Is Messiah,(The Anointed One) the Father?
- Thread starter JohnTalmid
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No, that's your problem, you not thinking logically. You claim to be a Christian, I assume you do so you tell us all here did you become a Christian by any of the so-called books or even scripture that has been left out of the current 66 books of the Bible?
Secondly, tell us all here does one become a Christian by being water baptized in any manner that you choose? Be it in Jesus name only or per Matthew 28:19? Now it's your turn to tell me that Matthew 28:19 is really not suppose to be in the Bible? My point is that I have heard that argument before and it does not hold "water," pun intended.
And lastly, since you claim to be a Christian, are you going to sit there and tell us all here that possibly your Christianity does not count because the scriptures were "messed" with? And btw, as a side note, can you please give me your definition of the trinity doctrine? What is your understanding?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Secondly, tell us all here does one become a Christian by being water baptized in any manner that you choose? Be it in Jesus name only or per Matthew 28:19? Now it's your turn to tell me that Matthew 28:19 is really not suppose to be in the Bible? My point is that I have heard that argument before and it does not hold "water," pun intended.
And lastly, since you claim to be a Christian, are you going to sit there and tell us all here that possibly your Christianity does not count because the scriptures were "messed" with? And btw, as a side note, can you please give me your definition of the trinity doctrine? What is your understanding?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
hahahaha
That is not what I am saying. After reading each scholar's input, the reason they do not find it be Gnostic, is because how verses are written in Thomas are a clearer indication of actual Jewish terminology of that day. In KJV, we have 17th century verbage. In the Gospel of Thomas, we have verbage of the Jews 2,000 years ago. And it within this verbage we have to interpret.
And, it's clear in the Torah, Tanakh, and other Hebrew/Jewish writings that men were the leaders, rulers and women were property. Look at our own kjv Bible, there are only a few Books in women's name, the rest is obviously predominantly men.
Even Paul had women cover their heads and they could not preach.
So, I don't know why Thomas verse is so shocking to you unless you just want to be a whiner over it!!
But it clearly is what scholars are claiming it to be, language of that time and we must interpret it from there.
Our current Bible is interpreted.
Thomas verses have not been interpreted.
But the scholars make it clear by claiming Matthew and Luke were written much like Thomas, but the difference being, they have been interpreted!!
How old are you?
Clearly, you are not very educated (what G.E.D./ maybe High School diploma)(can't be more than that!!)!!
I am not even questioning the current Books with exception to a few verses.
Peter and Paul baptize oneness, but Matthew 28:19 is not oneness. So, either Peter and Paul are disobeying Matthew 28:19, or originally Matthew 28:19 was at one time oneness.
That is a good question to ask since we know Christ supposedly said one thing, and His followers are doing the opposite. So, either Peter and Paul are right, or they are wrong. But I believe what they did was instructed by Christ, which means Matthew 28:19 was changed.
Is it really that difficult for you?
Peter and Paul baptized Jesus NAME!!
Do you believe those converts in the New Testament baptized by Peter and Paul are SAVED?
I DO!!
I never claimed anyone was not saved!! I stated, God obviously knew men would disobey Him and change words to His Holy Word.
I don't really care about how people define the trinity, since I know Peter and Paul baptize oneness. And they are our example of being followers of Christ, they was the FIRST CHURCH after Christ ascended. WE follow them and nothing else, because they knew Christ personally, we only know Christ by interpretation (and that is 4th maybe 5th hand by now)!!
Clearly, you are not very educated (what G.E.D./ maybe High School diploma)(can't be more than that!!)!!
I am not even questioning the current Books with exception to a few verses.
Peter and Paul baptize oneness, but Matthew 28:19 is not oneness. So, either Peter and Paul are disobeying Matthew 28:19, or originally Matthew 28:19 was at one time oneness.
That is a good question to ask since we know Christ supposedly said one thing, and His followers are doing the opposite. So, either Peter and Paul are right, or they are wrong. But I believe what they did was instructed by Christ, which means Matthew 28:19 was changed.
