Do you feel (as a reader of the bible) that we are not getting the whole story. There were 3 gospels thar were rejected from the bible when it was compiled at the council of constantine. (That is true, not just from the Dacvinci code). One of which is trhe infancy gospel of thomas. In this gospel we here of jesus as a violent child who kills people who offend him. What do you think is the validity of this book.
2007-02-04 08:08:41 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Jesus had not reached this "age of accountability" yet.
Beats me what that is. My Bible doesn't say anything about it. some fundamentalist made it up.
2007-02-04 08:13:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Constantine had nothing at all to do with compiling the Bible. What you have heard is nonsense.
And while we're dealing with what you've heard, why don't you try doing your own research, and read for yourself the things that you are referring to.
Anyone who is familiar with authentic scripture can see immediately that all of the various texts attributed to Thomas, and others like it, are poor quality fakes.
2007-02-04 13:36:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The "Infancy 'Gospel' of Thomas" grew to become into disregarded simply by fact it grew to become into written lots later than the three synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) and John and because it stemmed from a budding custom called gnosticism that grew to become into later deemed heretical by the council of Nicea. It grew to become into deemed a undesirable source of suggestions on the historic Jesus simply by fact it grew to become into of course written by somebody who knew little approximately Hebrew lifestyle different than for what he (we don't be attentive to who wrote it) seems to have gleaned from his reading of the Gospel of Luke, which the piece grew to become into loosely based off of. there is not any way it got here from Apostolic custom like numerous different Gospels.
2016-09-28 10:18:41 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it should be included. If some of the miracles are included (e.g. water into wine, walking on water, healing) so should others. You cannot reject supernatural occurences you don't like and accept those you do when they're all as likely as each other. Also, people should know how Jesus got to where he did.
2007-02-04 08:18:59 · answer #4 · answered by serf m 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
there are books that were not accepted into the canon of scripture because it was felt to be contradictory and not complete in the inspiration of god. there are many books around and even records in secular history but should only be taken at face value. other than that, that thinking is saying that there is not an all powerful god that can assure that the fundamental truths can remain unaltered in his word to men.
2007-02-04 08:20:31 · answer #5 · answered by disciple 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have heard of those books and would love to find them--it's more interesting to have the whole story
2007-02-04 08:14:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The book of Thomas was dated long after Thomas was around.
There was a reason it was denied in the new test.
It's fake.
†
2007-02-04 08:17:13 · answer #7 · answered by Jeanmarie 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The book had no validity. It was not an inspired writing and that was seen by those who examined it. Why do you like it? Need I ask??
2007-02-04 08:14:36 · answer #8 · answered by Eds 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have read the gosple of tomas but not heard of the infancy gosple I would not give it any creadance
2007-02-04 08:17:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Its bull,I kinda wanted to believe it when i heard about it,
When i read it i was glad that it was rejected,Its clearly made up.
2007-02-04 08:14:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