Talk:Acts of Thomas
| WikiProject Religious texts | (Rated Start-class) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy | (Rated Start-class) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Is this different from the Gospel of Thomas? RickK 05:38, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Indeed it is, as the entries have now made clear. I have eliminated some statements in today's rewrite:
- Acts of Thomas is considered to be a cornerstone Gnostic writings. (There is no structured Gnostic edifice. Texts are Gnostic or show Gnostic tendencies, or show the influence of Gnosticism, etc.)
- The Acts of Thomas are the only Acts that claim self-authorship. (Many early Christian writings, including some in the canon, claim to be written by authoritative figures but were not, in a tradition that reaches back to Isaiah.)
- Thought to have been written in the 200s C.E., though the Gospel of Thomas places it earlier. (The early sayings Gospel of Thomas does not mention this work. The name "Thomas" alone connects them.)
- Thomas often referred to Peter as "the liar". (I haven't found this in Acts of Thomas.)
- There are some Gnostic texts (not The Acts of Thomas) that suggest the Jesus was taken from the cross alive, other Gnostic texts suggest the Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had two sons and that Jesus and Mary were equal partners in the early church, that Mary and her sons were hidden after Jesus' crucifixion, etc. (yada yada yada. as it says, "not in the Acts of Thomas)
I hope the revised entry is acceptable. Wetman 19:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Anti-sexualism
I've read that it has a pervading theme of encouraging sexlessness, including in marriage; maybe this could be included... AnonMoos 16:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reference source proving Acts of Thomas to be pseudepigraphical
There seems to be no evidence quoted supporting key remarks suggesting the 'Acts of Thomas' AoT to be pseudepigraphical! There must be an 3rd century opinion of whom wrote the AoT, or at least some evidence that Judus Thomas did not write it. If it is the case that the AoT was simply discarded as being against authodoxy, who decided this and at which council? I mean do we really know evidence of who wrote the AoT or is it just the case that it was rejected from the cannonate for being against roman catholic views. At any rate, such quotes labeling a scriputure as pseudepigraphical ought to be expanded to include reasons and referenced evidence in support of it, otherwise it is here say.195.74.134.225 14:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.
[edit] Most Gnostic?
The article says that the Acts of Thomas is arguably the most Gnostic of the apocrypha, but I disagree. Well, not so much disagree. I mean, the points given for its Gnosticism are accepted by the modern church. It says that Christ is the Heavenly Redeemder to show its Gnosticism, but that is something that almost all Christians believe. Another thing it says to point out Gnosticism is that Jesus is independent of creation, which he is in most Christians' minds. And last it says that Christ can free us from the darkness of the world, which is accepted today. Did someone accidentally write "most" instead of "least"? What I've read in the Acts of Thomas doesn't really seem Gnostic at all. I don't think much of it is true, I think it was just a story, but not a Gnostic story. If I'm wrong, please tell me, but if no one answers in a couple of days, I'll change that "most" to "least". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.242.92 (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dragon
Isn't there a dragon mentioned in the text of the Acts of Thomas? If so, it should be mentioned in this article. Badagnani (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
