Gospel of Thomas help please!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rand_Al_Thor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rand_Al_Thor

Guest
Peace be with you!

Could anyone direct me to an official Church statement about the Gospel of Thomas, if one such exists?

In Christ,
Rand
 
From newadvent.org:
Gospel of St. Thomas

There are two Greek and two Latin redactions of it, differing much from one another. A Syriac translation is also found. A Gospel of Thomas was known to many Fathers. The earliest to mention it is St. Hippolytus (155-235), who informs us that it was in use among the Naasenes, a sect of Syrian Gnostics, and cites a sentence which does not appear in our extant text. Origen relegates it to the heretical writings. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says it was employed by the Manichæans; Eusebius rejects it as heretical and spurious. It is clear that the original Pseudo-Thomas was of heterodox origin, and that it dates from the second century; the citations of Hippolytus establish that it was palpably Gnostic in tenor. But in the extant Thomas Gospel there is no formal or manifest Gnosticism. The prototype was evidently expurgated by a Catholic hand, who, however, did not succeed in eradicating all traces of its original taint. The apocryphon in all its present forms extravagantly magnifies the Divine aspect of the boy Jesus. In bold contrast to the Infancy narrative of St. Luke, where the Divinity is almost effaced, the author makes the Child a miracle-worker and intellectual prodigy, and in harmony with Docetism, leaves scarcely more than the appearance of humanity in Him. This pseudo-Gospel is unique among the apocrypha, inasmuch as it describes a part of the hidden life of Our LordJesus. His youthful miracles are worked at times out of mere childish fancy, as when He formed clay pigeons, and at a clap of His hands they flew away as living birds; sometimes, from beneficence; but again from a kind of harsh retribution. between the ages of five and twelve. But there is much that is fantastic and offensive in the pictures of the exploits of the boy

Notworthy
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
From newadvent.org:
Gospel of St. Thomas

There are two Greek and two Latin redactions of it, differing much from one another. A Syriac translation is also found. A Gospel of Thomas was known to many Fathers. The earliest to mention it is St. Hippolytus (155-235), who informs us that it was in use among the Naasenes, a sect of Syrian Gnostics, and cites a sentence which does not appear in our extant text. Origen relegates it to the heretical writings. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says it was employed by the Manichæans; Eusebius rejects it as heretical and spurious. It is clear that the original Pseudo-Thomas was of heterodox origin, and that it dates from the second century; the citations of Hippolytus establish that it was palpably Gnostic in tenor. But in the extant Thomas Gospel there is no formal or manifest Gnosticism. The prototype was evidently expurgated by a Catholic hand, who, however, did not succeed in eradicating all traces of its original taint. The apocryphon in all its present forms extravagantly magnifies the Divine aspect of the boy Jesus. In bold contrast to the Infancy narrative of St. Luke, where the Divinity is almost effaced, the author makes the Child a miracle-worker and intellectual prodigy, and in harmony with Docetism, leaves scarcely more than the appearance of humanity in Him. This pseudo-Gospel is unique among the apocrypha, inasmuch as it describes a part of the hidden life of Our LordJesus. His youthful miracles are worked at times out of mere childish fancy, as when He formed clay pigeons, and at a clap of His hands they flew away as living birds; sometimes, from beneficence; but again from a kind of harsh retribution. between the ages of five and twelve. But there is much that is fantastic and offensive in the pictures of the exploits of the boy

Notworthy
Not Worthy:

Well Said…

I was handed a section from it a year ago and told, “You now have in your hands a profoundly heretical book, the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.”

If you compare the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas with those in the 4 accepted Gospels, you’ll find a change in emphasis from faith in God combined with right action to faith in right belief combined with secret knowledge.

In John’s Gospel, God becomes flesh so that God can make us sons of God. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus appears (he’s not really man) in order to impart secret knowledge so that we can do this ourselves.

