I've read where The Gospel of Thomas was originally composed in the Coptic language (actually some sayings are believed to have been written in Greek predating the Coptic) but I've also seen where scholars have 'reversed engineered' the Coptic back into a Greek dialect. I'm wondering if such a document is easily accessible and its location. Specifically I'm looking for the Greek (from Coptic?) for saying number 108: "Jesus said, 'He who will drink from my mouth will become like Me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will become revealed to him.'"

The visitor, who was to address many British school children on some of the things taught in the opening chapters of Genesis (and who I personally know, hearing this from him first-hand), had his talk vetted by the school head-teacher in advance. He was told he could not quote Genesis 1:27 which says: > “In the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.” I have now seen this quote from the Gnostic *“Gospel of Thomas”* - > “When you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the > male not be male nor the female female… then you will enter the > kingdom.” 15 > > 15 The Gospel of Thomas, Logion 114, in Meyer, M W, *The Gospel of > Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus*, Harper Collins, 1992, page 33. There’s no suggestion that the head-teacher knew of this quote, or believed it, but given the way British school children seem to be being encouraged to consider ‘transitioning’ sexually, might this be behind such social engineering attempts these days? I don’t have any access to this quote and wonder ***if it can be vouched for as authentic, and if there are any other similar ideas in The Gospel of Thomas?*** Please note, I am NOT looking for exposition of Genesis 1:27; this is not a hermeneutic question but one about possible attempts to control Christian discussion of God’s creation in the hearing of some British school children. EDIT: The possible connection I’m seeking information about is that the biblical quote clearly states that God created humanity with male and female distinctives, distinctly, whereas Gnosticism is diametrically opposed to that particular point and is an ancient religion. (Reminds me of “There is nothing new under the sun”. Ecclesiastes 1:9) I’m not wanting opinions about gender but I do wonder if there is an agenda behind the modern trend being promoted in many schools. Having had clarification in an answer re. the Gnostic quotes involved, my question may now be answered as far as it can go here. Unless someone knows more?

The Gospel of Thomas is considered to be a 'Gnostic' gospel, discovered in 1945. It contains various sayings attributed to Jesus, and has some significant overlap with sayings of Jesus' in the canonical Gospels. Has the Catholic Church made any official pronouncement about the Gospel of Thomas on whether it is real or fake, and whether it is heretical or not?

I'm listening to a lecture series by Dale Martin (Professor of Religious Studies, Yale), and he makes the passing claim that during development of the New Testament canon there were some who thought that four gospels should be considered authoritative, but some thought five, and some six. I can't seem to find any ancient source to back this up. Certainly more than four gospels existed, but are there ancient sources that equates any of them as on par with the four canonical gospels? A list that includes the Gospel of Thomas along side Luke? Or a document that freely quotes from Mark and the Gospel of Peter? I guess 2 Clement is a possibility, but given the author's usage of the Gospel of Thomas and possibly the Gospel of Peter, perhaps they are better examples.

In [an answer here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/43405/21576) , Dick Harfield writes: > we know that [the Gospel of Thomas] and (probably) Q were treated as scripture by early Christians. Reading the Wikipedia article on the [Gospel of Thomas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas) , I see that there is scholarly disagreement over the dating of the Gospel of Thomas – some say before AD 100, while others say after. But by the mid- to late-2nd century, the four gospels we recognize today were affirmed by Irenaeus and others, to the exclusion of the Gospel of Thomas. Actual evidence from the first century seems sparse, and so my question: Among those arguing for an early date for the Gospel of Thomas, what is the evidence that points to early Christians (i.e., 1st century or early 2nd century) considering it to be "scripture"?

How many copies of the Gospel of Thomas do we have including fragments. I heard a speaker say that we had a single copy and wanted to verify.

I've seen in a few places the Gospel of Thomas described as Gnostic and thus heretical. I've seen people dismiss it as heretical but never going into the details of why that is the case. Why is the gospel of Thomas considered heretical? I have read the text, it seemed quite interesting to me, shares much of the material from other gospel texts and as the form is a sayings gospel leaves much to interpretation; I don't think it would be difficult for even pretty stringently orthodox people to interpret it to their satisfaction. Although you could construe it in a number of ways, you could say that for lots of works that are considered canonical. It certainly doesn't seem any more different from the synoptic gospels than is the Gospel of John. The dating might be questionable but that doesn't make it doctrinally unsound surely otherwise Ephesians could not be canonical. The only saying that even seems to hint at gnosticism to me is 114 and that is known to be a later addition to the text. To be clear I'm referring to the sayings gospel not the infancy gospel.

This question is addressed to Saint Thomas Christians that are Catholic. Since the Catholic church rejects the authenticity of both the Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Thomas , how can anyone in the Catholic segment of that faith say with confidence that Thomas sailed from the Red Sea to the port city of Muziris in 52 AD?

What is the value of the physical body in mainstream Christianity? Sometimes it seems to be very negative and to encourage one to concentrate primarily or even almost solely on the spiritual realm. Other times looking after the body with Biblical references to it as a temple for the holy spirit and the like. What is the mainstream Christian view of the physical body? Specifically, I'd like to compare and contrast the understanding of the body as found in the Gospel of Thomas with Nicene Christianity. Are the two incompatible?