The Gospel of Thomas

[Chrysalis Kat]

<side comment from the peanut gallery>

I've been reading through this thread and just had to mention how nice it has been to see people with cross in their icons open to the Gospel of Thomas instead of declaring it to be blasphemy and the like.

 

[NOTW]

Of course it was!
The Church had a lot to lose if this book was embraced by the masses.

There is much talk these days about lost books of the Bible. From cults to the New Age, people make all sorts of claims about how the Bible is missing books, books that help justify what they hope to believe. Sometimes people claim that the Bible was edited to take out reincarnation, or the teaching of higher planes of existence, or different gods, or ancestor worship, or "at-one-ment" with nature.
The "lost books" were never lost. They were known by the Jews in Old Testament times and the Christians of the New Testament times and were never considered scripture. They weren't lost nor were they removed. They were never in the Bible in the first place.
The additional books were not included in the Bible for several reasons. They lacked apostolic or prophetic authorship, they did not claim to be the Word of God; they contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead in 2 Macc. 12:45-46; or have some serious historical inaccuracies.
Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic church has added certain books to the canon of scripture. In 1546, largely due in response to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic church authorized several more books as scripture known as the apocrypha. The word apocrypha means hidden. It is used in a general sense to describe a list of books written by Jews between 300 and 100 B.C. More specifically, it is used of the 7 additional books accepted by the Catholic church as being inspired. The entire list of books of the apocrypha are: 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. The books accepted as inspired and included in the Catholic Bible are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch
The Pseudepigraphal books are "false writings." They are a collection of early Jewish and "Christian" writings composed between 200 BC and AD 200. However, they too were known and were never considered scripture.
The deuterocanonical (apocrypha) books are those books that were included in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) but not included in the Hebrew Bible. The recognized deuterocanonical books are "Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (also called Sirach or Ben Sira), Baruch (including the Letter of Jeremiah), 1 and 2 Maccabees, and additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. The canon of the Greek Orthodox community also includes 1 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees, with 4 Maccabees as an appendix."1
______________
1. Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.

http://www.carm.org/lost/intro_noncanonical.htm

 

[CaDan]

<side comment from the peanut gallery>

I've been reading through this thread and just had to mention how nice it has been to see people with cross in their icons open to the Gospel of Thomas instead of declaring it to be blasphemy and the like.

Well, the Sayings Gospel of Thomas is a good piece of work, and really no stranger than some parts of the canonical gospels.

 

[Zippythepinhead]

There is much talk these days about lost books of the Bible. From cults to the New Age, people make all sorts of claims about how the Bible is missing books, books that help justify what they hope to believe. Sometimes people claim that the Bible was edited to take out reincarnation, or the teaching of higher planes of existence, or different gods, or ancestor worship, or "at-one-ment" with nature.
The "lost books" were never lost. They were known by the Jews in Old Testament times and the Christians of the New Testament times and were never considered scripture. They weren't lost nor were they removed. They were never in the Bible in the first place.
The additional books were not included in the Bible for several reasons. They lacked apostolic or prophetic authorship, they did not claim to be the Word of God; they contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead in 2 Macc. 12:45-46; or have some serious historical inaccuracies.
Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic church has added certain books to the canon of scripture. In 1546, largely due in response to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic church authorized several more books as scripture known as the apocrypha. The word apocrypha means hidden. It is used in a general sense to describe a list of books written by Jews between 300 and 100 B.C. More specifically, it is used of the 7 additional books accepted by the Catholic church as being inspired. The entire list of books of the apocrypha are: 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. The books accepted as inspired and included in the Catholic Bible are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch
The Pseudepigraphal books are "false writings." They are a collection of early Jewish and "Christian" writings composed between 200 BC and AD 200. However, they too were known and were never considered scripture.
The deuterocanonical (apocrypha) books are those books that were included in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) but not included in the Hebrew Bible. The recognized deuterocanonical books are "Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (also called Sirach or Ben Sira), Baruch (including the Letter of Jeremiah), 1 and 2 Maccabees, and additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. The canon of the Greek Orthodox community also includes 1 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees, with 4 Maccabees as an appendix."1
______________
1. Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.

http://www.carm.org/lost/intro_noncanonical.htmhttp://www.carm.org/lost/intro_noncanonical.htmhttp://www.carm.org/lost/intro_noncanonical.htmhttp://www.carm.org/lost/intro_noncanonical.htm

There are alot of apocryphal writings out there. Many are very interesting. Very interesting thread.

