Gospel of Thomas

[TonyB]

What can I say? I have done my best to present the truth, but I suspect you Francis, that you're only here to attempt to convert people to Catholicism.

What is a person to do to convince one that their path is wrong when they refuse to be swayed from it? For your sake, I would like to hope you are right...but seeing as how I'd have to deny scripture to make your position right, I will trust in God rather than man.

Please, read your Bible again and I pray that God will open your eyes to the truth this time....both of you.

 

[Vic C.]

The subject is The Gospel of Thomas.

If this continues to derail, I will assume it's run it's course and will lock it. :gah

 

[seekandlisten]

In an attempt to get this back on track, this is what I have gathered from the Christian viewpoint.

1. The Gospel of Thomas is considered no good as it can be associated with the Gnostic beliefs.

2. The Gospel of Thomas is considered no good as it wasn't included in the books 'approved' to be included in the bible.

3. There is 2 sayings brought up, one which Francis addressed, and another that depending on how one 'reads' it that could be misunderstood. (By the way, thank you francis for that input as it broadened my understanding of that saying.)

That's the sum of the arguments against it??

 

[francisdesales]

What can I say? I have done my best to present the truth, but I suspect you Francis, that you're only here to attempt to convert people to Catholicism.

What is a person to do to convince one that their path is wrong when they refuse to be swayed from it? For your sake, I would like to hope you are right...but seeing as how I'd have to deny scripture to make your position right, I will trust in God rather than man.

Please, read your Bible again and I pray that God will open your eyes to the truth this time....both of you.

Tony,

If you would be so good as to look at our initial posts, it was you steering this conversation in the direction of a "protestant" idea of salvation, as if Catholics of 200 AD even CONSIDERED that one is saved by faith alone or that man is "covered by the righteousness of Christ". As such, without that false paradigm, they did not judge the Gospel of Thomas with that bar.

Thus, when Catholics got together to fight Gnosticism, they found the Gospel of Thomas having some serious shortcomings - in areas you have not addressed. Rather than "because they don't proclaim the gospel of faith alone [which none do]" we should look at the reasons why THEY considered it apocrypha.

THEY considered it apochyrpha for what reasons? Nothing to do with the "protestant gospel", sir. I would suggest reading some summaries from St Irenaeus and "Against Heresies" to begin your study on this subject. Or Tertullian "contra Marcion", if you desire. There is no point in being anachronistic and applying our own idea of the Gospel to those men who decided the Gospel of Thomas did not, could not, make the cut.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

In an attempt to get this back on track, this is what I have gathered from the Christian viewpoint.

1. The Gospel of Thomas is considered no good as it can be associated with the Gnostic beliefs.

2. The Gospel of Thomas is considered no good as it wasn't included in the books 'approved' to be included in the bible.

3. There is 2 sayings brought up, one which Francis addressed, and another that depending on how one 'reads' it that could be misunderstood. (By the way, thank you francis for that input as it broadened my understanding of that saying.)

That's the sum of the arguments against it??

Seekandlisten,

I don't have a lot of time now, the wife is booting me off the computer, but I know that "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus and "Contra Marcion" by Tertullian both address Marcion. While Marcion is a different gem than the Gnostics, the reasoning used applies to Marcion in many ways. Irenaeus also addresses the Gnostics quite directly.

In quick summary, the Apostolic Tradition was open, revelation was not secret, while Gnosticism is utterly dependent upon secret special knowledge.

OK, she's giving me the "look"... good bye. :halo


Regards

 

[francisdesales]

In an attempt to get this back on track, this is what I have gathered from the Christian viewpoint.

1. The Gospel of Thomas is considered no good as it can be associated with the Gnostic beliefs.

2. The Gospel of Thomas is considered no good as it wasn't included in the books 'approved' to be included in the bible.

3. There is 2 sayings brought up, one which Francis addressed, and another that depending on how one 'reads' it that could be misunderstood. (By the way, thank you francis for that input as it broadened my understanding of that saying.)

