Evidence for God from Science

Interesting topic line and one I may be able to contribute to.

I am a few courses shy of a degree in Biblical Literature. I did my Senior Thesis on an exegetical comparison of Parallel passages from the Gospel of Thomas and Matthew 13. To do that, I had to do some translation from the language the GofT is in which is Coptic and then try to make some comparisons with the koine greek of Matthew. That was back in the early 80's.

Basically the Gospel of Thomas (not the infancy narrative which there is another work out there) as found at Nag Hammadi has the following characteristics.

1. It has no narrative or context. It is simply 114 "Sayings of Jesus" written down.

2. It was found in a library unearthed near Nag Hammadi and was amongst many other ancient scrolls and wisdom saying most of which were clearly Gnostic.

3. When it was found, it caused a lot of excitement because there were 3 type of sayings that were found. Fist sayings of Christ that were pretty much identical with those found in the synoptic gospels. Second, sayings of Christ that were similar to Gospel material but significantly different in some regard and then Third, Sayings attributed to Christ that could not be found in the Gospel.

4. Because of the nature of this document there was a lot of interest in it specifically because in Textual Criticism there has been a theory that believed there has to be a document from the time of the Gospels that had the sayings of Christ that the writers of the Gospels used. It is usually called the "Q" document. Q stands for Quelle which is French for "what" as in what is it.

5. Even though GofT was obviously found in a gnostic library there was greats interest and hopes that it might prove to be this missing document.

My studies of it led me to believe it doesn't fit the bill for the following reasons.

1. The context of finding it in a Gnostic library, while not necessarily casting doubt on it, does taint it and make it suspect.

2. When you study the sayings there's a pretty discernable pattern that Gnostic philosophy is guiding them. Where changes exist in quotes from Christ that are changed in the GofT they can be attributed to the fact that the original quote conflicted with what they wanted and so they changed it.

3. The sayings oustside the NT all fall into Gnostic categories and Jesus obviously was not gnostic.

There's no real evidence that it represents any textual tradition related to the New Testament. So, it is interesting, but it is not what was hoped for initially.

There's nothing wrong with reading apocryphal or pseudopigraphal works. Just realize they are not scripture, they are not canonical and they represent the equivalent, in many cases, of dime store romance novels to great literature. That's not always the case. Sometimes there are some good areas that contribute to our knowledge in history and thinking from that age.

Hope this helps.

Bart

PS, I'm going to post a book review of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" that I put up a while back on Amazon since he is raised here. Those on this thread may find it interesting.

[quote="Canuckster1127"]Interesting topic line and one I may be able to contribute to.

I am a few courses shy of a degree in Biblical Literature. I did my Senior Thesis on an exegetical comparison of Parallel passages from the Gospel of Thomas and Matthew 13. To do that, I had to do some translation from the language the GofT is in which is Coptic and then try to make some comparisons with the koine greek of Matthew. That was back in the early 80's.

Basically the Gospel of Thomas (not the infancy narrative which there is another work out there) as found at Nag Hammadi has the following characteristics.

1. It has no narrative or context. It is simply 114 "Sayings of Jesus" written down.

2. It was found in a library unearthed near Nag Hammadi and was amongst many other ancient scrolls and wisdom saying most of which were clearly Gnostic.

3. When it was found, it caused a lot of excitement because there were 3 type of sayings that were found. Fist sayings of Christ that were pretty much identical with those found in the synoptic gospels. Second, sayings of Christ that were similar to Gospel material but significantly different in some regard and then Third, Sayings attributed to Christ that could not be found in the Gospel.

4. Because of the nature of this document there was a lot of interest in it specifically because in Textual Criticism there has been a theory that believed there has to be a document from the time of the Gospels that had the sayings of Christ that the writers of the Gospels used. It is usually called the "Q" document. Q stands for Quelle which is French for "what" as in what is it.

5. Even though GofT was obviously found in a gnostic library there was greats interest and hopes that it might prove to be this missing document.

My studies of it led me to believe it doesn't fit the bill for the following reasons.

1. The context of finding it in a Gnostic library, while not necessarily casting doubt on it, does taint it and make it suspect.

2. When you study the sayings there's a pretty discernable pattern that Gnostic philosophy is guiding them. Where changes exist in quotes from Christ that are changed in the GofT they can be attributed to the fact that the original quote conflicted with what they wanted and so they changed it.

3. The sayings oustside the NT all fall into Gnostic categories and Jesus obviously was not gnostic.

There's no real evidence that it represents any textual tradition related to the New Testament. So, it is interesting, but it is not what was hoped for initially.

