Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jesus left plenty of writings. Most notably the gospel of St. Thomas, written in the first person that is purely a book of Jesus' words and sayings. Unfortunately it was deemed unfit for the general consumption in the Bible because despite having been dated to the same time as the rest of the gospel and being equally historically useful, the Catholic church didn't want it included.
My dear man...so far...all I have seen in your posts are...are why and how...It reminds me of my grandkids...with their never ending questions of why...
However...you are an adult...yes? I would like to see a glimpse of "reason" as to what your stance in the issue is...and why the vehement denial...even when I gave my counter in the most basic method there is...taking God and scripture out of the equation:
When we treat people with respect and love as we want them to do to us...This earth that WE live in...would be a wonderful world indeed.
Don't you agree...??? And by the way...I don't adhere to any "organized religion"...
RESPONSE
Perhaps because I examine the evidence and don't just believe what makes me feel good.
It's a method of thinking one developes from working in the sciences.
Jesus left plenty of writings. Most notably the gospel of St. Thomas, written in the first person that is purely a book of Jesus' words and sayings. Unfortunately it was deemed unfit for the general consumption in the Bible because despite having been dated to the same time as the rest of the gospel and being equally historically useful, the Catholic church didn't want it included.
RESPONSE:
Evidence please. Or do you just believe that if a writing says it was written by Jesus, it must have been written by Jesus?
RESPONSE: Rather than claiming one can pick and choose which passages are "inspired" and which are "corrupted," isn't it a lot more ssnsible to admit tha the Bible is the writings of men rather than God?
It has never been otherwise . . . of course men wrote the Bible. But it was INSPIRED by the impetus to understand God and our purpose. That impetus is God-given and encoded in the DNA with a specific template for the cognitive structures that will resonate and produce our species evolving understanding of God and our purpose.That you prefer to assign inspiration to "nothingness" or "randomness" or . . . whatever . . .is your problem. I KNOW God is the Source . . . our fallible interpretations are the problem..
Evidence please. Or do you just believe that if a writing says it was written by Jesus, it must have been written by Jesus?
What do you want me to do? Send you a copy of the book?
The gospel of St. Thomas, or as its more commonly known, the Gospel of Thomas was discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt in December 1945 and is one of a group of texts found in the Nag Hammandi Library. (These texts were bound by Coptic binding, and suffered damage from somewhat careless treatment by the discoverers.) Like all of the gospels, contrary to what conventional Christian teaching may want you to believe, its exact history is uncertain, however the text itself is a collection of sayings and quotations attributed to Jesus, and it has clear and undisputable parallels with the four gospels and no less prestigious a lineage. Richard Valantasis commented that the date of the discovered version of the Gospel of Thomas could be as early as AD 60 (same as the Gospel according to John) or as late as AD 140.
It is credibly believed by multiple scholars, (Pagel, DeConick) can see a strong link of intertextuality between the gospel of St. Thomas, and John. In fact, John's gospel can be seen to be responding to the work of St. Thomas as almost a point by point rebuttal in some instances, but as a point by point agreement in others. ("The light within" (logia 24, 50, 61 and 83), and "Light that lights every man born into the world" (John 1:9)). Crucially the Gospel of Thomas is totally devoid of any narrative content. It is merely a collection of quotations attributed to Christ. As a result much of the 'miraculous' content is absent, but not refuted. Obvious parallels exist between Matthew 10:16 and Thomas 39, Matthew 10:37 and Thomas 55 and 101, Matthew 10:27 parallels Thomas 33a, Matthew 10:34 parallels Thomas 16, MAtthew 10:26 parallels Thomas 5b. Due to the ripostary nature of much of the Gospel content, it is considered likely by some, (most notably B. H. Throckmorton) that in some sense the 4 Gospels used Thomas as a source of material for some of their text. (The gospel of Thomas started a school of thought that Jesus' ressurection was more spiritual than bodily ressurection, which John is seemingly refuting in his insistance that Thomas (the doubter) ultimately inserted his fingers into Jesus' wounds and came to understand the bodily ressurection.
