Raiders of the Lost Gospel of Thomas

Kurt31416 said:

How is the Gospel of Thomas different from the Christian Gospels?

No walking on water
No curing lepers
No multiplication of foodstuffs and wine
No raising the dead
No virgin birth
No satan-gods
No demon-gods
No angel-gods
No son of God-gods
No Jesus walking around like some zombie
No resurrection
No judgment day
No churches or giving money to churches
No praying
It's no big deal to mean mouth the Father
No creation
The Living Father never says or does anything, or has opinions.
No one sent Jesus
God isn't a publisher, Thomas wrote it.
Women have full equality.
No supernatural creatures or supernatural miracles whatsoever.
Not a single solitary parallel to Paul, (other than those with a common Hebrew Bible source)
[No Hell]

I'm sure I left a few out, any others anyone can think of?

Click to expand...

Let's see now, we've had a claim that because he was here in the flesh, that meant he wasn't here in the flesh or at least had other options, and was a second century Gnostic for saying so.

And one about not bowing down to anyone born of woman, which includes the Jesus of Thomas and Christians, both of which explicitly says he had a mother. Jesus explicitly saying he's not God that was included apparantly by accident.

And one about being the light, meaning to the Greeks, the Hebrews and the Gospel of Thomas, being enlightened, being a person of light. Unlike the false image of things. Like the Christian saying stolen from Thomas about a person of light not hiding a light under a basket. Something about being enlightened more than others, making him a god somehow.

And the beautiful Greek story about there being only one God, one unified consciousness, whether you look under a stone or split a piece of wood, like Einstein, Jefferson, Spinoza and the historical Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas.

Nope, not a walking zombie showing off it's wounds, satan-god, or multiplication of foodstuffs in there.

John was edited to slander the doubting Gospel of Thomas. Thomas didn't believe in superstition, so the doubting Thomas meets the zombie and sees the error of his ways.

Which makes Thomas old enough that those that knew Jesus and Thomas were still around to refute that Thomas wrote it.

The Kurt Comedy Tour.

:takeabow:





... or if we take it seriously, the Gnostic axe to grind...

Kurt31416 said:

FALSE, he never says he wasn't born of woman, he explicitly says he has a mother.

Click to expand...

"When you see one who was not born of woman, prostrate yourselves on your faces and worship him. That one is your father."

Thomas 15

FALSE, I never said it wasn't in the Greek, in fact, I quoted the Greek to demonstrate why you deliberately chopped off half of it.

Click to expand...

Nice try:

Kurt31416 said:

Oberon said:

Thomas doesn't say Jesus is flesh, but that he "appeared" flesh.

Click to expand...

It's in English, translated from Coptic, translated from Greek,

Click to expand...

Only Jesus does say that "he appeared in the flesh" in the Greek POxy1 28.

Moreove, the word (opthen)can also be trasnlated as "seemed" or "appeared" but the point is Jesus WASN'T in the flesh, but only appeared to be so. Docetic christology.

You're repeating yourself. Saying you are flesh and blood doesn't mean you are saying you aren't flesh and blood.

Click to expand...

You apparently can't tell the difference between the copula einai and the verb dokein. Jesus didn't say he was flesh and blood, he only appeared to be. He wasn't.

Unlike the explicit walking talking zombies of Chrisitanity. Ain't got to pretend saying you are flesh means you aren't flesh to demonstrate that's pagan superstition.

Click to expand...

That would be true, but you apparently don't know your own sources.

POxy1 28 specifically states that Jesus WAS NOT HUMAN but only APPEARED to be human. That is how many gnostics thought about Jesus. He wasn't human, but appeared in human flesh. Thomas supports this view. The Jesus is thomas is less human than the Jesus of the synoptics, because he IS NOT flesh and blood, but only APPEARS in the form of flesh and blood.

Kurt31416 said:

Let's see now, we've had a claim that because he was here in the flesh, that meant he wasn't here in the flesh or at least had other options, and was a second century Gnostic for saying so.

Click to expand...

Only he did say "here in the flesh." He said he only appeared to be flesh, but wasn't. Do you realize there is a difference between "appear" and "am?"

And one about not bowing down to anyone born of woman, which includes the Jesus of Thomas and Christians, both of which explicitly says he had a mother. Jesus explicitly saying he's not God that was included apparantly by accident.

Click to expand...

Thomas never explicitly says he had a mother. In the one line which refers to his mother, he denies he has one. Furthermore, he is claims in Thomas 15 that he was born of God and should be worshipped.

And one about being the light, meaning to the Greeks, the Hebrews and the Gospel of Thomas, being enlightened, being a person of light. Unlike the false image of things. Like the Christian saying stolen from Thomas about a person of light not hiding a light under a basket. Something about being enlightened more than others, making him a god somehow.

Click to expand...