There's nothing wrong with reading apocryphal or pseudopigraphal works. Just realize they are not scripture, they are not canonical and they represent the equivalent, in many cases, of dime store romance novels to great literature. That's not always the case. Sometimes there are some good areas that contribute to our knowledge in history and thinking from that age.

Hope this helps.

Bart

PS, I'm going to post a book review of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" that I put up a while back on Amazon since he is raised here. Those on this thread may find it interesting.[/quote]

I read that book and I would be very interested in reading your comments. I also read the book reviews on Amazon and I have at least one from another source. I will wait until you post your comments before I post the reviews I have.

Christian2 wrote:
Bart Ehrman:

"Gospel of Thomas, a forgery known by name from ancient times, which came to be lost, only now to be discovered. It is a forgery of the teachings of Jesus written in the name of one who should know them better than anyone: his twin brother, Didymus Judas Thomas. ...

this is what i refer to when it seems to me that he is trying to say that Jesus had a twin brother. what is it he is saying here?

also i am no longer worried about it.

what i was worrying about wasnt really even present in it i dont think, i read the line about Jesus making females male, though i dont think even in that that it meant literally, but there is gender in Heaven, Adam will be male, and Eve female, and everyone else according to the gender God created them to be.

- jason

"(A)Do not let your heart be troubled; [a]believe in God, believe also in Me."
- Jesus - John 14:1

“Scripture quotations taken from the NASB."

Yes. There is a prologue to the 114 logia that claims Thomas as the twin brother of Jesus. Gnosticism felt anything physical was evil, only the spiritual could be "clean." You can't very much make unique claims for Jesus Christ if he had a twin brother who was not divine, could you? No coincidence there, it is a very deliberate effort in the claim to reduce Christ's humanity and divinity.

Other than the short prologue, there is no narrative. It is 114 "sayings" of Christ, one after the other.

The whole point of gnosticism in the coptic society was the presence of secret knowledge to interpret these types of wisdom sayings and in so doing to elevate the initiate or disciple up through different levels of spiritual eschelons. Usually there was a heavy emphasis on angels and semi-divine beings.

There are sometimes some similarities noted with other secret knowledge societies such as the Kabbalah and there may even be some ties with the Essenes who were likely a major part of the audience for the book of Hebrews. (Melchizadek played big there.)

The bottom line, is that while there was early interest in the G of T as a possible textual tie into the synoptic Gospels and the elusive and theoretical "Q" document, it doesn't take much to see the adulterations and agenda at work in the sayings.

Like anything else, those who want to believe differently for reasons of their own, will believe differently. There is a very strong gnostic revival taking place in our post-modern society. The "neat" thing about a Gospel of esoteric wisom sayings is that you don't have to be bothered with all that "historical context" and "humanity of Christ" stuff. You can cut straight to a New Age message and wrap it in a level of respectability.

Anyone who takes the 10 minutes to read the sayings will not have to take very long to realize that these are not the sayings of Christ as the Bible preserved them, except where to leave it alone would serve their own purposes.

Canuckster1127,

I'd like your opinion about some of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas.

This is the first one I'm interested in:

77 Jesus said: I am the light that is over them all. I am the All; the All has come forth from me, and the All has attained unto me. Cleave a piece of wood: I am there. Raise up the stone, an ye shall find me there.

What do you think 'Jesus' is saying here?

When you read the 144 sayings, do you get any sense that Jesus is claiming divinity in any of them?

Thank you.

Christian2 wrote:Canuckster1127,

I'd like your opinion about some of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas.

This is the first one I'm interested in:

77 Jesus said: I am the light that is over them all. I am the All; the All has come forth from me, and the All has attained unto me. Cleave a piece of wood: I am there. Raise up the stone, an ye shall find me there.

What do you think 'Jesus' is saying here?

When you read the 144 sayings, do you get any sense that Jesus is claiming divinity in any of them?

Thank you.

Well, First of all, there are not 144 sayings. There are 114.

Second of all, I don't believe that this is an authentic saying of Jesus. I think it is a wisdom saying attributed to Jesus by a Gnostic sect. Key to gnosticism is the idea of "Hidden or Secret" Wisdom.

Gnosticism did not attribute divinity to Christ. Jesus was human and physical and gnostic belief attributed that only that which was spiritual was good. They might attribute some higher power status to his spirit but not his flesh. Therefore, you find no sense of divinity attributed in the sayings beyond the elevating of the wisdom or spirit itself.

This is one of the reasons why you have such heavy emphasis in the New Testament on the physical coming of Christ "in the flesh". John was the last of the Gospels written and it is likely that gnosticism was raising at that point and that is why John opens the way he does with the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us. That would be abhorrent to gnostics and it clearly defines their teaching as heretical.

