You should give it a read sometime. It is a principle Gnostic gospel, though it doesn't go as far as some of the Gnostic movement (from what I understand). I found portions of it definitely wacky (and it has been a good 15-odd years since I read it) but it really does a good job showing the diversity of opinion in early Christianity. I was very much struck at how the formation of a Church with a capital C really required an effort to mainstream things and develop a more singular public face for the new religion. Different voices could have gained more control in the early days and the modern notion of Christianity would likely be very different.
Cheers, Judah On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Sisk, Kris <ks...@gckschools.com> wrote: > >>What is your opinion on the Gospel of Thomas? It doesn't seem to be >>any later than the canonical gospels, yet represents a drastically >>different way of viewing early Christianity. > > I'm not familiar with that one. I know that there were several reasons > that various gospels were rejected other than the one I sited, but I > don't know all the reasons. Most of them were along the lines that would > cause a professional fact checker to discard something, but as I said a > few of them were more editorial choices. Thomas could have been in > either category. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:322999 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