 

[ravenscape]

<snip>

My real intention of this thread is to show that the Gospel of Thomas is in many ways superior to the others because it goes farther into the spiritual realm of understanding. It helps to support the teachings of Paul where the other Gospels are silent. Some have made the claim that Paul is a heretic because many of his ideas/teachings are not found in the Bible. Further, he never met the phyiscal Jesus face to face, yet he had all this higher knowledge of Christ.

<snip>

Wow now that is a totally different perspective and one with which I can not agree. The only real similarity between them is that both the "Paul" church and the "Thomas" church flourished far from Jerusalem, unlike the "James" church.

 

[McCravey]

I agree. Love has definately something to do with understanding.

in "The Secret Gospel of St. Mary Magdelene"

#136- Mary said, "Knowledge, understanding and wisdom are not superior to love, for these come from union and it is love that unites. One who has love will have knowledge, understanding and wisdom, but without love no one is wise. If there is power apart from love, it is evil and will give birth to evil, but where there is love power is excercised in wisdom. All good things come be way of love."

 

[brad1tim24]

Actually the Gospel of Thomas existed before the Cannon was settled upon by the Orthodox. The Nag Hammadi codex (considered to be Gnostic by nature) existed around 150 AD.

Opponents of Gnosticism settled on the four basic Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and later John. John is considered to be written with the purpose of refuting Thomas. It didn't work though....Gnostics, after reading John, considered it also to be full of Gnostic concepts.

Many of the Epistles supposedly written by Paul was actually written to discredit Gnostics. Many Gnostics' names are written in some of these as being damned, evil, seducers, etc. by the Orthodox.

Part of the problem is most of the Bible wasn't written by the people whose names are on the title. It was a common practice to do this in that period of history.

So in order to overcome this problem you have to go back to what Christ said in the very beginning....."He who has ears let him hear what the spirit is saying."

If it doesn't speak to you then you don't consider it nor fret over it. Just go with what you understand.

And yes, the Logos is still speaking.

Yes, you are right...... They (Roman church leaders) did oppose the Gnostic Christians and their teachings. But by the time they were creating the "official" cannon, they had already destroyed these Gnostic writings you speak EXCEPT for those that were hidden and later found. This is what I am talking about in my earlier answer.

You seem to have a great handle on what is going on....good ears and eyes!

blessings are on you,

brad

 

[brad1tim24]

Wow now that is a totally different perspective and one with which I can not agree. The only real similarity between them is that both the "Paul" church and the "Thomas" church flourished far from Jerusalem, unlike the "James" church.

Hi ravenscape,

Paul wrote about the universality of Christ where the NT gospels are silent with the possible exception of the beginning of the Gospel of John. This theme is very prevelant in the Gospel of Thomas. Also, Paul wrote about the "flesh" being opposed to the spirit. This is certainly expressed in Thomas but scarcely in the NT gospels. I am not really speaking of or concerned with the natural ways or regulations of each camp, but rather the deeper spiritual meaning they had to offer. Paul and the Gnostics were much closer in this regard than anything found in the four NT gospels......as I see it.

Just wanted to make myself clear,

blessings,

brad

 

[HomeBound]

in "The Secret Gospel of St. Mary Magdelene"

#136- Mary said, "Knowledge, understanding and wisdom are not superior to love, for these come from union and it is love that unites. One who has love will have knowledge, understanding and wisdom, but without love no one is wise. If there is power apart from love, it is evil and will give birth to evil, but where there is love power is excercised in wisdom. All good things come be way of love."

Hmmm... very interesting.

Thanks

 

[mark53]

One interesting place where all this is discussed and where some of the authors mentioned earlier work through is the "Jesus Seminar". Sorry I haven't got the link here. I am still learning and one day I'll know waht to do.

In the mean time read and grow and enjoy!

 

[HomeBound]

Wasnt the Jesus seminar some anti-Christian thing?

 

[brad1tim24]

From- "A Commentary on the Gospel of Thomas"


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."

