What's the meaning of this verse?

It is meaningless - like the bible. In response to this responder:

The Gospel of Thomas? Well, there is very much evidence that points to that Gospel not even being inspired of God. It isn't part of the accepted Bible canon. You are only going to get scattered opinions on anything that doesn't tie into the theme of God's kingdom like the 66 books of the Bible canon.

There is not a shred of evidence that demonstrates the gospel of Thomas was not inspired by god. On that same theme there is not a shred of evidence that god inspired the bible - or exists for that matter.

Now what we do know is men choose stories from books that existed or invented their own, then reworded them and put them in specific order to tell the story they wanted.

A great example of this is the gospels. These books were written by unknown authors who did not live during the time of christ and are not presented in chronological order.

Should the gospel of Thomas be in the Canon?

The early church councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Was the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?

The gospel of Thomas fails all of these tests. The gospel of Thomas was not written by Jesus' disciple Thomas. The early Christian leaders universally recognized the gospel of Thomas as a forgery. The gospel of Thomas was rejected by the vast majority of early Christians. The gospel of Thomas contains many teachings that are in contradiction to the biblical Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. The gospel of Thomas does not bear the marks of a work of inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Are there any other arguments that preclude the gospel of Thomas from being included in the Bible? If we examine the 114 sayings in this writing, then we find some that are similar to existing sayings, some that are slightly different, but the majority cannot be found anywhere in the entirety of Scripture itself. Scripture must always confirm itself, and the majority of sayings in the gospel of Thomas cannot be confirmed anywhere else in Scripture.

One argument for precluding the gospel of Thomas from the Bible is found in the overt "secretness" attributed to these 114 sayings by the work itself. Nowhere in Scripture is God's Word given “in secret" but is given for all to read and understand. The gospel of Thomas very clearly tries to maintain an air of secrecy in its words.

The gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic gospel, espousing a Gnostic viewpoint of Christianity. The gospel of Thomas is simply a heretical forgery, much the same as the gospel of Judas, the gospel of Mary, and the gospel of Philip. Perhaps the disciple Thomas' nickname of "doubting Thomas" is appropriate here. We should all be doubting the gospel of Thomas!

The Gospel of Thomas? Well, there is very much evidence that points to that Gospel not even being inspired of God. It isn't part of the accepted Bible canon. You are only going to get scattered opinions on anything that doesn't tie into the theme of God's kingdom like the 66 books of the Bible canon.

I normally don't do this but, Tony S, who commented after me and made some unnecessary remarks about my comment, raised some interesting points. The truth is simply this: we don't have any physical evidence of anything when it comes to the Bible and and who wrote the books (like any of the originals or any archaeological findings that make a direct link). What we do have is 10,000 existing manuscripts that even date back thousands of years. In many of these writings the actual writer of the book does indicate who he is. In any cases we need to compare writing styles and common expressions to see who wrote a book. But, the overall theme of the Bible, the carrying out of God's purpose by means of his kingdom, is what many people, not me, but other Bible scholars, use to decide as to whether books should be part of the canon. There are other determining factors as well. For instance, the manuscripts that do exist tell us a lot, there are over 10,000 of them after all.

Also, in saying 13 of the Gospel of Thomas he goes on to say things that are contrary to regular Bible thought and continuity. In fact, throughout this gospel it strays away from the theme of the rest of the Bible in many ways. It is also extremely widely accepted as just not being authentically part of the 66 canonical books. I really think you should do some research and know what you are saying if you are going to single someone out and criticize them publically on this page. It only makes you look foolish. Thank you.

PS. Some of the gospel writers did live during the time of Christ as well. Matthew being one of them, John also. Get your facts straight.

The idea that man reworded the Bible doesn't make sense either. 10,000 manuscripts found in a span of thousands of years and the only differences are spelling errors. I don't know. That argument doesn't hold up. If man really reworded it then we would have seen that within the manuscriptural evidence that we have.

Why quote a non-canonical writing rejected by Christians?

Tony S has like no clue what he is saying. That's all I will say.

The first two answered your question.

Hmmm...it sounds like no matter which way you turn, there's woe.

a belly for food and food for the belly. Let the wise understand..

Where did you come up with that???