Gospel of Thomas not accepted

[thistle]

Why is the gospel of Thomas not accepted? personally, I have read parts of it and found it very enlightening.

ntcanon.org/Gospel_of_Thomas.shtml

 

[farpinho]

Question: in the Nag Hammadi library, did they find copies of the canonical gospels as well? Were these copies also “corrupted”? The Gospel of John especially would seem to interest the Gnostics the most IMO… I wonder how they would have “rewritten” it…?

 

[patrick457]

Question: in the Nag Hammadi library, did they find copies of the canonical gospels as well? Were these copies also “corrupted”? The Gospel of John especially would seem to interest the Gnostics the most IMO… I wonder how they would have “rewritten” it…?

No, but a heavily-modified version of Plato’s Republic was found. We do hear from a few fathers that some gnostic writers wrote commentaries on the canonical gospels (and yes, John was a popular choice). And while not really a ‘gnostic’, Marcion is infamous for rejecting all of the Old Testament and accepting only Luke and Paul (several letters of him, that is) as authoritative.

 

[Publisher]

Question: in the Nag Hammadi library, did they find copies of the canonical gospels as well? Were these copies also “corrupted”? The Gospel of John especially would seem to interest the Gnostics the most IMO… I wonder how they would have “rewritten” it…?

Since the canonical gospels were not under threat of destruction…as were the writing found at Nag Hammadi, they were not included in the attempt of preserving and saving them from the fire. John had very “Gnostic” overtones…and was disputed for a time whether it should even be allowed in the “canon” of the “proto-orthodox/catholic” branch of those who called themselves Christian.

 

[patrick457]

Since the canonical gospels were not under threat of destruction…as were the writing found at Nag Hammadi, they were not included in the attempt of preserving and saving them from the fire. John had very “Gnostic” overtones…and was disputed for a time whether it should even be allowed in the “canon” of the “proto-orthodox/catholic” branch of those who called themselves Christian.

I think you’re confusing John’s gospel with Revelation. AFAIK the gospel wasn’t disputed, but Revelation was - mostly because there was some uncertainty as to whether the author was really John the apostle.

 

[Publisher]

I think you’re confusing John’s gospel with Revelation. AFAIK the gospel wasn’t disputed, but Revelation was - mostly because there was some uncertainty as to whether the author was really John the apostle.

Perhaps…from what I remember however John had it’s “problems” of universal acceptance for a time…I may be wrong…it’s been many many years since I was in seminary.

 

[patrick457]

Perhaps…from what I remember however John had it’s “problems” of universal acceptance for a time…I may be wrong…it’s been many many years since I was in seminary.

Well, it is true that John was at first not widely quoted until late in the 2nd century (Justin Martyr is the first writer to cite a Johannine material or a deritative of it), and that the earliest known use of the gospel is among gnostic circles, which might explain the early ‘orthodox ambivalence’ towards it: Heracleon’s (a disciple of Valentinius) commentary on John is in fact the earliest extant written commentary on any book of the New Testament.

 

[aradford]

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

I think it means that in Jesus’ time women were not considered to be spiritually aware. Jesus means the opposite of what is being said. He beleives women can be spiritually aware. That is the problem with the gnosticism, it has to be interpretted. Even in John, he waits until almost the end of the gospel before he tells the apostles at the last supper that he has not spoken clearly before this (John 16:25). The Gospel of Thomas was left out for good reason in my opinion. You have to be firmly planted in a good understanding of faith or it will fool you into thinking it means something totally different. This is all IMHO.

 

[thistle]

This thread has been 3 years dormant. We are not to resurrect old threads but start new ones.