Historicity of Jesus - 2

[ramana]

brihaspati posted in BRF:

Thomas is a problem:



(1) First - is that Thomas is known within inner Church lore as the "doubting Thomas", he was not an easy and gullible disciple. The Gospel of Thomas fell into the so-called discarded "Gospels" after the Romanization of Chritianity under Constantine and his favourite Bishops. Thomas could have represented the early "Gnostic" sects within Chritianity (and perhaps as speculated by some, closer to historical Jesus if any)



(2) Significantly he is the only one named to be in association with India in the New Testament. Jews of teh first century are not unlikely to have travelled to south India. But his "doubting Thomas" background and "Gnostic" shades - makes India a more poignant connection. He could have had earlier exposure to Indic thought and hence took refuge back there. Or he joined the early Christian movement from that original attraction for "Gnostic" or "Indic" tenets. He might have found it impossible to continue with the intensely political/fanatical and increasingly Judaic form of the Gnostic movement as Roman repression intensified in the lead up to the final Roman action on the Jews.



The Roman Catholics or EJ's in general may have severe theological and teleological problems with Thomas in India - for strategic reasons obviously.

ramana replied

Anyway its diversion from my intent in briging up Thomas: namely to put the others in their place.



Also can you expand on his uniqueness in your blog or India Forum? If later the Historicity of Jesus thread

Brihaspati replied:

ramana ji,

very very seriously we should explore the possibility of early Christianity being an Indian export. Buddhism->Mani->Gnostic->Roman X-tian. At least two trade routes - one along the fertile crescent -Gulf/Iran-AFG sector, the other Arabian Sea->Red Sea-Egypt->Alexandria would have carried the "gospel" from India. I will not divert - I understand your reason.