Gospel of Thomas

[Krichevskoy]

Has anyone read the (Infancy) Gospel of Thomas? Do you think it's a valid chronicle of Jesus's early life?
Here's a website with a few different translations of it
http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/gospels.htm

 

[Philip]

Does it agree with the Protoevangelium of St James?

If I remember correctly, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas has late additions to it that are most likely legand.

 

[FOMWatts<><]

I've read it, and the jury is still out. I can't find anything contradictory, but I am still studying

Blessings,

FOMWatts<><

 

[Krichevskoy]

Does it agree with the Protoevangelium of St James?

I haven't read it. In fact, I've never even heard of it. However, I think you have a point: certain parts of the infancy gospel do seem like legends.

 

[Philip]

You can read the Protoevangelium (pre-Gospel) here. In the East, this is a treasured story of the early life of Mary and the birth of Christ. It is believed to written by James the brother of our Lord (or at least record his words). The earliest known copies of it come from c. AD 150.

I will try to read the version by Thomas for comparison.

 

[Tentmaker]

Try first reading the Didache, then the Gospel of St Thomas.

 

[Krichevskoy]

Hmm...the Protoevangelium seems to focus mostly on Mary and the actual birth of Christ. Thus, Thomas doesn't overlap with it much (if at all). The versions I have read either don't mention an age or begin when Jesus is five years old.

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

I'm reading the Gospel of Thomas right now. It's one of the many early Christian gospels I'm exploring that were editted out of the Bible around 300 CE by those who would edit God out of Christianity if it so suited thier agenda.

Sorry...that sounds harsh. But it makes me very angry that some man decided what we were allowed to know based upon whether or not it would go along with his control of the people.

I would slap him if he wasn't long since dead already!

 

[KennySe]

The gnostic writings were rejected by the historical visible apostolic Church.

This Gospel of Thomas is one of these false books, written in imitation of the true Christian gospels, to decive, if possible, true Christians into accepting gnostic beliefs.


http://www.strongtowerpublishing.com/thomas.htm

 

[Philip]

The gnostic writings were rejected by the historical visible apostolic Church.

This Gospel of Thomas is one of these false books, written in imitation of the true Christian gospels, to decive, if possible, true Christians into accepting gnostic beliefs.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is not the same as the (Heretical Gnostic) Gospel of Thomas. The Infancy Gospel was occasionaly cited by the Fathers.

 

[Philip]

Hmm...the Protoevangelium seems to focus mostly on Mary and the actual birth of Christ. Thus, Thomas doesn't overlap with it much (if at all). The versions I have read either don't mention an age or begin when Jesus is five years old.

I haven't had a chance to read Thomas yet, but the fact that it starts at age 5 suggest to me that it was an attempt to fill in the details left out by the Gospels.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

I haven't had a chance to read Thomas yet, but the fact that it starts at age 5 suggest to me that it was an attempt to fill in the details left out by the Gospels.

That is what I'm thinking too. But I do have the book on my "to-do list" of books I plan on reading.

 

[pmarquette]

the gospels of thomas & james , the acts of peter , the apocrypha [deuterocanoconicals ] , the pseudopegrapha all contain contradictions to the books considered as canon [ protestant - 66 ; catholic 72 ]

go to ewtn , run a search on " apocrypha / apocryphal " books ....

some good , for the most part , some read like an old version of the twilight zone , some like a praise report , some like bad christian fiction ....

read the right stuff first ............. then the flakey stuff ...

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

The gnostic writings were rejected by the historical visible apostolic Church.

This Gospel of Thomas is one of these false books, written in imitation of the true Christian gospels, to decive, if possible, true Christians into accepting gnostic beliefs.

This is a typical perpetuated opinion due largely to the propaganda put out there by the political and religious powers of the period.

The Gospel of Thomas predated the other gospels in the Bible. How could it be an imitation of what came later?

Furthermore, If you mean by Gnostic the belief that people have a divine capacity within themselves and that they can come to understand that the Kingdom of God is already upon the earth if they can come to perceive the world that way then Thomas is Gnostic. But if you mean by Gnostic the religion upon which the Nag Hammadi texts are based, a religion that differentiates the god of this world (who is the Jewish god) from a higher more abstract God, a religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil physical body then no, Thomas is not Gnostic.

This differentiation is very important, because some scholars reason that if Thomas is Gnostic (in the first sense) then it is Gnostic (in the second sense) and, as they believe,Gnosticism (in the second sense) is a second or third century heresy, they conclude that the Gospel of Thomas is heretical, late in date, and without very much historical value in regard to Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

I haven't had a chance to read Thomas yet, but the fact that it starts at age 5 suggest to me that it was an attempt to fill in the details left out by the Gospels.

Actually, many scholars say that it was written somewhat before the gospels in the bible.

Their argument is that most of the sayings in Thomas show no signs of having any dependence on, or knowledge of, the Biblical gospels and so Thomas' sayings derive from oral tradition and not from written Biblical texts. This doesn't seem to have been possible after the end of the first century when the Biblical texts began to be authoritative in Christianity.

 

[Philip]

the gospels of thomas & james , the acts of peter , the apocrypha [deuterocanoconicals ] , the pseudopegrapha all contain contradictions to the books considered as canon [ protestant - 66 ; catholic 72 ]

Let me get this straight -- the Deuterocanons contain contradictions to the books considered canon by Catholics? That's odd. The Deuterocanons are part of the Catholic canon.

go to ewtn , run a search on " apocrypha / apocryphal " books ....

The books called apocrypha by Catholics (including EWTN, I presume) are not the same books that are called apocrypha by Protestants.

 

[Philip]

That is what I'm thinking too. But I do have the book on my "to-do list" of books I plan on reading.

Jeff,
Have you read the Protoevangelium? It contains a wonderful account of the Theotokos's devotion to God. It also tells much more about St Joseph than is recorded in Scripture.

 

[Krichevskoy]

The Protoevangelium is also known as the Infancy Gospel of James. And in my book of the apocrypha, the books listed in the table of contents are:
Esdras I
Esdras II
Tobit
Judith
The Rest of Esther
Wisdom (of Soloman)
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremiah
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
Maccabees I
Maccabess II

 

[Philip]

The Protoevangelium is also known as the Infancy Gospel of James. And in my book of the apocrypha, the books listed in the table of contents are:
Esdras I
Esdras II
Tobit
Judith
The Rest of Esther
Wisdom (of Soloman)
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremiah
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
Maccabees I
Maccabess II

These are in my Bible, except Ecclesiasticus is called the Wisdom of ben Sirach. There is an "extra" Psalm too.

 

[joyinchrist]

I think it's neat... I dont know what to say about its inspiration, but I like reading everything I can from that era, legend or not... its all good to know.