God is a Duality not a Trinity

Rise said:

You say "according to history" - What history? Show us the historical documentation. Opinions are a dime a dozen; I can throw around endless names of authors who would say that person is absolutely wrong, so the only way to settle this is to look at the evidence directly for ourselves.

Prior to Nicea, when the church gained government protection; every canon list, book compilation, and early church writing we have all attest to the authenticity of the canon we have as being already known and established by the 2nd century. So your entire premise is impossible: If the canon was already established before Nicea, as we can see in history, then we know that the canon could never have been established by force and destruction.

Show us why there is any historical reason to believe there were gospels that were written prior to the four we have in the Bible.
Even the most unbelieving scholar doesn't try to suggest that the gnostic gospels that have been recovered actually represent 1st century works. Nobody even tries to claim that the entirety of thomas is from prior to the 1st century, but only claims parts of it might be based on agreement with the NT. And even saying that much is a minority view, with no historical proof to back it up - it's just speculation.
Only an extreme minority of revisionist historians even attempt to claim the gospel of thomas served as a source for the Biblical gospels; but it's first mention in history is not until the 3rd century when some church fathers mention it as an example of a false gospel. Again, there's no historical basis for what they claim, it's an unsupported theory that conflicts with what we do know about history - We have ample historical witness from the 2nd century of canon lists, church writers, book compilations, and other documents which all attest to the books we have in the NT today, and none of them can give even the faintest hope of attestation to the gospel of thomas.

Most of the gospel of thomas is just requoting NT sources, and the rest is mostly generic nonsense that has no witness in the early church or rest of the Bible.
Where are the early church writings that quote from or are in agreement with the generic parable nonsense found in Thomas? I've encountered no examples of it. If Thomas were a genuine 1st century document, we'd expect the material that is unique to it to be reflected in other early church documentation. Even for the authentic gospels, when dealing with material that is unique to those, we find ample reason from both the OT, other NT books, and early church history, to witness to the truth contained in the four gospels. Thomas is isolated in that sense, with no supporting witness beyond what it has just ripped strait of existing gospels.


The contents of the gospel of thomas also contradict what is found in the NT gospels and epistles, as well as what is found in the OT prophets. God does not contradict Himself. Either thomas is right or all of the NT and OT is wrong. That's an impossible claim when the gospel of thomas doesn't predate either of them.

Some disqualifying major contradictions:
Thomas (13): Jesus corrects them for calling Him "master", and says He is not their master.
Bible: Luke 17:14. John 13:13. Jesus does not correct those who call Him master, but affirms they are right to do so. He also says that no one else on earth is to be considered master, or father, or messiah, because their is only one who can be called that (Matthew 23).

Thomas (51). It claims the resurrection of the dead has already happened, and the new world has already come.
Bible: John 11:24, John 6:39, Luke 14:12-14, Luke 18:8, Luke 18:30, Luke 20:35-36, Acts 1:11, Acts of the Apostles 23:6, Acts of the Apostles 24:15, Mark 10:30, Hebrews 2:5, 2 Peter 3:12-14, Revelation 21:2, 2 Peter 3:3-5, 1 Corinthians 6:14, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-14, 1 Corinthians 15:51-53, 1 Corinthians 15:30-32, 1 John 3:2, Philippians 3:21, Psalms 17:15, Psalms 71:20, Isaiah 26:19, Isaiah 65:17, Hosea 13:14, Revelation 21:4, Isaiah 65:20.
The resurrection of all from the dead, the establishment of a new order, and eventually the recreation of the earth and heavens, are all linked with the return of Jesus. The gospel of thomas is trying to deny the major hope of the Christian faith by saying that which was promised has already come in full.
Ephesians 1:14, 2 Corinthians 1:22, Acts of the Apostles 26:22-23, Romans 8:23, James 1:18,
Except, we see in the Bible, that what we see with Jesus and the early church is only the first fruits and downpayment of what will later be given in full.
This is pictured in the observance of the first fruits of the harvest in the Levitical feasts God gave for observance. It is also reflected in parables given by Jesus where His church is a bride waiting for the consummation of what was promised to them (An engagement is a promise that will be fulfilled at a later day, to which the bride is usually given a downpayment as proof of their promise).

Thomas (77). A pantheistic view of Jesus not found in the Bible.

Thomas (114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus talked a lot about entering the Kingdom of Heaven, and none of it ever suggested anything have to do with distinctions of sex.


The gospel of thomas fits the pattern one would expect to find of a document that was forged at a later date with the intention of fooling people who are familiar with the authentic historical gospels. Similar to the fabricated epistle of laodicea, where most of the document is spent restating what is found elsewhere or making generic irrelevant statements. The only difference between these two: Laodicea was not written with the intent of spreading lies that contradict the authentic NT documents, but was interested in merely being passed off as historically authentic when it was not. Thomas, in contrast, is clearly written with the intent of putting forth unbiblical lies as truth, because there are several instances where it tries to strike at the heart of foundational issues of who Jesus is, how salvation is achieved, and the prophetic hope we have of Jesus's return - all hidden in the midst of generic statements and Biblical restatements that are meant to give the illusion of authenticity to someone who is not well versed in the scriptures (and to that end, it has succeeded in fooling some modern people who don't know the Bible well or believe it's contents).

Click to expand...

What a ridiculous reply. I listed references! Here is a book WHICH I LISTED. The Missing Gospels by Darrell. L. Block. Don't blame me if you can't read. Evidently, you don't know how to do research. Here is another reference. The Lost Gospel Q by Burton L. Mack. I fear you will not have any familiarity with my references because you are uninformed. I don't buy your phony argument. I am a scholarly. So, I really know what I am talking about. As for Thomas, you are wrong. You will find about 40% of Jesus quotes from Thomas in NT gospels.

Rise said:

You say "according to history" - What history? Show us the historical documentation. Opinions are a dime a dozen; I can throw around endless names of authors who would say that person is absolutely wrong, so the only way to settle this is to look at the evidence directly for ourselves.

Prior to Nicea, when the church gained government protection; every canon list, book compilation, and early church writing we have all attest to the authenticity of the canon we have as being already known and established by the 2nd century. So your entire premise is impossible: If the canon was already established before Nicea, as we can see in history, then we know that the canon could never have been established by force and destruction.

Show us why there is any historical reason to believe there were gospels that were written prior to the four we have in the Bible.
Even the most unbelieving scholar doesn't try to suggest that the gnostic gospels that have been recovered actually represent 1st century works. Nobody even tries to claim that the entirety of thomas is from prior to the 1st century, but only claims parts of it might be based on agreement with the NT. And even saying that much is a minority view, with no historical proof to back it up - it's just speculation.
Only an extreme minority of revisionist historians even attempt to claim the gospel of thomas served as a source for the Biblical gospels; but it's first mention in history is not until the 3rd century when some church fathers mention it as an example of a false gospel. Again, there's no historical basis for what they claim, it's an unsupported theory that conflicts with what we do know about history - We have ample historical witness from the 2nd century of canon lists, church writers, book compilations, and other documents which all attest to the books we have in the NT today, and none of them can give even the faintest hope of attestation to the gospel of thomas.