This last saying is sure to ruffle some feathers out there! “Females don’t deserve life.” Harsh words from Peter! This one single passage leaves many with a strong impression that this document cannot be authentic. They can’t accept that Peter or Jesus would have spoken something so sexist as this. However, this sounds perfectly accurate to my ear. Let me explain.

Are Christians aware of how women were treated during this era in Judea? Well, let’s just say that it wasn’t very nice. We may think women’s rights were oppressed 100 years ago, try going back 2,000 years and witness the atrocious way they were treated! So, I view this passage as yet another raw, realistic example of what really was said. While some (women) may find this passage offensive, I see it legitimizing this Gospel as being more accurate light. In the time of Jesus, this is exactly how Peter may have responded concerning a woman hanging around their religious movement. Even Paul said (taught) some rather questionable doctrine concerning what women could and couldn’t do. Now Jesus, in stark contrast, was breaking those sexist attitudes and tendencies of Judaism. Not only did he speak to women he wasn’t suppose to, he also allowed Mary Magdalene to be his follower. This surely caused some anger or at least angst among the Jewish men of his group.

Yet there is much more to this passage than Peter’s sexist attitude. Jesus’ answer to Peter is quite revealing on more than one level. Jesus said that he would guide her and make her male. Then he explains what “male” really means- to “become a living spirit.” Obviously there was a communication gap because Peter was thinking naturally and Jesus was answering spiritually. What many still don’t seem to fathom is a spiritual truth that both Jesus and Paul taught, which is in Christ (the Kingdom of God) there are no men and women. Jesus taught that there is no marriage in heaven because we become as angels. In other words, a person’s natural sex that was defined by the body is meaningless regarding those entering the Kingdom. Again, Jesus explains that we must become male, which is simply realizing we are living spirits from God. Again, as I have already explained in many other articles, the spirit is considered male and the soul is female. In this way, Adam and Eve were one before God took Eve (soul) out of Adam (spirit). So ladies, Jesus wasn’t a sexist; he was a spiritualist!

blessings,

brad

 

[artybloke]

Wasnt the Jesus seminar some anti-Christian thing?

Well, it was certainly anti-fundamentalist. But that's not quite the same thing, is it?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Well, it was certainly anti-fundamentalist. But that's not quite the same thing, is it?

At least a few of the members explicitly assume that miracles couldn't happen.
IMHO their approach is overly reductionist.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

From- "A Commentary on the Gospel of Thomas"

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."

[]Again, Jesus explains that we must become male, which is simply realizing we are living spirits from God. Again, as I have already explained in many other articles, the spirit is considered male and the soul is female. In this way, Adam and Eve were one before God took Eve (soul) out of Adam (spirit). So ladies, Jesus wasn’t a sexist; he was a spiritualist!
blessings,
brad

Either that or the author of the Gospel of Thomas was a patriarchal gnostic.

 

[CaDan]

From- "A Commentary on the Gospel of Thomas"

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."

And in a similar vein:

22 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]."​

 

[artybloke]

Either that or the author of the Gospel of Thomas was a patriarchal gnostic.

Maybe - just maybe - there's more than one way of interpreting this Gospel, and more than one way of interpreting the Gospels we already have? And I suspect that there were ideas around in the early church that made the establishment most uncomfortable, that weren't just reducilbe to blanket terms like gnosticism.

At least a few of the members explicitly assume that miracles couldn't happen.

I wasn't aware that a belief in miracles was an absolute requirement of Christian belief.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Maybe - just maybe - there's more than one way of interpreting this Gospel, and more than one way of interpreting the Gospels we already have?

Of course.

I wasn't aware that a belief in miracles was an absolute requirement of Christian belief.

The Resurrection?

 

[artybloke]

The Resurrection?

Hmmmm... interesting one. Depends how you see the resurection. It is possible to believe in the resurection without seeing it as a "conjuring trick with bones" as the ex-bishop of Durham once said. There are people who believe in the resurection who don't believe in the empty tomb, for instance. But this is probably going off the point somewhat.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Hmmmm... interesting one. Depends how you see the resurection. It is possible to believe in the resurection without seeing it as a "conjuring trick with bones"

It seems to me that if you have a problem believing in miracles being performed by the Creator of the universe, if the bodily resurrection disturbs you so much you have to deny it then you are a half step away from Spong's twelve theses and if you are there, then you cross from being a Christian to being somebody who thinks that Jesus was cool guy with some neat things to teach.