That's the sum of the arguments against it??

OK, I'm on my ghetto laptop!

The Gospel of Thomas' focus is on the supposedly secret sayings of Jesus. While the canonical gospels focus on the death and resurrection of Christ, leading to salvation, Thomas focuses on "interpretations", the very first saying.

"Whoever finds the interpretations of these sayings will not experience death".

Now, Christians do not experience death when they are linked to Jesus Christ and He abides in the Christian. Not only the "perfects", but any Christian. Thomas does not care about Christ abiding in us, but in knowledge. That is the first problem... A huge difference on focus and what saves...(and WHO can be saved, as only certain people even have the potential to be saved, the "perfects".

Salvation comes to those who come to learn the "truth" of their plight and so are enabled to escape this impoverished material existence by acquiring knowledge necessary for salvation. (sayings 11, 22, 29, 37, 80). Jesus provides KNOWLEDGE, rather than coming in the flesh to die for our sins...

Furthermore, as said before, this knowledge was not available to all men, unlike Christ's saving work for the sake of the WORLD. It was not even available to those who thought of themselves as Christians! Only those inducted into the Gnostic mysteries could have access to it, a special form of secretive apostolic tradition, which only the Gnostics had received by their own succession. This explains Irenaeus' zealous attack on the supposed infrastructure of Gnostic leaders who could not trace themselves back to an apostle, while the Catholics could- Irenaeaus even lists the Roman church's succession to prove this.

The Gospel of Thomas purpose was to convey these "secrets". Only with the help of such "secret" teachings could one unlock the spiritual exegesis of the rest of Scriptures, esp. the ambiguous ones. It was in this sense that the Gnostics claimed the "authority of the Scriptures".

Naturally, their view towards the Old Testament was more complex. But this is the general background for the Gospel of Thomas and why it was not accepted... While their may be some specific issues considered as heresy in the Gospel of Thomas, it was the idea of secret knowledge only avalable to the "perfects" that saved - that was what bothered the Catholic canonists of the first few centuries.

It defeated the idea of the incarnation, Jesus coming in the flesh, and dying for our sins. It depended upon a secret body of knowledge, as opposed to readily available apostolic teachings that taught ANYONE willing to follow the way of Jesus Christ.

Regards

 

[seekandlisten]

The Gospel of Thomas' focus is on the supposedly secret sayings of Jesus. While the canonical gospels focus on the death and resurrection of Christ, leading to salvation, Thomas focuses on "interpretations", the very first saying.

"Whoever finds the interpretations of these sayings will not experience death".

Now, Christians do not experience death when they are linked to Jesus Christ and He abides in the Christian. Not only the "perfects", but any Christian. Thomas does not care about Christ abiding in us, but in knowledge. That is the first problem... A huge difference on focus and what saves...(and WHO can be saved, as only certain people even have the potential to be saved, the "perfects".

I'm not sure what you are getting at here? It almost seems as though you are making it a Gospel of Thomas vs the other 4 Gospels? I consider them to be 5 Gospels revealing different aspects of our journey towards understanding.

As far as 'interpretations' go, there are many 'interpretations' of the bible itself, by some, that are not inline with the overall teachings. I don't think saying this Gospel 'focuses' on interpretations is a correct analysis, in my opinion anyways. One must find the 'interpretations' of Jesus' parables as well wouldn't you say? '....whoever has ears let him hear...' would be essentially saying the same thing as the the first saying in Thomas wouldn't it?

Salvation comes to those who come to learn the "truth" of their plight and so are enabled to escape this impoverished material existence by acquiring knowledge necessary for salvation. (sayings 11, 22, 29, 37, 80). Jesus provides KNOWLEDGE, rather than coming in the flesh to die for our sins...