Is it really that difficult for you?
Peter and Paul baptized Jesus NAME!!
Do you believe those converts in the New Testament baptized by Peter and Paul are SAVED?
I DO!!
And lastly, since you claim to be a Christian, are you going to sit there and tell us all here that possibly your Christianity does not count because the scriptures were "messed" with? And btw, as a side note, can you please give me your definition of the trinity doctrine? What is your understanding?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
I never claimed anyone was not saved!! I stated, God obviously knew men would disobey Him and change words to His Holy Word.
I don't really care about how people define the trinity, since I know Peter and Paul baptize oneness. And they are our example of being followers of Christ, they was the FIRST CHURCH after Christ ascended. WE follow them and nothing else, because they knew Christ personally, we only know Christ by interpretation (and that is 4th maybe 5th hand by now)!!
Well, that changes things. I mean if others are "NOT" water baptized the Peter, Paul, and (Mary way, a little levity) then they not Christians according to you? Since you made this statement:
Do you believe those converts in the New Testament baptized by Peter and Paul are SAVED?
I DO!! In view of what you just said if one is "NOT" water baptized the Peter and Paul way (or any way for that matter) are they saved or not? And you do realize that oneness pentecostalism is a non-christian cult.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Do you believe those converts in the New Testament baptized by Peter and Paul are SAVED?
I DO!! In view of what you just said if one is "NOT" water baptized the Peter and Paul way (or any way for that matter) are they saved or not? And you do realize that oneness pentecostalism is a non-christian cult.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Are you trying to promote the heretical Gospel of Thomas? There is nothing "clearer" in that apocryphal book.
Listen to this NONSENSE that directly contradicts Gospel truth: "And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."
Here's some more TOTAL NONSENSE: 7. Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."
Listen to this NONSENSE that directly contradicts Gospel truth: "And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."
Here's some more TOTAL NONSENSE: 7. Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."
Well, that changes things. I mean if others are "NOT" water baptized the Peter, Paul, and (Mary way, a little levity) then they not Christians according to you? Since you made this statement:
Do you believe those converts in the New Testament baptized by Peter and Paul are SAVED?
I DO!! In view of what you just said if one is "NOT" water baptized the Peter and Paul way (or any way for that matter) are they saved or not? And you do realize that oneness pentecostalism is a non-christian cult.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Do you believe those converts in the New Testament baptized by Peter and Paul are SAVED?
I DO!! In view of what you just said if one is "NOT" water baptized the Peter and Paul way (or any way for that matter) are they saved or not? And you do realize that oneness pentecostalism is a non-christian cult.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
That is not what I said about the Peter and Paul baptism, and if those are saved, who was baptized by them in the name of Christ.
WOW,
you even put words into people's mouth!!
I asked you, since they were baptized in the name of Christ, do you think they are saved (people in the New Testament we read about who was baptized in Jesus name = James and Jude brother of Christ, the Disciples, Paul's entire group of people)...do you believe these people are saved and going to heaven because they were baptized in the name of Christ, is what I asked.
Just because I said, I do, does not mean I think you have to be baptized that way specifically.
I am asking you if you think the people we read about in the New Testament are saved, since you know they are baptized in name of Christ?
STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH, YOU LITTLE CHILD!!
Well, then you believe that either way, that is the Jesus only name way and the other Jesus way according to Matthew 28:19 the persons are all saved. Good! So why the heck are you so "obsessed" with one way being the correct way and the other way is not correct, i.e Matthew 28:19? The perons are saved regardless, right?