Remember, Gnosticism is all about RIGHT BELIEF, and how your treat your fellow Christians really doesn’t matter that much.

I hope this helps. If not, I’ll look for something from the Vatican.

In Christ, Michael
 
Traditional Ang:
I hope this helps. If not, I’ll look for something from the Vatican.

In Christ, Michael
Peace be with you!

This is actually what I’m looking for…an official statement about it of some sorts. I didn’t find one on vatican.va. I know what the Gospel of Thomas is, but the reason I ask about an official Church statement is because one of my instructors said she’d been reading over the Gospel of Thomas and asked if I wanted to discuss it with her (she knows I’m Catholic). I thought it might help if I could show her some sort of official Church document about it.

Thanks for the help, though, and let me know if you find anything else!

In Christ,
Rand
 
The Gospel of Thomas that Newadvent refers to is different from the one you’ll usually hear about today, which was rediscovered intact only after the Catholic Encyclopedia was written. TradAng is refering to this “newer” Gospel of Thomas, I believe, which is a collection of supposed sayings from Jesus, often lifted from Scripture and altered subtly.

In my honest opinion, it’s one of the most dangerous and heretical works ever, in that the poison is so subtle and so deadly. Everything TradAng said is spot on: it totally changes the nature and character of Christ. He resembles more of a Greek Buddha than a Jewish Messiah in it.

I’m not certain that there is an official Catholic response to it, any more than there is an official Catholic response to The Davinci Code. In fact, they pretty much fall into the same category; the author of the Gospel of Thomas was the Dan Brown of his day.

Peace and God bless!
 
Rand, I would like to build on what was already presented. As happens often, I am working from memory only but hopefully I will be accurate.

First, the Gospel of Thomas was rejected as an inspiried Gospel by the very fact that it is not part of the Canonical books. Also, you can gather from the other post that this work wasn’t accepted by the Church as good book to read it was condemned by the Fathers of the Church already mentioned in previous post. And there lies in the answer to your question.

I would like to add a little more. The completed text (actually there were two) discovered, I believe, in the 1940’s, is believed to have been written in the 4th or 5th centuries. The area of this discovery was the part of Egypt that was Coptic Christian which was heavily influenced by the Gnostic Heresy. However, there are two fragments in London which are now accepted as part of the gospel and are thought to be contemporary works of the earliest know written Gospels. Also, the regions from where these fragments came was also under the Gnostic influence at the time (I cannot remember this location but I think it may be Syria). This has some interesting aspects to it from a scriptural studies point of view in that the Gospel of Thomas was written independant of the 4 Canonical Gospels, yet contain many of the same sayings and parables especially from the Gospel of Luke. But unlike the Four Gospels, Thomas is more of a collection of sayings and stories but not in an organized narrative form as are Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. But, again, all evidence points to this work did not come about from any dependence on Scripture.

Also, it must be remembered that the two earliest heresies the Church faced, and is at the root of all heresies, was the denial of either Christ Jesus’ Humanity or His Divinity. The Gospel of Thomas clearly shows the denial of His Humanity and many of the stories have nothing to do with Salvation which lead to its condemnation by the Fathers of the Church and the Church Magisterium ( again I refer to the fact it is not accepted in the Canon of Scripture of either the Eastern nor Western Traditions and condemned by both).

Also, even in those parts which are paralled to the Canonical Gospels there always remains the underlying reality that they are written to and for a chosen few only, hence the gnostic influence which was condemned even by the Apostolic Church…

I hope that my additions are accurate and has given you a little more background for any discussions you may have.
 
One thing that must be remembered when considering the fact that the sayings of Jesus were written down in a heretical work is that Jesus was hardly an unknown figure in His time. He and His followers are even mentioned, albeit in figures of speech, in the Talmud, the holy record of Sacred Tradition in Judaism. His statements would have been known to many people in the region, and were easily picked up by even non-Christian sects and cults.

Peace and God bless!
 
