Sojourner,

In response to your earlier post on the Gospel of Thomas — Yes, as it would have been fruitless for me to include the texts that the vast majority of us are all familiar with, those also included in the four canonical gospels, I limited my post to include the highly questionable ones.  NOTE: At no time did I say that this book cannot be accepted as inspired - I said the one who sees this book as acceptable had better be prepared to give an answer for the discrepancies. 

I am greatly interested in seeing a list of specific contradictions in the canonical texts, if you have one available or are willing to compile one.  For my own growth and knowledge I would like to be able to address any such contradictions (if any), if any inquirer were to bring them up.

For reference, in case you did not already know of it, there is a website (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com) where you can go and view over 10 different versions of the Gospel of Thomas, as well as many of the various manuscripts used in/by members of the early church community.  You can preview most documents there before buying a hard copy.

Although I do question the stated grounds on which many of the books were considered canonical or non-canonical, I do NOT question my belief that Yahweh is in control of His Word.  I disagree with many of the creeds and decisions established by the many ecumenical councils, but not with the fact that the truth was lost and/or sacrifices in the process.  Any who have faith in Yahweh must believe that He is in control, and that He desires those who would seek Him to be able to find Him.

As a note, I highly doubt, nor have I seen or heard any reputable proof, that "the doubter" was an APPELLATION which John chose to use to compete with Thomas.  If John’s purpose was competition, why not affix negative appellations to each person mentioned within his own gospel?  Peter is the perfect example.  Not only is there a "Gospel of Peter", but John’s gospel contains the longest narrative of the three denials Peter made of knowing Yahshua.  John could have called him "Peter the Hipocrite", or "Peter the Weak", or "Peter the Fearful", if his motive was to discredit all other gospels out there other than his.

So as to not draw this too far beyond the scope of this post, let’s focus on the subject presented before us.  Let’s imagine we had the resources only available to a believer of the first century…scrolls of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, although not necessarily in one compliation.  From what is already known, or can be learned from what is within these pages, can we accept the statements of the Gospel of Thomas above as coming from (or being inspired by) the same God?  And, let us not forget to define the term "gospel".  To the best of my current understanding, I define the gospel as such:

"Believe upon the free gift of grace from Yahweh through the sacrifice of Yahshua, and repent (turn away from) your sins for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Repentance is essential to the gospel.  It is a constant thread not only in the canonical books of the New Testament, but also those of the Old.  Unfortunately the Gospel of Thomas, although having inferences and a few citations pointing one to believe upon Yahshua, is almost completely devoid of a message of repentance.  In my humble opinion, any gospel that does not state the need for repentance, does not preach the whole gospel.  Even though John’s gospel contains only one definite instruction to turn from sin (5:14), John’s first epistle is very clear on the matter (1 John 1:5-10, 2:1-6, 3:4-10, 5:13-18).

Even the simple, although not completely relevant fact that it is called the "Secret" Gospel of Thomas should raise the ears of those who would look into it.  In my understanding, Yahshua didn’t come to conceal, but to reveal and fulfil.  He came to disclose things that HAD BEEN hidden, not speak more secrets.