When it comes to the Gospel of Thomas versus the canonical Gospels like Matthew, Mark, and Luke, there are some important points to keep in mind.
First off, the Gospel of Thomas is part of a collection found in Egypt in 1945, known as the Nag Hammadi library. It’s mainly a bunch of sayings attributed to Jesus, but it doesn’t tell a coherent story about his life, death, and resurrection like the other Gospels do. Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written within a few decades of Jesus’ life, which gives them a stronger historical connection.
Most scholars date the Gospel of Thomas to the mid-to-late 2nd century, which is much later than the canonical Gospels. This later date makes it less reliable as a direct account of Jesus’ life and teachings.
When the New Testament books were chosen, they had to meet certain criteria: they needed to be linked to the apostles, consistent with established Christian teachings, widely used by early Christians, and coherent with the Old Testament. The Gospel of Thomas didn’t fit these criteria as well as the canonical Gospels did.
Content-wise, the Gospel of Thomas leans heavily into Gnostic ideas, focusing on secret knowledge and personal enlightenment. This is quite different from the clear message of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
There’s a common misconception that the New Testament canon was decided at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, but that’s not true. The council was more about clarifying the nature of Jesus’ divinity. The books of the New Testament were already widely accepted by Christians before they were formally recognized later on.
Also, the Gospel of Thomas doesn’t align well with orthodox Christian teachings. It leaves out crucial elements like the crucifixion and resurrection, which are central to Christianity.
It’s important to remember that the Roman Catholic Church didn’t single-handedly decide what books made it into the New Testament. It was a broad consensus among early Christians from different regions and traditions.
As for the Great Awakening and scripture, it’s been about returning to the core of biblical teachings. It’s essential to distinguish between legitimate new discoveries that support the Bible and those that try to undermine established Christian beliefs.
In a nutshell, while the Gospel of Thomas is an interesting text, it doesn’t hold the same historical and theological weight as Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The process of selecting the New Testament books was careful and thorough, aiming to preserve the most reliable and consistent teachings about Jesus.
When it comes to the Gospel of Thomas versus the canonical Gospels like Matthew, Mark, and Luke, there are some important points to keep in mind.
First off, the Gospel of Thomas is part of a collection found in Egypt in 1945, known as the Nag Hammadi library. It’s mainly a bunch of sayings attributed to Jesus, but it doesn’t tell a coherent story about his life, death, and resurrection like the other Gospels do. Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written within a few decades of Jesus’ life, which gives them a stronger historical connection.
Most scholars date the Gospel of Thomas to the mid-to-late 2nd century, which is much later than the canonical Gospels. This later date makes it less reliable as a direct account of Jesus’ life and teachings.
When the New Testament books were chosen, they had to meet certain criteria: they needed to be linked to the apostles, consistent with established Christian teachings, widely used by early Christians, and coherent with the Old Testament. The Gospel of Thomas didn’t fit these criteria as well as the canonical Gospels did.
Content-wise, the Gospel of Thomas leans heavily into Gnostic ideas, focusing on secret knowledge and personal enlightenment. This is quite different from the clear message of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
There’s a common misconception that the New Testament canon was decided at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, but that’s not true. The council was more about clarifying the nature of Jesus’ divinity. The books of the New Testament were already widely accepted by Christians before they were formally recognized later on.
Also, the Gospel of Thomas doesn’t align well with orthodox Christian teachings. It leaves out crucial elements like the crucifixion and resurrection, which are central to Christianity.
It’s important to remember that the Roman Catholic Church didn’t single-handedly decide what books made it into the New Testament. It was a broad consensus among early Christians from different regions and traditions.
As for the Great Awakening and scripture, it’s been about returning to the core of biblical teachings. It’s essential to distinguish between legitimate new discoveries that support the Bible and those that try to undermine established Christian beliefs.
In a nutshell, while the Gospel of Thomas is an interesting text, it doesn’t hold the same historical and theological weight as Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The process of selecting the New Testament books was careful and thorough, aiming to preserve the most reliable and consistent teachings about Jesus.