The Gospel of Thomas?

Question

The Gospel of Thomas is a gospel that was discovered over a half century ago in the Egyptian desert – dates to the very beginnings of the Christian era and may well have taken first form before any of the four traditional canonical Gospels. If you have never read it, here is a link http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

Please tell me what you think of it, and what it would mean to Christians if it was to be included in the Bible.

It was not included in the Bible as the Bible as we know it today was canonised by the church before this gospel was found. I believe there are talks in some churches to include this in versions of the Bible.

Answer 1

I think Gospel of Thomas is the original gospel and the synoptics are copies made in Rome.

Consider this...

Mariamne/James or saint Peter?

Hyppolitus' Refutation of All Heresies states that the Gnostic Christians (Naasenes) claim their "system" was handed down to them by Mariamne from James the Just....

Chap. II.
Naasseni ascribe their system, through Mariamne, to James the Lord's brother; really traceable to the ancient mysteries; their psychology as given in the "Gospel according to Thomas"... ...These are the heads of very numerous discourses which the Naassene asserts James the brother of the Lord handed down to Mariamne. In order, then, that these impious (heretics) may no longer believe Mariamne or James, or the Savior Himself, let us come to the mystic rites (whence these have derived their figment)…

The Gospel of Thomas says that Jesus told his disciples that after he had departed James was to be their leader...

The Gospel of Thomas
12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just…"

If the Naassenes were the earliest Christian heretics and also claimed to have received their "system" from James, who was to receive the ministry of Jesus, does that make the Naassenes (Gnostics) the heirs to the ministry of Jesus?

Yes! Peter, who was "against the woman" (the Magdalene), took his stuff to Rome and founded "Christianity". The real stuff went to Alexandria, but the Catholics attempted to destroy it.

Answer 2

The gospel of Thomas that was discovered could not have been written by the Apostle Thomas. First century history indicates that Thomas went to Asia with the Apostle Bartholomew - and as far north as India - preaching the gospel using the Old Testament and describing it's fulfillment in Christ, and later using a Hebrew copy of Matthew's gospel (because Matthew's gospel was written to demonstrate to Jews that Jesus is their Messiah); and because there were many Jewish synagogues throughout Asia due to earlier persecutions and conquests of ancient Israel.

This newly discovered "gospel of Thomas" in many ways contracdicts the material found in the gospel of Matthew which we know Thomas used in his ministry. For that and other reasons, the gospel of Thomas was not atributed to the Apostle, and this piece of literature has no claim to canonicity.

Answer 3

I love the gospel of Thomas. It is my favorite scripture. I feel that the words in it speak to my heart more than any other in the bible. I have read it three times in the last month, Each time a different verse strengthens me and gives me hope. My blast on my blog is a verse out of Thomas.

Do you know that the Gospel of John was probably written just to contradict Thomas?

Answer 4

I have read the Gospel of Thomas some years back and for sure the Vatican has known about it since the time of their compilation of the Bible circa 325 AD. That was when RCC began to have substantial power to rule over the entire Holy Roman Empire as THE Official State Religion, and they in fact gathered any and all scriptures and books they could get their hands on.

Many were destroyed, burned or kept hidden from the general public until these fairly recent accidental findings or discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other sacred scriptures from Tibetan monasteries and other sources, etc. only this past century...

The Gospel of Thomas --among the other Gnostic Gospels which are slowly being unearthed, 'discovered' and read by the public now-- DID NOT COINCIDE with the agenda of the early church fathers then, therefore it/they never "made the grade" to being included in the Bible, as we know it today.

This particular Gospel speaks of honoring the Sabbath as we are all commanded to do; the equality of women among men; the innocence of little children; His own humanity [as opposed to His divinity]; the deities that we, the children of God, are or can become; etc., which are all CONTRARY to the teachings of the RC Church.

Moreover, when asked, Jesus names His own brother James, the Just/Righteous, to become His successor --and not Peter, who according to the RCC was its first pope!-- and in fact, after His departure [Resurrection & Ascension], it was indeed James who became the Bishop of [Temple of] Jerusalem and not Peter, who was only one of the Elders there...