I don’t mean to hijack the thread or anything, but could someone explain to me Isaiah 7:15-16?

The passage seems to imply there was a time when Jesus didn’t know right from wrong. Thus, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas may not have been that far off. (Don’t get me wrong, if the early Church Fathers thought it was bad, that’s fine for me, but the verse is still kind of puzzling me.)
 
Vir Dei:
I don’t mean to hijack the thread or anything, but could someone explain to me Isaiah 7:15-16?

The passage seems to imply there was a time when Jesus didn’t know right from wrong. Thus, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas may not have been that far off. (Don’t get me wrong, if the early Church Fathers thought it was bad, that’s fine for me, but the verse is still kind of puzzling me.)
Even though Jesus knew right from wrong, the action of rejection is a step further. Before He could pick up a ball and throw it He would have to know all the things that would enable this action.

The Holy Spirit has already sifted through all the many gospels to compile a book of the Truth. If you feel you must look at the “rejected” gospels, do so with this in mind. Time is short though, and isn’t it wiser to spend time with the Bible? This way you can be sure you are reading the Truth.
 
Vir Dei:
I don’t mean to hijack the thread or anything, but could someone explain to me Isaiah 7:15-16?

The passage seems to imply there was a time when Jesus didn’t know right from wrong. Thus, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas may not have been that far off. (Don’t get me wrong, if the early Church Fathers thought it was bad, that’s fine for me, but the verse is still kind of puzzling me.)
I agree with Rebecca New, but I can understand your confusion over the Isaiah passage. I think of that passage as corresponding with the Luke 2:52, where we’re told of Jesus increasing in wisdom, in stature, and in favor with God and man. Jesus grew, and His mind and human conscience developed like any human mind or conscience. The difference is that, since He was free from original sin, there was no sin in Him.

Is it reasonable to expect that any 6-month-old, even Jesus, could really know right from wrong? Developmentally, that’s just not possible. (It’s my opinion that kids can’t really understand the concept of right and wrong until at least 4 or 5 years old. Otherwise, the “age of reason” would be much lower.) It doesn’t imply that Jesus sinned, nor does it give credence to the stories in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It just reinforces the truth that Jesus was fully human, as well as being fully God. That’s a mystery, and I don’t think we can wrap our minds completely around it.
 
Jesus’ brain grew just like a human’s brain, and was better able to process His Divine Knowledge as He grew, just like His body grew and He became more coordinated, went through puberty, ect. He was fully and completely human, He just happened to be the Divine Creator of the Universe as well. That being said, He never did anything that contradicted His Divinity; He did not sin, and was entirely wise for the limits of His physical development at all moments.

The Incarnation is a Mystery, but it’s not really all that mysterious. Just think of the things that all humans learn almost through instinct as they grow, including the ability to talk and communicate, and Jesus likely grew in those ways. The difference is that within that human body and mind dwelt the Son of the Father, Second Person of the Trinity, God Himself. In that little child’s mind were the thoughts of the One God, but within a fully human form.

Peace and God bless!
 
40.png
Ghosty:
Jesus’ brain grew just like a human’s brain, and was better able to process His Divine Knowledge as He grew, just like His body grew and He became more coordinated, went through puberty, ect. He was fully and completely human, He just happened to be the Divine Creator of the Universe as well. That being said, He never did anything that contradicted His Divinity; He did not sin, and was entirely wise for the limits of His physical development at all moments.

The Incarnation is a Mystery, but it’s not really all that mysterious. Just think of the things that all humans learn almost through instinct as they grow, including the ability to talk and communicate, and Jesus likely grew in those ways. The difference is that within that human body and mind dwelt the Son of the Father, Second Person of the Trinity, God Himself. In that little child’s mind were the thoughts of the One God, but within a fully human form.

Peace and God bless!
Excellent post!
 
I would just like to add that Rand Al’Thor is a kick-*** protagonist is a kick-*** series of books. Always a pleasure to meet a fan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top