As to whether or not these sayings are directly attributable to Jesus or not is a matter of debate, as it is with the 4 'Canon' Gospels, however from a historical point of view, there is considerable textual evidence that it is a very early work. (Hogeterp - Thomas 12 attributes leadership to James the Just, rather than Peter, which is one echoed by Paul in Galatians 2:1-14, and seems to be a tradition that is characteristic of 1st century origins for the Gospels, making the Gospel of St. Thomas at least a contempary of the earliest of the 4 Gospels.)
As to why the Gospel of St. Thomas was not included in the canon bible, largely came down to some oddly apocrythical ideas floating around at the time. While modern thought makes the case that the Gospel of St. Thomas possibly inspired some of the text in the 4 'Canon' gospels and is 'closer to the source' (See the correlation analysis and conclusions here: CORRELATION ANALYSIS). Despite this, there was the myth that it was a 'gnostic gospel' because it happened to be found with some other 'gnostic' texts. This however belies the fact that in the same library there are a swaythe of non -gnostic texts also found. That aside, the first counsel of nicea in 325 seemingly canned Thomas from the 'Canon' largely because, even though it is mirrored elsewhere in the gospels that one must look within to find Jesus to an extent, Thomas does put a somewhat unhealthy focus on this, however the material falls well short of the beliefs of Gnosticism.
I say all this however, not to try and argue definitely one way or the other the validity of the Gospel of St. Thomas, but what I am saying is that it is a fairly accepted belief that there is a 'Q document' that was used as a source for some of the later Gospels that contained the sayings and words of Jesus, that at some point in history was either lost, or was discontinued because of the prevelance of the accepted Gospels. There is absolutely no question at all that the gospel of St. Thomas is not this text, however it is evidence that these kinds of sayings documents did circulate in the early Christian church. As a result, one should not assume that Jesus left no writings, because there is evidence that he did, and these writings were circulated and perhaps mistranslated at points, but were around at those times.
It has never been otherwise . . . of course men wrote the Bible. But it was INSPIRED by the impetus to understand God and our purpose. That impetus is God-given and encoded in the DNA with a specific template for the cognitive structures that will resonate and produce our species evolving understanding of God and our purpose.That you prefer to assign inspiration to "nothingness" or "randomness" or . . . whatever . . .is your problem. I KNOW God is the Source . . . our fallible interpretations are the problem..
RESPONSE:
>>That impetus is God-given and encoded in the DNA with a specific template <<
That's a new claim! Can you provide the DNA sequence, or is this just an assertion without evidence?
>>But it was INSPIRED <<
Some say Harry Potter is too. Is there any provable difference?
What do you want me to do? Send you a copy of the book?
The gospel of St. Thomas, or as its more commonly known, the Gospel of Thomas was discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt in December 1945 and is one of a group of texts found in the Nag Hammandi Library. (These texts were bound by Coptic binding, and suffered damage from somewhat careless treatment by the discoverers.) Like all of the gospels, contrary to what conventional Christian teaching may want you to believe, its exact history is uncertain, however the text itself is a collection of sayings and quotations attributed to Jesus, and it has clear and undisputable parallels with the four gospels and no less prestigious a lineage. Richard Valantasis commented that the date of the discovered version of the Gospel of Thomas could be as early as AD 60 (same as the Gospel according to John) or as late as AD 140.
It is credibly believed by multiple scholars, (Pagel, DeConick) can see a strong link of intertextuality between the gospel of St. Thomas, and John. In fact, John's gospel can be seen to be responding to the work of St. Thomas as almost a point by point rebuttal in some instances, but as a point by point agreement in others. ("The light within" (logia 24, 50, 61 and 83), and "Light that lights every man born into the world" (John 1:9)). Crucially the Gospel of Thomas is totally devoid of any narrative content. It is merely a collection of quotations attributed to Christ. As a result much of the 'miraculous' content is absent, but not refuted. Obvious parallels exist between Matthew 10:16 and Thomas 39, Matthew 10:37 and Thomas 55 and 101, Matthew 10:27 parallels Thomas 33a, Matthew 10:34 parallels Thomas 16, MAtthew 10:26 parallels Thomas 5b. Due to the ripostary nature of much of the Gospel content, it is considered likely by some, (most notably B. H. Throckmorton) that in some sense the 4 Gospels used Thomas as a source of material for some of their text. (The gospel of Thomas started a school of thought that Jesus' ressurection was more spiritual than bodily ressurection, which John is seemingly refuting in his insistance that Thomas (the doubter) ultimately inserted his fingers into Jesus' wounds and came to understand the bodily ressurection.
