Repox
Truth Seeker
No one in the religious community has empirical evidence for God!How do we empirically test either of those assertions?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No one in the religious community has empirical evidence for God!How do we empirically test either of those assertions?
I don't know why you are so caught up with Thomas.
The most significant evidence for the lack of evidence for NT gospel stories is the absence of those stories in prior gospels.
Church authorities attempted to destroy all other gospels, but they didn't succeed.
You can go on until doomsday listing all of those church leaders, esteemed church scholars, but is all for naught it there is no historical documentation..
You mention Gospel Q theory as invalid when you don't know what you are talking about .
As for The Nag Hammadi Scriptures edited by Marvin Meyer, read it.
It is becoming monotonous, you demand that I present evidence when you have none. Where is it?
You tried to cite thomas as a pre-NT gospel represents something closer to what was originally said and done by Jesus, when compared with the four authentic Gospels.
Having been challenged on that, you continue to evade citing any evidence as to how or why that should be believed to be true.
You bring Q theory into the mix, implying that the gospel of thomas could be an older source for the four Gospels, but you don't support that with evidence either.
You keep going on about how scholarly you are and how many people believe this - but if any of that were true, it should be very easy for you to pull out some historical evidence as examples of why what you say about the gospel of thomas is true.
Unproven assumption on your part. Assuming that the gnostic gospels recovered were written prior to the four Gospels in the NT.
Where's the evidence that they were? I've asked you already for that, but you keep dodging the question.
I know you don't have any. That's why I keep pressing you to post the evidence directly, because it's the quickest way to settle this issue.
I already disproved that statement the first time you made it, and you never refuted my points:
The muratorian fragment, dated to the 2nd century.
2nd century scripture lists by various writers.
Quotations and allusions by 1st and 2nd century writers.
All of this proves the body of accepted scripture was already established in the 2nd century, during a time when the persecuted minority church had no power to destroy anything, on top of being scattered all over the Roman empire with no central authority structure. The fact that we find such uniformity of accepted scriptures in the 2nd century, regardless of geographic area, is testament to their authenticity.
History does not support your claim that there were other gospels accepted by the apostalic era church, which were then later destroyed by church. It would have been logically impossible on top of that. It is a historical fantasy.
The Roman Catholic church may have destroyed false gospels and writings after it had the power of the state behind it centuries later, but we know by archeology and history that the Gospels had long since been established before that was a possibility.
"...you must recognize that decrying a lack of historical evidence for the "content" of the NT Gospels does nothing to advance your claim that the gospel of thomas is a more accurate reflection of history than the NT Gospels. Nor does it prove that the gospel of thomas precedes them.
As I pointed out: It is hypocritical for you to attack the NT Gospels for not having enough historical evidence that the content contained within is true, yet then turn around and claim the gospel of thomas is a more truthful historical account of what Jesus said and did - all while having not a stitch of historical evidence to back up such a claim.
You have the choice to doubt whether or not the NT Gospels actually happened as recorded, based on the evidence we have, but you are in no position to claim based on historical evidence that 3rd century texts like the gospel of thomas should be regarded as more authentic than the NT Gospels. All the evidence we have is completely against such a conclusion."
As I already said, which you didn't seem to grasp: the Q theory does nothing to advance your assertion that the gnostic gospels like thomas represent genuine pre-NT Gospels that the disciples of Jesus produced, unless you can prove, or even evidence, that they are genuine 1st century apostalic church documents. So it really doesn't matter whether or not Q is true as far as this issue is concerned.
Now, if you want to talk about Q, you're welcome to take those underlying assumptions I outlined and then explain why we must believe those assumptions are true. I don't expect you to be able to, but you can try.
You are the one who made the claim that the gospel of thomas predates the Gospels, and that the Nag Hammadi proves it.
You're still unable to give a single piece of evidence backing up those claims.
This isn't a book review forum, it's a debate forum. If you aren't equipped to debate this issue yourself, wielding raw facts and reasoned logic, then at least admit it and move on. Don't try to fake your way through by making vague unsupported statements and pointing at a couple books.
You're the one who made the claim about the gospel of thomas, and "prior gospels".
I've present the historical documents that go against your claim, so now the onus is on you give us any reason, evidence, or proof as to why your claim is true and the historical claim is false.
If you research prior gospels you don't find son of God stories.
...
If you research it, you find in prior gospels such as The Gospel of Thomas evidence for Jesus being God.
...
The Gospel of Thomas is a prior gospel which was used as a reference for the four gospels. You find "many" Jesus sayings from The Gospel of Thomas in the four NT gospels.
...
Yes, there are prior gospels. Here is an excellent reference, The Missing Gospels by Darrell. L. Block. According to history, church leaders destroyed as many gospels as they could find which disagreed with the four selected.
Very interesting reply. Errors are as follows: I posted a reference which you haven't read about prior gospels. I shouldn't have to post such references, it is your responsibility to do the research. As per references I posted, there is scholarly consensus for The Gospel of Thomas preceding the NT gospels. Scholars have found about 40% of Jesus NT gospel sayings in Thomas. At the time church leaders accepted the NT gospels, a church decree was issued to destroy other gospels, which happened. It is not my responsibility to provide all references. I can, and have, provide some of them. I have conducted scholarly research, so I am privy to professional standards. Apparently, you are not, so don't pretend to be an expert.These are your own quotes:
A plain reading of what you wrote leads me to conclude you are claiming:
1. That there were other gospels written prior to the NT Gospels.
2. That the gospel of thomas was one of these prior gospels.
3. That the NT Gospels were based at least in part off the gospel of thomas (used as a reference for).
4. That the church leaders, at some point which you don't specify, destroyed gospels which had material that conflicted with the NT Gospels.