Most of the gospel of thomas is just requoting NT sources, and the rest is mostly generic nonsense that has no witness in the early church or rest of the Bible.
Where are the early church writings that quote from or are in agreement with the generic parable nonsense found in Thomas? I've encountered no examples of it. If Thomas were a genuine 1st century document, we'd expect the material that is unique to it to be reflected in other early church documentation. Even for the authentic gospels, when dealing with material that is unique to those, we find ample reason from both the OT, other NT books, and early church history, to witness to the truth contained in the four gospels. Thomas is isolated in that sense, with no supporting witness beyond what it has just ripped strait of existing gospels.


The contents of the gospel of thomas also contradict what is found in the NT gospels and epistles, as well as what is found in the OT prophets. God does not contradict Himself. Either thomas is right or all of the NT and OT is wrong. That's an impossible claim when the gospel of thomas doesn't predate either of them.

Some disqualifying major contradictions:
Thomas (13): Jesus corrects them for calling Him "master", and says He is not their master.
Bible: Luke 17:14. John 13:13. Jesus does not correct those who call Him master, but affirms they are right to do so. He also says that no one else on earth is to be considered master, or father, or messiah, because their is only one who can be called that (Matthew 23).

Thomas (51). It claims the resurrection of the dead has already happened, and the new world has already come.
Bible: John 11:24, John 6:39, Luke 14:12-14, Luke 18:8, Luke 18:30, Luke 20:35-36, Acts 1:11, Acts of the Apostles 23:6, Acts of the Apostles 24:15, Mark 10:30, Hebrews 2:5, 2 Peter 3:12-14, Revelation 21:2, 2 Peter 3:3-5, 1 Corinthians 6:14, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-14, 1 Corinthians 15:51-53, 1 Corinthians 15:30-32, 1 John 3:2, Philippians 3:21, Psalms 17:15, Psalms 71:20, Isaiah 26:19, Isaiah 65:17, Hosea 13:14, Revelation 21:4, Isaiah 65:20.
The resurrection of all from the dead, the establishment of a new order, and eventually the recreation of the earth and heavens, are all linked with the return of Jesus. The gospel of thomas is trying to deny the major hope of the Christian faith by saying that which was promised has already come in full.
Ephesians 1:14, 2 Corinthians 1:22, Acts of the Apostles 26:22-23, Romans 8:23, James 1:18,
Except, we see in the Bible, that what we see with Jesus and the early church is only the first fruits and downpayment of what will later be given in full.
This is pictured in the observance of the first fruits of the harvest in the Levitical feasts God gave for observance. It is also reflected in parables given by Jesus where His church is a bride waiting for the consummation of what was promised to them (An engagement is a promise that will be fulfilled at a later day, to which the bride is usually given a downpayment as proof of their promise).

Thomas (77). A pantheistic view of Jesus not found in the Bible.

Thomas (114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus talked a lot about entering the Kingdom of Heaven, and none of it ever suggested anything have to do with distinctions of sex.


The gospel of thomas fits the pattern one would expect to find of a document that was forged at a later date with the intention of fooling people who are familiar with the authentic historical gospels. Similar to the fabricated epistle of laodicea, where most of the document is spent restating what is found elsewhere or making generic irrelevant statements. The only difference between these two: Laodicea was not written with the intent of spreading lies that contradict the authentic NT documents, but was interested in merely being passed off as historically authentic when it was not. Thomas, in contrast, is clearly written with the intent of putting forth unbiblical lies as truth, because there are several instances where it tries to strike at the heart of foundational issues of who Jesus is, how salvation is achieved, and the prophetic hope we have of Jesus's return - all hidden in the midst of generic statements and Biblical restatements that are meant to give the illusion of authenticity to someone who is not well versed in the scriptures (and to that end, it has succeeded in fooling some modern people who don't know the Bible well or believe it's contents).

Click to expand...

Evidently, you don't read very well. With convection you say I don't know what I am talking about after I listed references. Here it is again. 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. 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. According to The Lost Gospel Q by Burton L. Mack, a well known NT scholar, about 40% of Jesus quotes in The Gospel of Thomas are found in the four gospels. I have checked it out and Mack is correct! I have a library of references, and I actually read them. Your rambling argument makes little sense. Biblical scholars agree that Thomas preceded the NT gospels, and they are in agreement that NT authors used prior gospels as references. I could list more references but it appears to be a waste of time. You already have your mind made up, you don't read scholarly books.

Scholars have discovered an evolution of ideas following the death of Jesus, the Jesus movement. There is an excellent account of what happened in book entitled The Lost Gospel Q by Burton L. Mack. Scholars found quotations common to each of the four gospels from Q. Scholars from all over the world have participated in this scholarly enterprise. What they have found are source material preceding the writing of the gospels. All authors have sources, so it‘s expected for NT authors to have reference material for their gospels. Briefly, scholars have discovered a transition of ideas about Jesus by tracing changes in the Lost Gospel of Q. They discovered four basic stages of change for Q. In the early years following the death of Jesus, Q1 reveals people regarding Jesus as a prophet or wise man. It wasn’t until the third stage, 40-60 years following the death of Jesus, that Jesus movement followers began defining Jesus as the son of God. About this time, followers also began discussing the crucifixion of Jesus. Then, in the final phase of the Jesus movement, followers began discussing Jesus as a sacrificial lamb to save humankind. Based on analysis of Gospel of Q material, the final statement for Christianity as we know it today began in the fourth stage of Q.

allfoak said:

If there is a father and a son, then i would imagine there is a mother as well.

Click to expand...

The Holy Spirit is the mother

injuntrouble said:

The Holy Spirit is the mother

Click to expand...

Excellent!

Repox said:

The Missing Gospels by Darrell. L. Block. Don't blame me if you can't read. Evidently, you don't know how to do research. Here is another reference. The Lost Gospel Q by Burton L. Mack.

Click to expand...

You aren't citing historical sources.
Anyone can make a claim, the question is can you prove it with historical evidence.
Where's the historical documentation that underpins the claims you are making?
If those books you list are so good, you would be able to go into the footnotes, look up some 1st to 3rd century documents they cite, and read them for yourself.

According to history, church leaders destroyed as many gospels as they could find which disagreed with the four selected.

Click to expand...

Cite a historical source. Don't just claim it's true because someone told you it is.

Here's an example of what real history looks like: The Muratorian Fragment.

Dated to the 2nd century, it gives us a canon list that is in line with the NT we have today.

This is almost a century and a half before the church even got the protection of the Roman state.

The canon was already established long before anyone in the church had the power to destroy anything. So the basis of your argument (that legitimate gospels were destroyed later by the church), is proven wrong. False gospels may have been destroyed in the 5th century, but we know historically that had nothing to do with shaping what the church viewed as legitimate Gospels because the canon was already recognized in the 2nd century by the persecuted minority church.

about 40% of Jesus quotes in The Gospel of Thomas are found in the four gospels.

Click to expand...

Which, by itself, doesn't prove anything.
That's also what you'd expect to see in a 3rd century forgery, drawing off the existing Gospel material.

As I already pointed out for you:
The rest of it has no attestation in 2nd century church documentation, or witness to it in the rest of the Bible.

