Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    What newspaper?  Which issue?  Article name?
    
    Acceptance of the article can be as disparate as NAtional Geographic vs
    the National Enquirer. 
    
    -dave

i have also read of such accounts.

though to call the papers a gospel is misleading. a gospel is something 
which is based on original eye witness accounts, but where the accounts 
have been edited substantially to fit the view of the leading church elders! 
;-)



andreas.

re .1



as i recall, "newsweek" ran an article about the findings a good ten years
ago.

is the gospel of thomas part of the hammadi find? i searched the web on the 
theme and the article below may shed some light on it.



andreas.


From: [email protected] (Richard Arnold) Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
Subject: Re: Gospel of Thomas - Nag Hammadi Date: 13 Aug 1994 16:44:45 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA

JAN LUISE ([email protected]) wrote: : Gospel of Thomas 

: Do you agree the Gospel of Thomas was the best of the Nag Hammadi Find? :
A friend of mine has done "a free translation based on a mystical :
interpretation" that is by far clearer that any of the other translations.
: ( yes,Chris, Bentley Layton's translation is excellent.) 

The Gospel of Thomas is certaintly one of the more interesting of the Nag
Hammadi books, both to scholars and to interested layman like myself. It
appears to contain an earlier, primitive form of a portion of the Synoptic
Gospels that were re-worked and distributed by Mark, Matthew, and Luke. 

The current theory among scholars is that the Synoptics were compilations
of at least two earlier documents that were in circulation in the first two
decades after Jesus' crucifixion, the "Testimony Book" containing accounts
of Jesus' deeds and miracles, and "Q" listing many of Jesus' sayings,
teachings, and parables. The Thomas Gospel may be dependent mostly on "Q,"
and, although re-worked with a Gnostic slant, it may be closer to the
original Q than can be gleaned from reading the Synoptics. For that reason,
I was very interested in it, and gathered several books that translated or
discussed it. 

One translation that has been out there for awhile was done by Marvin
Meyer, as part of his book "The Secret Teachings of Jesus: Four Gnostic
Gospels" (Random House, 1984, ISBN 0-394-52959-6). The only problem I had
with this translation was the attempt by Meyer to use modern, semi-
politically correct terminology, avoiding gender-specific terms, etc. Thus,
he translates "Son of Man" (a Messianic term) as "Child of Humanity." I
understood his attempt to put the sayings in a modern context, but I still
found it slightly annoying because it diluted the apoloclyptic nature of
the language. 

The best translation is found in the book that anyone interested in the Nag
Hammadi writings should have: "The Nag Hammadi Library." (James Robinson,
General Editor, Harper & Row, 1988 edition, ISBN 90-04-08856-3). All the
books found at Nag Hammadi were translated into English by a team of
scholars and researchers, with the attempt to be as accurate as possible.
It has a great translation of the Thomas book. 

[email protected] 

    The Gospel of Thomas has been deemed a forgery the last I heard.  But I
    don't know exactly who called it that!
    
    -Jack

    There are a whole series of Gnostic Gospels of which the Gospel of
    Thomas is one, that were not accepted at the time of the canonization
    of the scriptures.  
    
    I believe the Gospel of Thomas consists mainly of sayings some of which
    are pretty close to the 3 synoptic gospels.  Some of the Gnostic texts
    do  describe additional stories about Jesus's childhood and life.  I
    don't think many people take the more fanciful stories very seriously.
    
    There is a topic in here on the Gnostic Gospels.  THey do add
    additional knowledge to what we know about early Christianity.

    I have read a translation of the Gospel of Thomas.  It is fairly short.
    It contains some sayings of Jesus which ring familiar.  It ends really
    wierd.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    I don't believe Thomas was a Gnostic because of what he said when
    meeting the resurrected Messiah: "My Lord and My God!"

    Do you believe the "Gospel of Thomas" to be a gnostic gospel?
    
    Do you believe it should have been included in the canon?  Do you
    believe it contains truth?
    
                              Patricia

    	There are several Thomas gospels.  (Or rather, several different
    	authors named Thomas wrote gospels.)  The one most likely being
    	discussed here is clearly a gnostic gospel.  I wrote a paper
    	in college comparing the gnostic gospel of Thomas to the 
    	synoptics.  Yes, there are many parallels, but even the 
    	similar passages are changed in the Thomas gospel to have a
    	gnostic twist.  For example, in the parable of the mustard 
    	seed in the Thomas gospel, instead of it growing into a great
    	tree with many branches for the birds to build nests in, it
    	grows only one branch, and only one bird nests in it.
    
    	Patricia is right.  It is one of many that were not accepted
    	as holy scripture by the early Church.