• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

The Gospel of Thomas [Moved]

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Lily_Among_Thorns, Sep 9, 2011.

  1. artybloke

    artybloke Well-Known Member

    +427
    Christian Seeker
    UK-Labour
    Theopneustos is a portmanteau word, and a neologism - portmanteau words don't usually mean just a combination of the two words which make it up, otherwise 'to understand' means the same as "to stand under" - the Greek original is also unique in this non-Pauline letter, not occurring in Greek anywhere so there is no precise meaning. Neologisms are often found in second-language acquisition, so it's likely that the author was grasping for a word he couldn't quite find.

    Also, the Revelation quote is more like a curse against bad copyists, as often found in ancient literature, rather than any reference to the canon of scripture.
     
  2. DamianWarS

    DamianWarS Follower of Isa Al Masih Supporter

    +1,733
    Christian
    Private
    Portmanteau words are evolved words over a process of time and they just don't randomly take on form. Originally they start from a very literal meaning and then shape into something that perhaps has nothing to do with its origins. Eventually they take on acceptance and come known as words we understand today. Since we know theopneustos is unique to this one verse in not only scripture but in ancient Greek than this word is not a Portmanteau word from evolution of semantics but probably as you suggested an invented word from Paul.

    However this is why "God-breathed" is still truer to the original text as "inspired" assumes a meaning. If Paul invented a word because he could not find another suitable then most likely he did intend this combination of words to be taken at face value otherwise the word wouldn't make any sense unless explained. I don't image Paul was in the habit of writing in some sort of code with made up words that no one understands. "God-breathed" also is not a proper English word but is a literal transitional and it doesn't assume any particular meaning. It instead just exposes the words in context just as Paul originally intended and then in context you can pull out its meaning when you read it

    "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

    It seems pretty clear here.
     
  3. Lily_Among_Thorns

    Lily_Among_Thorns Newbie

    273
    +5
    Catholic
    Single
    Immortality is not living forever. It is about the Spirit that you bear. The only Immortal that should concern us is Jesus Christ and the Spirit that he gives. The Gnostics believed in this--that if they bore the Spirit of Christ they would rise to Immortality becoming that Spirit and in turn, overcome the world. That's not too far from Christian belief. It is just never fully realized within Christendom.

    Resurrection is not Immortality unless, the Holy Spirit is born in resurrection. It's just that gnostics didn't want to be resurrected they wanted to escape the flesh and become pure Spirit. I see nothing wrong with that.

    Or if you were a gnostic and a child of the light then you would want to return to the light.

    What I'm saying is that gnostic saw that their destiny lay beyond the earth. Personally, I don't want to be resurrected on the earth. Had enough of this place. I just want to be a soul in Heaven.
     
  4. ElijahW

    ElijahW Newbie

    932
    +15
    Christian
    In Relationship
    The difference to keep in mind about bearing spirits between the two; is that the Gnostics thought they were personifying the spirit that Jesus the man was personifying while he was ministering. The catholics personify the actions of the man with trying to establish a new kingdom where we help the needy and try to rid the world of tyranny.

    The Logos, which is the spirit that Jesus is personifying is Reason. Anytime you use Reason, you are personifying the spirit of Christ. The spirit of Jesus Christ is something more particular and is about establishing the Kingdom of God. To the Gnostics that spirit would be considered a daemon because they don’t believe in establishing a kingdom to liberate humanity or the possibility of the resurrection. They believe that the true spirit teaches about the incorporeal soul and the spiritual side of the universe, that we need to try to reach with our intellect.

    How are you using the word Holy Spirit here?

    The Gnostics believed, by its nature, matter was subject to decay so any kind of eternal life would need to be gained in a realm where there was no matter. Paul has the same issue but sees a change in matter or our bodies as being possible so that eternal life was possible here.

    I think that modern discoveries gives hope that matter can be redeemed. Maybe with just a slight change to our DNA to stop aging. I don’t think the pessimism towards eternal life in a world of matter is warranted much right now.

    Maybe you are right. I’m definitely a child of life and flux, verses wanting to return to the light. The light may bring enlightenment but it’s in the flux where I get to hang out with my loved ones and things happen. Returning to the light sounds boring. I’d rather try to fix this place.
     
  5. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +620
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    That's an excellent post explaining some of the basics of theopneustos, which the ESV translates as "all Scripture is breathed out by God". I find this ESV rendition to be more accurate to the Greek (I read and teach Greek) and gets away from the contemporary ideas associated with something being "inspired".

    However, there are other issues with theopneustos, a verbal adjective, that have caused angst, especially among the liberals vs evangelicals (I'm an evangelical Christian) and that relates to whether this verbal adjective is active or passive voice. An active, verbal adjective would be translated as "breathing God", but the passive rendering is that given by the ESV as the Scripture passively receiving God's breath, hence, "All Scripture is God breathed".

    How this happens is further explained by 2 Peter 1:21, "For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (ESV). "Carried along" is a passive participle. Of this verse, R. C. H. Lenski, states:
    This is not the place to do an explanation of the verbal adjectives ending in tos and their meaning.

    In Christ, Oz
     
  6. brinny

    brinny everlovin' shiner of light in dark places Supporter

    +104,746
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Constitution
    what is the 'Nag Hamadi scripture"?
     
  7. IisJustMe

    IisJustMe He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

    +1,745
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Republican
    In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus teaches a mystical understanding of the good news. It’s views are very skewed or exaggerated to the point that it becomes inner, mystical, private, personal, and it's not focused on community. The world being redeemed is no longer of any interest and it has a very Gnostic element to it. Meaning that this world will not be redeemed, but destroyed, this world is hopeless, it's lost and Israel's promises no longer mean anything. The Gospel of Thomas has an anti-Semitic flavor to it.

