Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Gospel of Thomas

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
I have heard a lot of negative remarks in regards to the Gospel of Thomas. I would like to discuss people's thoughts on this gospel and the reasons they hold for disregarding it. I have read it thoroughly and find it to line up the the other four gospels and don't see it as going against what is taught in the bible. Is it disregarded just because it wasn't put in the bible? Has anyone who has read it have a reason for considering it to have a 'message' that cannot go with the rest of the gospels? I'm interested in your thoughts.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm

Here is a link with a couple different translations for anyone wishing to look at it before commenting.
 
It's regarded as a forgery, and from what I've read, most scholars agree that there is a different philosophy prevalent throughout the text, that of the gnostics, who had a much different understanding of Jesus' ministry. Their beliefs were at odds with the core beliefs of the early church.

seekandlisten said:
Is it disregarded just because it wasn't put in the bible?
It's more accurate to say that it wasn't put in the bible because it wasn't trusted.

I have read it, but it's been a while. Some of it may seem congruent with the other gospels, but it basically gives Jesus' teachings a mystical slant that doesn't really line up with the canonical gospels. It's not really a gospel like the others are (which include events and history), it's just a collection of sayings.
 
I would say that the reason it is not included in the Scriptures is because it was probably investigated at the time and found to be fraudulent. There were many "pseudo" writers at that time who wrote things in the name of an apostle or someone famous, hoping that people would believe it was accurate. Judging from what I have read of what this "Thomas" wrote of the early childhood of Christ, it is a good thing that the Holy Spirit did not allow his writings to be included in the Cannon.
 
Caroline H said:
I would say that the reason it is not included in the Scriptures is because it was probably investigated at the time and found to be fraudulent. There were many "pseudo" writers at that time who wrote things in the name of an apostle or someone famous, hoping that people would believe it was accurate.


I am very much aware of this fact and I have read other such 'gnostic' writings some agree with the bible some I'm not sure what to think of them. The bible does give a 'measuring stick' in regards to what we hold as 'truth' though.

Caroline H said:
Judging from what I have read of what this "Thomas" wrote of the early childhood of Christ, it is a good thing that the Holy Spirit did not allow his writings to be included in the Cannon.

Could you elaborate on this? I think I know what you are referring to but I don't want to put words in your mouth. The gospel of Thomas does not include information on Jesus' childhood.
 
Nothing in the Nag Hammadi Library so called, was worth digging up. You have to look at where it was found, and wonder which Muslim deceiver wrote these things to discredit Christianity.

There are several bogus Gospels, I have a partial copy of the "Gospel of Peter", thankfully that is all there is, is a partial existing text. All these things are Gnostic, and are glaringly evident.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the same, except for the valid copies of the book of Isaiah, and a few others that were included in the find.
 
Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Whats up with this?

Sorry I have serious reservations about the Gospel of Thomas and The Acts of Thomas..... I cannot blame anyone for wanting to keep it out the Bible.

Ever read the book of Mormon....or even browsed over it?

Notice the following:

and it came to pass....
and it came to pass....
and it came to pass...

Gospel of Thomas


Jesus said.....
Jesus said......
Jesus Said......

Sorry don't buy in seekandlisten.
 
Ed the Ned said:
Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Whats up with this?

Sorry I have serious reservations about the Gospel of Thomas and The Acts of Thomas..... I cannot blame anyone for wanting to keep it out the Bible.

Ever read the book of Mormon....or even browsed over it?

Notice the following:

and it came to pass....
and it came to pass....
and it came to pass...

Gospel of Thomas


Jesus said.....
Jesus said......
Jesus Said......

Sorry don't buy in seekandlisten.

I agree, the above quoted scripture does not sound at all like the Peter or Jesus that I love. Jesus nor God is sexist. Why would He wish all to be men if women are the bearers of children? The mothers of men? Sorry, do not want to come off as a feminist. Just feel God loves both men and women equally.
 
Ed the Ned said:
Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Whats up with this?

I think of the first 'verse' where it says, 'whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death.' To me this means that if any 'understanding' is to be had it must come from 'God' alone and not our 'interpretations'. So my suggestion would be if you really seek to find a meaning that you seek 'God's guidance' on the matter.

Personally, I wondered about this saying for a long time and have only come to an 'understanding' of it over the last little while so I am unable to try and explain it in a way that will be beneficial to anothers understanding. I will say the 'understanding' I have of it is not a 'sexist' view but quite the contrary.

Ed the Ned said:
Sorry I have serious reservations about the Gospel of Thomas and The Acts of Thomas..... I cannot blame anyone for wanting to keep it out the Bible.

Ever read the book of Mormon....or even browsed over it?

Yes I have.

