What is the Gospel of St. Thomas?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catholic Dude: I’m glad to see you looked it up. As you’ve seen, it’s a very sloppy compilation of quotes and misquotes from the Gospels, and a few passages that are plainly not from Scripture or Tradition.

While there is very little in it that is directly, or at least obviously, heretical, it IS a stripped and watered down version of Jesus’ teachings. Now, if it were just a few notes taken by an Apostle for later reference, that would be one thing. It’s only found in Gnostic collections, however, which raises the question “what purpose would a stipped down, poorly translated sound-byte version of Jesus’ words serve?” Well, just look at the way heretics today use the same tactic of “sound-byte gospel” to float dangerously heretical ideas, and you’ll see why this book was so quickly dismissed and persecuted. How many times have we seen OSAS Protestants throw John 3:15 at people as a support for their completely erroneous position?

Now imagine if Protestants put together a “gospel” that contained ONLY verses like John 3:15, or other Protestant favorites like the ones that say that scripture is “sufficient” for good teaching. Now you have a heretical sound-byte gospel made completely from genuine Scripture passages. Suddenly a small collection of Scripture sound-bytes doesn’t seem so harmless, eh?

Well, this was the Gnostics’ “teaching aid”, and it’s rightly tossed aside in the dust bin of history, preserved only insofar as it is useful in understanding how Jesus might be used by others in the future to push heretical ideas.
 
40.png
Ghosty:
Catholic Dude: I’m glad to see you looked it up. As you’ve seen, it’s a very sloppy compilation of quotes and misquotes from the Gospels, and a few passages that are plainly not from Scripture or Tradition.

While there is very little in it that is directly, or at least obviously, heretical, it IS a stripped and watered down version of Jesus’ teachings. Now, if it were just a few notes taken by an Apostle for later reference, that would be one thing. It’s only found in Gnostic collections, however, which raises the question “what purpose would a stipped down, poorly translated sound-byte version of Jesus’ words serve?” Well, just look at the way heretics today use the same tactic of “sound-byte gospel” to float dangerously heretical ideas, and you’ll see why this book was so quickly dismissed and persecuted. How many times have we seen OSAS Protestants throw John 3:15 at people as a support for their completely erroneous position?

Now imagine if Protestants put together a “gospel” that contained ONLY verses like John 3:15, or other Protestant favorites like the ones that say that scripture is “sufficient” for good teaching. Now you have a heretical sound-byte gospel made completely from genuine Scripture passages. Suddenly a small collection of Scripture sound-bytes doesn’t seem so harmless, eh?

Well, this was the Gnostics’ “teaching aid”, and it’s rightly tossed aside in the dust bin of history, preserved only insofar as it is useful in understanding how Jesus might be used by others in the future to push heretical ideas.
Click to expand...
What you said is as clear as day after I read that thing. That book has no place in Christian writings both Scripture and Documents.

The funny thing that comes to mind when you mentioned how it relates to protestant selective citing, I though of Jazz band music where they take a popular song follow a clear tune for a time and the they start improvising on how they think the song should sound and then going back to the original song music.
(well actually I think Jazz with improv sounds better than what I have seen some people put out as proof texts)
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Re “Most translators use ‘secret’ as a translation. ‘Hidden’ has the same meaning.”: Modern Westerners non-expert in translation frequently assume that ancients thought like modern Westerners.
Click to expand...
The people who did these multiple translations are not “non-expert in translation.”

This gospel was known in antiquity. The ancients, who read these languages as their mother tongue, also rejected this “gospel.”

I ask once more, are you Catholic?
 
I feel that as a multi-faith convert, perhaps my (name removed by moderator)ut may be valued.
The Gospel of Thomas is a gnostic* gospel, however it is not necessarily a Gnostic** gospel. Allow me to clarify this statement:
As a gnostic Gospel, GoT claims to have some ultimate “knowing” truth. One can not deny that, it opens with a line that declares its’ “truth.” It is up to debate whether GoT is inherently Gnostic as is does not possess certain elements that make it exclusive to the Gnostic sects. So do dismiss it as being inspired by Satan or something along similar lines is too ultra-conclusive and perhaps irrational. I don’t want to shake your faith, but please hear me out before attacking my position.
The point of the Catholic church is not to say that “Jesus said this, Jesus did that.” There are a select few fundamentals in the Catholic church that are undeniable. (Which are reinforced by the Synoptic Gospels.) If Jesus said that we should all walk on our hands, it has no detrimental effect to those fundamentals. Correct me if I’m wrong.
The danger of the GoT is not so much what it said, more-so the danger is what it didn’t say. Please correct me If I’m wrong, as It’s been a while since I’ve read it, but: Thomas makes no declaration of the resurrection of Jesus. Thomas also makes no declaration of the Trinity. This “Gospel” merely makes a declaration of Jesus and his alleged sayings.
The true danger is really calling this a Gospel at all. Much like the theorized Quelle, this “gospel” has no Gospel to it. So in effect, the dangerous part of it is substituting it for the Gospels that reinforce the Catholic Church.
If these truly were sayings by Jesus, Great! Read them! Understand them! Just don’t use your understanding to replace your faith and you’ll be fine. I think a great deal about life can be learned from certain “Lost Gospels.”