    It's a fraud. That's what is so heretical about it. The fact the supercilious "Jesus Seminar" considered it "equal" to the other four gospels should be enough to warn us off giving it any credence whatsoever.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2012
  8. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +620
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    Why don't you do a Google search to find these things? The correct spelling is Nag Hammadi.

    Here is a brief article from Wikipedia on Nag Hammadi. It is a city in upper Egypt where a stash of older Coptic codices (manuscripts) was found in 1945 outside that town. Here the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Philip, and other documents were found. I refer you to an assessment of Thomas, the Other Gospel by Nicholas Perrin (London: SPCK 2007).

    Oz
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2012
  9. Armistead14

    Armistead14 Newbie

    +49
    Baptist
    Married
    Is not "all scripture breathed" referring to the OT at this time. The apostles certainly weren't referring to their letters as scripture at this time?
     
  10. IisJustMe

    IisJustMe He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

    +1,745
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Republican
    Maybe not to their own, but to own another's. Peter called Paul's writings Scripture.
    2 Peter 3 NASB
    14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,

    15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

    16
    as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. [Emphasis added]
    I believe they knew their writings were more than just "writings."
     
  11. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +620
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    You are correct. This was referring at that stage to the OT. However, when we compare Scripture with Scripture we understand that the Paul's writings were being considered on a par with OT Scripture.

    IisJustMe has rightly given a cross reference to 2 Peter 3:14-16 in which Peter refers to Paul's writings in comparison with "the other Scriptures" (the OT).

    The ESV translates 2 Peter 3:14-16 as,
    Sincerely, Oz
     
  12. Armistead14

    Armistead14 Newbie

    +49
    Baptist
    Married
    It would be hard to know what Peter was referring , the inspiration or the confusion, seems the comparison was his letters, being hard to understand to the uneducated, twisted his letters like they often did scripture.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2012
  13. brinny

    brinny everlovin' shiner of light in dark places Supporter

    +104,746
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Constitution
    Did God speak this?
     
  14. IisJustMe

    IisJustMe He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

    +1,745
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Republican
    I don't see anything difficult to understand. The NASB and ESV versions agree, Paul's writing were often hard to understand for the uneducated and unstable (in doctrine) which caused them to twist "as they do the rest of the Scripture" clearly indicates Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture. That's not a difficult surmise to make.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2012
  15. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +620
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    Surely the content of this book is enough to tell us it is not of God:

    GThom 22 states:
    Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, “These nursing babies are like those who enter the kingdom.”
    They said to him, “Then shall we enter the kingdom as babies?”
    Jesus said to them, “When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]” (emphasis added)
    GThom 114:
    Simon Peter said to them, “Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.” Jesus said, “Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven” (emphasis added).
    Oz
     
  16. brinny

    brinny everlovin' shiner of light in dark places Supporter

    +104,746
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Constitution
    Thank you. Who wrote this "book of thomas"?
     
  17. IisJustMe

    IisJustMe He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)

    +1,745
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Republican
    Obviously a male chauvinist with bipolar 1 or schizophrenia, paranoid type.
     
  18. brinny

    brinny everlovin' shiner of light in dark places Supporter

    +104,746
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Constitution
    It's claiming Jesus said these things?
     
  19. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +620
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    We don't know exactly, but it seems to be an edited work of esoteric origin in the early centuries of the church.


    GThom 7 reads, ' Jesus said, “Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human' (emphasis added).

    Why don't you read the assessments of GThom in: (1) Craig A. Evans 2007. Fabricating Jesus. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, chapter 3; (2) Nicholas Perrin 2007. Thomas, the Other Gospel. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press [I have the British edition, London: SPCK].

    I am not a GThom scholar, so I rely on others who have carefully investigated this book. One of those is Nicholas Perrin whose view of the writing is:
    The Gospel of Thomas was a Syriac text written in the last quarter of the second century by a careful editor who arranged his material largely on the basis of catchword connections. As far as his sources, Thomas dre3w primarily on Tatian's Diatessaron, but also undoubtedly drew on his memory of a number of oral and written traditions. It cannot be ruled out that Thomas preserves authentic sayings of Jesus; it is simply that, given a span of 140-plus years, this would be extremely hard to prove.
    Our author Thomas was inspired not only by Tatian's gospel harmony but also by Tatian's Encratistic theology, which saw Jesus not as the Saviour, but as the one who can show us how to be saved (2007:137).

    This topic has been addressed previously on CF. Why don't you read the thread, 'The Gospel of Thomas'?

    See
    my article, 'Is the Gospel of Thomas genuine or heretical?'

    The church father, Origen, writing about AD 233, mentioned that
    This seems to indicate that in the early part of the third century, the Gospel of Thomas, was known in the region where Origen lived.

    After this time, it was labelled as heretical. Eusebius (ca. 265-339) includes the Gospels of Thomas, Matthias, and Peter in his list of heretical writings. See Eusebius’ greatest work, Ecclesiastical History 3.25.6, where he wrote:
    In the article on the Gospel of Thomas in Wikipedia, it states that
    In the 4th century Cyril of Jerusalem considered the author a disciple of Mani who was also called Thomas. Cyril stated:
    Mani had three disciples: Thomas, Baddas and Hermas. Let no one read the Gospel according to Thomas. For he is not one of the twelve apostles but one of the three wicked disciples of Mani.
    Sincerely, Oz
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2012
  20. brinny

    brinny everlovin' shiner of light in dark places Supporter

    +104,746
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Constitution
    The claim, however, is that disciple Thomas wrote it? Is that why it's called "The Gospel of Thomas"?
     
Loading...