Gospel of Thomas?

What is it really?

Lost Gospel of the true words of Christ or gnostic heretical kookery?

Would love some opinions.

bump

both

I believe it to be foundational to the birth of Islam.

Not a doubt in my mind that there more than a couple biblical texts thrown out by the first Church for simply being "inconvenient".

If you wanna look into some related stuff
>The Book of Enoch
Angels and demons both go to earth and start mating with the men and women, god gets pissed and throws the angels demons in purgatory
>The Gospel of Judas
Big debate on whether it existed outside of archives, dont really pay it attention anymore

This, definitely. Discovery of these texts is just another nail in Christianity's coffin, and the cofinal of hebrew mythology in general.

We'll never know. Suffice to say half of the text is mainstream canon and the other half is a gnostic blend, but nothing constituting a "Lost Gospel," or at least nothing with the grandeur that said title would suggest.
Christianity is first and foremost interpretive; the sayings of Christ inform doctrine, theology, cosmology, etc, but they don't construct them alone. The inseperability of Paul from Christianity, along with the countless other sects that differ from Pauline Christianity (just in Roman times alone) attest to that.

bump

It's a hoax, a gnostic gospel, that contradicts the bible, was not written by Thomas, and contains bizarre anti-christian messages.

Did the discovery of counterfeit $20 bills mean that $20 bills no longer exist?

You stupid fuck?

Except that it's not a counterfeit.

game set match

FORGERY
O
R
G
E
R
Y

You think Doubting Thomas lived to be 250 years old?

Can you prove that?

dont listen to these non christian cucks talk about our magnanimous Church and Beliefs. Go to God, then find a true follower of Christ
I have only a basic understanding of our theology but would happily answer any questions if you ever wanna shoot an email

It doesn't particularly contradict the Bible, it may not even be Gnostic (there are theories floating around that the document may have been modified later on in life), has no 'bizarre anti-christian messages' and like 70% of it is the Synoptic gospels rephrased.

And it most likely dates from 50-70AD and the arguments I've heard for a later dating are unconvincing.

Juat have faith :^)

It's basically "Q", the lost "sayings collection" of Jesus that was used as the basis for the fanfic known as the gospels.

It's not Q (if it existed). Clearly parts of it are derived from Luke and Matthew, thus had to come after L and M. Some of it later went on to influence Islam as stated.

Gnostic heresy

>head-shot, christ-cucks on life support, please pray for their recovery lmao

christianity is the biggest cuck religion on the planet, jesus was literally born from cucking

Wikipedia readers spotted. Many of the supposed "gnostic" sayings can very easily be read in a mainstream christological light. It's only in the context of the other far more slanted texts in Nag Hammadi that people call it a gnostic text.

WE WUZ MUSLIMS N SHEEEIT

>gnostic
>heretical
You are the heretic, not gnostics.

from reading a bit of it, it seems to contain profound truth, which leads me to think it is possibly authentic. I would guess the Catholic church wouldn't accept it especially because of an early saying in it, which states that we humans are sons of God. the Catholic church/government wasn't interested in us being God's divine children, but in ruling us with an iron fist. The Catholic church is not trust worthy. It is clearly the manifestation of the false church of Christ from Revelation in which there is a woman in white representing the true church as opposed to the scarlet and red woman drunk from alcohol from a golden goblet (sounds like the catholic church quite a bit doesn't it)? - the colors of clergy (red, purple) the communion goblet, gold and full of alcohol, the symbolism of a whorish woman, a sellout as the Catholic church has been a sellout throughout history. selling out to pagans by compromising with their beliefs, selling out in a money/power sense.

I'd have to read the entire gospel to get a better sense of whether it could be true or not, but those are my first impressions.

who catholics call heretics matters little when their idea of who heretics are has traditionally been something more like what the Pharisees of Jesus day considered to be heresy. don't hurt their pocket book, or you're a heretic. don't contradict them or subvert their authority and position or you're demon possessed or a witch.

"His Disciples say to him: Is circumcision beneficial to us or not? || He says to them: If it were beneficial, their father would have begotten them circumcised from their mother."

Gospel of Thomas #53

There you have it, the Gospel of Thomas is demonized because the devil doesn't want us to stop getting our dicks cut when we're babies.

[spoiler]Demiurge[/spoiler]

the Gospel of Thomas isn't that bad, Jesus acts like an edgy dick in it contradicting basic statements and constantly alluding to knowledge he has but doesn't quite divulge. The rest of the Nag Hammadi books are complete gnostic gibberish though

It's an interesting insight into early Christian vernacular beliefs before the emergence of stronger church hierarchy and doctrine and is comparable to religions like the Yazidi or Mandaeism

Its a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. Some of them appear verbatim in Mark and Luke so it's likely that the author used an unknown lost source or sources to compile it Which mark and Luke trusted as well as sources they did not have or did not trust.