If you only read the Gospel of Thomas or other Gnostic works I could see how you come to this conclusion but in relation to what is taught in the bible I don't see the teaching that 'knowledge = salvation' being the message taught. I'll address the sayings brought up here later on when I have more time.

Furthermore, as said before, this knowledge was not available to all men, unlike Christ's saving work for the sake of the WORLD. It was not even available to those who thought of themselves as Christians! Only those inducted into the Gnostic mysteries could have access to it, a special form of secretive apostolic tradition, which only the Gnostics had received by their own succession. This explains Irenaeus' zealous attack on the supposed infrastructure of Gnostic leaders who could not trace themselves back to an apostle, while the Catholics could- Irenaeaus even lists the Roman church's succession to prove this.

Even the bible says that the 'mysteries' will be revealed as God sees fit, so believers at different places in their 'walk' might have different perceptions on different passages. The 'milk' vs the 'meat' scenerio. As for the rest, this isn't about the Gnostic beliefs as I don't agree with them either, this is only in relation to the Gospel of Thomas itself.

The Gospel of Thomas purpose was to convey these "secrets". Only with the help of such "secret" teachings could one unlock the spiritual exegesis of the rest of Scriptures, esp. the ambiguous ones. It was in this sense that the Gnostics claimed the "authority of the Scriptures".

Naturally, their view towards the Old Testament was more complex. But this is the general background for the Gospel of Thomas and why it was not accepted... While their may be some specific issues considered as heresy in the Gospel of Thomas, it was the idea of secret knowledge only avalable to the "perfects" that saved - that was what bothered the Catholic canonists of the first few centuries.

There were many things that caused division among the early church, and again not about the Gnostic beliefs.

It defeated the idea of the incarnation, Jesus coming in the flesh, and dying for our sins. It depended upon a secret body of knowledge, as opposed to readily available apostolic teachings that taught ANYONE willing to follow the way of Jesus Christ.

Regards

I'm not sure how it defeats the idea of incarnation? Do realize that I am not wanting to discuss the Gnostic beliefs verses Christianity's beliefs but merely in what areas the Gospel of Thomas doesn't agree with the bible. So far I just see this difference only in one's interpretation of these sayings. I also wouldn't suggest this Gospel over the bible but rather as supplementary. I guess it comes down to what you are looking for when you read it.

cheers

 

[francisdesales]

The Gospel of Thomas' focus is on the supposedly secret sayings of Jesus. While the canonical gospels focus on the death and resurrection of Christ, leading to salvation, Thomas focuses on "interpretations", the very first saying.

"Whoever finds the interpretations of these sayings will not experience death".

Now, Christians do not experience death when they are linked to Jesus Christ and He abides in the Christian. Not only the "perfects", but any Christian. Thomas does not care about Christ abiding in us, but in knowledge. That is the first problem... A huge difference on focus and what saves...(and WHO can be saved, as only certain people even have the potential to be saved, the "perfects".

I'm not sure what you are getting at here? It almost seems as though you are making it a Gospel of Thomas vs the other 4 Gospels? I consider them to be 5 Gospels revealing different aspects of our journey towards understanding.

I am comparing the Gospel of Thomas to the Canonical Gospels. They have different focuses and lead us in different directions on what is required to be saved. The Church that claims apostolic succession says that salvation is through abiding in Christ, repenting and believing. The church that claims the Gospel of Thomas is legitimate secret knowledge from an apostle claims salvation is found in knowledge about God.

As far as 'interpretations' go, there are many 'interpretations' of the bible itself, by some, that are not inline with the overall teachings. I don't think saying this Gospel 'focuses' on interpretations is a correct analysis, in my opinion anyways. One must find the 'interpretations' of Jesus' parables as well wouldn't you say? '....whoever has ears let him hear...' would be essentially saying the same thing as the the first saying in Thomas wouldn't it?

The INTERPRETATIONS THEMSELVES save, my friend.

