Bible. Protestants are not the only Christians on this planet you know.
Also, it exists in the Jewish Bible, since the inclusion of "apocryphal" books was always a part of the Septuagint since before Jesus's birth. In fact, I'm pretty certain that the whole concept of the Apocrypha didn't even show up until 1,500 years after Jesus's ministry during Marin Luther's day. Luther felt that certain books weren't Scriptural enough, so he put them at the back of the Bible (and these books are the Apocrypha). Take note that Luther also wanted to remove James, Revelation, and Hebrews from the Bible because he thought those books were not inspired Scripture.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What is so heretical about the gospel of Thomas, found in the Nag Hamadi scripture. Much of what is found in the text can be found in the bible. The gospel of Thomas should be viewed as a source of Truth.

Afterall, if much of it is the words of Jesus then why can't the rest of it be the words of Jesus? It places a new perspective on the word of Christ if what can be found within it can be believed to be true.

The Gospel of Thomas cannot be allowed to be seen as non heretical because it contains quotes that if taken to be accurate would seem to deny the co equal status of the Trinity. As in "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, give unto God that which is God's and give unto me that which is mine."If it were allowed in the cannon it would cast doubt upon the whole idea of the Trinity as we know it. This is why it was rejected originally and why we cannot accept it now.
 
Upvote 0
G

Galvanized

Guest
An inerrant Bible has long since been disproved. It's a modern concept, not a historical one. The Fundamentalist movement of the 19th/20th Century is what really pushed the 100% infallibility doctrine.

Funny, I never got the memo. I guess your assertion here settles it for me. Thanks. I'll have to let Matthew Henry know too, and many other old biblical commentators going down to the time of Christ.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Freedom63

Universal Reconciliationist (Eventually)
Aug 4, 2011
1,108
37
Indiana
✟1,527.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Funny, I never got the memo. I guess your assertion here settles it for me. Thanks. I'll have to let Matthew Henry know too, and many other old biblical commentators going down to the time of Christ.

In spite of the dripping sarcasm...your view is in the minority.

The bible is inspired...but it is difficult to maintain the view of perfect inerrancy and maintain genuine integrity in the analysis of it. Biblical perfection is born out of man's intense desire to make it so rather than an act of God in my opinion.
 
Upvote 0