Meanwhile, or subsequently, Saul/Paul also had his own agenda and preached his own version of the teachings of Christ to the Gentile [non-Jewish] world, which included Rome --where he actually lived and rented a place to stay for some time... But inspite of the Church's preferrence of the Pauline version [note his predominance in the NT books/epistles] they couldn't fit him in their scheme of things since Saul/Paul was truly NOT one of the twelve Apostles and NEVER witnessed Jesus' public ministry... Otherwise Paul would have logically been selected to be its first pope! That's something to ponder on and mull over among Christendom today...

Peace be with you!

Answer 5

Remember, scripture backs up scripture. The reason why certain "books" weren't included is that there was nothing in the other books that supported them. All 66 books of the bible are knit together to form one whole. Also, if the book wasn't Spirit inspired (God giving Thomas the words to write) then it's not from God.

Answer 6

Well here is info on Gospel of Phillip and Mary

If you are interested in pursuing the history of the development of the biblical canon, I would suggest a work such as the following: F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988). Bruce in some detail speaks of the criteria that led to the inclusion of books in the Bible, and to the exclusion of others. Central was the criterion of orthodoxy--that is, the book had to authenticate itself as containing the apostolic faith, or as Bruce puts it, "the faith set forth in the undoubted apostolic writings and maintained in the churches which had been founded by the apostles" (260). The canonical history is especially instructive for how the church defended itself against ancient heretical groups and movements such as the gnostics (whose numerous writings floated around in early centuries). The Gospel of Philip is an heretical, gnostic treatise preserved among the papyri found at Nag Hammadi in 1945-46. It dates, so the experts say, from the 2nd or 3rd century. Likewise, the Gospel of Mary is an apocryphal Gnostic Gospel describing a vision in which the progress of the Gnostic through seven planetary spheres is explained. Many biblical or theological dictionaries have articles on these writings.

Here is info on the Gospel of Judas

First, we need to know some basic facts about this ancient Egyptian text, which was discovered in 1978 in a cave in Egypt. Since 1978, this manuscript has been circulating in various antiquities markets, but is now being released by National Geographic. The “Gospel of Judas” is a Coptic (language of ancient Egypt) translation made in the third or fourth century of an earlier (likely Greek) text dating sometime in the late second century (perhaps about 180 A.D.). Scholars are agreed that the original text was not written by Judas, but, as was common in ancient times, the name of Judas was attached to this anonymous writing (writings falsely attributed to a famous person are commonly called pseudepigraphic). This “Gospel of Judas” claims to speak about the final days of Jesus' life from the perspective of Judas, whose version differs from what we know from the New Testament Gospels.



The existence of the Gospel of Judas has been known for centuries, and thus is no “new” discovery (only the discovery of the Coptic manuscript is “new”). In writing against ancient heresies, the church father Irenaeus (130-200 A. D.) said that the Gospel of Judas originated in a Gnostic sect called the Cainites. He wrote: “They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they label the Gospel of Judas.” Ancient gnostics, whose teachings were rejected by early Christians as heretical, generally taught that material creation is evil, entrapping what belongs to the divine or spiritual realm. Souls (spirit) are imprisoned in human bodies and are released (thus “saved”) and ascend to the spiritual realm through knowledge (gnosis).



The New Testament Gospels and Epistles, written in the second half of the first century, were soon circulated and authenticated themselves upon the church (not merely by popular vote in a political process, as is sometimes alleged today). Gradually they achieved canonical status and became the norm for orthodox Christianity. A significant number of apocryphal (non-canonical) works appeared from the second to sixth centuries. The Gospel of Judas is one among many of these non-authoritative books. Irenaeus' rejection of it illustrates the early Christian judgment that such writings were not to be regarded as the inspired Word of God.



On the basis of ancient non-canonical books—some expressly rejected as heretical by the early church—some modern writers have tried to cast doubts on biblical authority and Christian teachings. Best-selling books have achieved popularity by questioning Christian origins. Lutherans need to keep abreast of such developments, and especially in this age of general biblical illiteracy, become better informed regarding foundational biblical truths as they “make a defense” of the hope that is within them (1 Peter 3:15).

Answer 7

I think it has no part in the bible because it's against it and its messages. Those times many people are also against Jesus so this must be one of those plots to destroy Him.

Answer 8

If it was not included in the Bible, it is not important.

The Bible is already complete.

Anything you need for SALVATION are already written in the Bible.