Thread: Gospel Of Thomas

What are you talking about it shows consistency with the N.T. A large number of the sayings of The Gospel of Thomas have parallels in the gospels of the New Testament, in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), as well as the Gospel of John (parallels with the latter are especially striking: sayings 13, 19, 24, 38, 49, 92). Some of the sayings are known to occur also in noncanonical gospels, especially in the Gospel According to the Hebrews (cf. saying 2) and the Gospel of the Egyptians (cf. saying 22), which are both attested for the second century by Clement of Alexandria (floruit 180-200). Notes that one of the striking features of the Gospel of Thomas is its tendency to combine sayings found separately in the Synoptic Gospels and to change the order of the sayings. Such combinations and alterations were common among Christian writers of the second century, but they were especially characteristic of Gnostics.

Thomas saying 65 gives a version of the parable of the wicked tenants (Mark 12.1-8 pars.), which Saying 66 follows up with a version of Jesus' teaching about the 'cornerstone' (Mark 12.10-11). But without anything corresponding to Mark 12.9 to connect the two sayings, no one would guess they were related. It is more probable, therefore, that Thomas knew the Synoptics but omitted the connection (as this work does throughout in listing sayings in isolation from each other) than that Mark or someone else created a connected narrative out of two originally independent thoughts

What are you talking about it shows consistency with the N.T. [/b]

The last time i checked which was five minautes ago the vatican still consider the gospel of thomas herecy. Their are lots of similarities as you say however that doesnt anwser why the gospel of thomas is not considered the words of jesus by the vatican. Ne yo do you consider the gospel of thomas the words of jesus.

That's because the Vatican is not Christianity it's Christendom there is a difference there. I don't condone the Vatican and what they teach because it doesn't coincide with the scriptures.

Originally Posted by Ne

That's because the Vatican is not Christianity it's Christendom there is a difference there. I don't condone the Vatican and what they teach because it doesn't coincide with the scriptures.
[/b]

It is perhaps different but let's not forget that the Vatican has the most power when it comes to christianity...

They didn't include the gnostic texts because it would empower the common people too much (imho)... If you look to the Council of Nicea you can almost smell the fact that the Vatican is still the Roman Empire but in another disguise...

Well imho

I love this book - its Christian mysticism at its root. Also worth checking are writers such as Teresa of Avilla, and St John of the Cross. The reason I dig the mystics is that by pointing directly at the experience of divine truth they a) accord with my own experience b) accord with the (mystical) teachings of every other religion - often word for word.

Not surprised its heresy - like braha said. Also they possibly couldn't or wouldn't understand it - i.e. the Bible IMO is sooo full of stuff that you can weave whatever convenient version of truth you want out of it (and people do - to justify all sorts of evil) whereas by isolating the sayings of Christ there is much less room for misinterpretation. All the biggest 'heresies' are spelled out plain and simple - you can be one with Christ, material attachments are probably a barrier to enlightenment, etc (these are also in the Bible&#33