Evidence for God from Science

This years hot topic as been the "Gospel of Thomas". Some people believe that The Gospel of Thomas is excluded from the bible when it is said to be the most accurate of all the gospels when it comes to the words of Jesus. There reason for it's removal was because it contradicts what the "accepted" gospels says. Therefore proving that the church is a power structure. Made by man to control other men.

I would like to here your thoughts on this...

Noone necessarily chose which books were to be apart of the canon, and therefore any criticisms that any one person or body were accepting and rejecting books is just plain wrong. For when it came to forumulating the NT canon, it was more a matter of explaining "why" the books they had, had come to be accepted by Christians rather than "which" books will be made to be accepted.

There is also an article which responds to any ideas that portray there may be "lost books" or books that ought to have been included as apart of the canon. I would recommend reading http://www.str.org/free/solid_ground/SG0209.htm

Kurieuo

* 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 also very good reasons to reject the canonicity of GThomas.

The last two points are particularly relevant - if you want to date GThomas to 50 AD, then you have to date both the gospel of John and the Pauline letters to earlier than 50 AD. That is quite a challenge.

That's funny...book of Thomas the most accurate...when it's over a century older than the first four....and contradicts the whole Bible basically.

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.

* 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 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.

* 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. how do you know this doesn't indiate that Paul used the oroignal GT saying source?

These are also very good reasons to reject the canonicity of GThomas.

No one wants to canonize it. 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.

The last two points are particularly relevant - if you want to date GThomas to 50 AD, then you have to date both the gospel of John and the Pauline letters to earlier than 50 AD. That is quite a challenge.

No you just have to get clear about which end of telescope you are looking through. John draws upon the PMR so what seems like uses of John in GT is actuall y use of GT in John.

Oh good grief, not Metacrock. Now the conversation is going to go to pot. We'll get a combination of mysticism and personal opinion, with a few passing references to 'Higher Criticism'.

Fortigurn wrote:Oh good grief, not Metacrock. Now the conversation is going to go to pot. We'll get a combination of mysticism and personal opinion, with a few passing references to 'Higher Criticism'.

hey nice to see you too man

Metacrock wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:Oh good grief, not Metacrock. Now the conversation is going to go to pot. We'll get a combination of mysticism and personal opinion, with a few passing references to 'Higher Criticism'.

hey nice to see you too man

I haven't seen you since the CARM days years ago. I'm back there again now - I suppose you're doing your usual there, but I haven't looked.

Didn't Thomas' account claim that Jesus said women had to become men to enter heaven? Not to mention severly pantheistic quotes?

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.

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 crap gonna contradict everything by itself).

"Split wood, I am there. Overturn a stone, I am there."

God is mud under a rock!

Fortigurn wrote:

Metacrock wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:Oh good grief, not Metacrock. Now the conversation is going to go to pot. We'll get a combination of mysticism and personal opinion, with a few passing references to 'Higher Criticism'.

hey nice to see you too man

I haven't seen you since the CARM days years ago. I'm back there again now - I suppose you're doing your usual there, but I haven't looked.

Yea I still post on CARM. For some reason they have the most reasonable batch of atheists. I've become freinds with many of them.

The Christian apologists there are good too. Richard, the guy who runs the site "Evidence for God from Science" is a freind, and I used to post on this board way way back when it first started, on a different server and looked completely different. There are aren't that many good boards left so I thought I'd try it.

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!

Forge wrote:"Split wood, I am there. Overturn a stone, I am there."

God is mud under a rock!

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?