The Gospel Of Thomas

[Lon]

Dearest Lon, this thread is in the ...and the rest forum.

Thanks. I've no problem with that. You'd think I slapped one of their mothers or something.

All I showed up here for was to explain that it is likely not a canonical book and explain why.

So yeah, I'm at a bit of a loss.

 

[staind.raindrop]

We have internal and external criteria for determining a book's inspiration. Our OT canon is the way it is because we look to what Jesus quoted from and what the disciples quoted from as well as what that canon looked like at the time of Christ.

Our N.T. is written the same. Every book was handed to us by apostles who had Apostle authority to give them to us. Thomas was an Apostle but 1) this book comes from Egypt 2) from 200 AD

and 3) doesn't agree with other scriptures as I've given a few in thread that actually contradict it (read back a page or two and see the scripture comparisons I've given, perhaps to check facts). I don't like anyone trying to rewrite my bible. Supporting it? Backing it up? Yes. Going it against it? :nono: This supposed Gospel of Thomas isn't looking to me like it is a gospel or from Thomas at present. I'll keep reading.

Such leads me toward what I feel a healthy skepticism (including the rest of Christianity). Who is pushing for it? Cultists, gnostics, and agnostics/atheists. We HAVE to ask why that is :think: What's their stake in all this I wonder :think:

In a nutshell, hope it helps.




PJ's his friend and Unknown left so he's a bit angry at the moment. Not typical for Joseph.

In Him

Lon

I think this is freaking fascinating and I so want in on debating it. I gotta go to Bible college or somethin. Inspiring response, thanks! :up:

 

[Lon]

Lon you have no proof whatsoever for that statement. Pure dogma.

No, in fact it is not.

See FF Bruce I don't know of any Christian, fundamental or otherwise, that disrespects his careful published work (He knew about the GoT and counted it out btw).

Wiki does a fairly good job of laying out the basics also. Anyone saying anything different is far removed from the vast of Christianity.

 

[intojoy]

Thx Lon
Shut up e

 

[Eeset]

No, in fact it is not.

See FF Bruce I don't know of any Christian, fundamental or otherwise, that disrespects his careful published work (He knew about the GoT and counted it out btw).

Wiki does a fairly good job of laying out the basics also. Anyone saying anything different is far removed from the vast of Christianity.

You really should read your own wiki link carefully. It refutes your assertion.

 

[Eeset]

Thx Lon
Shut up e

I forgive you IJ.

 

[intojoy]

I think our work is done here.

 

[intojoy]

I forgive you IJ.

Do you know what that statement even means?

 

[Eeset]

Do you know what that statement even means?

I forgive you also for that question.

 

[intojoy]

I forgive you also for that question.

Good. We're making progress.
You forgive it, because?

 

[Eeset]

Good. We're making progress.
You forgive it, because?

Because if you ever get saved you will no longer insult people.

 

[Lon]

You really should read your own wiki link carefully. It refutes your assertion.

:nono: Not at all. It's a long article so pay attention to the 'protestant' section. See this link on 'internal' reasons for canonicity as well.

Such isn't 'just dogma.'

 

[Eeset]

:nono: Not at all. It's a long article so pay attention to the 'protestant' section. See this link on 'internal' reasons for canonicity as well.

Such isn't 'just dogma.'

Lon I read the link in its entirety. But this is not the thread to discuss such matters.

 

[intojoy]

Because if you ever get saved you will no longer insult people.

So forgiveness is conditional?

 

[Eeset]

So forgiveness is conditional?

Once again you ask questions reflect your own delusions.

Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die

 

[Delmar]

Lon can take His teaching of the canon elsewhere.. and are not needed HERE,

For the blind will lead the blind.

The credibility of these writing are not in question HERE.
Only the study of there of.

TAKE IT ELSE WHERE.

I believe they are needed here Joseph. You need to know that declaring the Bible to be the inspired word of God is always going to be welcome here at TOL.

 

[unknown]

I believe they are needed here Joseph. You need to know that declaring the Bible to be the inspired word of God is always going to be welcome here at TOL.

Which parts were inspired, Saint Delmar? The Jews were not even monotheistic until around 700 B.C.

Which cannon is legit and which is not? There is more than one, ya know. Of course, I should have known, only the canon you accepted is legit. Got it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books") is a canonical collection of texts considered sacred in Judaism and Christianity. There is no single "Bible" and many Bibles with varying contents exist.[1] The term Bible is shared between Judaism and Christianity, although the contents of each of their collections of canonical texts is not the same. Different religious groups include different books within their Biblical canons, in different orders, and sometimes divide or combine books, or incorporate additional material into canonical books.

The Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, contains twenty-four books divided into three parts: the five books of the Torah ("teaching" or "law"), the Nevi'im ("prophets"), and the Ketuvim ("writings").

Christian Bibles range from the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon to the eighty-one books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church canon. The first part of Christian Bibles is the Old Testament, which contains, at minimum, the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible divided into thirty-nine books and ordered differently from the Hebrew Bible. The Catholic Church and Eastern Christian churches also hold certain deuterocanonical books and passages to be part of the Old Testament canon. The second part is the New Testament, containing twenty-seven books: the four Canonical gospels, Acts of the Apostles, twenty-one Epistles or letters, and the Book of Revelation.

By the 2nd century BCE Jewish groups had called the Bible books "holy," and Christians now commonly call the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible "The Holy Bible" (τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια, tà biblía tà ágia) or "the Holy Scriptures" (η Αγία Γραφή, e Agía Graphḗ). Many Christians consider the whole canonical text of the Bible to be divinely inspired. The oldest surviving complete Christian Bibles are Greek manuscripts from the 4th century. The oldest Tanakh manuscript in Hebrew and Aramaic dates to the 10th century CE,[2] but an early 4th-century Septuagint translation is found in the Codex Vaticanus. The Bible was divided into chapters in the 13th century by Stephen Langton and into verses in the 16th century by French printer Robert Estienne[3] and is now usually cited by book, chapter, and verse.

Which canon is in error?

 

[unknown]

The FACT is, man has decided what what was inspired by God. The Christian canon is an attempt to define God. In order to do so they make God less than infinite. Those who do this are nothing more than idolatrous Jewish heretics.

Have a nice day.

 

[jeremysdemo]

all Bible debate aside,

I think the GOT does more to confirm the gospels in synopsis than it does anything to discredit them.

 

[JosephR]

I believe they are needed here Joseph. You need to know that declaring the Bible to be the inspired word of God is always going to be welcome here at TOL.

That was never in question.I just dont think there is a need to remind me every day that the GOT is not canon. They have told me over and over, I am just asking they stop.

all Bible debate aside,

I think the GOT does more to confirm the gospels in synopsis than it does anything to discredit them.

Yes I think it complements them very well.