According to you. According to most interpretations, it says nothing about being a light to the greeks, but it is definetely not someone only human "from me all came forth" Thomass 77. And where is the greek parallel?

Nope, not a walking zombie showing off it's wounds, satan-god, or multiplication of foodstuffs in there.

Click to expand...

Because it is a collection of sayings, which doesn't meant that its author didn't believe Jesus was supernatural. Q is also a collection of sayings, but was used in communities who believed in the resurrected Christ.

Thomas didn't believe in superstition, so the doubting Thomas meets the zombie and sees the error of his ways.

Click to expand...

He just believed Jesus only appeared in the flesh because he wasn't really human, that "all came forth" from Jesus, that he wasn't born of woman, etc.

Which makes Thomas old enough that those that knew Jesus and Thomas were still around to refute that Thomas wrote it.

Click to expand...

Or not. Because as Tuckett and others have shown, and if you would read the article I have provided you might actually learn something, Thomas is likely dependent on the synoptics.

Originally Posted by Kurt31416
FALSE, he never says he wasn't born of woman, he explicitly says he has a mother.

Oberon said:

"When you see one who was not born of woman, prostrate yourselves on your faces and worship him. That one is your father." Thomas 15

Click to expand...

Thomas and all the Christian Gospels say Jesus had a mother, and He says not to bown down to those born of woman. That means you aren't supposed to bow down to him. What he hell is so complicated about that?

The disciples said to him: Your brothers and your mother are standing outside. He said to them: Those here who do the will of my Father, these are my brothers and my mother; they are the ones who will enter into the kingdom of my Father. Thomas 99

and paralleled in Luke 8:19-21, Matt 12:46-50, Mark 3:20-22, Mark 3:31-35, GEbi 5

And, once again repeating that being flesh and blood meant he wasn't flesh and blood, and that was something to do with the second century Gnostics.

Not being flesh and blood is walking around like some zombie that crawled out of the grave, showing people it's bloody wounds.

Ain't gotta pretend being flesh means not being flesh.

Oberon said:

Because it is a collection of sayings, which doesn't meant that its author didn't believe Jesus was supernatural. Q is also a collection of sayings, but was used in communities who believed in the resurrected Christ.

Click to expand...

Q, after you remove the Thomas parallels, is over half explicit superstition.

Hahahahaha.

Ain't gotta pretend flesh doesn't mean flesh on that one. it's devil gods and miracles coming out of the wall.

The only reason Q seems non-superstitous at all is because of all the Thomas parallels it stole out of Thomas.

Want to see the superstitous junk a Christian or Gnostic would add to Thomas the first chance they got, take a look at Q after you subtract out the beautiful, breathtaking Thomas and Didache parallels. About 50% is explicit superstition, no flesh not meaning flesh required. A.most all of the remainder is self-serving, and not a mustard tree or timber in the eye to be found.

And another saying with Jesus saying he has a mother, and the Christian Bible parallels from copying it... (You know, "parallels' what there isn't one single solitary example to the second century Gnostics.)

<Jesus said>, "Those who do not hate their [father] and their mother as I do cannot be [disciples] of me. And those who [do not] love their [father and] their mother as I do cannot be [disciples of] me. For my mother [. . .] But my true [mother] gave me life."Thomas 101

And paralleled in....Luke 14:25-33, Luke 9:23-27, Matt 10:34-39, Matt 16:24-28, Mark 8:34-9:1.

The disciples said to him: Your brothers and your mother are standing outside. He said to them: Those here who do the will of my Father, these are my brothers and my mother; they are the ones who will enter into the kingdom of my Father. Thomas 99

Click to expand...

Exactly. They said his mother whas outside, and he denies he has an actual mother. His mothers and brothers are the one who follow his way. Now, in the gospels this logion is given a different spin. However, in Thomas, where Jesus only appears to be human, but isn't, it takes on a new meaning. Thomas is not born of woman, and should be worshipped.

Kurt31416 said:

And, once again repeating that being flesh and blood meant he wasn't flesh and blood, and that was something to do with the second century Gnostics.

Click to expand...

It doesn't say he was flesh and blood. I know you don't know greek, but you do know english, right? Thomas says Jesus only "appeared" to be flesh, but actually he wasn't. Docetic christology, a gnostic theme.

Take a look at the prologue in john. "The word became flesh." In John's theology, Jesus became an actual human. However, in thomas, jesus only "appears" to be flesh. In Thomas, Jesus only "appears" in the flesh because he isn't in the flesh.

Kurt31416 said:

The only reason Q seems non-superstitous at all is because of all the Thomas parallels it stole out of Thomas.

Click to expand...

Not according to the only scholars you think are worthwhile, like Funk and Crossan and Robinson. They all argue that Q and Thomas are independent.

Jesus only "appeared" to be flesh.

