Quote Originally Posted by BLBereans View Post
The belief that "The Gospel of Thomas" should be considered as authoritative and divinely inspired as the traditional gospels is based upon the assumption that the Thomas "gospel" was written either at the same time as, or perhaps even earlier than, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

However, if we consider the possibility that this text was originally written in Syriac and likely taken from its source, Tatian's Diatessaron, we no longer have the "first-hand" sayings of Jesus, do we?

For those interested in investigating and verifying...

THOMAS: THE FIFTH GOSPEL?
I think you wise to question everything, but I would like you to consider that there are three items found in the Ark of the Covenant. The Tables are clearly symbolic of the O.T. Aaron's Rod that buds [Reed] is clearly the N.T. and yet there remains a Golden Bowl with "Hidden Manna" within. Manna is food [teachings]. Thusly, consider that perhaps there are many other books that did not make it into the Reed [canon].

In fact, St. Paul quotes from many extra-canonical sources. Of course, trust no man, study to show thyself approved unto God. If one can read or recognize the hidden language in symbols then one is not in need of a canon. Nevertheless, each according to what he/she can eat. And thusly be satisfied.

Exo 16:17 And the children of Israel did so, and gathered, some more, some less.

Exo 16:18 And when they did mete it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his eating.