And then you make a big deal out whether the book of Thomas or the book of Enoch are not included as if that makes one wit because people are saved without the books. You also made a big deal about Genesis 1:26 and the singular vs plural and God speaking in the third person etc. And to tell you the truth you even got that wrong. I say that you quoted a Hebrew website and then said something about "Joe's ball" how that is suppose show God speaking in the third person even though God is one. In fact, I'm going to address what you said and how you don't know what your talking about. I think your just here to "show off" your so-called vast knowledge, not? Btw, I will chanllenge you to a debate on any Biblical subject you choose and will see who the "child/amateur" is boy. PS: The other thing I noticed is that your competely closed minded person. I base that on the fact that when I ask you about the Trinity and how you would define it, you said I don't care about the trinity. These are debate forums so let's debate it.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
And then you make a big deal out whether the book of Thomas or the book of Enoch are not included as if that makes one wit because people are saved without the books. You also made a big deal about Genesis 1:26 and the singular vs plural and God speaking in the third person etc. And to tell you the truth you even got that wrong. I say that you quoted a Hebrew website and then said something about "Joe's ball" how that is suppose show God speaking in the third person even though God is one. In fact, I'm going to address what you said and how you don't know what your talking about. I think your just here to "show off" your so-called vast knowledge, not? Btw, I will chanllenge you to a debate on any Biblical subject you choose and will see who the "child/amateur" is boy.
PS: The other thing I noticed is that your competely closed minded person. I base that on the fact that when I ask you about the Trinity and how you would define it, you said I don't care about the trinity. These are debate forums so let's debate it. IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Ok let's check it out. Jesus said this at John 10:30, "I and My Father are one." What He was saying is that He and His Father are one in nature or essence. The Jews understood what Jesus was saying and their response at vs31 was, "The Jews took up stones again to stone Him." Why?
The answer is at John 10:33, "The Jews answered Him, For a good work we do not stone You, but for BLASPHEMY; and because You, being a man, MAKE YOURSELF OUT GOD." And to answser the question about in what respect are the Son and Father not the same? They are not the same person. They are the ONE God (not two gods or three gods) but they are distinct persons within the Godhead. Does that make sense?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
The answer is at John 10:33, "The Jews answered Him, For a good work we do not stone You, but for BLASPHEMY; and because You, being a man, MAKE YOURSELF OUT GOD." And to answser the question about in what respect are the Son and Father not the same? They are not the same person. They are the ONE God (not two gods or three gods) but they are distinct persons within the Godhead. Does that make sense?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Ancient Jewish History: The Birth and Evolution of Judaism
When one learns where the triune doctrine sprang from they have to choose. Do they believe in God who's own words say he is one and there is no other? When Jesus' own title was that of , God with us, because the holy spirit begat the divine into the womb to deliver the good news, where does a third person come from?
I am not the enemy here, I am your brother in Christ, first and foremost!!
It's not an obsession, it is called studying the Word of God and discovering things that don't quite match. So, it leads me to ask how and why, is all.
I don't think it was a bad question knowing we have Matthew 28:19 (trinity), and see followers of Christ not baptizing that way, but baptizing in the oneness. It is obvious that what Christ said, and what Peter and Paul are doing DOES NOT LINE UP!!
So, I ask why?
And then it leads me to wonder maybe we have some scripture that was tampered.
Example: What if we thought, it does not matter what Peter and Paul did because we have what Christ said!!
But it does matter...
WHY?
Because Peter (the Rock) would only do what Christ taught him to do. So, why is he baptizing this way then?
Obviously, there was scripture tampering, and the ones who tampered forgot to change the Book of Acts to match Matthew 28:19 (which means they are morons)!!
Well I think it is a big deal. To begin with, the lineage which Christ comes from (King David), WHO used a Book reference from the Book of Jasher, and so did Joshua. David and Joshua are big names in the Bible. And if they speak of this Book of Jasher being important to God's people, why don't we have it then? We are also God's people!!
And we know Christ quoted Enoch and Jude wrote about things in the Book of Enoch. Well, If God in the flesh quotes it, how come we cannot find this Book of Enoch in the Bible. Obviously God quoted it, so it seems like it should be an important Book.
And that leaves other Books like Thomas, Gospel of Peter, The preaching's of Peter, etc...these guys are DISCIPLES of GOD in the flesh!! How come they are not important to interpret?
Honestly, I don't think any of my questions are out of line.
I think because we know important people quoted, spoke about, baptized certain way, that it is reasonable to ask where are these other Books, and why is Matthew 28:19 different from Acts 2:38, Acts 19:5?
