Gospel of Thomas.. Anyone else read this?


#1

**Gospel of Thomas seems to have some simmilarities on some of the sayings on jesus but some seem to be really out there. Maybe lost in translation??

This one seems to be popular with the people who think there is a conspiracy with in the Catholic church due to when they saw the movie Stigmata…**

(77) Jesus Said, “It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. Frome me did the all come forth, and unto me did all the extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am the there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.”

Here is a real humdinger. They say this one was added later… But I never read anywhere how they know this might have been added later so I cant say that it was.

(114) Simon Peter said to him, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said,"I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a livinging spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.

**Either that one was lost in translation or this Gospel of Thomas that was unearthed has some mystery to its diffrences of the other apostles testimonys with Jesus.

The wierd part is it seems to relate with the Gospel of Mary Magdalene…Peter jumps on her case in the that gospel as well.**

*1) When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her.

  1. But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.

  2. Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.

  3. He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?

  4. Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?

  5. Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.

  6. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.

  7. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.

  8. That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.

  9. And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.*

I do not take these gospels to serious but from what I have been told alot Dan Brown fans do.


#2

#3

I do not deny its ancient orgins although I do see some of its contents questionable.


#4

A friend of mine is bent on this gospel and believes it is more factual than any other. I do believe this is Dan Browns doing everyone seems so bent on his books to the point its almose like a revelation of christ itself. scary


#5

Your friend thinks the Gospel of Thomas is more factual.

It is not accurate to describe it as ‘a gospel’.

The so-called “Gospel of Thomas” [originally Gnostic], is merely a fantastical history of the childhood of Jesus, unsubstantiated by the canonical gospels. There is also a “Revelations of Thomas”, condemned as apocryphal in the Degree of Pope Gelasius.

Dan Brown didn’t merely get it a ‘bit wrong’, he misconstrued the WHOLE STORY. The Da Vinci Code [Hoax] can be dismantled in it’s entirety and has been done so, by several Catholic writers.

In fact his version of ‘the truth’ is about as water tight as a fishing net! If you want to read a version nearer to the truth than Dan Brown, try reading Enid Blighton’s Noddy and Big Ears :rolleyes:


#6

On the subject of unsubtantiated gospels and Dan Brown, the alleged gospel of Philip, was not written by Philip, who did not write a gospel.

The text which beares his name, mentions him in the third person. In other words, it could not have been written by him. :rolleyes:

In fact, it is only attributed to Philip because it beares his name, and then only once!! :rolleyes:

It was written about 250-300 years after the Lords passion by an unknown author. Whoever it was, it definitely was NOT Philip!!


#7

To add the final nail in the Da Vinci Code Hoax coffin. If there was a 'secret family from the Virginal Blessed Lord and Mary Magdalene, where are they?

They are very conspicous by their silence!!

If they stood up, they would become zillionares over night. Hollywood, books, interviews, articles, chat shows etc etc etc

Even if they wished to remain anonymous, the interest in their existence would probably make them the wealthiest family in Europe. Why are they not standing up to claim their zillions?

Where are they?

WHERE ARE THEY!!!


#8

Haha I am not trying to be all philisophical here about what it should or shouldnt be called but infact they call it the gospel of Thomas. As for my friend he may be mixed up because of media and other sources of confusion but I am not. It isnt easy to convince hard headed people they are wrong when they are convinced themself they are right.


#9

Brown and that fellow Henry Lincoln and his conspirators are ALL lunatics!
I am descended from the old Stewarts of Ballintoy and Buteshire and hence the original Stewart line beginning with Robert II.
According to these nitwits my ancestors drank blood or “starfire” as they call it and were the descendants of Our Lord himself biologically:confused:
Pure rubbish fit only for toilet reading in my opinion.
My ancestors were Christians not cultic madmen.
WP


#10

I believe so far and my mother are the only ones who dont buy this stuff. As far as I know anyways. I keep telling people he says its a fictional book which it is a fictional book but people think you are just brainwashed by the church lol its enough to make me crazy :stuck_out_tongue:


#11

The Gospel of Thomas is possibly my favorite Gospel…

Its date of composition is disputed. There are those that, because of its similarity to the so-called “Q” Gospel, say it predates the synoptics. This dating has almost no grounding as far as I can tell and is extremely unlikely.

Others however, maintain that it was written after the synoptics, just before the Gospel of John. I find this dating to be credible. Certain parts of the Gospel of John do seem to be in reaction to the Thomas school of thought (ie. Doubting Thomas). Regardless, The Gospel of Thomas does lack the elaborate cosmologies and theological structures typical of 2nd century Gnostic thought, which does imply an earlier date. However, this dating is also disputed.