Ed the Ned said:
Notice the following:

and it came to pass....
and it came to pass....
and it came to pass...

Gospel of Thomas


Jesus said.....
Jesus said......
Jesus Said......

Sorry don't buy in seekandlisten.

I'm not asking that anyone buy into anything. I merely want those that oppose to give me there thoughts one it. It's a method of learning for me that I cannot explain other than I believe in getting the opposing sides view on matters. I am quite aware that there will not be many who claim to be Christians that accept this gospel.
 
Ed the Ned said:
Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Whats up with this?

I call it blasphemy. :bigfrown
 
seekandlisten said:
Caroline H said:
Judging from what I have read of what this "Thomas" wrote of the early childhood of Christ, it is a good thing that the Holy Spirit did not allow his writings to be included in the Cannon.

Could you elaborate on this? I think I know what you are referring to but I don't want to put words in your mouth. The gospel of Thomas does not include information on Jesus' childhood.

Sure :) "The Infancy Gospel of Thomas" is what I'm referring to, which is available on that site you linked. We read some of these passages in my college bible classes, and I was quite shocked at them. They portray an angry, vengeful Jesus who is nothing like the Jesus of the NT...and one who uses his divine powers for personal gain...such as lengthening a piece of lumber that Joseph had cut too short in order to fix it.

These are just two examples:


III. 1 But the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph; and he took a branch of a willow and dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered together. 2 And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said unto him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. 3 And straightway that lad withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and went unto Joseph's house. But the parents of him that was withered took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and accused him 'for that thou hast such a child which doeth such deeds.'

IV. 1 After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died. But certain when they saw what was done said: Whence was this young child born, for that every word of his is an accomplished work? And the parents of him that was dead came unto Joseph, and blamed him, saying: Thou that hast such a child canst not dwell with us in the village: or do thou teach him to bless and not to curse: for he slayeth our children.

V. 1 And Joseph called the young child apart and admonished him, saying: Wherefore doest thou such things, that these suffer and hate us and persecute us? But Jesus said: I know that these thy words are not thine: nevertheless for thy sake I will hold my peace: but they shall bear their punishment. And straightway they that accused him were smitten with blindness. 2 And they that saw it were sore afraid and perplexed, and said concerning him that every word which he spake whether it were good or bad, was a deed, and became a marvel. And when they (he ?) saw that Jesus had so done, Joseph arose and took hold upon his ear and wrung it sore. 3 And the young child was wroth and said unto him: It sufficeth thee (or them) to seek and not to find, and verily thou hast done unwisely: knowest thou not that I am thine? vex me not.
 
Caroline H said:
Sure :) "The Infancy Gospel of Thomas" is what I'm referring to, which is available on that site you linked. We read some of these passages in my college bible classes, and I was quite shocked at them. They portray an angry, vengeful Jesus who is nothing like the Jesus of the NT...and one who uses his divine powers for personal gain...such as lengthening a piece of lumber that Joseph had cut too short in order to fix it.


Ahh...Gotcha. I have read a few of the Gnostic scriptures but I have stuck mainly to those found in the Nag Hammadi library. Such as The Origin of the World, the Gospel of Truth, the Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, the Sophia of Jesus Christ, and the Apocryphon of James. Some of the stuff is pretty good and in line with the bible but like I said before there are some things that I'm not sure what to think of them. The Gospel of Thomas is however right in line with the teachings found in the bible so I consider it to be beneficial to my journey.
 
seekandlisten said:
I'm not asking that anyone buy into anything. I merely want those that oppose to give me there thoughts one it. It's a method of learning for me that I cannot explain other than I believe in getting the opposing sides view on matters. I am quite aware that there will not be many who claim to be Christians that accept this gospel.

I also read portions of it and other so-called Gospel books back in my younger years. I would also include it in the category of Gnostic writings. The doctrines of Gnosticism are still alive today in some 'so-called' Christian Churches.

A bit of research on Gnosticism will show a connection with the philosophies of the ancient mystery religions. Philo of Alexandria used Greek philosophy and the mysticism of the Jewish Kabbalah to add allegorical meanings to the Old Testament where none existed. Do ideas from works like 'The Davinci Code' ring a modern day bell with that early Gnostic movement? It should.

GNOSTICISM
Dr. Orr writes, "Gnosticism may be described generally as the fantastic product of the blending of certain Christian ideas-particularly that of redemption through Christ-with speculation and imaginings derived from a medley of sources (Greek, Jewish, Parsic; philosophies; religions, theosophies, mysteries) in a period when the human mind was in a kind of ferment, and when opinions of every sort were jumbled together in an unimaginable welter. It involves, as the name denotes, a claim to 'knowledge,' knowledge of a kind of which the ordinary believer was incapable, and in the possession of which 'salvation' in the full sense consisted. This knowledge of which the Gnostic boasted, related to the subjects ordinarily treated of in religious philosophy; Gnosticism was a species of religious philosophy" (The Early Church, 71).