And a small amount of it is outright heretical, contradicting the entire Bible on major points.
Genuine scripture doesn't contradict itself on major issues of who Jesus is, the way of salvation, or God's plan of ultimate redemption.

The Gospel of Thomas is a prior gospel which was used as a reference for the four gospels.

Click to expand...

Where's the evidence in history that the gospel of thomas can actually be traced back to the 1st century? All the real documentary historical evidence we have works against that being a possibility. Early church writings, early canon lists, etc.
Give us one bit of historical documentation that would lead us to believe it is an authentic 1st century document.
Don't just claim it is because someone, somewhere, says it is. That's not how truth is determined. I could just as easily point to a scholar who says it's a 3rd century forgery, but I'd much rather appeal directly to the historical evidence itself.

The fact that the gospel of thomas contradicts basic elements of truth found in both the OT and NT, as I showed you, also strikes against any possibility that it could be authentic.
Because then you're also left with trying to explain why it contradicts all other early 2nd century and 1st century church writings.

Biblical scholars agree that Thomas preceded the NT gospels,

Click to expand...

No, they aren't. J.R. Porter dates it to 250 AD.
I wouldn't even say most believe it predates the NT gospels.

The reason I'm challenging you to provide us with actual historical evidence is because it will reveal the truth: Which is that there is none to back up such a claim.
Any early dating of the gospel of thomas is purely speculative with no basis in historical evidence.

We have ample evidence that attests to the four gospels we have, with nothing that would hint to the gospel of thomas in the least.

All authors have sources, so it‘s expected for NT authors to have reference material for their gospels.

Click to expand...

The gospels are presented as eyewitness testimonies. The only exception is Luke, which is presented as a compilation of information.
Early church history and 2nd century documents all attest to the four Gospels as being the only authentic ones in circulation, and three said to be the eyewitness testimony of Matthew (originally written in the Jewish language), Peter (as scribed by Mark), and John.

The content in the Gospels is consistent with what church history has recorded about their creation (Ie. the content of Mark is consistent with the story being told from the perspective of Peter, and Matthew is consistent with being a Gospel written to a Jewish audience); so what historical reason do we have to declare that the documentary evidence is wrong, that the Gospels are actually compilations based on earlier written sources?

Briefly, scholars have discovered a transition of ideas about Jesus by tracing changes in the Lost Gospel of Q.

Click to expand...

Where's the historical evidence for such a document?
It's existence is not established fact, but speculation. Speculation based on a presumption that common sayings in each Gospel must have a common written source. But you have to check and analyze your presumptions if you want to arrive at the truth: What reason do we have to assume that the presumption is true to begin with? The historical record is against the very presumption that the Q theory depends on.

They discovered four basic stages of change for Q. In the early years following the death of Jesus, Q1 reveals people regarding Jesus as a prophet or wise man. It wasn’t until the third stage, 40-60 years following the death of Jesus, that Jesus movement followers began defining Jesus as the son of God. About this time, followers also began discussing the crucifixion of Jesus. Then, in the final phase of the Jesus movement, followers began discussing Jesus as a sacrificial lamb to save humankind. Based on analysis of Gospel of Q material, the final statement for Christianity as we know it today began in the fourth stage of Q.

Click to expand...

Theoretical ideas based on a theoretical document, which is all based on bad presumptions to begin with.
Pressumptions like "the document that is the shortest must be the oldest, because we think the story of Jesus must have been added to over time". A presumption that has no historical witness to it, but which is the invention of someone's mind. Church history tells us that Matthew was written first, yet they presume to declare, without evidence, that Mark was the first written Gospel just because it is the shortest.
There's no evidence in history to suggest an evolving view of Jesus from the 1st to the 2nd century, based on actual historical documents and archeology.

Rise said:

You aren't citing historical sources.
Anyone can make a claim, the question is can you prove it with historical evidence.
Where's the historical documentation that underpins the claims you are making?
If those books you list are so good, you would be able to go into the footnotes, look up some 1st to 3rd century documents they cite, and read them for yourself.



Cite a historical source. Don't just claim it's true because someone told you it is.

Here's an example of what real history looks like: The Muratorian Fragment.

Dated to the 2nd century, it gives us a canon list that is in line with the NT we have today.

This is almost a century and a half before the church even got the protection of the Roman state.

The canon was already established long before anyone in the church had the power to destroy anything. So the basis of your argument (that legitimate gospels were destroyed later by the church), is proven wrong. False gospels may have been destroyed in the 5th century, but we know historically that had nothing to do with shaping what the church viewed as legitimate Gospels because the canon was already recognized in the 2nd century by the persecuted minority church.


Which, by itself, doesn't prove anything.
That's also what you'd expect to see in a 3rd century forgery, drawing off the existing Gospel material.

As I already pointed out for you:
The rest of it has no attestation in 2nd century church documentation, or witness to it in the rest of the Bible.

And a small amount of it is outright heretical, contradicting the entire Bible on major points.
Genuine scripture doesn't contradict itself on major issues of who Jesus is, the way of salvation, or God's plan of ultimate redemption.




Where's the evidence in history that the gospel of thomas can actually be traced back to the 1st century? All the real documentary historical evidence we have works against that being a possibility. Early church writings, early canon lists, etc.
Give us one bit of historical documentation that would lead us to believe it is an authentic 1st century document.
Don't just claim it is because someone, somewhere, says it is. That's not how truth is determined. I could just as easily point to a scholar who says it's a 3rd century forgery, but I'd much rather appeal directly to the historical evidence itself.

The fact that the gospel of thomas contradicts basic elements of truth found in both the OT and NT, as I showed you, also strikes against any possibility that it could be authentic.
Because then you're also left with trying to explain why it contradicts all other early 2nd century and 1st century church writings.



No, they aren't. J.R. Porter dates it to 250 AD.
I wouldn't even say most believe it predates the NT gospels.

The reason I'm challenging you to provide us with actual historical evidence is because it will reveal the truth: Which is that there is none to back up such a claim.
Any early dating of the gospel of thomas is purely speculative with no basis in historical evidence.

We have ample evidence that attests to the four gospels we have, with nothing that would hint to the gospel of thomas in the least.



The gospels are presented as eyewitness testimonies. The only exception is Luke, which is presented as a compilation of information.
Early church history and 2nd century documents all attest to the four Gospels as being the only authentic ones in circulation, and three said to be the eyewitness testimony of Matthew (originally written in the Jewish language), Peter (as scribed by Mark), and John.

The content in the Gospels is consistent with what church history has recorded about their creation (Ie. the content of Mark is consistent with the story being told from the perspective of Peter, and Matthew is consistent with being a Gospel written to a Jewish audience); so what historical reason do we have to declare that the documentary evidence is wrong, that the Gospels are actually compilations based on earlier written sources?


Where's the historical evidence for such a document?
It's existence is not established fact, but speculation. Speculation based on a presumption that common sayings in each Gospel must have a common written source. But you have to check and analyze your presumptions if you want to arrive at the truth: What reason do we have to assume that the presumption is true to begin with? The historical record is against the very presumption that the Q theory depends on.



