What do you think of the Gospel of Thomas. BTW Thomas was not present when the Risen Christ appeared to the others. He did not receive the breath of the Holy Spirit. What ramifications did that have to the early christians? Would love your views on the above.
I'm just curious, how do we know that Thomas was not there and did not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?Is there scriptural evidence or is this tradition? I read in the Book of Acts in 1:13 that he was with the other 10 apostles in the Upper Room. In 1:23-26 he was part of the decision to choose Matthias. In Chapter 2 the opening verse says that they were all together in one place... verses 2-3 the Spirit came...and verse 4 says "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit.."Is there something that I am missing?In His,DOI Pet 4:2
In John 20:24 it reads : Thomas....was not with them when Jesus came. - that was the first time that the Risen Christ appeared to the other disciples. In Thomas' absense Jesus "breathed on them, and said to them "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22)This lead to Thomas saying later "Unless I see in this hands the prints of the nails........Jn.20:25Thomas was restored and as you pointed out in Acts 2:4, he too received the Holy Spirit at Pentacost.
The Gospel of Thomas is a pseudepigraphic book clearly with a Gnostic flavour. The book contains primarily of sayings attributed to Jesus; some actually paralleled with the gospel narratives. Nonetheless, it is not a part of the scriptural canon. Any attempt to make it a "lost gospel" is misguided. Thomas was not present in one of the first appearances of the risen Christ. But he saw Christ in the following Lord's day. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that he saw Christ as well in the Lord's other appearances.This episode of "Thomas the Doubter," I believe, speaks of God's grace to his people, since he chose Thomas to be one of the Twelve despite his little faith (Aren't we all? Same applies to Peter and other disciples).Like Peter, Thomas must have become a totally changed person by the time of Pentecost. The gospel writers were not afraid to write of their weaknesses, because the disciples are strong when they acknowledge they are weak.
One of the reasons that the book of St Thomas is not is our Bible is because the 1st century church fathers never quoted from it. It was not considered by the 1st century church to be of any value. There were a lot of so-called "Apostolic Letters" floating around that were completely bogus, and this is one of them. Why? Because it teaches another gospel, that of Gnosticism. Since we can assume that Thomas was one of the Apostles, and surely a man of God who believed true doctrine, I am quite confident that Thomas didnt even write this book.On the other hand, the 1st century church fathers did quote from every single book in our NT, with the exception of 11 verses.Those who did include it and loved it were those of the Gnostic "faith" (if you can call it faith... it was anything but faith). And guess who can trace their beliefs back to the Gnostics... the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore it shouldnt be any surprise that it's in their Bible.This is also the line of manuscripts (Alexandrian) that all the modern versions from 1881 until now draw from.While it is true that the Apochrypha was included in the 1611 King James, it was seperated out from the OT and NT and was not considered to be part of the inspired text. It was later taken out all together.While it may make for interesting reading for some, the books of the Apochrypha should not be considered "scripture". Including the book of St Thomas.Krispy
One of the reasons that the book of St Thomas is not is our Bible is because the 1st century church fathers never quoted from it. Krispy,Not true. The canon of the New Testament was not determined by 1st Century church father quotations. On the other hand, the 1st century church fathers did quote from every single book in our NT, with the exception of 11 verses. What does this mean? That every verse, with only 11 omissions, is reproduced in the 1st Century church fathers?
Not true. The canon of the New Testament was not determined by 1st Century church father quotations. I did not mean to imply that the basis for becoming a canon book was that the 1st century fathers had to have quoted from it. But since they did not quote from it, it did not lend credence to it from that source. That is true.What does this mean? That every verse, with only 11 omissions, is reproduced in the 1st Century church fathers? Thats the information I have... thru sermons, letters, and other ancient witnesses all of the NT has been found to be quoted with the exception of 11 verses. I would not call the 11 verse "omissions", they just were not quoted.Now, you have to understand that like most everyone else I am relying on information that I have gleened from places other than the original sources. If I'm wrong then I can admit that, but I have found this information from multiple sources that are not related.Krispy
This discussion is locked.