Neander has described Gnosticism as "the first notable attempt to introduce into Christianity the existing elements of mental culture, and to render it more complete on the hitherto rather neglected side of theoretical knowledge; it was an attempt of the mind of the ancient world in its yearning after knowledge, and in its dissatisfaction with the present, to bring within its grasp and to appropriate the treasures of this kind which christianity presented" (Antignostikus, Intro, 199).

Gnosticism accordingly comprehends in itself many previously existing tendencies; it is an amalgam into which quite a number of different elements have been fused. A heretical system of thought, at once subtle, speculative and elaborate, it endeavored to introduce into Christianity a so-called higher knowledge, which was grounded partly on the philosophic creed in which Greeks and Romans had taken refuge consequent on the gradual decay and breaking-up of their own religions, partly, as will be shown, on the philosophies of Plato and of Philo, and still more on the philosophies and theosophies and religions of the East, especially those of Persia and of India.

"For a long time the pagan beliefs had ceased to be taken seriously by thoughtful men and had been displaced by various creeds derived from philosophical speculation. These in themselves were abstract and unsatisfying, but had been partly vitalized by union with the theosophies of the East. An attempt was made on the part of this philosophical religion to effect an alliance with Christianity. A section of the church was dissatisfied with the simplicity of the gospel, and sought to advance to something higher by adopting the current speculations ..... The late books of the New Testament are all occupied, more or less, with this movement, which was the more dangerous as it threatened the church from within" (Professor E. Scott, The Apologetic of the New Testament, 14).
(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1996 by Biblesoft)


I'm well aware that still today, there are initiate fraternities which still teach a lot of the old Gnostic ideas. The reason is simple. It's because Gnosticism is just another later name for the ancient practice of esotericism, the occult, the old paganism of the mystery religions. The main difference with Gnosticism is it used certain doctrines of Christianity to make it easier for deceived Christians to swallow. Even their real interpretation of the Greek word 'gnosis' which Gnostic is based to them is about actually 'knowing' of God through 'direct experience', and not by Faith. That's an idea far away from the act of having Faith per Biblical doctrine. The Gnostics were not a new movement, for the even the Jewish ascetic sect called Essenes held many of the same type of ascetic practises and mystical speculating as the later Gnostics.

Although God's Word does reveal some very profound Truths about our Heavenly Father and His creation, that does not come through some ritual initiation via some oral tradition of mysteries by the initiated, but instead comes directly from God by The Holy Spirit Comforter through Faith on Him by His Son Jesus Christ, and of course, from simple study of His Word The Bible. And His Truth is of no private interpretation, as He gives it freely to those who seek Him in spirit and in Truth.

So what Gnosticism is actually about, is the knowledge of the tree of good and evil, a type of forbidden knowledge which the ancients sought in order to get power and wealth, and do an end-around God. It is essentially about the act of wanting to be one's own god, the sin Satan first rebelled in. And we can see those still influencing and practicing that stuff today, with the many added mystical interpretations of simple Bible allegories. The allegories in God's Word exist only to make a Message easier to understand. It does not mean they represent some higher form of 'gnosis' or hidden knowledge closed off to the profane uninitiated.

After reading all this, you might say something like you weren't talking about The Gospel of Thomas in association with Gnosticism and what it all it points to. I reserve the right to assume one of your reasons of bringing that work up in discussion here is to try and appease believers here into ideas where they don't know any better.
 
seekandlisten said:
I have heard a lot of negative remarks in regards to the Gospel of Thomas. I would like to discuss people's thoughts on this gospel and the reasons they hold for disregarding it. I have read it thoroughly and find it to line up the the other four gospels and don't see it as going against what is taught in the bible. Is it disregarded just because it wasn't put in the bible? Has anyone who has read it have a reason for considering it to have a 'message' that cannot go with the rest of the gospels? I'm interested in your thoughts.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm

Here is a link with a couple different translations for anyone wishing to look at it before commenting.

The Gospel of Thomas has a number of sayings that put forward the teachings of Gnosticism - being saved by a certain knowledge. Part of Gnosticism deals with the idea that certain saved are merely passing through to return again to the "light" from which they came. This is not in any way Christian thought.

Jesus said, "Congratulations to those who are alone and chosen, for you will find the kingdom. For you have come from it, and you will return there again." Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' 49-50.

Rather than attaching oneself to the God-man (which they do not believe actually took place), salvation is dependent upon knowledge and knowing one was already from pre-existent light and is just waiting to return to that form.