Theoretical ideas based on a theoretical document, which is all based on bad presumptions to begin with.
Pressumptions like "the document that is the shortest must be the oldest, because we think the story of Jesus must have been added to over time". A presumption that has no historical witness to it, but which is the invention of someone's mind. Church history tells us that Matthew was written first, yet they presume to declare, without evidence, that Mark was the first written Gospel just because it is the shortest.
There's no evidence in history to suggest an evolving view of Jesus from the 1st to the 2nd century, based on actual historical documents and archeology.

Click to expand...

You just ramble along through history without addressing my argument. It is clear that you have not read Burton's book. You can't dismiss a book without knowing what is in it. I posted relevant ideas from the book. Read It! It is about history preceding the NT gospels.

Scholars have discovered an evolution of ideas following the death of Jesus, the Jesus movement. There is an excellent account of what happened in book entitled The Lost Gospel Q by Burton L. Mack. Scholars found quotations common to each of the four gospels from Q. Scholars from all over the world have participated in this scholarly enterprise. What they have found are source material preceding the writing of the gospels. All authors have sources, so it‘s expected for NT authors to have reference material for their gospels. Briefly, scholars have discovered a transition of ideas about Jesus by tracing changes in the Lost Gospel of Q. They discovered four basic stages of change for Q. In the early years following the death of Jesus, Q1 reveals people regarding Jesus as a prophet or wise man. It wasn’t until the third stage, 40-60 years following the death of Jesus, that Jesus movement followers began defining Jesus as the son of God. About this time, followers also began discussing the crucifixion of Jesus. Then, in the final phase of the Jesus movement, followers began discussing Jesus as a sacrificial lamb to save humankind. Based on analysis of Gospel of Q material, the final statement for Christianity as we know it today began in the fourth stage of Q.

Rise said:

You aren't citing historical sources.
Anyone can make a claim, the question is can you prove it with historical evidence.
Where's the historical documentation that underpins the claims you are making?
If those books you list are so good, you would be able to go into the footnotes, look up some 1st to 3rd century documents they cite, and read them for yourself.



Cite a historical source. Don't just claim it's true because someone told you it is.

Here's an example of what real history looks like: The Muratorian Fragment.

Dated to the 2nd century, it gives us a canon list that is in line with the NT we have today.

This is almost a century and a half before the church even got the protection of the Roman state.

The canon was already established long before anyone in the church had the power to destroy anything. So the basis of your argument (that legitimate gospels were destroyed later by the church), is proven wrong. False gospels may have been destroyed in the 5th century, but we know historically that had nothing to do with shaping what the church viewed as legitimate Gospels because the canon was already recognized in the 2nd century by the persecuted minority church.


Which, by itself, doesn't prove anything.
That's also what you'd expect to see in a 3rd century forgery, drawing off the existing Gospel material.

As I already pointed out for you:
The rest of it has no attestation in 2nd century church documentation, or witness to it in the rest of the Bible.

And a small amount of it is outright heretical, contradicting the entire Bible on major points.
Genuine scripture doesn't contradict itself on major issues of who Jesus is, the way of salvation, or God's plan of ultimate redemption.




Where's the evidence in history that the gospel of thomas can actually be traced back to the 1st century? All the real documentary historical evidence we have works against that being a possibility. Early church writings, early canon lists, etc.
Give us one bit of historical documentation that would lead us to believe it is an authentic 1st century document.
Don't just claim it is because someone, somewhere, says it is. That's not how truth is determined. I could just as easily point to a scholar who says it's a 3rd century forgery, but I'd much rather appeal directly to the historical evidence itself.

The fact that the gospel of thomas contradicts basic elements of truth found in both the OT and NT, as I showed you, also strikes against any possibility that it could be authentic.
Because then you're also left with trying to explain why it contradicts all other early 2nd century and 1st century church writings.



No, they aren't. J.R. Porter dates it to 250 AD.
I wouldn't even say most believe it predates the NT gospels.

The reason I'm challenging you to provide us with actual historical evidence is because it will reveal the truth: Which is that there is none to back up such a claim.
Any early dating of the gospel of thomas is purely speculative with no basis in historical evidence.

We have ample evidence that attests to the four gospels we have, with nothing that would hint to the gospel of thomas in the least.



The gospels are presented as eyewitness testimonies. The only exception is Luke, which is presented as a compilation of information.
Early church history and 2nd century documents all attest to the four Gospels as being the only authentic ones in circulation, and three said to be the eyewitness testimony of Matthew (originally written in the Jewish language), Peter (as scribed by Mark), and John.

The content in the Gospels is consistent with what church history has recorded about their creation (Ie. the content of Mark is consistent with the story being told from the perspective of Peter, and Matthew is consistent with being a Gospel written to a Jewish audience); so what historical reason do we have to declare that the documentary evidence is wrong, that the Gospels are actually compilations based on earlier written sources?


Where's the historical evidence for such a document?
It's existence is not established fact, but speculation. Speculation based on a presumption that common sayings in each Gospel must have a common written source. But you have to check and analyze your presumptions if you want to arrive at the truth: What reason do we have to assume that the presumption is true to begin with? The historical record is against the very presumption that the Q theory depends on.



Theoretical ideas based on a theoretical document, which is all based on bad presumptions to begin with.
Pressumptions like "the document that is the shortest must be the oldest, because we think the story of Jesus must have been added to over time". A presumption that has no historical witness to it, but which is the invention of someone's mind. Church history tells us that Matthew was written first, yet they presume to declare, without evidence, that Mark was the first written Gospel just because it is the shortest.
There's no evidence in history to suggest an evolving view of Jesus from the 1st to the 2nd century, based on actual historical documents and archeology.

Click to expand...

You keep claiming church history is accurate. Just because church leaders wrote such and such doesn't mean it is true. For the most part, church history is religious propaganda. Evidently, you accept propaganda as truth. How can church leaders be truthful when they are in the business of promoting religion?

Based on your understanding of Burton's book, refute his argument. You just ramble along through history without addressing my argument. It is clear now you know very little about the topic. You keep listing church history after the period in question. In case you forgot, my argument is about the time before the four NT gospels were written. Evidently, you didn't' read Burton's book. Here is Burton's historical account of what happened with the Jesus movement. It is history!

Scholars have discovered an evolution of ideas following the death of Jesus, the Jesus movement. There is an excellent account of what happened in book entitled The Lost Gospel Q by Burton L. Mack. Scholars found quotations common to each of the four gospels from Q. Scholars from all over the world have participated in this scholarly enterprise. What they have found are source material preceding the writing of the gospels. All authors have sources, so it‘s expected for NT authors to have reference material for their gospels. Briefly, scholars have discovered a transition of ideas about Jesus by tracing changes in the Lost Gospel of Q. They discovered four basic stages of change for Q. In the early years following the death of Jesus, Q1 reveals people regarding Jesus as a prophet or wise man. It wasn’t until the third stage, 40-60 years following the death of Jesus, that Jesus movement followers began defining Jesus as the son of God. About this time, followers also began discussing the crucifixion of Jesus. Then, in the final phase of the Jesus movement, followers began discussing Jesus as a sacrificial lamb to save humankind. Based on analysis of Gospel of Q material, the final statement for Christianity as we know it today began in the fourth stage of Q.

allfoak said:

If a man and a woman get married and they have a child, are they a duality or a trinity?
If God the Father has a Son then somewhere in this picture there must be a Mother.
If there are three then i can hardly call them a duality now can i?

