Llyricist

:notworthy :notworthy

Answerer

Just a question, why isn't the Gospel of Thomas included in the bible? Don't tell me they lost it....................

Toto

maybe

In short, your guess is as good as mine.

Amaleq13

Not to you, no. Your lenses are too scratched.(see below)

Interpreting Paul through later texts by other authors is a clearly flawed methodology though obviously necessary for the conclusions you favor.

This is an accusation lacking substantiation. Probably because it also lacks a connection to reality.

There is no special pleading needed to observe the GMark depicts a brother who is not a leader while GHebrews and GThomas depict a leader who is not called a brother. There is no special pleading involved when it is observed that the phrase "brother of the Lord" occurs only once in Paul's letter and, contrary to his apparent intent everywhere else in his letters, has him tacitly admit that one of the Pillars might have a claim to greater authority than himself. The fact that he does this for no apparent reason should be sufficient to at least question how much weight should be placed on the phrase.

You mean like inventing the idea that the GThomas depicts a disciple named James as the brother of Jesus?

The only things in need of being erased are the details you are reading into texts.

You need your prescription checked. Those lenses are too deeply scratched with your cherished conclusions to allow for reliable viewing of the evidence.

gregor

Toto

Taking a page from Ehrman, I suspect that from your list, there might be some reasonable consensus among critical scholars on some of the possibilities:

"It was deemed "heretical"" - probably as the canon had some anti-gnostic parts (I'm not sponsoring a claim that GTh was a gnostic only text)

"It was deemed inauthentic" - I doubt that was a relevant issue, as I really doubt the other four were considered authentic

"It was unknown to the Canonizers" - who knows

"It was thought to be superseded by the narrative Gospels" - That doesn't seem relevant (e.g. why have Mark, then)

"It belonged to a branch of Christianity outside the triumphant Athanasius circle" - almost certainly

"Its emphasis on individual spirituality apart from the Church was deemed anathemical to the interests of organized religion" - see # 1

Toto

Or perhaps because the number of gospels was required to be FOUR for the four corners of the earth or some other reason, and gThomas just didn't make the cut.

Amaleq13

Pagels, in Beyond Belief argues that GJohn was written specifically in response to beliefs like those in GThomas and that Irenaeus was dealing with the same "heretical" beliefs.

Seb

Highly likely to be the case, it was a political decision taken by the founders of the catholic church. An ommission which would bestow more power and authority upon the church. The Gospel of T did not fit in with the need for a church/control. Pagels in The Gnostic Gospels says that Bishop Irenaeus was vehemently for the cause against the Gospel of T and its Gnostic followers, but the moment he failed to get a promotion he ran off declaring foul play and heavily criticising the Church.

Al Kafirun

Is there any evidence the Founders were aware of the Gospel of Thomas? The references to GOT that I know of from that period clearly relate to the Infancy of Thomas.

rlogan

Seems to me this has some merit worthy of investigation.

GThom has some obviously unsavory features to the Church and canon:

15 Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father."

30 Jesus said, "Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, I am with that one."

There's too much of the "Kingdom of God is at Hand" stuff in Thomas. That undercuts the need for an organized Church.