8 ms·

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas

24 points by graderjs 3y ago

wwarner 3y ago
Biblical fan fic.
- jghn 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Brendinooo 3y ago
    No.
    - jghn 3y ago
      The bible is not exactly a historical document. It's a collection of mythology with some loose basis in reality
      - baremetal 3y ago
        Can you back that statement up or is that just your opinion?
        PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        I think the onus is on those who want to claim the bible is factual, actually.
        yarg 3y ago
        It has a man who could: * Walk on water; * Turn it into wine; * Copy and paste fish and bread; * Heal lepers; * Die and come back to life. And asserts that he actually existed.
      - crabkin 3y ago
        It's a 4-D projection/Rubik's cube manual about personal development, the logos, and the formation, nurturing, and triumph of a society, despite going up against what seems to be impossible odds. Simply calling it mythology or tying it's value as history or any other ill-conceived standard of truth and guidance we have now is missing the point.
      - mensetmanusman 3y ago
        The Bible is a library, not a document. A collection of texts assembled over millennia. Some parts metaphors, some historic, some parts examples, etc.
    - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
      Some of the Gospels were canonized, sure, but to claim this is fanfiction, while it appears to be contemporary or earlier than some of the others, I think is a bad take. It'd be like claiming that the Q document (if it is ever found) is fanfiction compared to the other gospels. Assuming it's real.
      - mensetmanusman 3y ago
        The early Christians assembled the New Testament over many decades in an environment where you would be nailed to trees by strong men for spreading the message of slaves being equal in dignity to Romans. In this environment they determined which texts would be incorporated as they interacted with eye witnesses of the time.
      - ksaj 3y ago
        There are arguments on both sides of the chronology. It isn't known whether this came before or after. Some argue that Luke added to the document. Others argue that Marcion removed parts of the story that they deemed contradictory to the OT version of God.
- dang 3y ago
  Please don't post shallow dismissals to HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - wwarner 3y ago
    Certainly was not my intent.
    - dang 3y ago
      I believe you! But intent doesn't communicate itself—especially not in a short comment, and 10x so when the topic is default-divisive. Past explanations in case helpful: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=burden%20disambiguate%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=intent%20effects%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
baryphonic 3y ago
This is almost certainly a fabrication, written more than a century after Christ – possibly a century after the Gospel of John – without any clear connection to St Thomas the Apostle or any of the other apostles. Early Christian leaders denied its authority. The earliest New Testament books were St Paul's letters, dating within a decade or so of the crucifixion & resurrection, and the earliest Christian creed – quoted in 1 Corinthians – dates to likely within a year of Christ rising from the dead. The Gospels were written down within the next few decades: from Mark being penned within a couple decades to John being penned about 60 years later.
- jfengel 3y ago
  Note that Mark is generally thought to be recording an earlier, possibly oral, gospel dubbed Q. It would have been composed closer to the nominal date of the crucifixion, perhaps contemporary with the epistles. That doesn't make it an eyewitness account, and even if it were we can only infer its text from the copies in the synoptic gospels (which disagree with each other). But it does give us a chronology of the composition relative to the events that inspired it.
  - rwywgi 3y ago
    That is incorrect. Q is considered a (written) source underlying Matthew and Luke, not Mark.
  - Maursault 3y ago
    > Note that Mark is generally thought to be recording an earlier, possibly oral, gospel dubbed Q. No one thinks Mark is based on Q. Q, or Q Source, for the German word Quelle, meaning "source," is the material common to both Matthew and Luke which does not appear in Mark.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  Early Christian leaders cherry-picked what they wanted based on what was beneficial to their personal agendas anyway.
pddev 3y ago
[flagged]
hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
This is a fabrication, as opposed to the real Gospel of Thomas, the gnostic one.
- Maursault 3y ago
  > as opposed to the real Gospel of Thomas, the gnostic one. This is a simplistic and superficially supportable description. Because of its discovery with the Nag Hammadi library, and the cryptic emphasis on "gnosis" in some of the sayings, it was widely thought that the document originated within a school of early Christians, proto-Gnostics. However, critics have questioned whether the description of Thomas as an entirely gnostic gospel is based solely upon the fact that it was found along with gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi.[1] Many scholars consider the Gospel of Thomas to be a gnostic text, since it was found in a library among others, it contains Gnostic themes, and perhaps presupposes a Gnostic worldview. Others reject this interpretation, because Thomas lacks the full-blown mythology of Gnosticism as described by Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 185), and because Gnostics frequently appropriated and used a large "range of scripture from Genesis to the Psalms to Homer, from the Synoptics to John to the letters of Paul." The mysticism of the Gospel of Thomas also lacks many themes found in second century Gnosticism. According to David W. Kim, the association of the Thomasines and Gnosticism is anachronistic and the book seems to predate the Gnostic movements.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas#Importance_and_author https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas#Importance_an...
bjourne 3y ago
This video about the gospel from early Christianity scholar Andrew Mark Henry is very informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7JYGOhgnKc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7JYGOhgnKc I totally recommend his channel if you are interested in topics related to early Christianity and the New Testament.