So I don't have a specific comment on this particular logia. I do't think it represents any textual tradition on par or older or more accurate than the New Testament. I think it pretty clearly is a gnostic wisdom saying attributed to Christ by a gnostic fringe group and as such I think it is probably interesting as a side note, but nothing special.

Canuckster1127,

Thank you for your answer. I, of course, know that there are only 114 sayings. I am guilty of a typo.

I don't believe that these sayings are authentic sayings of Jesus either, but a lot of them are similar to what Jesus says in the Gospels. I believe that whoever wrote the GOT took some of Jesus' sayings and slightly altered them and put a Gnostic twist on others.

This particular book is quite famous as you probably know. Crossan uses it--I think he puts a very early date on it -- 45-50AD--if my memory serves me well. Pagels thinks that was written around the same time as the Gospel of John. Again, if my memory serves me well, she thinks that the Gospel of John was written in response to the GOT.

Nevertheless, I do see some sense of divinity in the GOT. When 'Jesus' calls Himself the "All" for instance. What is the "All" but God Himself? That is the way I am looking at it at this point in time.

What about this one?

44 Jesus said: He who blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and he who blasphemes against the Son will be forgiven but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven.

I'm sure I don't have to point out the verse in the NT that this was seems to parallel. I see the Trinity in this one. What do you think?

And this one:

86 Jesus said: [The foxes have] the[ir holes] and the birds have [theirs nest, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head and rest.

This saying also parallels one in the Gospels. Jesus used the title "Son of Man" more often in the Gospels than any other title. The Son of Man is another title for the Messiah.

The Son of Man is a direct allusion to Daniel 7:13-14:

Daniel 7: 13"I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. 14Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed."

Jesus quoted this verse at His trial and it made His Jewish accusers nuts. The "One like a Son of Man" implies some sort of divinity. It's odd that whoever wrote the GOT would use it.

Thank you.

My answer is not all that different.

First, the copy we have of the GofT is written in coptic egyptian, a dialect that used the Greek alphabet.

I'm aware of the claims that Pagels (who is a neo-gnostic) and others make. They are baseless, in my opinion. I've glanced over their assertions in their works. Without an actual text in koine greek, or aramaic, which is something that would almost be a given, to establish any type of authenticity for a variant textual lineage, there's no validity to their wishful thinking that this represents authentic sayings of Christ.

There's no factual basis to assert it goes back to 40 or 50 AD or even as recent as John with is about 83-95 AD.

The more relevant work establishing this earlier on was Gilles Quispel and R McLeary Wilson. They're not particulary conservative scholars, but even they had to be intellectual honest and discount the earlier claims and hopes for GofT that inflamed the Textual Critical community when it was discovered and people imagined they had an actual copy of the "Q" document which has long been suspected to have existed.

Pagels and company have an agenda. Their agenda is promoted by casting doubts on orthodoxy and claiming more for GofT than is generally accepted. They are appealing to a popular audience that does not have the tools to evaluate what they are saying or inferring. Certainly there are no really solid scholars out there, outside their own camp, that gives much more credence to these theories than what I've described.

My personal belief is that these are logia in 3 categories.

1. Quotes of Christ drawn from traditional Gospel sources that have been left unchanged, because they can be used as is to meet their agenda for the use of these "wisdom sayings" to be secret keys to higher eschelons of spirituality.

2. Quotes of Christ drawn from tradition Gospel sources that have been changed because either in their original form they pointed to the dual nature of Christ as God and Man, an abhorrent concept for them, or that lent themselves to a concept they wanted that needed the change.

3. Quotes of Christ outside the Gospel Tradition that may have their source in an oral tradition unpreserved but that likewise, as we've seen with known quotes of Christ, may well have been changed, possibly even made up.

It's an interesting sideline, but again, what you have here in the full document is both translated and so is at least once removed from any original text, and there are no parallel texts other than the NT douments themselves whihc are infinitely more preserved and known. I understand there are some other fragments of GofT that have been discovered that are in greek, but they are not the whole document and so their value is limited. If you want to cast doubt on the "orthodox" documents its actually almost beneficial to have a document like of GofT because you can speculate to your hearts content and in the absence of additional documents to hold it the the standard that the NT is held, presumably the possibility exists.

My own crude analogy would be to point out that it is possible that one day monkeys will fly out my hind-quarters, but without a more credible source than my speculation, you may want to hold off booking a flight on the future Simian Airlines that will no doubt form after that event.

Tempest in a tea pot used by those who have an axe to grind or an agenda to promote. That's all it is at present.[/i]

Canuckster1127,

Thank you for your reply.

Pagels and company have an agenda. Their agenda is promoted by casting doubts on orthodoxy and claiming more for GofT than is generally accepted.

