The Gospel of St Thomas (Christ's own Gospel?)

[XXdarkclarityXX]

Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

Wow. Now, what I hope this means is that since men were better than women in Jesus' time that Jesus meant he was going to make Mary better, hence "making him a man". If that's NOT it, then it's just another reason why Christianity is screwed up. I don't care if this book got canonized or not, it's still a Gospel.

[Cephas]

Wow. Now, what I hope this means is that since men were better than women in Jesus' time that Jesus meant he was going to make Mary better, hence "making him a man". If that's NOT it, then it's just another reason why Christianity is screwed up. I don't care if this book got canonized or not, it's still a Gospel.

Did you ever hear that to read the bible you must not take it litterally, there can be many interpretations. And if women were not considered equal to men in that time so what? Did God choose it to be so? No The peopel chose it, just liek they are choosing not to follwo God's will today. And he says he would make her a man, meaning more in the way of knowledge becaus ewomen were not given a proper education, you should review the facts before sending up accusations

[Whifflingpin]

"I don't care if this book got canonized or not, it's still a Gospel."

No it's not.

1) The fact that it has not been accepted into the canon of Christian scriptures shows that Christians in general do not accept the opinions expressed in it, so whatever it says cannot tell you anything about Christianity.

2) More technically, assuming that Kaka was correct in saying that there is no reference to the Resurrection, it is not a Gospel, because the good news ("god spel" in Anglo Saxon) is the news of the Resurrection.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Wow. Now, what I hope this means is that since men were better than women in Jesus' time that Jesus meant he was going to make Mary better, hence "making him a man". If that's NOT it, then it's just another reason why Christianity is screwed up. I don't care if this book got canonized or not, it's still a Gospel.

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned the idea of the Vatican hushing the matter of this writing. There was also a comment to the effect that there must have been some reason why it was rejected so early on. The fact is that it was not considered to belong to the Catholic Christian Religion - or why is not the Talmud in the New Testament?
The word "Catholic" was from the beginning used to speak of what Christians every where held universally in common - so, when a novelty was invented, it was always conspicuously innovated in a corner, broken off from the Catholic Community in a limited sphere. For this reason, because the consensus everywhere was at odds with a heresy confined in origin and area to one newly developed sect, the word "Catholic", meaning that which unified all, or "Universal", came to be an important term to the Church.
Here is a good example in another context:
a Jones family comes to America from Wales; all of them remember who the members of the family that came to America were, and share certain family traditions; suddenly on teen leaves the family, but keeps their name, and disowns all the past - but the uniformity of all his relatives through many states, in Wales, and in other lands some of them have branched out to makes his peculiarity all the more obviously a modernism.
The movie Stigmata misrepresents not only the transmission of the socalled "Thomas Gospel", but even changes some of the wording of that very writing.

[Mililalil XXIV]

"I don't care if this book got canonized or not, it's still a Gospel."

No it's not.

1) The fact that it has not been accepted into the canon of Christian scriptures shows that Christians in general do not accept the opinions expressed in it, so whatever it says cannot tell you anything about Christianity.

2) More technically, assuming that Kaka was correct in saying that there is no reference to the Resurrection, it is not a Gospel, because the good news ("god spel" in Anglo Saxon) is the news of the Resurrection.

There were doubtless many that took it upon themselves, as Luke said, to publish accurately the Gospel - but there is no record of any Church ever using the Gosp. Th., not even in the case of the ancient St. Thomas Christian community (otherwise at least some shred of the work should have been found among them in over 1900 years - but they have no testimony as to the text to hand down to anyone).

[Theshizznigg]

Man this has got Gnosticism written all over it.

Ahh, gnosticism, a word describing several cults of Christianity, like the Cathar's who believed sex between man and woman was bad, and so encouraged sodomy as a resolution to those do weak willed. Hence our modern word, Bugger, comes from Bugyars, who were Cathars.
Or that Russian cult that believed the only way to purifiy ones souls was to commit dastardly sins first, so they'd have huge orgies then hold mass afterwards.
Gnosticism stands for a group, cult that do not neccessarily believe in the biblical foundations, but their own creeds. Also Gnosticism was originally someone who believed that knowledge and not faith was the way to Christ.

Now that I've got that cleared up, lets get a few thing straight here.
God has been very kind to us, he gave us an innumerable gift called the bible. I do not believe that there are any books in the bible that shouldn't be there, simply by the acts of God.
This is his message he wants to give to you.
So we must be wary of any Christian book outside the bible, that doesn't not adhere to the absolutes of the bible.
We also must be wary of certain religious forms that take precedence over the bible, in importance.
I think Wycliffe said it best, when he wanted a bible that everyman could read, understands, and that he adhered to the ideal that so long as you have faith and a bible, you needn't have church, creed, religion, following, or anything else.

As for the other Christian texts, their are plenty of them.

The Books of Enoch, Noah, Adam, Giants, Caedamons writings, Solomons Psalms, Solomons Proverbs, so on and so forth.
Sacred-text.com is a good site for them.

While I earnestly read these texts, I always remember that if it doesn't match the ideals in the Bible, then I will take the bibles ideals before I take the texts.

War Out.

Shizz

"Oh, Oh, Oh yeah, Oh Yeah, Oh, Oh, Oh, OH!!!!! YEAH!!!!!!!"
- OH Henry announcer practicing in the mirror. (Sick minded Chidlren )

[paula08]

Those of you who have seen the movie Stigmata will have an idea of what it is i am talking about. The gospel of St Thomas was discovered in Egypt in 1946. This gospel is beleived by the majority of bible scholars to be the words of Jesus Christ himself scribed by Didymos Judas Thomas.

Three issues i would like people to address when discussing this firstly.