It's not an obsession, it is called studying the Word of God and discovering things that don't quite match. So, it leads me to ask how and why, is all.
I don't think it was a bad question knowing we have Matthew 28:19 (trinity), and see followers of Christ not baptizing that way, but baptizing in the oneness. It is obvious that what Christ said, and what Peter and Paul are doing DOES NOT LINE UP!!
So, I ask why?
And then it leads me to wonder maybe we have some scripture that was tampered.
Example: What if we thought, it does not matter what Peter and Paul did because we have what Christ said!!
But it does matter...
WHY?
Because Peter (the Rock) would only do what Christ taught him to do. So, why is he baptizing this way then?
Obviously, there was scripture tampering, and the ones who tampered forgot to change the Book of Acts to match Matthew 28:19 (which means they are morons)!!
And then you make a big deal out whether the book of Thomas or the book of Enoch are not included as if that makes one wit because people are saved without the books. You also made a big deal about Genesis 1:26 and the singular vs plural and God speaking in the third person etc. And to tell you the truth you even got that wrong. I say that you quoted a Hebrew website and then said something about "Joe's ball" how that is suppose show God speaking in the third person even though God is one. In fact, I'm going to address what you said and how you don't know what your talking about. I think your just here to "show off" your so-called vast knowledge, not? Btw, I will chanllenge you to a debate on any Biblical subject you choose and will see who the "child/amateur" is boy. PS: The other thing I noticed is that your competely closed minded person. I base that on the fact that when I ask you about the Trinity and how you would define it, you said I don't care about the trinity. These are debate forums so let's debate it.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
PS: The other thing I noticed is that your competely closed minded person. I base that on the fact that when I ask you about the Trinity and how you would define it, you said I don't care about the trinity. These are debate forums so let's debate it. IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Well I think it is a big deal. To begin with, the lineage which Christ comes from (King David), WHO used a Book reference from the Book of Jasher, and so did Joshua. David and Joshua are big names in the Bible. And if they speak of this Book of Jasher being important to God's people, why don't we have it then? We are also God's people!!
And we know Christ quoted Enoch and Jude wrote about things in the Book of Enoch. Well, If God in the flesh quotes it, how come we cannot find this Book of Enoch in the Bible. Obviously God quoted it, so it seems like it should be an important Book.
And that leaves other Books like Thomas, Gospel of Peter, The preaching's of Peter, etc...these guys are DISCIPLES of GOD in the flesh!! How come they are not important to interpret?
Honestly, I don't think any of my questions are out of line.
I think because we know important people quoted, spoke about, baptized certain way, that it is reasonable to ask where are these other Books, and why is Matthew 28:19 different from Acts 2:38, Acts 19:5?
Maybe so, but it is their business to look at fragments, find the papyrus, date the papyrus (which is an awesome and perfect way of doing it), example the writings by matching to other writings of that time era, to know from other writings what kind of language was used in that time era, and to know the logistic's of what kind of things would be said around that time era.
They are actually very thorough in what they do. They get paid to not make mistakes. And, they get paid to not be BIASED!!
So, if I had to pick between a scholar using the correct methods and your opinion or anyone else's random opinion, I would choose the scholar any time and any day over the lot of you (including myself)!!
But I understand how you feel and why you would state your disgruntle.
But nonetheless, they are the experts at matching writing styles to other writing styles.
Sounds like the roaring Lion seeking whom he may devour:
1 Peter 5:8Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
We should take heed of those who do wrestles against flesh and blood.
Galatians 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
1 Peter 5:8Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
We should take heed of those who do wrestles against flesh and blood.