Personally, the date of composition matters very little to me. What I consider to be profound truths and timeless wisdom embodied in this Gospel are really outside the realm of history and their importance is not diminished by a latter date. I realize many here consider this Gospel to be of little value, but in my experience, it has proven to be very inspirational, perhaps more so than some of the cannical texts.


#12

Gospel of Thomas is one I admire as well. Whether it is early or late seems to be beside the point – was not the ‘Trinity’ defined explicitly hundreds of years after the gospels?


#13

you seem to know your stuff on the gnostic gospels. What is your take on this.

(114) Simon Peter said to him, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said,"I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a livinging spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.

I was thinking maybe jesus was really saying he would help her be holy like the rest of the apostles and translation tore that apart what is your thoughts on it? I have a hard time thinking Jesus was literal on this one.


#14

It might be fun to compose a gospel & pretend it is ancient & Apostolic. I’m sure millions of people would fall for it.

What a pity forgery happens to be a sin :slight_smile:

Ron Hubbard seemed to do rather well - he invented an entire religion :slight_smile: Writing holy books seems to be a good way to make plenty of £££s ##


#15

LOL Ron Hubbard, Holay alienz batman. Now there is something out of this world:D


#16

Are you sure you’re not confusing the “Gospel of Thomas”, which is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus (full of hidden wisdom), with the “Infancy Gospel of Thomas”, which is entirely separate and does deal with the childhood of Jesus?


#17

To correct you for a bit, You’re confusing THE Gospel of Thomas with the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

The Infancy Gospel does not seem to be made by Gnostics or any heretical sect (Not all Apocryphal Gospels are made by them; some are made by some Christians as ‘Pious Fiction’ to fill in the gaps in the Gospels).


#18

I thought so too but I figured it didnt matter haha either way the gospel of Thomas some of it seems like stuff Jesus would say but then some other just blows me away in its akwardness

I read the Infancey gospel of Thomas. Some reason all i could think was this would be a great Mel Brooks movie.:smiley:

If that stuff thomas wrote of his childhood is true…forgive me lord haha


#19

(114) Simon Peter said to him, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said,"I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a livinging spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.

Your right, I too have a difficult time taking this literally. Alot of people use this to show that the Gospel is misogynistic, but I’m not so convinced. First we should note that the Gospel of Thomas seems to promote an androgynous ideal.

(22) When you make the outer like the inner and the upper like the lower and when you make male and female into a single one, so there the male will no longer be male nor the female be female."

This passage is talking about a complete transformation that transends dualities. In the process one rises above gender and becomes no longer male nor female.

This is why logion 114 becomes initially perplexing. Yet we should keep in mind Thomas rarely says what he exactly means. It should be noted that Peter says “females are not worthy of life”. In later Gnostic texts it is Peter who is constant tension with Mary Magdalene and does not acknowledge her as legitimate. It is possible that we can interpret his saying as a personal vendetta against her. Secondly, it is the Apostle Thomas alone who has demonstrated true understanding in this Gospel, Peter has only shown that he does not fully grasp Jesus’ message.

Lastly, look how Jesus responds to this question. Its nearly sarcastic "Look, I shall make her male so she too may become a living spirit resembling you males"

Note the Jesus says “you males”. He is not identifying himself as a male, at least in the sense that Peter and the others are. Perhaps Jesus has already achieved this androgynous state that he spoke of earlier. Because of logion 22, we can also assume that the “living spirit” is neither male nor female, so to say “for every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom” seems out of place and contrary to Jesus’ wisdom. It is my understanding that this is Jesus’ tongue-in-cheek way of actually reprimanding Peter, almost insulting him for making such a comment. As though he is secretly saying to Peter “you made a ridiculous comment, so I will give you a ridiculous answer”. If Peter had truly been paying attention to Jesus’ teaching, such things would never have been said.

However, if not this, it is possible that Jesus is alluding to the gender transformation neccessary to enter into the kingdom. In light of logion 22, Jesus means that a female must first become a male, but ultimately, transcend both.

This is largely the appeal of this gospel, it is rarely straightforward and invites and challenges you to find the secrets of this sayings. As the Gospel does begin with “whoever discovers the interpretations of these sayings will not taste death”. It will not interpret them for you, you must do the uncovering.


#20

Transcending Both…Jesus The Bridegroom…

A few refences as Jesus as the Bridegroom

Psalm 19:5
**Isaiah 61:10
Isaiah 62:5
Jeremiah 7:34
Jeremiah 16:9
Jeremiah 25:10
Jeremiah 33:11
Joel 2:16
Matthew 9:15
Matthew 25:1
**


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.