1) The validity of the scrolls, do you believe this to be Christ's Gospel.
2) The impact this scroll has upon the structure of the Church, More specifically the following extract " Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
3) Whether or not you feel this specific scripture has a place in the teaching of christianity?


I personally do believe these scrolls are the words of Christ, historcal evidence places the age of these scrolls at just over 2000 years and was written in a Aramaic.

These Scrolls Would have a very negative impact upon the Christian Churches in our world, otherwise the Vatican would not have gone to such lengths to have then discarded and regarded openly as "heresy"

Finally I am very undecided as to whether or not they have a place. They are the words of christ however some of the ideas that come though within the scroll are VERY controversial ones most notably...

114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven

Most interested in what you have to say....

This is just another false gospel attributed to Christ. It is most contrary to the true Gospel which has proven its authenticity by Catholic Church Tradition and the miracles of its canonized saints. This is also the theology of several times condemned Catholic priest Teilhard DeChardin.
Many gospels were written but discarded by the Church before the Bible was completed. Obviously this is one that may have been discarded because it contained heresy and opposes everything Catholic.
The Poem of the Man God is another set of books that contradicts Scripture. As a Catholic I find them demonic because they paint an entirely different and disrespectful picture of Christ.
Two interesting books I've read reccently are The Plot Against the Church by Maurice Pinay (available from Catholic Treasures and The Remnant ), which shows the history of the Catholic Church and its constant fight against the descendants of those who crucified Christ. Another is What Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II by brothers Michael and Peter Dimond. Both are fascinating reading and contain many surprises for those who have eyes to see... Paula

[weepingforloman]

Wow. Now, what I hope this means is that since men were better than women in Jesus' time that Jesus meant he was going to make Mary better, hence "making him a man". If that's NOT it, then it's just another reason why Christianity is screwed up. I don't care if this book got canonized or not, it's still a Gospel.

It's a Gospel written by people outside the faith commonly referred to as Christianity, and one rejected by all within that faith. I wouldn't judge the theory of evolution by the most bizarre science fiction I could find, would you?

I read a few of the sayings from that linked site, and most of them are incomprehensible. Others are simply ridiculous. The "one above [heaven] will pass away"? Really?!? God will die? Permanently?!? The very foundation of existence, in His incorporeal, immortal form, will die? That makes sense, right?

[Orionsbelt]

Couple of comments... might help clear up some of the symbolism. The snake, because of the shedding of skin, was often seen in the ancient world a sign of birth/re-birth. Hence the snake brought the gift of birth to eve, the female, in the garden. This idea is still reflected today by the fact symbol of life on the side of an ambulance and in the medical community showing the two inter-twined serpents. Traditionally female then represent birth, nature, material.

The Gnostics saw the physical world, created by a false god, as a bad place. The ideal was to be purely spiritual, this was seen a light, and male. The notion is similar to the Ying/yang in eastern thought. Reference to becoming more male would mean becoming more spiritual. Apologies to contemporary sensibilities. Sophia is also a Gnostic female reference with very positive vibes.

Based on the dates I think the gospel of Thomas may in fact be genuine. It is certainly interesting. Don't forget that the middle east around this time was a boiling mass of philisophical/theological thought. There were a lot of people from all over the world constantly passing though with ideas and customs. In some ways a very cool time to be living.

[weepingforloman]

The dating has little to do with the veracity. The idea of matter being purely evil (which the Gnostics inherited from the Manichees) is utterly nonsensical. God Himself took on flesh, so how can it be evil?

Oh, and it might have been a cool time to be living... if you don't mind starvation, poverty, and a lifespan of thirty years.

[Orionsbelt]

The dating has little to do with the veracity.

I'm glad you feel this way. I was a little worried that I might have gotten things mixed up 2000 years later.

[weepingforloman]

I mean that, if I write a book claiming that evolution was caused by the Mystic Moth-god Morek 7 right now, that doesn't mean it is representative of the modern theory of evolution.

[Dark Star]

The sense in which I meant "extremist" was that they believed all earthly things to be inherently evil, because they believed Jaweh, the creator god of the earth, to have been evil (and, incidentally, the snake in the Garden of Eden they believed to have been a liberator and symbol for good). They believed Jesus was sent from the "good" God, who was remote from earthly things and did not communicate with mankind. They believed the only way to liberate their souls from the evil of the physical world was to mistreat and torture their own bodies to show that they were against it. Which is, by my standards, pretty extreme.

This is a complete contradiction of the beliefs of Gnostics that I've met and their explanation of historical Gnostic teachings, so I'd like a source on this.

[Orionsbelt]

Found this link. Lots of info. THE FAQ talks about two schools of thought. One based on .... I'll say a more personal spiritual approach. The other the double god structure of the universe thing.... How's that for a brief summary?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

[Dark Star]

It's a Gospel written by people outside the faith commonly referred to as Christianity, and one rejected by all within that faith. I wouldn't judge the theory of evolution by the most bizarre science fiction I could find, would you?

I read a few of the sayings from that linked site, and most of them are incomprehensible. Others are simply ridiculous. The "one above [heaven] will pass away"? Really?!? God will die? Permanently?!? The very foundation of existence, in His incorporeal, immortal form, will die? That makes sense, right?

And by contrast, a person that knows nothing about Gnosticism would ask a Gnostic about the meanings of the metaphors in that Gospel rather than simply making assumptions about them such as it means 'God will die' since they probably have an explanation for this sort of thing. If one is reading a Qur'an people always insist that you find something by (or speak to) an Islamic scholar about it to help clarify the things you don't understand rather than making base assumptions; the same applies to reading the Bible from the point of view from an outsider and I fail to see why it would not apply to a Gnostic gospel.