If you only read the Gospel of Thomas or other Gnostic works I could see how you come to this conclusion but in relation to what is taught in the bible I don't see the teaching that 'knowledge = salvation' being the message taught.

I've read both, what are you trying to say? I have not read the Christian Bible and only Gnostic works???

Even the bible says that the 'mysteries' will be revealed as God sees fit, so believers at different places in their 'walk' might have different perceptions on different passages. The 'milk' vs the 'meat' scenerio. As for the rest, this isn't about the Gnostic beliefs as I don't agree with them either, this is only in relation to the Gospel of Thomas itself.

The mysteries HAVE been revealed, to the Apostles, whom in turn have revealed them openly to all who would hear. The "milk" v "meat" scenario is different levels of understanding, but there is no secretive knowledge that only the "perfects" have access to.

Case in point is several of the "secret" sayings of Jesus that make you say, "Huh"? They don't make sense with the Gospel taught, orally and in written form.

There were many things that caused division among the early church, and again not about the Gnostic beliefs.

And continue to... I certainly am not saying that only Gnostics had incorrect teachings. Ever hear of the Arian controversy?

I'm not sure how it defeats the idea of incarnation? Do realize that I am not wanting to discuss the Gnostic beliefs verses Christianity's beliefs but merely in what areas the Gospel of Thomas doesn't agree with the bible. So far I just see this difference only in one's interpretation of these sayings. I also wouldn't suggest this Gospel over the bible but rather as supplementary. I guess it comes down to what you are looking for when you read it.

[/quote]

When taught the Gospel, we hear a particular paradigm. We come to understand certain ways of reading Scriptures, practicing the Gospel, participating in liturgical celebrations. Hearing the Gnostic paradigm causes some serious disagreements, and thus, they cannot be seen as "supplementary" to a Christians. Perhaps to a historian, but not to a specific religious movement or community.

Regards

 

[seekandlisten]

I am comparing the Gospel of Thomas to the Canonical Gospels. They have different focuses and lead us in different directions on what is required to be saved. The Church that claims apostolic succession says that salvation is through abiding in Christ, repenting and believing. The church that claims the Gospel of Thomas is legitimate secret knowledge from an apostle claims salvation is found in knowledge about God.

I understand what you are getting at now.

If you only read the Gospel of Thomas or other Gnostic works I could see how you come to this conclusion but in relation to what is taught in the bible I don't see the teaching that 'knowledge = salvation' being the message taught.

I've read both, what are you trying to say? I have not read the Christian Bible and only Gnostic works???

That was not what I was getting at, sorry if you took it that way. I personally don't believe knowledge will save someone so when I look at something from the Gnostic school of thought I don't necessarily approach with that mindset but more on how it would fit into the 'big picture' with the biblical account as well.

I was more getting at the fact that if you look at the Gospel of Thomas from the 'knowledge=salvation' point of view that is what you will find, whereas that is not what I understand. It was also a general statement more than directed at you personally.

I also was thinking after that yours and my beliefs are very different so that is going to give us different perspectives on this as well.

Even the bible says that the 'mysteries' will be revealed as God sees fit, so believers at different places in their 'walk' might have different perceptions on different passages. The 'milk' vs the 'meat' scenerio. As for the rest, this isn't about the Gnostic beliefs as I don't agree with them either, this is only in relation to the Gospel of Thomas itself.

The mysteries HAVE been revealed, to the Apostles, whom in turn have revealed them openly to all who would hear. The "milk" v "meat" scenario is different levels of understanding, but there is no secretive knowledge that only the "perfects" have access to.

I can agree with this point.

Case in point is several of the "secret" sayings of Jesus that make you say, "Huh"? They don't make sense with the Gospel taught, orally and in written form.

Point taken.

There were many things that caused division among the early church, and again not about the Gnostic beliefs.

And continue to... I certainly am not saying that only Gnostics had incorrect teachings. Ever hear of the Arian controversy?

Yeah I am well aware of the Arian controversy.

