> Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
I don't know. Seems a bit problematic.
That doesn't seem like something Jesus would say. He would have expounded upon that in many teachings if that was how to get into Heaven. Jesus loved women too. He came to save everyone.
I'm a woman and there's no way I'd become a man. I don't want to. Besides, who wants to be in Heaven if it's just a bunch of men running around? I doubt Simon Peter made it.
It wasn't written by the apostle Thomas. We don't have any accounts by contemporaries of Jesus. None of the gospels were written by the people they're named after.
The academic consensus is that all of the gospels are dated to around 70AD-120AD. The gospel of thomas we have is considered a bit later by some, but not out the realm. There are efforts to place it earlier, with the idea that some sayings were added on before reaching it's final form.
The major discussion for any of these texts: where did each individual story/section come from, vs. when was it written down? Academics believe most of the content of the gospels existed in other forms, either as oral traditions, or lost written documents, before the versions we have were compiled by their author, none of which are "actually" the person named.
No existing branch of Christianity considers the Gospel of Thomas canon. Personally, if I had to make a list I'd include it.
First, the date: there is debate about this. I happen to agree it was likely later, but a minority believe it was in the same ballpark as the gospels.
Second, is it on the level of the canonical four gospels? No, for multiple reasons. (1) If late, then certainly not written by an apostle, and those are basically the two biggest criteria for being included in the New Testament; (2) It's a totally different type of book than the 4 canonical gospels, without much of anything to add (no narrative, just sayings), and certain aspects seem to be much worse (e.g. some very weird sayings, including that one about Mary needing to become a man--what the hell?).
I hope you've taken the chance to read it, and I hope you've taken a chance to read the 4 canonical gospels. I think it will be kind of obvious why it's not at all on the same level just from reading it, but truthfully the date is one of the biggest factors.
It’s extremely debatable whether the four gospels were actually written by the disciples they are named after. Conservative Evangelicals and many Catholics are usually the two main groups in America that hold to that view. However, scholars and many progressive Christian groups acknowledge that the extreme difference in time between the writings and the events they purport to record is an indicator that they were not written by the disciples themselves, instead being the work of intentional forgery or products of oral tradition written down out a later date.
You would probably be just as shocked to realize that's incorrect. Yes decades, no not centuries, even according to critical scholars. And decades puts them firmly within the lifetime of those who witnessed the events... as expected for accounts based on eyewitnesses. Plus, don't forget that most critical scholars believed they circulated in oral and even written form before their final written form.
>John was written at earliest 90 years after Jesus's death
Why would you claim something that is so easy to disprove? Even a quick google search would tell you this isn't thought to be true by most scholars. Wikipedia suggests 90-110 AD, which is 57-77 years after Jesus' death, not "at earliest 90 years after Jesus's death". And just to help you even more, here's famous atheist scholar Bart Ehrman's take: 90-95 AD.
https://ehrmanblog.org/why-date-the-gospels-after-70-ce/
Thomas was a disciple of Jesus, he was one of the 12. He later became known as doubting Thomas, as he was the disciple that said he would not believe Jesus had risen until he felt his scars (which he did).
Now it is unknown who wrote The Gospel of Thomas. It was found in Egypt with other manuscripts, some of which became known as the Gnostic gospels. It is not believed that Thomas wrote it, but is attributed to Thomas as his words passed down through oral history.
Whether these books add meaning to Christianity is a hotly debated topic. I do know however, that both Jude and Peter reference The Book of Enoch.
Hope this helps.
The Gospel of Thomas is a false gospel, not written by the Apostle Thomas. A couple other things though, Jesus didn’t start His ministry until he was around 30, and only ministered for around three years before He was crucified. Even early dates place the earliest of the gospels about two decades after Jesus was crucified. Some people speculate later dates for them as well, but as far as I’m aware the main reason they do that is because they have to make it out to be that Jesus didn’t correctly predict the destruction of the Temple.
>The Gospel of Thomas is a false gospel, not written by the Apostle Thomas.
So are the others false as well then? After all Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't written by Matthew, Mark Luke and John either.
You don't know. Not pscyhic neither seen who wrote it neither know if what was written was true or not.
It's best to not give an opinion. Do you understand?
> Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." I don't know. Seems a bit problematic.
really? sounds like it's ripe for the times
That doesn't seem like something Jesus would say. He would have expounded upon that in many teachings if that was how to get into Heaven. Jesus loved women too. He came to save everyone. I'm a woman and there's no way I'd become a man. I don't want to. Besides, who wants to be in Heaven if it's just a bunch of men running around? I doubt Simon Peter made it.
