Chris,

Thanks for taking the time to find out for your own.

For those who would like to read about Thomas' Gospel see here (It's free):
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm

The interesting thing about what you wrote was not that YOU agree or disgree with it, but rather that OTHERS have viewed it as "nothing much" or "heretical."

I also find it interesting about the claim Thomas' work borrowed from other works which did end up being compiled into the Bible.

WHO is to say that those other works did not borrow from Thomas?

> Gnosticism
> in general teaches much that is inconsistent
> with that believed and taught by the early
> Christians. The early Church fathers con-
> demned it as heretical.

The four Gospels in the "New" Testament are inconsistent too. They can't even tell the same story in the same way. And the differences are staggering.

And does the Gnostics teaching things that are inconsistent with the Church's stance mean they are wrong? Not necessarily.

Of course the Chuch would condemn the text. They have a vested interest in doing so. Because it undermines their power and authority. They would condemn anything that tried to teach you that "God is within." (There would be no need for them.)

And fancy saying physical circumcision is wrong. Man oh man. The Jews can't have that. They tell everyone that that is their proven sign of being the "chosen" people." What heresy to have one of their own condemn such an act.

> So,... the Gospel of Thomas was at best
> practically useless and at worst heresy.

Let me add.... according to the opinions of those who have a vested interest in condemning the Work.

I actually find it funny that the Church does this a lot - passes off THEIR texts as true history and calls ancient real documents fantasy when they disagree with the church stance.

The Church has a LOT to lose if certain things are ever proved. Things such as: Jesus was a normal man; Jesus had children; Mary Magd was his wife; the many "miracles" are just a mis-interpretation of actual normal events; and so on. They lose their "divine right" for one. They lose some of their flock for another - many people will believe no matter how much proof is offered forth.

The Church Fathers read texts which might "let the cat out of the bag" Know thy enemy. It would therefore be wise for followers to also read those same texts, would it not?

Texts such as those written by Sir Laurence Gardiner (Bloodline of The Holy Grail - The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed, Genisis of The Grail Kings, etc.) and Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh & Henry Lincoln (The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail).

Michael (Heathen Gnostic) Ross