The Gospel of Thomas [Moved]

[OzSpen]

The gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic gospel, written later by Gnostics to support their beliefs. Some of the 114 sayings of Jesus might be genuine, but no one has suggested which.

There are some strange sayings in the Gospel of Thomas. Here is one of them:

Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. In the days when you consumed what is dead, you made it what is alive. When you come to dwell in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?" (Saying 11)

Oz

 

[brinny]

The gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic gospel, written later by Gnostics to support their beliefs. Some of the 114 sayings of Jesus might be genuine, but no one has suggested which.

Who authored it? Does anyone know?

 

[Yekcidmij]

Who authored it? Does anyone know?

No

 

[OzSpen]

Who authored it? Does anyone know?

Why don't you read an assessment of GThom for yourself. I'd recommend Nicholas Perrin 2007, Thomas, the Other Gospel. London: SPCK / Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press.

There are only 139 pages, plus bibliography and indices in paperback. One of Amazon's dealers has it new for $9.27 and used at a slightly lower price.

Perrin's assessment is:

I have attempted to mareshal four arguments for a post-Tatian Thomas. No one argument presupposes another; independently they all point back to the author of the Diatessaron and the Oration as the inspiration behind Thomas ... all roads lead to a late second-century Edessa. In my judgment, no other paradigm makes more sense (Perrin 2007:134).

Oz

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Who authored it? Does anyone know?

early 2nd cent. found at nag hammadi, thought to be Gnostic, written by a Gnostic for Gnostics.

 

[Harry3142]

The argument for including The Gospel of Thomas in the canon rested primarily on the fact that it was written in aramaic, the language of Jesus' time and region. However, aramaic has been used from that time to the present day, and is the language of the presentday Syrian Orthodox Church's liturgy.

 

[OzSpen]

early 2nd cent. found at nag hammadi, thought to be Gnostic, written by a Gnostic for Gnostics.

What is your source for that information?

Why don't you take a read of, 'Frequently asked questions about the Gospel of Thomas'? This article contains some reasonable arguments for saying that the Gospel of Thomas has some Gnostic ideas in it, without being a fully fledged Gnostic document. I know that there is considerable discussion and articles on Gnostic websites that want to locate GThom as Gnostic. I'm not convinced that it is a full-blown Gnostic document.

Oz

 

[mathetes123]

From Gotquestions.org:

Should the gospel of Thomas be in the Canon?

The early church councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Was the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?

The gospel of Thomas fails all of these tests. The gospel of Thomas was not written by Jesus' disciple Thomas. The early Christian leaders universally recognized the gospel of Thomas as a forgery. The gospel of Thomas was rejected by the vast majority of early Christians. The gospel of Thomas contains many teachings that are in contradiction to the biblical Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. The gospel of Thomas does not bear the marks of a work of inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Are there any other arguments that preclude the gospel of Thomas from being included in the Bible? If we examine the 114 sayings in this writing, then we find some that are similar to existing sayings, some that are slightly different, but the majority cannot be found anywhere in the entirety of Scripture itself. Scripture must always confirm itself, and the majority of sayings in the gospel of Thomas cannot be confirmed anywhere else in Scripture.

One argument for precluding the gospel of Thomas from the Bible is found in the overt "secretness" attributed to these 114 sayings by the work itself. Nowhere in Scripture is God's Word given “in secret" but is given for all to read and understand. The gospel of Thomas very clearly tries to maintain an air of secrecy in its words.

The gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic gospel, espousing a Gnostic viewpoint of Christianity. The gospel of Thomas is simply a heretical forgery, much the same as the gospel of Judas, the gospel of Mary, and the gospel of Philip. Perhaps the disciple Thomas' nickname of "doubting Thomas" is appropriate here. We should all be doubting the gospel of Thomas!

 

[OzSpen]

The argument for including The Gospel of Thomas in the canon rested primarily on the fact that it was written in aramaic, the language of Jesus' time and region. However, aramaic has been used from that time to the present day, and is the language of the presentday Syrian Orthodox Church's liturgy.

The language of the GThom manuscript found at Nag Hammadi in 1945 was Coptic. See HERE.

What makes you think it was written in Aramaic?

See also, 'Does the Gospel of Thomas belong in the New Testament?' The short answer is, 'No', for the reasons given in this article.

