Exploring the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas

[Adrian]

Greetings Beth,

Excellent topic! []

I have been studying the Nag Hammadi myself, and found this excellent website:

http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/nhl.html

I have loads of technical and other work on at the moment, but you can be sure I will make regular visits here.

With best regards,

Adrian.

[Mustardseed]

Beth with all due respect []I would like to hear your reply. I never read it is that really what it says?
Reagrd M

[Beth]

Mustardseed:

Here is a link for The Gospel of Thomas:
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

Read it and let me know what YOU think![]

Peace,
Beth

[Beth]

Mustardseed:

The Gospel of Thomas as been dated as early as 50-60 c.e. (pre-gospels) and as late as 350.  But, in doing comparative studies of the texts themselves, scholars are more and more leaning toward the earlier date.  That is why many scholars are pushing for inclusion into the canon.

An excellent book to read on the subject of the Nag Hammadi texts in general, and the Gospels of Thomas and Philip in specific is:

The Gnostic Gospels
by Elaine Pagels

It is not very long, and is easy to read.  You should be able to get this from Amazon.com

Elaine Pagels was/is actually one the scholars that worked with the original texts, and even translated a few of them into English.  She is very knowledgeable and very circumspect.  She truly appears to have no agenda other than straighforward scholarship--and she is a Christian.

I think these gospels are very thought provoking. And this is why:

"What if" some of the texts found in these caves "are" actually older than the gospels themselves?  

"What if" the canonized gospels were written to "fill in" where the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip leave off.  They are actually very different in content, e.g., the gnostic gospels speak more of the inner dialogues with the disciples, and the canonized gospels speak more of the outer dialogues with the people.

"What if" the gnostic gospels are the real deal? The canonized gospels do tell of Jesus speaking in parables to the people and to the disciples he spoke "the truth", but the gospels never tell us what that "truth" actually is.  The canonized gospels speak more of Jesus' travels and works among the people, so it could be that the gnostic gospels have A LOT more to contribute to a full understanding of Jesus' message as he taught it to his disciples.  And, they are the ones that went out to deliver the message, were they not?  They were the first and second generations of disciples. The canonized gospel writers were the third and fourth.  

I think if we could just get past the idea that what we have in the Bible today, is ALL that really matters, and begin to study these newly found gospels within Christianity, then I think Christianity could become a much more inclusive, much more spiritual religion.

To begin to do so, we must all try to obtain a more complete picture of how the religion developed and why only certain texts were canonized.  That is in great part what I have been trying to do here.  While what I post may be disturbing, it is peace and unity that I seek--but I also recognize that it will take time.  

Peace,
Beth

[Beth]

That's just it Mustardseed--there IS NO conflict, the way I view it anyway.  

That is, the canonized gospels are the "exoteric" teachings and the gnostic gospels are the "esoteric" teachings.

Think of it this way, perhaps the Bible was/is the inspired Word of God, for the masses, and the gnostic gospels were/are the inspired Word of God for his disciples.  If that were the case, it would not have been appropriate for God to have "put them" in the Catholic Canon for all to see.  All we know from the gospels is that the disciples "went out to preach" the gospel (which means "good news" in Greek.)  But we really don't know "what" they taught.  It is certainly safe to assume that they did teach "about the life of Jesus" but that really is a pretty short story all in all.  I just can't help but think/believe that "originally" there was A LOT more to it than that.  

I have often wondered why Christianity today acts as though all possibilities for "God's inspired Word" here on earth, just somehow "stopped" in 325 c.e.  Everything within me totally rejects that.  You wrote:

quote:I believe that if God had wanted to include these texts he would have done it through someone.

Maybe that "someone" is alive today--and he/she will get them canonized--because it is God's Will to do so.  


Peace,
Beth

[Beth]

In December 1945, an Arab peasant found the location of an earthenware jar in a cave in the town of Naj 'Hammadi in Upper Egypt. In this jar were 13 leather-bound books, or codices. At least five of these texts are truly extraodinary and shed a tremendous amount of new light on early Christianity. These are most likely some of the gospels that did not make the final cut into the bible that we have today.

This thread has been started to explore the many implications of the Gospel of Thomas. Copies of this can be obtained from the net if you choose not to purchase a book that contains it. Here is the link:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

There are a great many things that arise from a dicussion of this ancient gospel.  As a matter of fact, some Christian scholars are pushing hard for this gospel to be offically added to the Christian Canon--yes--re-opening the canon and adding this gospel into the Bible as we have it today. Some of the other Gnostic Gospels are being considered as well.

So, for all of those interested in exploring what The Gospel of Thomas has to say, then let the discussion begin!