Religion & Spirituality > Christianity

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The Gospel of Thomas, verse 64

Jesus said,

A man was receiving guests. When he had prepared the dinner, he sent his servant to invite the guests. The servant went to the first and said, "My master invites you." The first replied, "Some merchants owe me money; they are coming to me tonight. I have to go and give them instructions. Please excuse me from dinner."

The servant went to another and said, "My master has invited you." The second said to the servant, "I have bought a house, and I have been called away for a day. I shall have no time."

The servant went to another and said, "My master invites you." The third said to the servant, "My friend is to be married, and I am to arrange the banquet. I shall not be able to come. Please excuse me from dinner."

The servant went to another and said, "My master invites you." The fourth said to the servant, "I have bought an estate, and I am going to collect the rent. I shall not be able to come. Please excuse me."

The servant returned and said to his master, "Those whom you invited to dinner have asked to be excused." The master said to his servant, "Go out on the streets and bring back whomever you find to come to dinner."

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Jake966 · 56-60, M

There’s no such thing as the book of Thomas

SomeMichGuy · M

@Jake966 Yes, there is, and it is very widely known to actual Bible scholars.

Some scholars think it is the postulated "source" (German "Quelle", or "Q") which might have been used by the Gospel writers as a common reference / take-off point for their own "takes" on Jesus.

Jake966 · 56-60, M

@SomeMichGuy you just keep believing that, but as far as my king James version there is no book of Thomas

SparkleLeaf · 51-55, T

@SomeMichGuy I'm not sure where you got your information. Thomas's gospel was written over 50 years after the synoptic gospels, and so couldn't have been the source. The Q gospel is a real thing, and most scholars do say it was the source for the synoptics, but that is not Thomas.

SparkleLeaf · 51-55, T

@Jake966 So the KJV just popped into existence out of the ether, not being derived from, or even influenced by, anything that came before it? Can you explain its similarity to the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, the Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops' Bible, all of which predate it?

Jake966 · 56-60, M

@SparkleLeaf I think they came after the KJV

SparkleLeaf · 51-55, T

@Jake966 You don't have to "think." A quick web search reveals the original publication date of each one

Tyndale Bible: 1526
Coverdale Bible: 1535
Matthew's Bible: 1537
Great Bible: 1539
Bishop's Bible: 1568
King James: 1611

Even the Catholic Douay–Rheims Bible, which contains seven books not found in the KJV, was published a year earlier: 1610.

Jake966 · 56-60, M

@SparkleLeaf don’t even mention Catholic to me cause that’s just a fallacy

OogieBoogie · F

@Jake966 denial is everyhing 😂

Jake966 · 56-60, M

@OogieBoogie no denial , it’s not part of the Bible

OogieBoogie · F

@Jake966 its still the book of Thomas.
The ampersand was removed from the alphabet but it doesn't negate its existence 😅

Jake966 · 56-60, M

@OogieBoogie I’m concerned about its authenticity

OogieBoogie · F

@Jake966 well id recommend you do your own research on it, rather than depend upon some crusty old religious clerics hell bent on audaciously editing the inspired word of god for the lesser good of comprehensional flow.

Its quite inspiring.
As are some of the other exised books.
I dont feel falible man has the right to edit religious texts.

Look at it this way: the sermon on the mount is one of the most inspirational parts of the Bible - the gospel of thomas is as much, for much the very same reason .

LeopoldBloom · M

@Jake966 It isn't in the KJV because it wasn't discovered until recently as part of the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. Early Christianity was far more diverse than it is today.

The original KJV included the Apocrypha, which was eventually left out to save money. If you've never read the Apocrypha, you're missing out. The KJV isn't a very good translation either; it was mostly based on the Geneva Bible. A much better one is the New Revised Standard Version.

LeopoldBloom · M

@Jake966 The Catholic Church began when Jesus named Peter as the first Pope. Protestantism didn't even exist until the 17th century. If the Catholic Church hadn't preserved Christianity through the Middle Ages, today you'd either be a Muslim or worshipping trees or whatever your ancestors were doing until they were converted to Christianity at the point of a sword.

LeopoldBloom · M

@SomeMichGuy Thomas is a "sayings gospel" that records Jesus' words, but no actions. It was written around the same time as the Gospel of John, and has some similarities, but also some important differences. The debate at the time was whether the nascent church should be standardized (Irenaus was a big proponent of this) or whether personal revelation was valid, and if so, which ones. The Jesus in Thomas espoused things like heaven is within you. Obviously this viewpoint lost out.

Q was written much earlier and along with Mark, is thought to have influenced Matthew and Luke.

OogieBoogie · F

@LeopoldBloom what does the Q stand for? Is it Qur'an?

Jake966 · 56-60, M

@LeopoldBloom wrong ! That conversation never took place

OogieBoogie · F

@Jake966 ok, youre just bored and play "quips" to make us jump and get some sort of "fun" out of it.

Ugh.

You need a better hobby than trolling. Its rewards are short lived, and shallow.

LeopoldBloom · M

@OogieBoogie It stands for "Quelle," the German word for "source." The Quran wasn't written for at least another 500 years, although some parts of the Quran were obviously cribbed from the Bible.

The Q gospel has never been found. It's implied as the source for verses in Matthew and Luke that aren't present in Mark. Those must have come from somewhere, so an earlier lost manuscript is proposed as the source. I'm not a Bible scholar so I can't tell you why it's thought to be an earlier written source and not an oral tradition.

SomeMichGuy · M

@SparkleLeaf The notion that the Gospel of Thomas might be Q was floated by some a while ago, and it would have been a nice dovetail--some scholars had postulated Q could be a book of sayings of Jesus, and Thomas certainly appears to fill the bill--but as both you and @LeopoldBloom have pointed out, the current understanding of the time from which Thomas' writing dates doesn't fit the requirement.

Jake966 · 56-60, M

@SomeMichGuy Thomas doubted Jesus doubted his existence after he was slain on the cross . It is because of that doubt, and the fact that he actually had to touch Jesus in order to believe that he had risen from the dead is why I believe that the book of Thomas is not part of the Bible.

LeopoldBloom · M

@Jake966 It's not part of the Bible because Irenaeus, an influential early Catholic bishop, didn't approve of it.

Where does it say in the Bible that the KJV is the only correct version? Are the originals in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek wrong? If someone speaks only Chinese or Spanish or Arabic, what translation is approved, or are they going to hell because they don't speak English?

SomeMichGuy · M

@Jake966

There's actually a huge amount of scholarship on how the canon of both the "Old" and "New" Testaments were formed, and much is accessible online (though it can be opaque if you are unfamiliar with the lay of the land, as are most lay people).

The only complete text of The Gospel of Thomas found, to date, was found at Nag Hammadi, far up the Nile, closer to the Valley of the Kings than Alexandria.

There are a huge number of sources available from the very early church which shed more light on all sorts of issues.