Click to expand...

Your analogy is in error. I never proposed duality equals father and son. Duality is two Gods, both equal in power, glory, and holiness. I think there is a problem on this forum, hardly anyone reads postings.

Here is my posting.

I propose God to be a duality. In heaven, the two eternal Gods are in a sphere surrounded by twelve angels. They have never and will never be separated, they are equal in power, glory, and holiness. Before the two Gods created angels, they were companions. The two Gods came into the world as Jesus; there is no son of God. Instead of accepting two Gods, followers of Jesus interpreted them as father and son. As evidence, there are no references to the son of God in prior gospels, the ones preceding the four NT gospels. Son of God and crucifixion stories were added 30 to 40 years later by Jesus movement people. The Trinity is illogical. You cannot propose the Trinity to be eternal when the son of God had a beginning. As for the Holy Spirit, it is found with the two Gods and Angels in heaven, not in our material world.

Repox said:

Your analogy is in error. I never proposed duality equals father and son. Duality is two Gods, both equal in power, glory, and holiness. I think there is a problem on this forum, hardly anyone reads postings.

Here is my posting.

I propose God to be a duality. In heaven, the two eternal Gods are in a sphere surrounded by twelve angels. They have never and will never be separated, they are equal in power, glory, and holiness. Before the two Gods created angels, they were companions. The two Gods came into the world as Jesus; there is no son of God. Instead of accepting two Gods, followers of Jesus interpreted them as father and son. As evidence, there are no references to the son of God in prior gospels, the ones preceding the four NT gospels. Son of God and crucifixion stories were added 30 to 40 years later by Jesus movement people. The Trinity is illogical. You cannot propose the Trinity to be eternal when the son of God had a beginning. As for the Holy Spirit, it is found with the two Gods and Angels in heaven, not in our material world.

Click to expand...

Nevermind

Repox said:

You keep claiming church history is accurate. Just because church leaders wrote such and such doesn't mean it is true. For the most part, church history is religious propaganda.

Click to expand...

Just dismissing it by calling it propaganda doesn't make it so. Show us logically or historically why it can't be true, or why something else is more true.

I already gave you an example of why the historical record lines up with the what we contextually see in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, as a starting example.

Several things you've claimed have already been proven wrong by simply looking at the historical record:
1. The canon was formed long before the church had the power to force it on anyone.
2. There is no historical documentation that the gospel of thomas existed prior to the 3rd century, and no historical or theological reason to believe it existed before that. There is no unanimity on the dating of the gospel of thomas, and any earlier dates are merely conjecture.
3. Early church writings and documents prior to nicea (all throughout the 2nd century) all attest to the four gospels, and their origins, with no mention of prior documents. As to the reliability of these early sources, it is a fact that several things they say about the Gospels can be proven, while nothing they have said has ever been disproven. So on that basis there is no reason to doubt the historical reliability of that information.
4. The gospel of thomas theologically is impossible to reconcile with the rest of the Bible. Automatically disqualifying it as inspired scripture on that basis. It would be impossible for a NT gospel to deny the recreated world and resurrection from the dead, when that is a critical promise found in the even the OT, and is reflected without fail all throughout the NT.

You're the one making positive claims about what you claim is true; so the onus is on you to prove why what you say has to be true, or why early church history must be wrong.

If all you can do is tell people to go read some other person's book, then all you're demonstrating is that you don't have a significant first hand grasp of the facts involved to articulate an argument for yourself; You're just parroting what someone else has told you is true, never verifying the historical data or documentation for yourself. In that case, you're not equipped to have a debate about what did or did not happen in church history.

Rise said:

Just dismissing it by calling it propaganda doesn't make it so. Show us logically or historically why it can't be true, or why something else is more true.

I already gave you an example of why the historical record lines up with the what we contextually see in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, as a starting example.

Several things you've claimed have already been proven wrong by simply looking at the historical record:
1. The canon was formed long before the church had the power to force it on anyone.
2. There is no historical documentation that the gospel of thomas existed prior to the 3rd century, and no historical or theological reason to believe it existed before that. There is no unanimity on the dating of the gospel of thomas, and any earlier dates are merely conjecture.
3. Early church writings and documents prior to nicea (all throughout the 2nd century) all attest to the four gospels, and their origins, with no mention of prior documents. As to the reliability of these early sources, it is a fact that several things they say about the Gospels can be proven, while nothing they have said has ever been disproven. So on that basis there is no reason to doubt the historical reliability of that information.
4. The gospel of thomas theologically is impossible to reconcile with the rest of the Bible. Automatically disqualifying it as inspired scripture on that basis. It would be impossible for a NT gospel to deny the recreated world and resurrection from the dead, when that is a critical promise found in the even the OT, and is reflected without fail all throughout the NT.

You're the one making positive claims about what you claim is true; so the onus is on you to prove why what you say has to be true, or why early church history must be wrong.

If all you can do is tell people to go read some other person's book, then all you're demonstrating is that you don't have a significant first hand grasp of the facts involved to articulate an argument for yourself; You're just parroting what someone else has told you is true, never verifying the historical data or documentation for yourself. In that case, you're not equipped to have a debate about what did or did not happen in church history.

Click to expand...

You are demanding I submit historical documentation for my argument that Jesus was God and not the son of God. Now, I am making the same request for you to provide historical documentation for the gospel stories. Where is the historical documentation for NT gospel stories?

Isn't it hypocritical to demand someone to submit such historical data when you have no such data to support your claim for the authenticity of NT gospel stories?

It is not possible to find historical documental for the NT gospel stories because they were made up by gospel authors. If you were familiar with history of the times, you would know it was not uncommon for authors to make up stories to promote ideologies or agendas.

allfoak said:

If a man and a woman get married and they have a child, are they a duality or a trinity?
If God the Father has a Son then somewhere in this picture there must be a Mother.
If there are three then i can hardly call them a duality now can i?

Click to expand...

I never said the duality of God is man and woman. Being Gods, they have no sex. As for sex, God created male and female creatures. Jesus was not the son of God, Jesus was God, and God is a duality.

Repox said:

You are demanding I submit historical documentation for my argument that Jesus was God and not the son of God.

Click to expand...

You're confused. I never asked you that.

I asked you to submit historical evidence for the following:
1. That the gospel of thomas is a 1st century document.
2. Why there would be any real historical reason to believe the four Gospels used "thomas" as a source, and not the other way around.
3. Any historical reason why early church sources (represented in things such as a Muratorian fragment or Eusebius) can be proven to be in error with regards to what they record as the source of the four Gospels.
4. Why, based on anything in history, we should believe what "thomas" says about the the diety of Jesus, salvation, and the resurrection, would be the "original" things Jesus taught; in light of the fact that the things "thomas" says are in direct contradiction to fundamental issues already established in OT, the entire canon of the NT (which we can prove was recognized by the mid 2nd century), and all early church documentation we have which taught things that are in line with the NT but go against the gospel of thomas (Such as polycarp, a disciple of John. Clement, a contemporary of Peter. Or other extremely early writings such as the Didache).

