Gospel of Thomas not accepted

  • Thread starter Thread starter ejp123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ejp123

Guest
Why is the gospel of Thomas not accepted? personally, I have read parts of it and found it very enlightening.
 
It was considered…“Gnostic” to many…even though it doesn’t fit well into “Gnostic” belief completely. It has many passages with parallels in the Synoptics…and reflects a “strand” of Christian thought from the second century.

Although some modern scholars feel it has as much “authenticity” as those gospels we currently have in our “orthodox” NT canon…it was used by groups which the “orthodox” deemed “heretical”.

I like the GoT…I have read it several times…
 
ejp123 said:
Why is the gospel of Thomas not accepted? personally, I have read parts of it and found it very enlightening.
Click to expand...
Perhaps because it teaches heretical things…like when Jesus was asked if he would bring women to heaven and he said yes…but first I will turn her into a man and then bring her into heaven…uh nooooo…if you are a man on earth you will be a man in heaven and if you are a woman on earth than you will be a woman forever…so of course it wasn’t considered the inspired Word of God…too many heretical errors which doesn’t mesh with the rest of Scripture or Sacred Tradition
 
Publisher said:
It was considered…“Gnostic” to many…even though it doesn’t fit well into “Gnostic” belief completely. It has many passages with parallels in the Synoptics…and reflects a “strand” of Christian thought from the second century.

Although some modern scholars feel it has as much “authenticity” as those gospels we currently have in our “orthodox” NT canon…it was used by groups which the “orthodox” deemed “heretical”.

I like the GoT…I have read it several times…
Click to expand...
It totally fits with Gnostic belief.
 
Richard_Rider said:
It totally fits with Gnostic belief.
Click to expand...
It had the distinction to also fit with orthodox belief. It had distinct Gnostic flavor…but it wasn’t “Gnostic” enough as it did not seek to dismiss the idea of Demiurge or any other unique Gnostic beliefs…IT COULD have been used also by those more on the “orthodox” side of things…GoT didn’t fit the profile as definitly Gnostic.
 
Personally, I believe half of its content quotes Jesus’ real sayings… the other half seems to have been added later by the Gnostic Sect.
 
Well, if Martin Luther didn’t like it, it was not going to be in the 66 book bible. The infallible Martin has spoken. The matter is settled for all time.
 
farpinho said:
?
Click to expand...
Since all protestant denominations agree that Martin Luther is infallible as to the canon of scripture, it is clearly not inspired if Martin did not like it. As to the Catholic Church, for the writing to be considered, it had to be in active liturgical use somewhere in the Church from its composition. The Church tested it very early and rejected it for various reasons.

The Wiki gives additional reasons: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas
 
po18guy said:
Well, if Martin Luther didn’t like it, it was not going to be in the 66 book bible. The infallible Martin has spoken. The matter is settled for all time.
Click to expand...
Somehow it escapes my reason to see how this comment is constructive in any manner…
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
Somehow it escapes my reason to see how this comment is constructive in any manner…
Click to expand...
tabycat said:
Maybe slightly insulting?
:confused:
Click to expand...
Publisher said:
Not to mention completely false.
Click to expand...
Epic pun fail in my case. My bad. I’m an idiot. And, idiots simply cannot understand the following:

For all protestants: the Gospel of Thomas is not in your bible because the founder of the Lutheran communion did not think it was inspired. This applies to all branches of protestantism. Why a Lutheran should determine the canon of scripture for, say, a Methodist is far beyond my comprehension.

For Quakers, I completely fail to understand the logic of allowing a Lutheran (Luther himself) to determine for the entire Quaker communion what is God’s word and what is not.

It makes no sense to me. If Martin Luther was so graced as to perfectly decide the bible, why do all protestants (except Lutherans) depart from him on so many other teachings?

**For Catholics, I mention the Church testing the book and rejecting it. Same with the Orthodox. Simple. ** All the rest who follow Luther but are not Lutherans boggles my feeble mind. A profound dichotomy.
 
po18guy said:
Epic pun fail in my case. My bad. I’m an idiot. And, idiots simply cannot understand the following:

For all protestants: the Gospel of Thomas is not in your bible because the founder of the Lutheran communion did not think it was inspired. This applies to all branches of protestantism. Why a Lutheran should determine the canon of scripture for, say, a Methodist is far beyond my comprehension.

For Quakers, I completely fail to understand the logic of allowing a Lutheran (Luther himself) to determine for the entire Quaker communion what is God’s word and what is not.

It makes no sense to me. If Martin Luther was so graced as to perfectly decide the bible, why do all protestants (except Lutherans) depart from him on so many other teachings?

**For Catholics, I mention the Church testing the book and rejecting it. Same with the Orthodox. Simple. ** All the rest who follow Luther but are not Lutherans boggles my feeble mind. A profound dichotomy.
Click to expand...
You not only fail to understand Luther’s position on scripture…but Quakerism’s as well…not to mention the rest of Protestantism…it’s Catholic polemics…and it doesn’t help your statements…the friend who spoke of your post being somewhat insulting…could have mentioned lacking in charity as well.

Peace to you friend…this type of discussion gets us no where.
 
Publisher said:
You not only fail to understand Luther’s position on scripture…but Quakerism’s as well…not to mention the rest of Protestantism…it’s Catholic polemics…and it doesn’t help your statements…the friend who spoke of your post being somewhat insulting…could have mentioned lacking in charity as well.

Peace to you friend…this type of discussion gets us no where.
Click to expand...
An answer would have been nice, instead of insults.
 
po18guy said:
Epic pun fail in my case. My bad. I’m an idiot. And, idiots simply cannot understand the following:

For all protestants: the Gospel of Thomas is not in your bible because the founder of the Lutheran communion did not think it was inspired. This applies to all branches of protestantism. Why a Lutheran should determine the canon of scripture for, say, a Methodist is far beyond my comprehension.

For Quakers, I completely fail to understand the logic of allowing a Lutheran (Luther himself) to determine for the entire Quaker communion what is God’s word and what is not.

It makes no sense to me. If Martin Luther was so graced as to perfectly decide the bible, why do all protestants (except Lutherans) depart from him on so many other teachings?

**For Catholics, I mention the Church testing the book and rejecting it. Same with the Orthodox. Simple. ** All the rest who follow Luther but are not Lutherans boggles my feeble mind. A profound dichotomy.
Click to expand...
You just made it worse… And I thought I was having a bad day.
 
po18guy said:
Well, it is clear that I am having a bad day. I apologize for the mess I have created and I have asked the mods to delete my post.
Click to expand...
God Bless you man. May His Spirit be with us and His peace as well.
 
Publisher said:
It had the distinction to also fit with orthodox belief. It had distinct Gnostic flavor…but it wasn’t “Gnostic” enough as it did not seek to dismiss the idea of Demiurge or any other unique Gnostic beliefs…IT COULD have been used also by those more on the “orthodox” side of things…GoT didn’t fit the profile as definitly Gnostic.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I note with some interest that the Coptic Thomas found at Nag Hammadi is a slightly different version than the Greek fragments found at Oxyrhynchus.

Now while some claim that Thomas is as old as, if not older than, the canonical gospels, IMHO it could also equally well be composed after them, using them as sources.
 
As far as where it came from St. Cyril of Jerusalem had this to say about it:
The Manichæans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort.
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm

And again:
Let none read the Gospel according to Thomas : for it is the work not of one of the twelve Apostles, but of one of the three wicked disciples of Manes.
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/fathers/310106.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top