Oz

 

[Yoder777]

The Gospel of Thomas is not a Gnostic text. It doesn't have the elaborate mythology of Gnosticism. Instead, it is within the tradition of Jewish wisdom literature. It's definitely more in line with Jesus' concept of the kingdom than it is with Pauline Christianity. The Gospel of Thomas, like the Urantia Book, teaches that sonship with God is open to all people, without need of an institutional church, and that the spark of divine is within all of us; we just need to learn to commune with it.

 

[mathetes123]

The Gospel of Thomas is not a Gnostic text. It doesn't have the elaborate mythology of Gnosticism. Instead, it is within the tradition of Jewish wisdom literature. It's definitely more in line with Jesus' concept of the kingdom than it is with Pauline Christianity. The Gospel of Thomas, like the Urantia Book, teaches that sonship with God is open to all people, without need of an institutional church, and that the spark of divine is within all of us; we just need to learn to commune with it.

It sounds like you may have some confusion over what is gnostic and what is Christian.

Where in the Bible does it suggest we all have the spark of divine within us that we need to learn to commune with. These are gnostic concepts.

 

[Lilly Owl]

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.

Personally I enjoy the Gospel of Thomas. And believe it was as inspired as any other gospel.

 

[Lilly Owl]

It sounds like you may have some confusion over what is gnostic and what is Christian.

Where in the Bible does it suggest we all have the spark of divine within us that we need to learn to commune with. These are gnostic concepts.

The Gnostics are Christian.
And to answer your question. When Jesus declared the Kingdom of God resides within us.

"What is the Divine Spark?"

 

[mathetes123]

The Gnostics were Christian.
And to answer your question. When Jesus declared the Kingdom of God resides within us.

"What is the Divine Spark?"

Gnosticism is most definitely not Christian.

 

[Lilly Owl]

Believe what you wish.

 

[mathetes123]

Believe what you wish.

I believe what scripture teaches.

 

[SteveCaruso]

The argument for including The Gospel of Thomas in the canon rested primarily on the fact that it was written in aramaic, the language of Jesus' time and region. However, aramaic has been used from that time to the present day, and is the language of the presentday Syrian Orthodox Church's liturgy.

Just as a "point of order": Classical Syriac (what is used in the Syriac Church and Syriac Peshitta) is a vastly different dialect from Galilean Aramaic that developed hundreds of years after Jesus' day.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the teachings found in the Gospel of Thomas do indeed trace back to a Galilean or Judean Aramaic oral tradition.

 

[mathetes123]

Believe what you wish.

Gnosticism Exposed - YouTube

 

[OzSpen]

The Gospel of Thomas is not a Gnostic text. It doesn't have the elaborate mythology of Gnosticism. Instead, it is within the tradition of Jewish wisdom literature. It's definitely more in line with Jesus' concept of the kingdom than it is with Pauline Christianity. The Gospel of Thomas, like the Urantia Book, teaches that sonship with God is open to all people, without need of an institutional church, and that the spark of divine is within all of us; we just need to learn to commune with it.

That's why it is such an unbiblical document that does not give a consistent understanding of God's content of the New Testament. It does show some adaptations from the NT Gospels (I have one scholarly article that shows how there are portions of the Gospel of Luke in GThom). It is a document that was written/compiled after the writing of the NT and has an esoteric message that is in conflict with some parts of biblical Christianity.

Oz

 

[brinny]

The Gospel of Thomas is not a Gnostic text. It doesn't have the elaborate mythology of Gnosticism. Instead, it is within the tradition of Jewish wisdom literature. It's definitely more in line with Jesus' concept of the kingdom than it is with Pauline Christianity. The Gospel of Thomas, like the Urantia Book, teaches that sonship with God is open to all people, without need of an institutional church, and that the spark of divine is within all of us; we just need to learn to commune with it.

Jesus Christ died for us because we needed a Savior because of sin and there is no righteous in any of us. None are righteous. Not one. It is only by covering of the blood of Jesus Christ that we are found righteous, and that is through His righteousness, not ours.

What you posted is the antithesis to what Jesus Christ was sent to earth to do (die for our sins because a sinless Sacrifice was required). Anything contrary to God's Plan of salvation is not Biblical.