Regards
 
The version of the Thomas gospel that we have is quite Gnostic. The Gnostics were a competing Christian sect to the proto-Catholics. The latter won the battle when Constantine supported them with the power of Rome. Early fragments of the Thomas gospel suggest a less Gnostic slant in the original Thomas. The first version of the text may be as early as the Mark gospel and could be the source of the mysterious Q gospel.
In any case, much of the Thomas sayings are captured,often modified, in Matthew and Luke.
 
mutzrein said:
Ya gotta be kidding me. There is a reason it's not included in the 'bible'.

I have to say from reading your posts in other threads I'm actually kind of surprised that this is your thoughts on this. I am interested in your thoughts as to the reason it's not included in the bible and why you disregard it. In reading your comments in other threads I consider you to be the 'voice of reason' that pops up in threads with a quick little sentence that usually contains a loaded question. I also like the way you post.
 
veteran said:
After reading all this, you might say something like you weren't talking about The Gospel of Thomas in association with Gnosticism and what it all it points to. I reserve the right to assume one of your reasons of bringing that work up in discussion here is to try and appease believers here into ideas where they don't know any better.

You are almost correct in your assumptions. I do not believe in Gnosticism as there are many 'elements' that I don't agree with. I don't believe knowledge will 'save' anyone, it's the 'motives' in one's heart that will be 'judged'. I also don't believe anyone gets 'something for nothing'. With that being said I can assure you I am not trying to 'appease' anyone here. Take a look around at my posts and I'm sure you will see that my thoughts usually are on the 'far end' of appeasing anyone. :)
 
francisdesales said:
The Gospel of Thomas has a number of sayings that put forward the teachings of Gnosticism - being saved by a certain knowledge. Part of Gnosticism deals with the idea that certain saved are merely passing through to return again to the "light" from which they came. This is not in any way Christian thought.

Jesus said, "Congratulations to those who are alone and chosen, for you will find the kingdom. For you have come from it, and you will return there again." Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' 49-50.

Rather than attaching oneself to the God-man (which they do not believe actually took place), salvation is dependent upon knowledge and knowing one was already from pre-existent light and is just waiting to return to that form.

Regards

Hey Francis,

First, I want to say I don't tend to agree with most Gnostic teachings but I have been told that some of the beliefs I hold have a 'Gnostic vibe' to them. As I pointed out earlier I don't believe knowledge will 'save' anyone.

(49) Jesus said, "Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will find the kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will return."

(50) Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where did you come from?', say to them, 'We came from the light, the place where the light came into being on its own accord and established itself and became manifest through their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?', say, 'We are its children, we are the elect of the living father.' If they ask you, 'What is the sign of your father in you?', say to them, 'It is movement and repose.'"

These two sayings can be taken to mean several different things in my opinion but that is neither her nor there. It almost seems that it would promote that other 'doctrine' found among some Christians that claim only the 'elect' are 'saved' which I don't agree with. The most important aspect that I took from this passage is that the sign of the Father in me(the Holy Spirit) should be of 'movement and repose'. Would you disagree?

Can I ask you to elaborate on what you mean with 'attaching oneself to the God-man?' I'm not sure what you are getting at there.

cheers
 
seekandlisten said:
Jesus said, "Congratulations to those who are alone and chosen, for you will find the kingdom. For you have come from it, and you will return there again." Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' 49-50.

These two sayings can be taken to mean several different things in my opinion but that is neither her nor there. It almost seems that it would promote that other 'doctrine' found among some Christians that claim only the 'elect' are 'saved' which I don't agree with. The most important aspect that I took from this passage is that the sign of the Father in me(the Holy Spirit) should be of 'movement and repose'. Would you disagree?

It appears that there is some sense of pre-existense in the mind of "Thomas" that one will RETURN TO. Christianity does not believe in this Greek philosophical idea of our soul pre-existing our birth.

seekandlisten said:
Can I ask you to elaborate on what you mean with 'attaching oneself to the God-man?' I'm not sure what you are getting at there.

The "in Christ" theme found especially in Pauline and Johannine writings. This is a real, spiritual one-ness that can exist between the believer and Christ, not just that we follow similar walks. As a result of being "In Christ", be begin to share in the Divine Nature, a reality BECAUSE of the Incarnation - which Gnostics do not believe actually ever took place.

Regards
 
francisdesales said:
The "in Christ" theme found especially in Pauline and Johannine writings. This is a real, spiritual one-ness that can exist between the believer and Christ, not just that we follow similar walks. As a result of being "In Christ", be begin to share in the Divine Nature, a reality BECAUSE of the Incarnation - which Gnostics do not believe actually ever took place.

Regards

Alright, now I understand what you were getting at and I agree with this point.
 
Back
Top