“After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and struck his shoulder. Jesus was angry and said to him, ‘You shall not go further on your way,’ and immediately the child fell down and died.”— Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Lol
this really reads like words invented by men not spoken by god.
There's plenty of examples of that happening. Patroclus was sent away because he killed another boy, too. Which was Achilles but not really, lol
>>18438864>Infancy Gospel of Thomasnon-canonical text
>>18438895And? There are plenty of canonical bizarre texts.
>>18438907why are religious people so dumb?
>>18438909its a polshit he insulted me for being brown muslim as well. or someone like him.
>>18438864these infancy gospels have some interesting material that is unfortunately mostly untrue (or maybe fortunately in this case)
>>18438918>unfortunately mostly untrueHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! If it's something against Christianity's principles, it's not true according to Christians. LMAO!
>>18438864>apocrypha and gnostic heresy
>>18439080I don't think anything in Infancy Thomas is especially gnostic. It even has Jesus molding sparrows out of clay and bringing them to life in imitation of the demiurge. Most likely the association with Gnosticism came by confusion with the gospel of Thomas, since the gospel of Thomas was lost completely for a long time before its rediscovery, while infancy Thomas remained popular in the middle ages and had a very wide reach. Even the name "Thomas" seems to have been added to infancy Thomas later, since it's missing in the earliest copies we have. But, since we had infancy Thomas before we had the gospel of Thomas, the Thomas mentioned by the heresiologists was easily assumed to refer to infancy Thomas, even if it didn't really fit, since that was the "Thomas" we had.
>>18438900Then why didn't you make your post about them
>You shall not go further on your way
>>18439178If you untangle the confusion between the Gospel of Thomas and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas completely, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas still does not become respectable Scripture. The Church rejects the Infancy Gospel of Thomas because it is late, non-apostolic, legendary, and presents a picture of Jesus that jars badly with the canonical Gospels and the rule of faith. At best it is an imaginative, apocryphal infancy legend. Even modern reference works note that the text is a late apocryphal account of Jesus’ childhood, probably from the second or third century, with uncertain authorship, secondary attribution to "Thomas".>>18439182Kek>>18438925These childhood miracle stories cannot be supported because of a variety of contradictions between the canonical Gospels and what is suggested of Jesus' character in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The Infancy places miracles before the baptism. The canonical Gospels present the public manifestation of the Lord’s signs as beginning at the proper time, with John 2:11 explicitly calling Cana the "first" of His signs, while Luke presents the child Jesus growing in wisdom and stature, not striking playmates dead and blinding parents in fits of offended power. Christ is without sin, gentle, and meek, but Infancy Thomas often portrays Him in ways that do not seem sinless or gentle at all. These contradictions are what the earliest Church Fathers locked onto. The Jesus in that book is not the Jesus of Scripture.>"He committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth."1 Peter 2:22>"Learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart."Matthew 11:29>"This, the first of His signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested His glory." John 2:11>"And the Child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon Him." Luke 2:40>"And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Luke 2:52
>>18439080cry.
>>18439220>These childhood miracle stories cannot be supported because of a variety of contradictions between the canonical Gospels and what is suggested of Jesus' character in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The Infancy places miracles before the baptism. The canonical Gospels present the public manifestation of the Lord’s signs as beginning at the proper time, with John 2:11 explicitly calling Cana the "first" of His signs, while Luke presents the child Jesus growing in wisdom and stature, not striking playmates dead and blinding parents in fits of offended power. Christ is without sin, gentle, and meek, but Infancy Thomas often portrays Him in ways that do not seem sinless or gentle at all. These contradictions are what the earliest Church Fathers locked onto. The Jesus in that book is not the Jesus of Scripture.>>"He committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth."Why do christians cope with the truth?
>>18439341>presents no argumentThe only person coping with the truth is you. The Infancy Gospel is trash, and it has been known to be trash for centuries upon centuries.
>>18439486brown cope.
>>18439488You maybe, sure.
>>18439490why do you believe in s brown god though? are you retarded?
>>18439493Why don’t you have an argument? You are retarded, no passive aggressive question necessary.
>>18439504jesus was brown is not an argument but a scientific evidence, imbecile.
>>18439505>nonsense followed by insultStop projecting your feelings about yourself onto others vile schlomo. You have a serious problem with this.
>>18439193kek
>>18439513Saying the truth hurt your feelings. Yes, there were white people in middle east, it makes a lot of sense.
>>18439517>more nonsenseMaybe one day you'll have an argument.
>>18439563so now you're saying jesus was gay? which is kida true.
>>18439505>jesus was brownheresy
>>18438864Might be why that one got ejected from the canon.
>>18438864Shouldn't've fucked with Jesus.Simple as.
based
>>18439619>>18440123Christianity causes moral degeneracy