If somehow those are wrong conclusions based on what you said, you can explain why you meant something else.
Otherwise, the onus is on you to prove why your statements are true, with some kind of facts about history, archeology, or otherwise.
I'm just asking for simple data here. It's not hard. Convince us that your claim is valid. Give some evidence. Pointing to some author who shares your opinion doesn't prove anything, as they may be basing their opinion on faulty data and bad assumptions.
Since you made the claim on this forum, the onus is on you to defend and source the data for your claim. The onus is not on us to go read entire books you post just because you claim they prove you are right.
I wouldn't do that to anyone else here - If I need to I will go into the book myself, find the data they used to support for their conclusions, and then I present that data directly to you myself. But that requires direct knowledge of the topic (being able to argue it yourself, not just repeating conclusions you've heard from others) and not being lazy, which are traits I'm not yet convinced you possess.
#4 I've already proven wrong by appealing to 2nd century history about the canon being before anyone had the power to destroy opposing gospels. And you haven't tried to deal with those facts yet either. So if that book you reference is making that claim, then you obviously need to find a better source. Pointing people to faulty books certainly doesn't help prove your original claim is true.
I've given archeological and historical reasons why the NT Gospels must be regarded as more authentic than any of the other supposed gospels that have been found, and you've given no facts or argumentation that would disprove that.
I'm happy to talk about Q also, but let's deal with one issue at a time here. Either you can back up what you said about thomas or you can't. If you're willing to withdraw your statements about the gospel of thomas as inaccurate or at least admit you don't have any facts to back them up your opinion, then we can move on to the next topic. Because even if we assumed Q theory was true, it doesn't prove anything you've claimed about the gospel of thomas. The archeological and historical evidence is still overwhelming against your claim that it preceded the NT Gospels and was used by them as a source. Q also does nothing to prove your #4 claim, which is a complete archeological and historical impossibility, and anyone who makes such a bogus claim has proven they cannot be taken seriously. Really, claiming that is so historically absurd, that it's on par with these people who think the council of Nicea established the Biblical canon - some very basic research could have shown them otherwise.
Maybe you don't realize the concept of debate.I shouldn't have to post such references, it is your responsibility to do the research.
Maybe you don't realize the concept of debate.
The premise is that if you make a claim then you're willing and able to defend it.
If you can't even acknowledge the need to back up your claims with facts, then there is no possibility of having a real debate. All that's left is just you repeating your assertions and getting defensive and deflecting when challenged to provide facts to back them up.
Pointing to a book and saying it proves you right because you really don't have anything else to respond with. People who really know the material first hand don't act the way you do. They don't need to, because they either have the information in their head to recall or they know where to quickly find the data and references that are relevant.
I could easily throw out a dozen book titles, post some articles links, or drop some names that support my position and tell you to go read all that and refuse to directly argue any details myself - but that's not a way to have a meaningful debate or discussion.
If you can't recognize that then fundamentally there's no where else for this conversation to go, you're just putting up a wall and refusing to engage.
Although I'm very interested in having a real discussion on the history/archeology/textual criticism of the NT vs false gnostic gospels, I am not interested in just trying to convince you of what the proper and meaningful way to debate/discuss an issue is. Usually I just ignore people who act that way - but it took me a while to realize that no amount of reasoning with you was going to get you to engage directly with the data, instead of just throwing out names/book titles and repeatedly asserting they prove you right without ever attempting to demonstrate why.
My 1st thought of this thread title was God is dualism: "the division of something conceptually into two opposed or contrasted aspects, or the state of being so divided." And to that, I might agree, though I won't pretend to know for sure.
"There must needs be opposition in all things" - this is a fact that seems pretty obvious. Day distinguishes night. Light and dark... all kinds of opposites give each other meaning, more significance. All of us have some good and some evil tendencies, and often it is ONLY through "evil" or some "bad" thing that happens, that GOoD is revealed.
ACCORDINI disagree. The Bible says "For this is what Jehovah says,The Creator of the heavens, the true God,The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it,Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else." (Isaiah 45:18) Rather than being a duality, "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." (Deuteronomy 6:4)
In Genesis, God makes a reference to His duality. "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,' (Gen. 1:26)I disagree. The Bible says "For this is what Jehovah says,The Creator of the heavens, the true God,The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it,Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else." (Isaiah 45:18) Rather than being a duality, "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." (Deuteronomy 6:4)
I believe Jehovah was speaking to his Son. Regarding Jesus Christ, Colossians 1:15,16 state; "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible."ACCORDIN
In Genesis, God makes a reference to His duality. "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,' (Gen. 1:26)
I believe Jehovah was speaking to his Son. Regarding Jesus Christ, Colossians 1:15,16 state; "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible."
These verses reveal God created his "firstborn" Son, and then gave him the privilege of working alongside his Father in creating all other things. Not that Jesus was a co-Creator but rather a master worker who carried out his Father's instructions. (Proverbs 8:30)
The simple answer is that Jesus is not God. The Bible says God created Jesus.I thought God was eternal. How could there be a son of God if God is eternal? It is an error in logical which has never been addressed Trinity believers.
The simple answer is that Jesus is not God. The Bible says God created Jesus.
I believe the Bible has been under constant attack, both physical and intellectual, for centuries. I also believe all attempts to discredit the Bible have failed. It is as Isaiah 40:8 affirms some 2,700 years ago: "The green grass dries up,The blossom withers, But the word of our God endures forever.” Since the Bible was completed some 1,900 years ago, if it were mere men's ideas, it would long ago have been discredited or destroyed. I believe it is God's word and therefore cannot be refuted by reputed scholars.
False apocryphal books are no part of God's inspired word, IMO.