As to whether or not these sayings are directly attributable to Jesus or not is a matter of debate, as it is with the 4 'Canon' Gospels, however from a historical point of view, there is considerable textual evidence that it is a very early work. (Hogeterp - Thomas 12 attributes leadership to James the Just, rather than Peter, which is one echoed by Paul in Galatians 2:1-14, and seems to be a tradition that is characteristic of 1st century origins for the Gospels, making the Gospel of St. Thomas at least a contempary of the earliest of the 4 Gospels.)
As to why the Gospel of St. Thomas was not included in the canon bible, largely came down to some oddly apocrythical ideas floating around at the time. While modern thought makes the case that the Gospel of St. Thomas possibly inspired some of the text in the 4 'Canon' gospels and is 'closer to the source' (See the correlation analysis and conclusions here: CORRELATION ANALYSIS). Despite this, there was the myth that it was a 'gnostic gospel' because it happened to be found with some other 'gnostic' texts. This however belies the fact that in the same library there are a swaythe of non -gnostic texts also found. That aside, the first counsel of nicea in 325 seemingly canned Thomas from the 'Canon' largely because, even though it is mirrored elsewhere in the gospels that one must look within to find Jesus to an extent, Thomas does put a somewhat unhealthy focus on this, however the material falls well short of the beliefs of Gnosticism.
I say all this however, not to try and argue definitely one way or the other the validity of the Gospel of St. Thomas, but what I am saying is that it is a fairly accepted belief that there is a 'Q document' that was used as a source for some of the later Gospels that contained the sayings and words of Jesus, that at some point in history was either lost, or was discontinued because of the prevelance of the accepted Gospels. There is absolutely no question at all that the gospel of St. Thomas is not this text, however it is evidence that these kinds of sayings documents did circulate in the early Christian church. As a result, one should not assume that Jesus left no writings, because there is evidence that he did, and these writings were circulated and perhaps mistranslated at points, but were around at those times.
RESPONSE:
>>What do you want me to do? Send you a copy of the book? <<
No. I want you to provide evidence for your claim that it was written by Jesus himself.
>>Jesus left plenty of writings. Most notably the gospel of St. Thomas, written in the first person <<
That would mean Jesus had to have written it before his death in 30-33 A.D. I understood that the Gospel of Thomas is thought to date from 100-150 AD.
Last edited by ancient warrior; 10-01-2010 at 06:13 AM..
Reason: add quote
Did you actually read anything in my post? I never claimed it was written by Jesus himself, my contention was, and remains that a Q document containing the direct sayings of Christ as a preacher could have existed, as documents emulating such documents (like the Gospel of Thomas) were floating around.
So yeah, in short, I'm not going to see my unread argument summarized into one question regarding a claim that I in fact wasn't making, and then be forced to argue against it because you can't be bothered to read.
Quote:
There is absolutely no question at all that the gospel of St. Thomas is not this text, however it is evidence that these kinds of sayings documents did circulate in the early Christian church. As a result, one should not assume that Jesus left no writings, because there is evidence that he did, and these writings were circulated and perhaps mistranslated at points, but were around at those times.
Did you actually read anything in my post? I never claimed it was written by Jesus himself, my contention was, and remains that a Q document containing the direct sayings of Christ as a preacher could have existed, as documents emulating such documents (like the Gospel of Thomas) were floating around.
So yeah, in short, I'm not going to see my unread argument summarized into one question regarding a claim that I in fact wasn't making, and then be forced to argue against it because you can't be bothered to read.
RESPONSE:
I had posted: "How do you know what Jesus taught? Did he leave any writings? What we have now are writings about stories that were told about him and revised in the many retellings by nonwitnesses."
You responded >>Jesus left plenty of writings. Most notably the gospel of St. Thomas, written in the first person that is purely a book of Jesus' words and sayings. <<
Humans thought up and wrote everything in the bible, and in fact in all the other 'holy' books in the world. Nothing more, nothing less.
RESPONSE:
And the evidence for this is that the bible contains errors which it would not if it were actually authored by God. Unless, God, too, makes mistakes......
"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true." (Providentissimus deus, 20)
Last edited by ancient warrior; 10-01-2010 at 03:06 PM..
Reason: Delete sizing information
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
