@eladar saidEarly Christianity was much more varied than it is today. During the first three or four centuries of the Christian era, there were many scrolls in circulation among the Christian churches which were held to be valid and authentic, including more gospels than the four which were canonized in the 4th c. The Gospel of Thomas was one of the scrolls in circulation then, held by some bishops at the time to be valid and authentic; each of those bishops could trace his lineage back to one of the Apostles.
If you like the book how would you classify yourself? If you do not consider it a holy scripture, (actually holy, not just equal to books in the Bible) then why do you like it?
What is it to you?
I am a traditional Christian so consider it trash. Just wondering what kinds of people like it.
I find the Gospel of Thomas to be an interesting window on one of the early variants of Christianity which did not survive much past the Council of Nicea.
That said, there is still a community of Thomas Christians in India. They were said to have been evangelised by the Apostle Thomas. The Thomas Christians were untouched by the doctrinal disputes (especially the Arian Heresy) in the Mediterranean which ultimately split the Eastern Orthodox Church from the Western Roman one, thus preserving a very early variant of Christianity.
http://www.nasranifoundation.org
@moonbus saidI think it is just as varied as today. 30 years ago you would have been right.
Early Christianity was much more varied than it is today. During the first three or four centuries of the Christian era, there were many scrolls in circulation among the Christian churches which were held to be valid and authentic, including more gospels than the four which were canonized in the 4th c. The Gospel of Thomas was one of the scrolls in circulation then, held by s ...[text shortened]... Roman one, thus preserving a very early variant of Christianity.
http://www.nasranifoundation.org
So you see it as simply a historical text.
@eladar saidPity indeed.
It does not matter. It is not part of the Bible. You might as well ask me if I have read the Iliad to see if I believe it is on equal terms as the Bible.
The Epic of Gilgamesh might out a bee in your bonnet.
@eladar saidAncient documents in any genre are of interest to scholars and historians.
Sure from a non Christian perspective. Surely you do not for your view of its validity on Christians who reject it.
Do you think the Bible is subject to investigation and research only by people who implicitly believe it to be the inerrant word of God? 'All others, hands off, no critical investigation allowed.'
@moonbus saidIt's interesting that the 363 AD Council of Laodicea was not prophesized by the Bible. It seems that the Council of Laodicea creates more 'magic' for Christians than the possibility that Thomas met Jesus and wrote down what he said within a few years of his death. Would it be a sign of ideological weakness for a Christian to be thrilled by what the Gospel of Thomas might represent? Is a lack of deference to the Council of Laodicea "sinful"?
Ancient documents in any genre are of interest to scholars and historians.
Do you think the Bible is subject to investigation and research only by people who implicitly believe it to be the inerrant word of God? 'All others, hands off, no critical investigation allowed.'
@moonbus saidWow changing the subject.
Ancient documents in any genre are of interest to scholars and historians.
Do you think the Bible is subject to investigation and research only by people who implicitly believe it to be the inerrant word of God? 'All others, hands off, no critical investigation allowed.'
To andwer your quedtion no the Bible is beyond your attempt to discredit.
@fmf saidSo why do you like the gospel of Thomas? Does it fill a need to discredit the Bible as thus post reveals? Are you the type of skinhead that hates Christianity as I have claimed?
It's interesting that the 363 AD Council of Laodicea was not prophesized by the Bible. It seems that the Council of Laodicea creates more 'magic' for Christians than the possibility that Thomas met Jesus and wrote down what he said within a few years of his death. Would it be a sign of ideological weakness for a Christian to be thrilled by what the Gospel of Thomas might represent? Is a lack of deference to the Council of Laodicea "sinful"?
@eladar saidI don't "like" it, as such. It's simply interesting. Its exclusion from what was eventually to become the 'Laodicea' Bible makes it an interesting artefact. I don't think it discredits the Bible but I do think, as moonbus suggested, that its existence and content is an interesting angle on what the Bible turned out to be over the course of a process that took centuries.
So why do you like the gospel of Thomas? Does it fill a need to discredit the Bible as thus post reveals? Are you the type of skinhead that hates Christianity as I have claimed?
@fmf saidAs I said your only interest is to discredit the Bible.
I don't "like" it, as such. It's simply interesting. Its exclusion from what was eventually to become the 'Laodicea' Bible makes it an interesting artefact. I don't think it discredits the Bible but I do think, as moonbus suggested, that its existence and content is an interesting angle on what the Bible turned out to be over the course of a process that took centuries.