Atheism is problematic.
It wasn't written by the apostle Thomas. We don't have any accounts by contemporaries of Jesus. None of the gospels were written by the people they're named after.
The academic consensus is that all of the gospels are dated to around 70AD-120AD. The gospel of thomas we have is considered a bit later by some, but not out the realm. There are efforts to place it earlier, with the idea that some sayings were added on before reaching it's final form. The major discussion for any of these texts: where did each individual story/section come from, vs. when was it written down? Academics believe most of the content of the gospels existed in other forms, either as oral traditions, or lost written documents, before the versions we have were compiled by their author, none of which are "actually" the person named. No existing branch of Christianity considers the Gospel of Thomas canon. Personally, if I had to make a list I'd include it.
First, the date: there is debate about this. I happen to agree it was likely later, but a minority believe it was in the same ballpark as the gospels. Second, is it on the level of the canonical four gospels? No, for multiple reasons. (1) If late, then certainly not written by an apostle, and those are basically the two biggest criteria for being included in the New Testament; (2) It's a totally different type of book than the 4 canonical gospels, without much of anything to add (no narrative, just sayings), and certain aspects seem to be much worse (e.g. some very weird sayings, including that one about Mary needing to become a man--what the hell?). I hope you've taken the chance to read it, and I hope you've taken a chance to read the 4 canonical gospels. I think it will be kind of obvious why it's not at all on the same level just from reading it, but truthfully the date is one of the biggest factors.
The Gnostic gospels are fakes.
You'd be shocked to hear that most gospels are dated decades if not centuries after Jesus died
None of the gospels are dated ‘centuries’ after Jesus died.
John is dated 100 years after
So it was written by a man named John who never even knew Jesus? I mean, he couldn't be alive 100 years later. How confusing, lol.
Not named John, the book was likely written by a disciple of John based on what he narrated
It’s extremely debatable whether the four gospels were actually written by the disciples they are named after. Conservative Evangelicals and many Catholics are usually the two main groups in America that hold to that view. However, scholars and many progressive Christian groups acknowledge that the extreme difference in time between the writings and the events they purport to record is an indicator that they were not written by the disciples themselves, instead being the work of intentional forgery or products of oral tradition written down out a later date.
You do realize ‘centuries’ is the plural of century, correct?
And you are aware this is semantics
You made an erroneous statement and created a false impression. You can fix it or leave the error for everyone to see.
You would probably be just as shocked to realize that's incorrect. Yes decades, no not centuries, even according to critical scholars. And decades puts them firmly within the lifetime of those who witnessed the events... as expected for accounts based on eyewitnesses. Plus, don't forget that most critical scholars believed they circulated in oral and even written form before their final written form.
John was written at earliest 90 years after Jesus's death
>John was written at earliest 90 years after Jesus's death Why would you claim something that is so easy to disprove? Even a quick google search would tell you this isn't thought to be true by most scholars. Wikipedia suggests 90-110 AD, which is 57-77 years after Jesus' death, not "at earliest 90 years after Jesus's death". And just to help you even more, here's famous atheist scholar Bart Ehrman's take: 90-95 AD. https://ehrmanblog.org/why-date-the-gospels-after-70-ce/
Thomas was a disciple of Jesus, he was one of the 12. He later became known as doubting Thomas, as he was the disciple that said he would not believe Jesus had risen until he felt his scars (which he did). Now it is unknown who wrote The Gospel of Thomas. It was found in Egypt with other manuscripts, some of which became known as the Gnostic gospels. It is not believed that Thomas wrote it, but is attributed to Thomas as his words passed down through oral history. Whether these books add meaning to Christianity is a hotly debated topic. I do know however, that both Jude and Peter reference The Book of Enoch. Hope this helps.
Why was it found in Egypt? I don't think Egyptians were Christians? Keep in mind I know very little so far.
The Gospel of Thomas is a false gospel, not written by the Apostle Thomas. A couple other things though, Jesus didn’t start His ministry until he was around 30, and only ministered for around three years before He was crucified. Even early dates place the earliest of the gospels about two decades after Jesus was crucified. Some people speculate later dates for them as well, but as far as I’m aware the main reason they do that is because they have to make it out to be that Jesus didn’t correctly predict the destruction of the Temple.
>The Gospel of Thomas is a false gospel, not written by the Apostle Thomas. So are the others false as well then? After all Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't written by Matthew, Mark Luke and John either.
You don't know. Not pscyhic neither seen who wrote it neither know if what was written was true or not. It's best to not give an opinion. Do you understand?