Galatians 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
Here are 4 scholars who believe if we interpreted the Gospel of Thomas, it would match what we read in our current Cannon:
The Gospel of Thomas does not fit the definition of Gnosticism:
While the Gospel of Thomas has some features in common with gnostic gospels, it does not seem to fit the definition of gnosticism. … I [Marvin Meyer] prefer to consider the Gospel of Thomas to be a gospel with an incipient30 gnostic perspective. According to the incipit (or prologue) of the Gospel of Thomas, the sayings are hidden or secret sayings spoken by the living Jesus and recorded by Judas Thomas the Twin. … The sayings included in the Gospel of Thomas include a variety of aphorisms31, parables, stories, and other utterances of Jesus.32
The theology of the Gospel of Thomas does not jive with any particular system of Gnosis be it Naaseene, Valentinian, Basilidian, Carpocratian, or otherwise. … The traditional markers of Gnostic ideas are not present. There is no Sophia, Demiurge, Pleroma, Error, Aeons, or Archons.33
This reading of the Gospel of Thomas places it squarely within early orthodoxy rather than outside. The Gospel of Thomas does not represent the voice of some late generic Gnostic heresy or some early unique sapiential35 Christianity. Rather it is quite cogent with early Syrian Christianity as described in the oldest literature from the area.36
THIS CLAIMS THAT MATTHEW AND LUKE WAS WRITTEN LIKE THOMAS
Sayings of Thomas derive from a different tradition Although [the Gospel of Thomas] contains many sayings of Jesus that Luke and Matthew also include in their gospels, it contains other sayings that apparently derive from a tradition different from that of the synoptic gospels.38
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
When we read our Bible, we have the interpreted version. But if we had the original Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke, the writing style and language would match what we find in the Gospel of Thomas, according to Biblical Scholars.
I find it fascinating to read how the writing in Thomas would be the same reading the original Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke.
The obvious difference is 4 are interpreted, and Thomas is not!!
Who here uses the KJV Bible?
That is 1600 writing style. The New kjv reads much different. Many verses don't even seem to match the original kjv. Now imagine 2,000 years ago, this is what we get by reading Thomas. And according to scholars, the Gospels, the other Disciple writings including half brothers of Christ (James and Jude), and Paul's writings would read the same as Thomas.
So it is amazing to go from what we see in Thomas, and see how similar writings end up today in the New KJV. Major difference in styles!! Reading Thomas is also like learning a history lesson on writing styles 2,000 years ago.
The Gospel of Thomas does not fit the definition of Gnosticism:
While the Gospel of Thomas has some features in common with gnostic gospels, it does not seem to fit the definition of gnosticism. … I [Marvin Meyer] prefer to consider the Gospel of Thomas to be a gospel with an incipient30 gnostic perspective. According to the incipit (or prologue) of the Gospel of Thomas, the sayings are hidden or secret sayings spoken by the living Jesus and recorded by Judas Thomas the Twin. … The sayings included in the Gospel of Thomas include a variety of aphorisms31, parables, stories, and other utterances of Jesus.32
The theology of the Gospel of Thomas does not jive with any particular system of Gnosis be it Naaseene, Valentinian, Basilidian, Carpocratian, or otherwise. … The traditional markers of Gnostic ideas are not present. There is no Sophia, Demiurge, Pleroma, Error, Aeons, or Archons.33
This reading of the Gospel of Thomas places it squarely within early orthodoxy rather than outside. The Gospel of Thomas does not represent the voice of some late generic Gnostic heresy or some early unique sapiential35 Christianity. Rather it is quite cogent with early Syrian Christianity as described in the oldest literature from the area.36
THIS CLAIMS THAT MATTHEW AND LUKE WAS WRITTEN LIKE THOMAS
Sayings of Thomas derive from a different tradition Although [the Gospel of Thomas] contains many sayings of Jesus that Luke and Matthew also include in their gospels, it contains other sayings that apparently derive from a tradition different from that of the synoptic gospels.38
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
When we read our Bible, we have the interpreted version. But if we had the original Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke, the writing style and language would match what we find in the Gospel of Thomas, according to Biblical Scholars.
I find it fascinating to read how the writing in Thomas would be the same reading the original Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke.
The obvious difference is 4 are interpreted, and Thomas is not!!
Who here uses the KJV Bible?