Now, I am making the same request for you to provide historical documentation for the gospel stories. Where is the historical documentation for NT gospel stories?

Click to expand...

I'm glad you asked. Let's start with:

1. The Muratorian Fragment. Dated to the 2nd century. It lists almost the entire NT canon we have today as recognized scripture.
2. Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hyppolytus, Clement of Alexandria, all writing most likely in the 2nd century, also give us an almost complete NT canon list that matches what we have today.
3. P46. An almost complete collection of Paul's writings, dated to around 200 AD.
4. P52. A fragment of the gospel of John dated to 125 AD.
5. P66. A near complete Gospel of John, dated between 100-200 AD.
6. P104. A fragment of the Gospel of Matthew, dated to the late 2nd century AD.
7. P98. A fragment of the Book of Revelation, dated to 100-200 AD.
8. Our earliest church writings aside from the Bible, either from the late 1st or early 2nd century, all attest to the four Gospels we have with direct mention, quotations, or allusions to them (Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, the Didache, Barnabas, Hermas).
9. All of the earliest writings we have, from the late 1st up into the 2nd century, all support the theological material found in the four Gospels and the various letters of the NT. None of them support the theological contradictions of the gospel of thomas.

Isn't it hypocritical to demand someone to submit such historical data when you have no such data to support your claim for the authenticity of NT gospel stories?

Click to expand...

As you can now see, the historical documentation all supports the NT we have.

Although we may not have as much documentation from this era as we'd like to, the fact is that everything we do have ALL points to the authenticity of the NT Gospels and none of it supports the gospel of thomas in the slightest.

That is why I ask you, on what historical basis do you presume to ignore what we know about the NT's documented history and invent a history for the gospel of thomas that has no historical support?

Rise said:

You're confused. I never asked you that.

I asked you to submit historical evidence for the following:
1. That the gospel of thomas is a 1st century document.
2. Why there would be any real historical reason to believe the four Gospels used "thomas" as a source, and not the other way around.
3. Any historical reason why early church sources (represented in things such as a Muratorian fragment or Eusebius) can be proven to be in error with regards to what they record as the source of the four Gospels.
4. Why, based on anything in history, we should believe what "thomas" says about the the diety of Jesus, salvation, and the resurrection, would be the "original" things Jesus taught; in light of the fact that the things "thomas" says are in direct contradiction to fundamental issues already established in OT, the entire canon of the NT (which we can prove was recognized by the mid 2nd century), and all early church documentation we have which taught things that are in line with the NT but go against the gospel of thomas (Such as polycarp, a disciple of John. Clement, a contemporary of Peter. Or other extremely early writings such as the Didache).



I'm glad you asked. Let's start with:

1. The Muratorian Fragment. Dated to the 2nd century. It lists almost the entire NT canon we have today as recognized scripture.
2. Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hyppolytus, Clement of Alexandria, all writing most likely in the 2nd century, also give us an almost complete NT canon list that matches what we have today.
3. P46. An almost complete collection of Paul's writings, dated to around 200 AD.
4. P52. A fragment of the gospel of John dated to 125 AD.
5. P66. A near complete Gospel of John, dated between 100-200 AD.
6. P104. A fragment of the Gospel of Matthew, dated to the late 2nd century AD.
7. P98. A fragment of the Book of Revelation, dated to 100-200 AD.
8. Our earliest church writings aside from the Bible, either from the late 1st or early 2nd century, all attest to the four Gospels we have with direct mention, quotations, or allusions to them (Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, the Didache, Barnabas, Hermas).
9. All of the earliest writings we have, from the late 1st up into the 2nd century, all support the theological material found in the four Gospels and the various letters of the NT. None of them support the theological contradictions of the gospel of thomas.



As you can now see, the historical documentation all supports the NT we have.

Although we may not have as much documentation from this era as we'd like to, the fact is that everything we do have ALL points to the authenticity of the NT Gospels and none of it supports the gospel of thomas in the slightest.

That is why I ask you, on what historical basis do you presume to ignore what we know about the NT's documented history and invent a history for the gospel of thomas that has no historical support?

Click to expand...

You have misapplied logic. Your claim for historical documentation of NT gospel stories is based on what happened after they came into existence. Just because church leaders believed their truthfulness doesn't mean they are truthful. It just says clerics have declared them to be truthful. Inasmuch as clerics are not divine, their opinions cannot be regarded as any different than opinions of secular authorities. Based on professional criteria of historical documentation, NT gospel stories don't qualify. Those documents don't exist! I should mention, I am a scholar. I know how to conduct research.

Where is historical evidence for all of those stories about Jesus miracles, such as being in the wilderness for forty days, walking on water, healing the sick, restoring a dead man, etc.? There is absolutely no evidence! NT authors can be considered to be excellent writers of fiction. Again, just because it is written, doesn't make it truthful. If it cannot be verified with historical facts, it is fiction. I do however believe Revelation came from God. I cannot, however, provide any empirical evidence.

I can tell a convincing story about flying saucer, but without evidence, it is unbelievable. Isn't it interesting, there has never been a discovery of an alien dead body or spaceship. Just like the four NT gospels, many stories have been written, but there is no evidence.

As for Thomas, there is mixed opinion, some biblical scholars believe his writings preceded NT gospels, others disagree. Based on documents from the "Nag Hammadi" discovery, scholarly consensus is Thomas preceded the NT gospels. Based on my study, I agree with scholars conclusion as to the existence of verses in NT gospels from The Gospel of Thomas. Then, there is Gospel Q, which scholars general accept as valid. I listed that reference which you have ignored. Based on scholarly research, there is evidence for the existence of the lost Gospel Q. Scholars have crossed checked Jesus sayings in the gospels and discovered commonalities attributed to one or more prior gospels. The Gospel of Q is the gospel scholars believe to be most likely for NT authors usage. It was lost, but has been discovered in the NT gospels due to diligent research. You can ignore those scholarly references, but you can't make a legitimate argument without them.

I don't doubt the existence of Jesus. However, I believe Jesus was God, not the son of God. Assuming Jesus was not the son of God, NT gospel stories make little sense. I cannot, however, present empirical evidence for my argument, but neither can you.

I find meaning in the sayings of Jesus. However, I believe Jesus stories to be fictitious because, in addition to lack of evidence, Jesus was not the son of God.

Again, based on scholarly research criteria, there is no evidence for NT gospel stories. There is scholarly consensus for the existence of Jesus. There are prior NT gospels. However, even though they contain Jesus stories, none match NT gospel stories. Apparently, there were many authors with very creative imaginations. The romantic quality of NT stories leads one to conclude them to be concocted. What remains after the dust settles are prior gospels containing Jesus sayings.

Based on my analysis of Jesus sayings, I find evidence for the duality of God.

Repox said:

You have misapplied logic. Your claim for historical documentation of NT gospel stories is based on what happened after they came into existence. Just because church leaders believed their truthfulness doesn't mean they are truthful.

Click to expand...

I'm saying we need to go where the evidence takes us.