One the very areas you and me will disagree upon as I don't believe in the trinity. I did see a post of yours describing the trinity in relation to love that I could almost agree with though.

An article I read recently made an interesting point, I thought, in regards to the early church.

"In the controversies which rent the early Church, there were two especially: one which disputed - as though anyone could know anything about it - whether Christ was of one substance with God or of like substance, whether in the eternal relation of that triple LOGOS one poor human word was more accurate than another in the efforts to describe. Over that the Church split, with the satisfaction of feeling that the severed parts could never come together again, because the question could never be decided. No one save God Himself can know the mysteries of His own nature. And who are we to curse our brethren, because they see the mysteries at an angle a little different from our own? And then there came the great controversy which cast the Gnostics out of the Church, and made it neither Catholic nor Gnostic, neither universal nor knowing, because the Catholic cannot exclude, and the non-Gnostic cannot know." (Aspects of the Christ, Annie Besant)

I'm not sure how it defeats the idea of incarnation? Do realize that I am not wanting to discuss the Gnostic beliefs verses Christianity's beliefs but merely in what areas the Gospel of Thomas doesn't agree with the bible. So far I just see this difference only in one's interpretation of these sayings. I also wouldn't suggest this Gospel over the bible but rather as supplementary. I guess it comes down to what you are looking for when you read it.

When taught the Gospel, we hear a particular paradigm. We come to understand certain ways of reading Scriptures, practicing the Gospel, participating in liturgical celebrations. Hearing the Gnostic paradigm causes some serious disagreements, and thus, they cannot be seen as "supplementary" to a Christians. Perhaps to a historian, but not to a specific religious movement or community.

Regards

I can understand your point here.

cheers

 

[francisdesales]

I personally don't believe knowledge will save someone so when I look at something from the Gnostic school of thought I don't necessarily approach with that mindset but more on how it would fit into the 'big picture' with the biblical account as well.

It is very important to approach these writings based upon who is writing and who is the audience. By removing that background, we lose a lot of the meaning of what these writings are intending to do and teach.

Without a background, one can read the Canonical Scriptures and come up with a MULTITUDE of interpretations. Remove the background of the community reading the writings (audience) and the writer, we lose a lot of the intent.

One the very areas you and me will disagree upon as I don't believe in the trinity. I did see a post of yours describing the trinity in relation to love that I could almost agree with though.

;)

That's a subject of an entirely new post. However, disagreement on such a subject does bring out the importance of knowing the audience whom the Scriptures were written to...

An article I read recently made an interesting point, I thought, in regards to the early church.

"In the controversies which rent the early Church, there were two especially: one which disputed - as though anyone could know anything about it - whether Christ was of one substance with God or of like substance, whether in the eternal relation of that triple LOGOS one poor human word was more accurate than another in the efforts to describe. Over that the Church split, with the satisfaction of feeling that the severed parts could never come together again, because the question could never be decided. No one save God Himself can know the mysteries of His own nature. And who are we to curse our brethren, because they see the mysteries at an angle a little different from our own? And then there came the great controversy which cast the Gnostics out of the Church, and made it neither Catholic nor Gnostic, neither universal nor knowing, because the Catholic cannot exclude, and the non-Gnostic cannot know." (Aspects of the Christ, Annie Besant)

There is something to be said about that line of thought on the first one - that we can know very little about God (apophatic view, which is quite prevalent in contemplative prayer, not foreign to Catholicism). But theology IS the "study" of God based upon what God has revealed to us. Formulating the community's understanding is important for daily worship, liturgical worship and how we treat others. Quite important, and explains why the Church was rent over seemingly insignificant things (insignificant to someone not familiar with the differences and what they meant).

As to the second, this is only one paradox of many that exists in the Church - authority/freedom; faith/works; grace/nature...

Seems like I was able to clear up a lot of problems with my post previous, so that's a good thing.

Regards