24 points by graderjs 3y ago

wwarner 3y ago

Biblical fan fic.

jghn 3y ago
[flagged]
- Brendinooo 3y ago
  No.
  - jghn 3y ago
    The bible is not exactly a historical document. It's a collection of mythology with some loose basis in reality
    - baremetal 3y ago
      Can you back that statement up or is that just your opinion?
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        I think the onus is on those who want to claim the bible is factual, actually.
      - yarg 3y ago
        It has a man who could: * Walk on water; * Turn it into wine; * Copy and paste fish and bread; * Heal lepers; * Die and come back to life. And asserts that he actually existed.
    - crabkin 3y ago
      It's a 4-D projection/Rubik's cube manual about personal development, the logos, and the formation, nurturing, and triumph of a society, despite going up against what seems to be impossible odds. Simply calling it mythology or tying it's value as history or any other ill-conceived standard of truth and guidance we have now is missing the point.
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      The Bible is a library, not a document. A collection of texts assembled over millennia. Some parts metaphors, some historic, some parts examples, etc.
  - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
    Some of the Gospels were canonized, sure, but to claim this is fanfiction, while it appears to be contemporary or earlier than some of the others, I think is a bad take. It'd be like claiming that the Q document (if it is ever found) is fanfiction compared to the other gospels. Assuming it's real.
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      The early Christians assembled the New Testament over many decades in an environment where you would be nailed to trees by strong men for spreading the message of slaves being equal in dignity to Romans. In this environment they determined which texts would be incorporated as they interacted with eye witnesses of the time.
    - ksaj 3y ago
      There are arguments on both sides of the chronology. It isn't known whether this came before or after. Some argue that Luke added to the document. Others argue that Marcion removed parts of the story that they deemed contradictory to the OT version of God.
dang 3y ago
Please don't post shallow dismissals to HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- wwarner 3y ago
  Certainly was not my intent.
  - dang 3y ago
    I believe you! But intent doesn't communicate itself—especially not in a short comment, and 10x so when the topic is default-divisive. Past explanations in case helpful: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=burden%20disambiguate%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=intent%20effects%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

baryphonic 3y ago

This is almost certainly a fabrication, written more than a century after Christ – possibly a century after the Gospel of John – without any clear connection to St Thomas the Apostle or any of the other apostles. Early Christian leaders denied its authority. The earliest New Testament books were St Paul's letters, dating within a decade or so of the crucifixion & resurrection, and the earliest Christian creed – quoted in 1 Corinthians – dates to likely within a year of Christ rising from the dead. The Gospels were written down within the next few decades: from Mark being penned within a couple decades to John being penned about 60 years later.

jfengel 3y ago
Note that Mark is generally thought to be recording an earlier, possibly oral, gospel dubbed Q. It would have been composed closer to the nominal date of the crucifixion, perhaps contemporary with the epistles. That doesn't make it an eyewitness account, and even if it were we can only infer its text from the copies in the synoptic gospels (which disagree with each other). But it does give us a chronology of the composition relative to the events that inspired it.
- rwywgi 3y ago
  That is incorrect. Q is considered a (written) source underlying Matthew and Luke, not Mark.
- Maursault 3y ago
  > Note that Mark is generally thought to be recording an earlier, possibly oral, gospel dubbed Q. No one thinks Mark is based on Q. Q, or Q Source, for the German word Quelle, meaning "source," is the material common to both Matthew and Luke which does not appear in Mark.
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
Early Christian leaders cherry-picked what they wanted based on what was beneficial to their personal agendas anyway.

pddev 3y ago

[flagged]

hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago

This is a fabrication, as opposed to the real Gospel of Thomas, the gnostic one.

Maursault 3y ago
> as opposed to the real Gospel of Thomas, the gnostic one. This is a simplistic and superficially supportable description. Because of its discovery with the Nag Hammadi library, and the cryptic emphasis on "gnosis" in some of the sayings, it was widely thought that the document originated within a school of early Christians, proto-Gnostics. However, critics have questioned whether the description of Thomas as an entirely gnostic gospel is based solely upon the fact that it was found along with gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi.[1] Many scholars consider the Gospel of Thomas to be a gnostic text, since it was found in a library among others, it contains Gnostic themes, and perhaps presupposes a Gnostic worldview. Others reject this interpretation, because Thomas lacks the full-blown mythology of Gnosticism as described by Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 185), and because Gnostics frequently appropriated and used a large "range of scripture from Genesis to the Psalms to Homer, from the Synoptics to John to the letters of Paul." The mysticism of the Gospel of Thomas also lacks many themes found in second century Gnosticism. According to David W. Kim, the association of the Thomasines and Gnosticism is anachronistic and the book seems to predate the Gnostic movements.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas#Importance_and_author https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas#Importance_an...

bjourne 3y ago

This video about the gospel from early Christianity scholar Andrew Mark Henry is very informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7JYGOhgnKc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7JYGOhgnKc I totally recommend his channel if you are interested in topics related to early Christianity and the New Testament.