False, no "only" in there He appeared to them in the flesh, just like you and I appear to people in the flesh.

Saying you are flesh means you aren't flesh? That's it? That's as good as it gets?

Oberon said:

Not according to the only scholars you think are worthwhile, like Funk and Crossan and Robinson. They all argue that Q and Thomas are independent.

Click to expand...

They also say that members have been persecuted and lost their jobs for saying as much as they did say. But Mahlon Smith says more likely Q came from Thomas than the other way around, and Stephan Davies says Mark got his parables and sayings from Thomas, and Elaine Pagels says John was written after Thomas, to refute the non-superstitious Thomas by the zombie walking around showing Thomas that superstition was correct.

And two out of that three world class scholars aren't in the Jesus Seminar.

Kurt31416 said:

Jesus only "appeared" to be flesh.

False, no "only" in there He appeared to them in the flesh, just like you and I appear to people in the flesh.

Click to expand...

No, you and I don't "appear" to people in the flesh. We are flesh.

When I say "I see a person over there" it implies that I see a person. If I say "there is a person over there" it means that there really is a person over there. However, if I say, "I appeared to see a person over there" it implies that I did not in fact see a person. I may have seen something that looked like a person, or I thought was a person, or maybe it was a trick of the light and nothing at all was there. It only appeared to be.

Likewise, saying "Jesus appeared in the flesh" means it seemed like he was flesh, but was something else, which is why Thomas doesn't say Jesus WAS flesh.

There is no need for a human to "appear in the flesh" nor is it used for humans. We are flesh. We don't appear to be flesh. In the greek Thomas, Jesus en sarkei ophthen autois, not en sarkei en autois or en sarkei genetai autois. He wasn't flesh, but only appeared to be

Saying you are flesh means you aren't flesh?

Click to expand...

You really don't know the difference between appearing as flesh and being flesh? Look up docetic christology. The gnostics who thought that Jesus was not human but a supernatural being used this terminology to describe him. He appeared as flesh, but wasn't. Thomas says the same thing.

Kurt31416 said:

They also say that members have been persecuted and lost their jobs for saying as much as they did say.

Click to expand...

No, the intro to one book claims that some unnamed people did. However, we can look at Crossan and Funks job history. They weren't fired, or persecuted, yet they INSIST that Q is independent of Thomas.

But Mahlon Smith says more likely Q came from Thomas than the other way around, and Stephan Davies says Mark got his parables and sayings from Thomas, and Elaine Pagels says John was written after Thomas, to refute the non-superstitious Thomas by the zombie walking around showing Thomas that superstition was correct.

And two out of that three world class scholars aren't in the Jesus Seminar.

Click to expand...

And they don't have guggenhymen scholarships or fullofit awards either. We can't listen to them.

Yet Tuckett, in the article I provided you, who has plenty of awards and teaches at a "fancy" univeristy and has multiple degrees and honors argues that Thomas is dependent on the synoptics. And I provided a list of "world class" scholars who agree.

The Jesus Seminar's big book, summarizing a decade of their work says they were persecuted including losing their jobs, and you call the senior Fullbright Scholar and Guggenheim Fellow writing the book in their name, a liar.

Like there's no Jerry Falwell, like there was no Scopes Trial, like the Christian church wasn't drenched in the blood of fhe innocent that dared question them, for almost 2000 years.

And back to appearing in the flesh meaning you aren't appearing in the flesh. Pathetic.

No mystery about a zombie walking around showing people his bloody wounds not being flesh. Don't have to claim flesh doesn't mean flesh for that one.

Kurt31416 said:

The Jesus Seminar's big book, summarizing a decade of their work says they were persecuted including losing their jobs, and you call the senior Fullbright Scholar and Guggenheim Fellow writing the book in their name, a liar.

Click to expand...

We can look at Funk and Crossan's job history. They were never fired.

Kurt31416 said:

And back to appearing in the flesh meaning you aren't appearing in the flesh. Pathetic.

Click to expand...

Explain to me how en sarkei ophthen autois means en sarkei estin autois?

Thomas has a docetic christology, in which Jesus only appears to be human, but isn't. He is MORE supernatural than the Jesus of the gospels.

Finally, since you are now allowing arguments from people without FUnk's particular awards, like Pagels and so forth, why not allow arguments from guys like Kurt Rudolph, or Christopher Tuckett?

Tuckett:

Affiliations

• Fellow of Pembroke 2002
• Fellow of Wolfson College 1996-2002
• Professor of New Testament Studies, University of Oxford 2001-
• Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism, University of Manchester 1991-96
• Member of Faculty of Theology www.theology.ox.ac.uk
• Member of Society for New Testament Studies www.ncl.ac.uk/snts

That AND multiple degrees, AND a professor at Oxford. One of the top 3 universities in the world.