If Christians have such open and reasonable minds,why wont they read the Gospel of Thomas?

Answer 1

Why do you assume they don't? I've read it. Most of the sites out there on the Internet that host it are Christian apologetic sites, or Christian history sites collecting ante-Nicene writings. You wouldn't even know of this text if early Christian scroll-writers hadn't set it down.

Thomas is not included in the canon of scripture for reasons we can only speculate at, as the consensus on what should be a gospel formed in the 2nd century and we don't have all the discussions that took place at hand.

However, those reasons likely include:

- Thomas contains no narrative. As such, the words of Thomas could not be reliably placed on the scene. How could it be known if the text was unaltered if the writing never gives context to any of the sayings, for instance placing them within the Sermon on the Mount, the Last Supper, or even just some outing across the Sea of Galilee?

- There's no guarantee Thomas possesses any of the antiquity some want to attribute to it. The only complete copy is from the Nag Hammadi find in the 5th century, making it younger than Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. No reference to a "Thomas gospel" predates the second century, which is not the case for the canonicals.

- Thomas is gnostic, a theological position the early church categorically rejected.

That said, I've read it, and am thoroughly acquainted with it. It has its inspiring moments.

Answer 2

The reason the Gospel of Thomas is not considered a read or inspired by God; is the simple fact that it was not included in the Bible.

An all knowing God whom created all things; most certainly has the capability to relate a message of salvation unto his creation. Since God can do this, I am sure He is also capable of making sure that the correct message of the Gospel is known. And since the Gospel of Thomas was not included, I have no doubt in my mind that it was not included for specific reasons.....and I do know that the book of Thomas is very contreversial.

Answer 3

because of the fact its apocrypha, alongside with the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Judas. there's a reason we did not incorporate them interior the Bible, because of the fact they at the instant are not congruent to the gospel message, as is coherent interior the 4 gospels of the Bible. They weren't coated interior the Bible because of the fact they have been the two contradictory or have been doctored over the years. The books got here across interior the bible have been all written interior the 1st century. The final being Revelation c. ninety six-ninety 8 a.d. They have been positioned into the canon of Scripture over the subsequent 2 hundred years. given the above answer, the books of the bible are all quite cutting-edge to a minimum of one yet another. they have been all written approximately 40-60 a.d. we aren't attempting to conspire against all christians. Peace,

Answer 4

I have read the gnostic text of Thomas. It is flawed, inconsistent with early and current Christian teachings and traditions, and written by Gnostic's removed many generations from the time of Christ, unlike the current Gospels. If you want to use books and texts to attack Christians, you might want to choose a better book....maybe the Apocalypse of Peter. At least that one has consistent Christan teachings, is dated to the correct time period, and had wide acceptance and use in the early church before the bible was assembled.

Answer 5

I have. I've read most, if not all of the gnostic "gospels".

The "Thomas" document is just too strange for words. The Apostolic Fathers thought the same thing.

This is why it's not a canonical book.

Answer 6

look, there've been gospels that mentioned good things and bad things about christianity, such as the book of enoch which seems to be good and correct, and books like the book of judas which isnt that in agreement with the Bible. whatever it is, we take them with a pinch of salt since it isnt in the Bible, for God has put them wat He wants us to know, into the Bible. the rest, we try not to spend too much time on it.

Answer 7

The gnostic 'gospels' were written around 400 years after Jesus' death, burial and resurrection - it is widely believed that these documents were originally accepted as inspired, but quickly proven to be false doctrines.

Answer 8

Do you mean "doubting Thomas"? I didn't even know he had a book. Ecc.12:12 "As regards anything besides these, my son, take a warning: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion [to them] is wearisome to the flesh."

Answer 9

There was a committee, many many years ago that set criteria for what would be included and what would not. I trust that God was in control of that committee and if something did not meet their standards, there's a reason. I would not object to reading it, but I would not read it as a part of the Word of God.

Answer 10

I don't think that is generally available to the pubic, the same as the gospel of Judas. (They'll probably have to doctor it up, to go with what they have been teaching for 2 thousand years) before it will be generally released.