That is 1600 writing style. The New kjv reads much different. Many verses don't even seem to match the original kjv. Now imagine 2,000 years ago, this is what we get by reading Thomas. And according to scholars, the Gospels, the other Disciple writings including half brothers of Christ (James and Jude), and Paul's writings would read the same as Thomas.
So it is amazing to go from what we see in Thomas, and see how similar writings end up today in the New KJV. Major difference in styles!! Reading Thomas is also like learning a history lesson on writing styles 2,000 years ago.
-
1
- Show all
"Is it obvious, then, that the Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic text? Not so fast. For one thing, scholars have recently demolished the category of Gnosticism, noting that the term was a 17th-century invention that never appeared in antiquity. The adjective “Gnostic” must not have meant anything mysterious or subversive to ancient people, because various writers (including, famously, the third-century Christian, Clement of Alexandria) used it to describe themselves. Still, many second-century Christian texts had gnosis as their goal.
But there’s another problem with characterizing the Gospel of Thomas as Gnostic. Based on its textual features, many scholars date it as early as the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Thomas shares many sayings with New Testament gospels, but with less elaboration and no narrative framework. For example, Jesus compares the kingdom of God to a mustard seed (GosThom 20). The synoptic gospels contain a longer version of the same saying, with each writer adding a few details about the nature of the tree and the birds that perch in it (Matt 13:31, Mark 4:30-32, Luke 13:18-19). According to the principles of form criticism, which state that short sayings tend to get longer over time, the Gospel of Thomas’ sayings might have been written earlier than the same synoptic sayings. Perhaps the Gospel of Thomas was a proto-gospel or even a source for our canonical gospels. In that case, it would be the only first-century Gnostic Christian text—virtually all other Christian texts whose goal is gnosis are from the second or third centuries.
Recently, scholars Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole have argued the reverse—that the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas are an abbreviated version of earlier, canonical gospel sayings. No convincing evidence proves that short gospel sayings actually got longer over time. Perhaps the author of the Gospel of Thomas felt that it was acceptable to omit certain details—for example, about the shadow cast by the mustard tree—to get to the point of the parable. This theory pushes the date of the Gospel of Thomas much later, probably to the second century. It supports the argument that the Gospel of Thomas is Gnostic, since this was the period in which many so-called Christian Gnostic texts appear to have been written and circulated. Many of these texts share a characteristic idea: that self-knowledge is salvific. As Jesus says in the Gospel of Thomas, “The kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father” (GosThom 3).
Full Article:Was The Gospel of Thomas Gnostic?
But there’s another problem with characterizing the Gospel of Thomas as Gnostic. Based on its textual features, many scholars date it as early as the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Thomas shares many sayings with New Testament gospels, but with less elaboration and no narrative framework. For example, Jesus compares the kingdom of God to a mustard seed (GosThom 20). The synoptic gospels contain a longer version of the same saying, with each writer adding a few details about the nature of the tree and the birds that perch in it (Matt 13:31, Mark 4:30-32, Luke 13:18-19). According to the principles of form criticism, which state that short sayings tend to get longer over time, the Gospel of Thomas’ sayings might have been written earlier than the same synoptic sayings. Perhaps the Gospel of Thomas was a proto-gospel or even a source for our canonical gospels. In that case, it would be the only first-century Gnostic Christian text—virtually all other Christian texts whose goal is gnosis are from the second or third centuries.
Recently, scholars Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole have argued the reverse—that the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas are an abbreviated version of earlier, canonical gospel sayings. No convincing evidence proves that short gospel sayings actually got longer over time. Perhaps the author of the Gospel of Thomas felt that it was acceptable to omit certain details—for example, about the shadow cast by the mustard tree—to get to the point of the parable. This theory pushes the date of the Gospel of Thomas much later, probably to the second century. It supports the argument that the Gospel of Thomas is Gnostic, since this was the period in which many so-called Christian Gnostic texts appear to have been written and circulated. Many of these texts share a characteristic idea: that self-knowledge is salvific. As Jesus says in the Gospel of Thomas, “The kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father” (GosThom 3).
Full Article:Was The Gospel of Thomas Gnostic?
-
1
- Show all