*Little G gnostic=knowing
*Big G Gnostic=The early sects who claimed to have a hidden knowledge
 
This was a very interesting thread. I know it’s old, but the (Make it up as you go along) history channel just aired a special on the gospel of Thomas, the infancy gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of James. I was curious if anyone had any new takes on it all since the last post (which was made in 2009).

I honestly can’t understand how anyone can consider, at least the infancy gospel, to be truth at all. The “scholars” on the special are saying how it shows Christ was a spoiled child who grew to be a great man, that even the son of God had to find his way.

FIND HIS WAY? Basically, the infancy gospel paints him as a serial killer. Minus one kid he brought back to life to make him tell everyone he was innocent of killing him… he killed at least 3 people who didn’t get brought back to life, and cursed others.

This is blasphemous. Christ is the son of God, born of a woman free from original sin… and they claim he was a murderous spoiled brat who had to “Find his way”… How does anyone take this seriously as a Christian whether Catholic or otherwise?

I had to stop watching after that.

How do they even know about Christ’s childhood? No one really came to know or follow him until his adulthood. So how would they know any of these alleged misdeeds?
 
HappDeeNess said:
This was a very interesting thread. I know it’s old, but the (Make it up as you go along) history channel just aired a special on the gospel of Thomas, the infancy gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of James. I was curious if anyone had any new takes on it all since the last post (which was made in 2009).

I honestly can’t understand how anyone can consider, at least the infancy gospel, to be truth at all. The “scholars” on the special are saying how it shows Christ was a spoiled child who grew to be a great man, that even the son of God had to find his way.

FIND HIS WAY? Basically, the infancy gospel paints him as a serial killer. Minus one kid he brought back to life to make him tell everyone he was innocent of killing him… he killed at least 3 people who didn’t get brought back to life, and cursed others.

This is blasphemous. Christ is the son of God, born of a woman free from original sin… and they claim he was a murderous spoiled brat who had to “Find his way”… How does anyone take this seriously as a Christian whether Catholic or otherwise?

I had to stop watching after that.

How do they even know about Christ’s childhood? No one really came to know or follow him until his adulthood. So how would they know any of these alleged misdeeds?
Click to expand...
I think it’s really the wrong way of looking at the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Yes, the Infancy Gospel does show the young Jesus as a (literal) ‘holy terror’ who does not flinch from smiting anyone who annoys Him (He gets better as He grows though), but it’s really an attempt to portray Jesus like the trickster ‘divine men’ in Greco-Roman myths (who are precocious, clever, and even destructive like the Infancy Gospel’s Jesus). In other words, it’s a rather highly imaginative piece of Christian missionary propaganda: showing Jesus in a mold familiar to gentile converts.
 
thistle said:
ntcanon.org/table.shtml
Click to expand...
Excellent reference site.

The “History channel”??? Since when we do we obtain our theology and system of belief from secular sources? As for this “gospel” of St. Thomas, as the site posted above clearly demonstrates, the Roman Catholic church made decisions regarding the Canon and all other de fide issues with the authority given to it by Jesus Himself and with great and scrupulous care. No, the Magisterium doesn’t watch the History Channel. The movie referenced in ‘05 with the first posts is a HOLLYWOOD PRODUCTION. I watch a lot of Netflix; I wear a cross with the “Face of Jesus” on it and say a certain prayer when His name is profaned. I say that prayer QUITE often while watching movies. The secular world has one agenda: to destroy the truth of Jesus’ life and resurrection. Remember the warning to “think on those things” that are uplifting. Satan’s most successful ploy is through the intellect. Proceed with caution. Trust mother Church. We have all learned, hopefully, that She stands alone and will continue to stand and we can trust the Apostles, the Fathers of the church, and the Magisterium. If we do not, then we need to ask ourselves why and take this question to a very knowledgeable priest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top