Talk:Acts of Thomas

Different?

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)

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)

That has since been added. -- Beland (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

There is not. This has a solid outline of the book, pages 18-21 https://content.ucpress.edu/chapters/12898.ch01.pdf 73.160.179.136 (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Continously deleting certain points by anonymous users

The following points which are substantiated by the text of the Acts of Thomas, are continously deleted by edits from anonymous user accounts (ip addresses):-115.111.223.43. Instead of shadow editing behind ip-addresses the user should log in with a valid Wikipedia user name if he sincerely like to open a debate.

1. The Acts of Thomas, (http://www.gnosis.org/library/actthom.htm) makes it very clear that the domain of activity of Thomas was not South India but Indo-Parthia, which is now part of Pakistan. Hence accusing Hindus that a Hindu Brahmana killed St.Thomas in Mylapore, near Chennai in South India is plain wrong. It is un-historical as well as an unnecessary insult to Hinduism, which has given asylum to Christians persecuted in Iran under Zoroastrian kings.
2. Judas Thomas (St. Thomas), as per the Acts of Thomas, was the brother of Jesus and his appearance was very similar to that of Jesus to the point that people can mistake him for Jesus.
3. Judas Thomas (St. Thomas) was sold as a slave to an Indian merchant Abbanes, by Jesus himself, according to the Acts of Thomas
4. It is acceptable to consider St.Thomas's visit to South India and his martyrdom in Mylapore Chennai as a very active Christian tradition (but not as History) and it must be presented with similar tradition of St.Thomas visit and martyrdom in other places like Brazil.

Jijithnr (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The sections continously deleted are the following:-

Jesus make St.Thomas a slave to Indian merchant Abbanes

The following passage from the first chapter of the text describes how Jesus sold his slave Judas Thomas (later St.Thomas) to Abbanes, the Indain merchant, for three litrae of silver:-

There was there a certain merchant come from India whose name was Abbanes, sent from the King Gundaphorus (Gundaphorus is a historical personage who reigned over a part of India in the first century after Christ. His coins bear his name in Greek, as Hyndopheres), and having commandment from him to buy a carpenter and bring him unto him.

Now the Lord seeing him walking in the market-place at noon said unto him: Wouldest thou buy a carpenter? And he said to him: Yea. And the Lord said to him: I have a slave that is a carpenter and I desire to sell him. And so saying he showed him Thomas afar off, and agreed with him for three litrae of silver unstamped, and wrote a deed of sale, saying: I, Jesus, the son of Joseph the carpenter, acknowledge that I have sold my slave, Judas by name, unto thee Abbanes, a merchant of Gundaphorus, king of the Indians. And when the deed was finished, the Saviour took Judas Thomas and led him away to Abbanes the merchant, and when Abbanes saw him he said unto him: Is this thy master? And the apostle said: Yea, he is my Lord. And he said: I have bought thee of him. And thy apostle held his peace.

And on the day following the apostle arose early, and having prayed and besought the Lord he said: I will go whither thou wilt, Lord Jesus: thy will be done. And he departed unto Abbanes the merchant, taking with him nothing at all save only his price. For the Lord had given it unto him, saying: Let thy price also be with thee, together with my grace, wheresoever thou goest.

Jesus identifies Thomas as his brother

The following passage make it clear that Judas Thomas (i.e. St.Thomas) whom Jesus sold as a slave to Indian merchant Abbanas, was none other than the brother of Jesus and both Jesus and Judas Thomas looked alike:-

And the king desired the groomsmen to depart out of the bride-chamber; and when all were gone out and the doors were shut, the bridegrroom lifted up the curtain of the bride-chamber to fetch the bride unto him. And he saw the Lord Jesus bearing the likeness of Judas Thomas and speaking with the bride; even of him that but now had blessed them and gone out from them, the apostle; and he saith unto him: Wentest thou not out in the sight of all? how then art thou found here? But the Lord said to him: I am not Judas which is also called Thomas but I am his brother. And the Lord sat down upon the bed and bade them also sit upon chairs.

This above passage is also the basis of considering Judas Thomas as the twin brother of Jesus and explains why he was called Didymus, the twin, in Greek. The name 'Thomas' also means 'twin'.

Death of St.Thomas as per the Acts of Thomas

The following passage, describe how St.Thomas was executed by a Zoroastrian king named Misdaeus in his Indo-Parthian Kingdom (a part of modern day Pakistan):-

Indo Parthian Kingdom of Gondophares

Misdaeus saith unto him : I have not made haste to destroy thee, but have had long patience with thee: but thou hast added unto thine evil deeds, and thy sorceries are dispersed abroad and heard of throughout all the country: but this I do that thy sorceries may depart with thee, and our land be cleansed from them. Thomas saith unto him; These sorceries depart [NOT, Syr.] with me when I set forth hence, and know thou this that I [THEY, Syr.] shall never forsake them that are here.

When the apostle had said these things, Misdaeus considered how he should put him to death; for he was afraid because of the much people that were subject unto him, for many also of the nobles and of them that were in authority believed on him. He took him therefore and went forth out of the city; and armed soldiers also went with him. And the people supposed that the king desired to learn somewhat of him, and they stood still and gave heed. And when they had walked one mile, he delivered him unto four soldiers and an officer, and commanded them to take him into the mountain and there pierce him with spears and put an end to him, and return again to the city. And saying thus unto the soldiers, he himself also returned unto the city.

This narration is at variance with the dominant Christian myth that St. Thomas was martyred at Mylapore near Channai in South India which was then under the rule of Cholas and not under any Indo-Parthian king or Zoroastrian rulers. This narration also contradicts the portrait of St. Thomas martyrdom illustrated inside the church of St.Thomas in Mylapore Chennai, which shows a single Brahmana Hindu back stabbing St.Thomas with a lance while he was engaged in prayer.

References

Jijithnr (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You are not supposed to make massive edits to the page without discussing and reaching consensus in the talk page. You also deleted existing data as per your will. Also the contents given above are very much biased and highly deviating from the core. If each person starts to quote the contents which he feels as "important" it will lead to total confusion. So presently no changes can be made to the article. Also your edit history shows that you are a strong contenter for being getting banned for repetitive disruptive editing. Thanks 202.79.203.43 (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you show the courtesy of logging in as a valid Wikipedia editor? Let us discuss this. Jijithnr (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Poor Citation

After following the citation referencing Bar-Dasian to a website with no relevant information the footnote was replaced with 'citation needed' but the reference at the bottom could not be deleted.