And, unfortunately, they have an audience. When Pagels' book, "Beyond Belief" came out I got a call from a cousin who was all excited about the Gospel of Thomas. I couldn't call myself a Christian back in those days so I had little to say. I hadn't read the book. But it is different now because I do a lot of reading and that reading among other things brought me back to Christianity. My cousin didn't have the tools or background to see where Pagels went wrong. I have tried to correct that over the past 4 or 5 years.

My cousin went on to say, "Did you know that it is only in the Gospel of John that Jesus is determined to be divine?"

I now am in a discussion board conversation with someone who believes Crossan and the Jesus Seminar and Pagels. She does not believe that Jesus made divine claims. She believes that Constantine made Jesus "a god."

She says:

Jesus was a mystic, with his faith healing and miracles. He taught this to Mary Magdelene. Her disagreements with Peter (who was not a mystic) raises issues of jealousy on his part, and this is described in the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, where Peter asked Jesus, do you love her more than us?

And this:

Based on my views, I say the _simple_ story of the Passion was passed along by the oral tradition, and no doubt elaborations were added, and the story made grander. When Irenaeas chose books for the Gospels, he already knew the religious philosophy he wanted to pass on and chose writings accordingly.

And,

Why do I think some of these Gnostic Gospels could be authentic? They appear to be a perspective within the group of Jesus. Why wouldn't these people write a record of their doings with Jesus? More important to me, they don't preach he was the son of God or record a ressurection, at least not of the corporeal body. That belongs in the folds of Roman and Greek philosophy as far as I'm concerned.

And,

And you think there is no corruption in the New Testament? Why has the Catholic Church negated the Jews as being responsible for Jesus' death? What does the Vatican have in its vaults about this that changed their minds? It was _not_ as portrayed in the NT. Some of the verses are ridiculous, such as a Jew saying "His blood be upon us..."

And,

Irenaeas played a big part in choosing the books of the New Testament. He wrote a list of writings he considered heretic to the message he wanted to convey.

And,

Nicene Council. Emperor Constantine ruled Jesus was a god, against the judgment of half the people in the room.

And lastly she said about GOT #24:

Number 24. A person of light enlightens the whole world.

His disciples said, "Show us the place that you are, for we must seek it." He said to them, "Whoever has ears should listen! There is light existing within a person of light. And it enlightens the whole world: If it does not enlighten, that person is darkness."

Further explaining:

Re "If you bring forth what is within you...", I believe Jesus is talking about the light, which he mentions several times. I've read scholars thought it would cause problems for Catholic theology. So maybe it does go against Christian theology.

Catholic theology preaches that all is through Jesus, his 'light'. Jesus in the Gnostics is saying that _each of us has our own lights. In other words, he is not asking us to worship him.

I don't think I will ever straighten this lady out, but I am going to keep trying.

I remember something a Muslim once told me and I never forgot it. "Islam does not have to destroy Christianity because Christian scholars are doing it for us."

The Gospel of Thomas is beautiful. Upon first read it will probably offend you at some points as it has every first reader. This is from a lack of understanding rather than a faked document of Jesus' sayings.

The first thing to consider is that these are the things which Jesus told his friends personally. He did not shout these from mountain tops. I imagine this is because those in attendance would not understand without much clarification on Jesus' part.

I was offended at the one saying which said women had to become men. This refers to a spiritual body which had no gender. There's also the saying of the lion (ego, self) eating the human and becoming human, but the human eating the lion (ego, self) overcomes such things.

Some of the sayings are very deep and really reach into the back of my mind when read. Even one with only two words!

"Be Passersby"

Atticus Finch wrote:The Gospel of Thomas is beautiful. Upon first read it will probably offend you at some points as it has every first reader. This is from a lack of understanding rather than a faked document of Jesus' sayings.

The first thing to consider is that these are the things which Jesus told his friends personally. He did not shout these from mountain tops. I imagine this is because those in attendance would not understand without much clarification on Jesus' part.

I was offended at the one saying which said women had to become men. This refers to a spiritual body which had no gender. There's also the saying of the lion (ego, self) eating the human and becoming human, but the human eating the lion (ego, self) overcomes such things.

Some of the sayings are very deep and really reach into the back of my mind when read. Even one with only two words!

"Be Passersby"

Have you read this entire thread?

GofT has no narrative tying the sayings together or giving any context. The saying of women becoming men, has to do with the gnostic viewpoint that women were inferior to men and that women per se could not fully elevate to the higher levels.

It's an interesting document and it has some value in terms of gnosticism, but as a text reliable for the sayings of Christ, it does not compare with the Bible.

Bart