-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Gospel of John and Thomas
- Thread starter PVE1
- Start date
outhouse
Atheistically
Gospel of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We dont even know if John wrote it, or if the author ever met jesus. the real John was illiterate.
It was written 85-95 AD and the work reflects the scribe more then the source
John's picture of Jesus is different than the synoptics, to the point of being largely irreconcilable.
Many believe it is more complex than simply identifying a single person as the document's author.
Position in the New Testament
In the standard order of the canonical gospels, John is fourth, after the three interrelated synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke. In the earliest surviving gospel collection, Papyrus 45 of the 3rd century, it is placed second in the order Matthew, John, Luke and Mark, an order which is also found in other very early New Testament manuscripts. In syrcur it is placed third in the order Matthew, Mark, John and Luke.
We dont even know if John wrote it, or if the author ever met jesus. the real John was illiterate.
It was written 85-95 AD and the work reflects the scribe more then the source
John's picture of Jesus is different than the synoptics, to the point of being largely irreconcilable.
Many believe it is more complex than simply identifying a single person as the document's author.
Position in the New Testament
In the standard order of the canonical gospels, John is fourth, after the three interrelated synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke. In the earliest surviving gospel collection, Papyrus 45 of the 3rd century, it is placed second in the order Matthew, John, Luke and Mark, an order which is also found in other very early New Testament manuscripts. In syrcur it is placed third in the order Matthew, Mark, John and Luke.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Elaine Pagels has a decent book called Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. I think it is relevant to this discussion, and you may find it to be a good read.
outhouse
Atheistically
Last edited:
jtartar
Well-Known Member
PVE1,
There can be only one reason why you do not love the Apostle John, a lack of understanding. John would love you. John wrote more about love than all the othe Apostles put together.
About 90% of John's Gospel was new material, because John wrote John and 1,2,3 John in 98CE and John wanted to write other information in addition to what had been written in the other Gospels.
There is really no such book as the gospel of Thomas, for Gospel means the Good News about Jesus. Thomas was not inspired by God, so even though it may seem interesting in cannot be trusted completely as the true Gospels.
The fact is: WE are severely WARNED about other books that are written to add or replace the true Gospels. Christians do not put faith in any other books, Ecc 12:12-14, Gal 1:6-9, 2Cor 11:2-4, Jere 17:5, Ps 146:3,4, Mark 7:6-9,13.
Blackheart
Active Member
How do you know this?
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
If we take Galatians for example. That was written a few decades before John. Meaning, John added to the true Gospel (meaning Good news. It was not a genre, especially one that Paul would have known about). More so, it replaced the Gospel in various areas.
More so, there is not much evidence that John even knew of the other Gospels. He may have borrowed from them a bit, but for the most part, he wasn't adding what he/they thought was needed.
However, John even contradicts parts of the synoptic Gospels. For instance, he/they place the death of Jesus on the day before Passover, when the synoptic Gospels place his death on Passover. The two accounts simply can't be reconciled.
In addition, we don't even know who wrote John. Modern scholars believe that it was probably multiple writers, and that the Epistles of John were written by other individuals (probably in the same community though).
Finally, we know that later writers added to John as well. Meaning, scribes, at a later date, added extra information into the Gospel of John, information that the original writer/s did not want to include or even was aware of.
As for the Gospel of Thomas, it is just as much of a Gospel, in my opinion, as John is. Both serve the same primary function. It is also possible that the Gospel of Thomas contains information that predates the Gospel of John, and in that respect, is closer to being true (again, I stress the only parts, or layers of the Gospel of Thomas may be more accurate).
esmith
Veteran Member
The gospel of Thomas is from the Nag Hammadi Library found in 1945 by Egyptian camel drivers near the city of Nag Hammadi Egypt. The gospels contain 13 volumes produced sometime in the 4th century with writings from the 2nd century. Translated from Greek to Coptic. These works are based on the Gnostic Christian religion. (gnosis means knowledge in Greek).
Troublemane
Well-Known Member
I have always liked the Gospel of Thomas, it seems to me it (possibly) predates the synoptic gospels. Its got Jesus' sayings, but it expands more on them and has no miracles it just focuses on the words.....makes you think maybe this might be an unedited version. But, as with all of it, thats really up to you to decide.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
I was going to suggest that myself. I was quite intrigued by it.
Muffled
Jesus in me
So basically you are saying that the heretical gnostics formulated their own gospel based on their own heretical views.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
That is a strange way of looking at it.
at the time there was no select list of Christian writings. All were available equally.
The Gnostic's were an ancient religion and some became Christian. Like other churches they had writings.
At various stages decisions were made as to who were heretics and who were not. ( mainly at Nicea) the Gnostic's and non Trinitarians were amongs the losers and their scripture was destroyed. Till the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library almost nothing was known of it.
Considering how completely Rome became "the Church" It is surprising how the smaller Churches Like the Copts managed to survive at all.
If it was not for Constantine Enforcing his continued hospitality on the then Church leaders in Nicea, and until they came to an agreement. we may never have had a single church in Rome, as the official world religion. In those circumstances the Gnostic's might have continued as a respected Christian church.
esmith
Veteran Member
As mentioned in the above posting, heretic is a strong word. Heretic is a Greek word meaning basically wrong choice. In the early 1 & 2 century there were many Christian cults, some of which were the Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnostic and probably more. Who is to say who was right or who was wrong. It just so happened that Constantine I (288?-337) decided that the present Christian cult was right and everyone else was wrong. The Council of Nicea (325 CE) called by Constantine to unify the beliefs in his control, thus he was right and everyone else was wrong. You going to argue with the Roman Emperor?
outhouse
Atheistically
it was my understanding at that time in 325 ce they discussed jesus divinity on how divine he was with son of god winning. Constantine then ordered 50 new books for his new churches being built. he oredered the books from the one bishop who was a collector of early chtistian writings.
I dont believe at that time that had all the books to pick through assembled.
from what I understand we may have 2 copies of the original 50 but both books differ from one another,, 1 is heavily fragmented and the other slightly fragmented.
Jacksnyte
Reverend
And you know for a fact that Thomas was not inspired by God? How exactly?
outhouse
Atheistically
this is your lack of historical knowledge as well as biblical knowledge.
john was illiterate
john never wrote a word in the NT and most scholars agree there was atleast 3 different authors who put that gospel together over a long period of time. it should never have been considered to be a synoptic gospel
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
At the time of Nicea, there was already a basic outline of the books of the NT. There was still some debate, but Nicea didn't really focus on that at all. Constantine simply commissioned these books to be created, and they were. There wasn't really any debate as to what books should be included, as Eusebius already had his list.
Even before Eusebius, various canons were already formed. However, for some time, the orthodox or proto-orthodox church already had accepted only four Gospels, the Gospels we now have. So it wasn't really a task of putting the Bible together or assembling the Bible by picking from all of the books available, as much as Eusebius copying his canon.
If I recall, Elaine Pagels has argued that the Gospel of John might have been written in reaction against the Gospel of Thomas.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I believe you are right. A few other scholars have taken similar positions as well. I think John Dominic Crossan also has, but I can't say for sure.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I think some of the things in the Gospel of Thomas are more likely to have come out of Jesus' mouth then the Gospel of John. The Gospel of Thomas is believed to share a core tradition with Mark, wheras John is definitely not synoptic, and is definitely written off a unique tradition not identified in any other gospel period. I think John to mostly be the work of the early church and how they viewed Jesus after the fact. I highly doubt Jesus would have spoken in such grand terms as John puts forth.