On the one hand we have a a chain of historical evidence that gives us reason to believe the Gospels are 1st century eye witness testimony.
For instance: Polycarp and Ignatius were disciples of the apostle John. We have their witings. They affirm what is written in the Gospels.
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, and his writings also affirm what is written in the Gospels.
They, along with all other 1st and 2nd century witnesses we have, affirm that the Gospels were 1st century eye witness testimony, and that what we see in them today accurately reflects what was originally in them.

On the other hand, you have no evidence that the gospel of thomas is even a 1st century document, let alone reason to believe it is more true in what it relates than the NT Gospels.

So why should we believe your theory that the gospel of thomas is more true than the NT Gospels, when there is no historical evidence to back up your claim? In fact, all the evidence we do have goes against it. What reason do we have to believe your version of history over that which is preserved in the historical record for us?
If you have evidence that would cause us to believe the historical record about the Gospels is not accurate, I'm happy to hear you out. But don't expect us to take a mere opinion as a historical fact.

It's one thing to say you still aren't convinced the NT is authentic based on the evidence we do have, but it's very hypocritical of you to then claim you have a more accurate version of what happened in history that is not based on any evidence at all.

Where is historical evidence for all of those stories about Jesus miracles, such as being in the wilderness for forty days, walking on water, healing the sick, restoring a dead man, etc.? There is absolutely no evidence!

Click to expand...

You're a bit confused here, because you're shifting the topic of the debate from "Which Gospels have the most historical evidence for them being authentic 1st century products of the disciples of Jesus" to "How can we prove what's written in the NT Gospels actually happened?".

That is a debate that can certainly be had, but 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.

Based on documents from the "Nag Hammadi" discovery, scholarly consensus is Thomas preceded the NT gospels.

Click to expand...

Where's your source for the claim that an overwhelming majority of scholars believe thomas preceded the NT Gospels?

Why does Nag Hammadi prove the gospel of thomas preceded the NT Gospels? What are some of the facts and evidences involved?

Do you not actually know any of these details for yourself, or are just repeating what someone in a book told you without question? If the scholarship were as strong and wide as you seem to think it is, then you should have no trouble finding actual evidence to post.

That's what I'm challenging you to provide in support of your claim - direct evidence. You aren't proving anything by repeatedly asserting that thomas preceded the NT Gospels without being able to demonstrate through some evidence why, or how, that could be true.

Based on my study, I agree with scholars conclusion as to the existence of verses in NT gospels from The Gospel of Thomas.

Click to expand...

You don't need to be a scholar or a great study to see that the gospel of thomas has taken or reworded many things from the NT Gospels - But that doesn't prove "thomas" preceded the NT Gospels.
That is also exactly the same thing you'd also expect to see in a 3rd century forgery that is trying to pass itself off as an original work.

Where's the evidence to support your claim that the NT Gospels are the ones based off thomas, given that all the historical evidence we do have is against your claim?

Then, there is Gospel Q, which scholars general accept as valid. I listed that reference which you have ignored. Based on scholarly research, there is evidence for the existence of the lost Gospel Q. Scholars have crossed checked Jesus sayings in the gospels and discovered commonalities attributed to one or more prior gospels. The Gospel of Q is the gospel scholars believe to be most likely for NT authors usage. It was lost, but has been discovered in the NT gospels due to diligent research.

Click to expand...

I did respond to that briefly, but you ignored my response or didn't understand it.


I'll address it again for you, but I first have to point out: bringing up Q doesn't actually help advance your original claim about the gospel of thomas, because in order for thomas to begin to even be considered as a Q related document you would actually have to be able to evidence a historical antiquity and authentic apostalic pedigree of "thomas" that is at least on par with the authentic than the NT Gospels - but you can't.

As for Q:
Q is a theory, a hypothetical. It's not a proven fact.

It's also a theory that is based on certain assumptions. Assumptions which cannot be proven, and which we have no reason to really believe. But some take these assumptions for granted without evidence.

Examples of unproven assumptions:
1. The assumption that the Gospels could not have been single eyewitness documents. Where's the proof that they couldn't be? This leads to a cascade of other assumptions, such as the belief that if something is repeated more often then it must be older.
2. The assumption that the story of Jesus was added to and expanded over time. Which also leads to the assumption that the shortest gospels must be the oldest.

Again, where's the historical evidence of that happening? We don't actually see it. We don't have malformed copies of the NT Gospels that look like they are works in progress, communicating different information or conclusions about Jesus than what we have today. When we find pre-nicea Gospels or epistles in history (whether through an author's reference or physical copies), they are basically the same as what we have now, minus a handful of sentences or words here or there depending on the manuscript (but nothing that's going to change any point of theology).
We don't see any kind of evolution in this regard reflected in the writings of the early church. We see from the earliest witnesses of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, and other documents like the Didache, that the Gospels we have contain the same information about Jesus that they had access to. We don't have any historical evidence of there being an evolution within the church of who Jesus was or what He did.

All this supposed evidence for the evolution of the Gospel is not actually evidence at all, but are people's theoretical speculations where they look at the NT Gospels and try to decide what they think must have been the oldest parts - based on presumptions which we have no historical reason to believe must be true to begin with.
From those unproven assumptions, they try to reconstruct what they think the original might have been. But their "reconstructions" are meaningless if the assumptions overlying them are untrue.

Repox said:

The thread is not intended to attack believers, it is intended to inform them of the duality of God.

Click to expand...

No, but it is intended to deceive us about the duality of God because there is no duality as you describe.

Reggie Miller said:

No, but it is intended to deceive us about the duality of God because there is no duality as you describe.

Click to expand...

How do you know? If you know about another God, describe it. If you don't believe in God, why bother?

Repox said:

How do you know? If you know about another God, describe it. If you don't believe in God, why bother?

Click to expand...

So you're saying he's right, two Gods exist?

Rise said:

I'm saying we need to go where the evidence takes us.

On the one hand we have a a chain of historical evidence that gives us reason to believe the Gospels are 1st century eye witness testimony.
For instance: Polycarp and Ignatius were disciples of the apostle John. We have their witings. They affirm what is written in the Gospels.
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, and his writings also affirm what is written in the Gospels.
They, along with all other 1st and 2nd century witnesses we have, affirm that the Gospels were 1st century eye witness testimony, and that what we see in them today accurately reflects what was originally in them.

On the other hand, you have no evidence that the gospel of thomas is even a 1st century document, let alone reason to believe it is more true in what it relates than the NT Gospels.

So why should we believe your theory that the gospel of thomas is more true than the NT Gospels, when there is no historical evidence to back up your claim? In fact, all the evidence we do have goes against it. What reason do we have to believe your version of history over that which is preserved in the historical record for us?
If you have evidence that would cause us to believe the historical record about the Gospels is not accurate, I'm happy to hear you out. But don't expect us to take a mere opinion as a historical fact.

It's one thing to say you still aren't convinced the NT is authentic based on the evidence we do have, but it's very hypocritical of you to then claim you have a more accurate version of what happened in history that is not based on any evidence at all.




You're a bit confused here, because you're shifting the topic of the debate from "Which Gospels have the most historical evidence for them being authentic 1st century products of the disciples of Jesus" to "How can we prove what's written in the NT Gospels actually happened?".

