Talk:Acts of Thomas

message: 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)
replies: text: That has since been added. -- Beland (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-sexualism

message: 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)
thread_title: Reference source proving Acts of Thomas to be pseudepigraphical

message: 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)
thread_title:  Most Gnostic? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dragon 

message: 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.
# 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.
# 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.
# Judas Thomas (St. Thomas) was sold as a slave to an Indian merchant Abbanes, by Jesus himself, according to the Acts of Thomas
# 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Continously deleting certain points by anonymous users

message: 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):-
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 himhttp://www.gnosis.org/library/actthom.htm, 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.
Jijithnr (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Death of St.Thomas as per the Acts of Thomas