Page 2 of 2
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:15 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
Metacrock wrote:AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Fortigurn wrote:Forge wrote:Didn't Thomas' account claim that Jesus said women had to become men to enter heaven? Not to mention severly pantheistic quotes?
Yes, among other trash.
And just think, it's just as reliabie as the other gospels, even though it contradicts every freaking book of the Bible at least once. (I mean, that pantheistic [poop] gonna contradict everything by itself).
Remeber how I said there's an older saying source inside a Gnostic framework. it's really two books. the older sayings are very Q like. In fact some have suggested that That origianl core of Thomas is Q!
1) Q is a hypothesis....
He' saying he's everywhere. What's the difference in that and saying God is nothing because in the begining there was a great void?
This statement is pantheistic.
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:51 pm
by Metacrock
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Metacrock wrote:AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Fortigurn wrote:Forge wrote:Didn't Thomas' account claim that Jesus said women had to become men to enter heaven? Not to mention severly pantheistic quotes?
Yes, among other trash.
And just think, it's just as reliabie as the other gospels, even though it contradicts every freaking book of the Bible at least once. (I mean, that pantheistic [poop] gonna contradict everything by itself).
Remeber how I said there's an older saying source inside a Gnostic framework. it's really two books. the older sayings are very Q like. In fact some have suggested that That origianl core of Thomas is Q!
1) Q is a hypothesis....
so? that make it wrong? they've identified Q veres because aern't in Mark and are in Mat and Luke. So these same verses show up in Thomas, and since it is a saying soruce, which is the older form of a gospel then we know it's probalby older than canonicals.
He' saying he's everywhere. What's the difference in that and saying God is nothing because in the begining there was a great void?
This statement is pantheistic.[/quote]
Not necessarily. You are assuming ancient weorld had a "panetheism" as we know it today.
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:26 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
Not necessarily. You are assuming ancient weorld had a "panetheism" as we know it today.
I said pantheism.
Also, could you say your statement about the Q hypothesis again? It's a little messed up.
they've identified Q veres because aern't in Mark and are in Mat and Luke.
^^^???
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:16 am
by Metacrock
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
Not necessarily. You are assuming ancient weorld had a "panetheism" as we know it today.
I said pantheism.
sorry for typ-0. I have dyslexia, it's made worse by fast typing.
Also, could you say your statement about the Q hypothesis again? It's a little messed up.
they've identified Q veres because aern't in Mark and are in Mat and Luke.
^^^???
Q is that material which is in mattew and Luke and not in Mark. So one can make a list of Q verses even though we have no Q document. These verses are found, many of them, in Thomas. That's why some have thoguht of it as the original Q source.
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:06 pm
by Fortigurn
Metacrock wrote:AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Q is that material which is in mattew and Luke and not in Mark. So one can make a list of Q verses even though we have no Q document. These verses are found, many of them, in Thomas. That's why some have thoguht of it as the original Q source.
The problem is that this is all speculation, just like the J, L, and P source theories.
If Christians were to make arguments based on texts for which there was no physical evidence, we would be ridiculed. But apparently it's ok for non-Christians to do this.
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 11:03 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
Yeah, I find that funny...we must have physical evidence for everything we say...non-Christians get away with using an hypothesis as a fact....
And it's funny how one poorly spelled word, "aren't", completely confused me. Though, I do believe such a hypothesis starts WITH the assumption that the 2nd and 3rd writers stole from an older source it seems...I mean, Mark not talking about what the next two writers say could be explained away so many ways. For example, possibly the different audiences led to different things being mentioned.
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:55 pm
by Kokujin
So wait... why am I supposed to discredit Thomas? Is there any clear cut reasons and what are the major contradictions? I really want to know why this gospel isn't important because it opens with
"And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.""
and that kind of scares me. I dont want to "taste death" because I didn't bother to read thomas or interpret it.
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:14 am
by Fortigurn
Kokujin wrote:So wait... why am I supposed to discredit Thomas? Is there any clear cut reasons and what are the major contradictions?