That is a debate that can certainly be had, but 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.



Where's your source for the claim that an overwhelming majority of scholars believe thomas preceded the NT Gospels?

Why does Nag Hammadi prove the gospel of thomas preceded the NT Gospels? What are some of the facts and evidences involved?

Do you not actually know any of these details for yourself, or are just repeating what someone in a book told you without question? If the scholarship were as strong and wide as you seem to think it is, then you should have no trouble finding actual evidence to post.

That's what I'm challenging you to provide in support of your claim - direct evidence. You aren't proving anything by repeatedly asserting that thomas preceded the NT Gospels without being able to demonstrate through some evidence why, or how, that could be true.




You don't need to be a scholar or a great study to see that the gospel of thomas has taken or reworded many things from the NT Gospels - But that doesn't prove "thomas" preceded the NT Gospels.
That is also exactly the same thing you'd also expect to see in a 3rd century forgery that is trying to pass itself off as an original work.

Where's the evidence to support your claim that the NT Gospels are the ones based off thomas, given that all the historical evidence we do have is against your claim?



I did respond to that briefly, but you ignored my response or didn't understand it.


I'll address it again for you, but I first have to point out: bringing up Q doesn't actually help advance your original claim about the gospel of thomas, because in order for thomas to begin to even be considered as a Q related document you would actually have to be able to evidence a historical antiquity and authentic apostalic pedigree of "thomas" that is at least on par with the authentic than the NT Gospels - but you can't.

As for Q:
Q is a theory, a hypothetical. It's not a proven fact.

It's also a theory that is based on certain assumptions. Assumptions which cannot be proven, and which we have no reason to really believe. But some take these assumptions for granted without evidence.

Examples of unproven assumptions:
1. The assumption that the Gospels could not have been single eyewitness documents. Where's the proof that they couldn't be? This leads to a cascade of other assumptions, such as the belief that if something is repeated more often then it must be older.
2. The assumption that the story of Jesus was added to and expanded over time. Which also leads to the assumption that the shortest gospels must be the oldest.

Again, where's the historical evidence of that happening? We don't actually see it. We don't have malformed copies of the NT Gospels that look like they are works in progress, communicating different information or conclusions about Jesus than what we have today. When we find pre-nicea Gospels or epistles in history (whether through an author's reference or physical copies), they are basically the same as what we have now, minus a handful of sentences or words here or there depending on the manuscript (but nothing that's going to change any point of theology).
We don't see any kind of evolution in this regard reflected in the writings of the early church. We see from the earliest witnesses of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, and other documents like the Didache, that the Gospels we have contain the same information about Jesus that they had access to. We don't have any historical evidence of there being an evolution within the church of who Jesus was or what He did.

All this supposed evidence for the evolution of the Gospel is not actually evidence at all, but are people's theoretical speculations where they look at the NT Gospels and try to decide what they think must have been the oldest parts - based on presumptions which we have no historical reason to believe must be true to begin with.
From those unproven assumptions, they try to reconstruct what they think the original might have been. But their "reconstructions" are meaningless if the assumptions overlying them are untrue.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you are so caught up with Thomas. I mentioned Thomas because he has been referenced by many Bible scholars. Without Thomas, my argument still stands, there is no historical documentation for NT gospel stories. Just because church authorities declared them to be truthful doesn't mean they are. You are spinning you wheels for nothing. In order to stand on firm ground you must present historical documentation for those NT story events really happening. Based on my research, they didn't happen. My research standards come from the scholarly community. It is like this. You want to prove an hypothesis. You apply research methodology and find the hypothesis is false, there is no evidence. Therefore, you reject the hypothesis.

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. Here is a reference for other gospels. Why Scholars Doubt the Traditional Authors of the Gospels If you research those other gospels, you will not find a Jesus story from the NT gospels. Here is a quote from the authors. "The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels–Matthew the tax collector, Mark the attendant of Peter, Luke the attendant of Paul, and John the son of Zebedee–are doubted among the majority of mainstream New Testament scholars." The problem here may be you are not scholarly, you don't understand what you don't know.

It appears as if the four gospel authors concocted those stories. I understand you frustration. I don't think anyone else has raised these questions. You can't make books authentic by waving a church wand. I'll explain it this way. If you find a story in Book X you can't make it authentic, or reflecting the real world, unless you find evidence for those events happening.

You can go on until doomsday listing all of those esteemed church authorities, but is all for naught, there is no historical documentation.. I have discussions with clerics. Mostly, they know nothing about scholarship or criteria for scholarly research. It is obvious that all of those church leaders were obsessed with their beliefs, but they were uneducated about scholarship.
It is the way of religion. For that, just make an argument for the dedication of church authorities for declaring church documents authentic.

I recall this kind of thing happening when someone claimed to have found a shroud of Jesus. It went on for a long time. Finally, the Catholic Church admitted they couldn't prove it was the shroud of Jesus. Maybe it was, but they couldn't prove it.

You mention Gospel Q theory as invalid when you don't know what you are talking about . Read the Book before you critique it! You also said, "That is a debate that can certainly be had, but 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" Apparently, you don't read well. I didn't say that! Don't just make it up. Read the book?

As for The Nag Hammadi Scriptures edited by Marvin Meyer, read it. Here is an interesting quote from the book. "The Gospel of Thomas may most appropriately be considered a sayings gospel with an incipient Gnostic perspective." The authors, who are scholars, don't dismiss Thomas like you do, they have scholarly evidence for its authenticity. You have a lot of make ups.

I resent your making up arguments by misquoting me! I didn't state, "Where's the evidence to support your claim that the NT Gospels are the ones based off Thomas"

Evidently, you know very little about what your talking about. You haven't read any scholarly books on the topic, so you have little credibility. Apparently, your only references are "Church leaders believed it." Sorry, claiming someone believes something is not the way its done.

This is becoming monotonous, you demand that I present evidence when you have none. It is becoming apparent that when you don't know something you make it up. It makes you look foolish.
Here is an example of an inaccurate statement, one that I never stated.

"So why should we believe your theory that the gospel of thomas is more true than the NT Gospels, when there is no historical evidence to back up your claim?"

I never said that! Do you normally make false statements to support an argument?

One of your most ridiculous statements is the following. "Q is a theory, a hypothetical. It's not a proven fact." If had read the book, you would know it is a FACT.

Don't bother with another round until you do some homework. So far, it has mostly been a waste of time.

Repox said:

I propose God to be a duality. In heaven, the two eternal Gods are in a sphere surrounded by twelve angels. They have never and will never be separated, they are equal in power, glory, and holiness. Before the two Gods created angels, they were companions. The two Gods came into the world as Jesus; there is no son of God. Instead of accepting two Gods, followers of Jesus interpreted them as father and son. As evidence, there are no references to the son of God in prior gospels, the ones preceding the four NT gospels. Son of God and crucifixion stories were added 30 to 40 years later by Jesus movement people. The Trinity is illogical.You cannot propose the Trinity to be eternal when the son of God had a beginning. As for the Holy Spirit, it is found with the two Gods and Angels in heaven, not in our material world.

Click to expand...

How do we empirically test either of those assertions?