Here:
* The earliest text of GThomas we have date to no earlier than the 3rd century AD (this is significant, since GThomas quotes John's gospel, and the earliest text of John's gospel dates to almost 100 years earlier)
* The earliest reference we have to GThomas in any Christian writing dates to no earlier than the 3rd century AD (this is significant, since GThomas quotes John's gospel, and the earliest references to John's gospel date to almost 100 years earlier)
* GThomas was found in the Nag Hammadi collection of Gnostic writings, and it is clear that the text was still unstable - it had been edited and revised a number of times, which is what is expected of a text which is either still being drafted, or which is still being adapted from an earlier text (the gospel of John), contributing to the argument for a date beyond the 1st century
* GThomas contains quotes from John's gospel which have undergone obvious conflation and expansion, a typical indication of a text which is adapting an earlier text (early, original texts do not show these signs, so this indicates that GThomas was adapting the earlier gospel of John)
* GThomas occasionally quotes phrases from the letters of Paul, and attributes them to Jesus - not only does this prove that GThomas must have been written after these letters of Paul (which are dated late, not early), but it shows that the author of GThomas cannot be relied on to quote accurately the other New Testament texts
These are very good reasons to reject the canonicity of GThomas.
I really want to know why this gospel isn't important because it opens with
"And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.""
and that kind of scares me. I dont want to "taste death" because I didn't bother to read thomas or interpret it.
If you trust the Bible, there will be no problem - it promises life to those who read it and believe.
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:20 am
by Fortigurn
Metacrock wrote:Fortigurn wrote:* The earliest text of GThomas we have date to no earlier than the 3rd century AD (this is significant, since GThomas quotes John's gospel, and the earliest text of John's gospel dates to almost 100 years earlier)
* The earliest reference we have to GThomas in any Christian writing dates to no earlier than the 3rd century AD (this is significant, since GThomas quotes John's gospel, and the earliest references to John's gospel date to almost 100 years earlier)
But that just applies to the finnished product. The document found at Nag Hammadi is a composit of an older saying source put into a latter Gnostic framework. Its' the core sayings that are called "earlier," the finnished version we have is clearly latter.
Speculation.
* GThomas was found in the Nag Hammadi collection of Gnostic writings, and it is clear that the text was still unstable - it had been edited and revised a number of times, which is what is expected of a text which is either still being drafted, or which is still being adapted from an earlier text (the gospel of John), contributing to the argument for a date beyond the 1st century
The core sayings are not from John. there are also Q sayings, and there are origianl saying not in any canononical form, but which seem to match the style of the canonical sayings. The fac that it is a saying source indicates that it's earlier than the canonicals.
I didn't say that the core sayings were from John. I was pointing out that its quotes from John indicate that it is partly adapted from that gospel, and that the text was unstable, indicating an authorship after the 1st century.
I honestly dont' know why christains can't see the enormous hell we can get form this.This is not at attack on the Bible, it' wonderful news from an apologetics stand point. Open your eyes! no offense.
I don't see that we can get a lot from it without speculating wildly.
* GThomas contains quotes from John's gospel which have undergone obvious conflation and expansion, a typical indication of a text which is adapting an earlier text (early, original texts do not show these signs, so this indicates that GThomas was adapting the earlier gospel of John)
most texual critics see an easlier stage of devleopment. See Helmutt Koster.
Ancient Christian Gosples (1992).
* GThomas occasionally quotes phrases from the letters of Paul, and attributes them to Jesus - not only does this prove that GThomas must have been written after these letters of Paul (which are dated late, not early), but it shows that the author of GThomas cannot be relied on to quote accurately the other New Testament texts
show me a prhase from Paul in Thomas? I've never seen any.
The comments on 'circumcision of the spirit [heart]' are a case in point.
how do you know this doesn't indiate that Paul used the oroignal GT saying source?
Firstly because there's no evidence that such a source existed, and secondly because there is no evidence that Christ said these words and that Paul later quoted them.
These are also very good reasons to reject the canonicity of GThomas.
No one wants to canonize it.
Some do.
It's an invaluable historical artifat that proves the validity of the NT. How? Because it proves that the sources of a Pre Markan redaction were circulating much earlier than AD70 and that they basically agree in substance with canonical sources.
It would be lovely if there was any textual evidence to support this. As it is, this is mere speculation which we are best to avoid.[/code]