Q document

Originally posted by checkbaiter
"Q" doesn't exist. It never did. It is pure speculation that it did. Speculate!!! And they call our trust in the Scriptures incredible!!

Why do you definitively state the 'Q' didn't exist? Are you saying that no
'sayings gospel' was circulating before the canonical Gospels were penned?

The Gospel of St Thomas is a 'sayings gospel,' the content of which was
based strongly on what we believe 'Q' contained, with modifications and
additions (just like St Matthew did). The bulk of St Thomas's original content
comes from early 2nd century.

If you are going to assert that 'Q' didn't exist, perhaps you should provide a
little evidence to this claim to counter the evidence in the Two-Source Hypothesis.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Coletti
But I believe the Scriptures are inspired by God - so I know that Thomas presents a false gospel. It can not be inspired because God does not contradict himself.

Consider this:

You know that you reconcile certain contradictions by giving a metaphorical reading
to one (e.g., St John's date for the Crucifixion).

Why can't the contradictions in St Thomas be reconciled the same way?

What specific contradictions do you feel totally rules out St Thomas from consideration
for being 'God-breathed?'

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
The bulk of St Thomas's original content
comes from early 2nd century.

Nemesio

The age of a document only gives it so much weight. Trash and other discards have been excavated from finds older than Thomas, yet they are not trumpted as gospel. In most cases, discards are simply that: discards, bereft of any theological value.
Thomas' value needs to be considered in light of Scripture, not juxtaposition. Were it of the value so many of the Bible 'critics' have been quick to assay it, it would have been part of the established canon.
The critics' touted value of the book are contradicted by the garbled contents of the writings therein.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Were it of the value so many of the Bible 'critics' have been quick to assay it, it would have been part of the established canon.

You deny any influence of politics in the formation of the canon?

Do you consider the Books of Wisdom, Baruch, and Sirach Scripture (because these
we part of the established canon you are talking about)?

The critics' touted value of the book are contradicted by the garbled contents of the writings therein.

What specific contradictions are you refering to?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
You deny any influence of politics in the formation of the canon?

Nemesio[/b]

Absolutely. If politics influenced the canon, a good two-thirds of what is included wouldn't be allowed. Although many politicans have used bits and pieces of the Scripture since its formation, and their success in doing so is directly proportional to the ignorance of believers, the over-arching theme of the Scriptures is the tranferrence of power to the Creator.
The political organizations which have bequeathed themselves as "Church" notwithstanding, nothing in the Scriptures supports their power grabs.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Let me ask you this, david C: Do you believe in Jesus as he is portrayed in the Thomas Gospel or in some other way outside the "official" Gospel ?

No, I do not. In fact, I think Thomas and it's aphorisms are more indicative of a figure such as Apollonius of Tyana. I'm sure you know by now that I do not believe in the "Jesus" of the Christian bible in any way, shape or form.

Originally posted by Coletti
By objective standard - I mean it the presentation of the Gospels in the NT cannon are not the same "Gospel" presented by Thomas. Since you have no way of knowing what the original teaching of Christ were then you are merely speculating on it's contents, you are in no position to contradict my position. But I believe the Scriptures are inspired by God - ...[text shortened]... Thomas presents a false gospel. It can not be inspired because God does not contradict himself.

Since you have no way of knowing what the original teaching of Christ were then you are merely speculating on it's contents

Yet, somehow, you do. And this, you feel, is justified in that the canonical gospels were deemed the 'truth' by an ecumenical council several centuries after Jesus (alleged) existence. I see.

I believe the Scriptures are inspired by God

Then, there can be no progressive discussion, as you have your 'beliefs' and I have mine, and they are in diametric opposition. Either one of us is right and the other wrong, or we are both wrong.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Absolutely. If politics influenced the canon, a good two-thirds of what is included wouldn't be allowed. Although many politicans have used bits and pieces of the Scripture since its formation, and their success in doing so is directly proportional to the ignorance of believers, the over-arching theme of the Scriptures is the tranferrence of power to th ...[text shortened]... themselves as "Church" notwithstanding, nothing in the Scriptures supports their power grabs.

So you consider Sirach and Baruch Scripture?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
So you consider Sirach and Baruch Scripture?

Nemesio

I consider the 66 books of the current Old and New Testament (so-called) as the completed word of God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I consider the 66 books of the current Old and New Testament (so-called) as the completed word of God.

How is that possible? I thought you believed that the established Christian Scripture
(you know, when the Gospels were ratified) was wholly correct? How can you justify
leaving out Baruch and Sirach?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
(you know, when the Gospels were ratified) was wholly correct?

Nemesio

Ratified? And here you were trying to say politics' impact on the final canon was bad. Now, suddenly, politics are good?

Earlier, Nem. Much earlier!

Its interesting, this idea of 'god inspired'.
Why would god inspire someone to write something and then
a few hundred years later inspire someone else to write something
in contradiction to the first writings?
I am writing here about the later Quran which has rules or laws from
god completely differant than the bible.
Both groups swear god inspired them. They can't both be right.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Ratified? And here you were trying to say politics' impact on the final canon was bad. Now, suddenly, politics are good?

Earlier, Nem. Much earlier!

You are imagining things. I never stated my opinion about whether politics were good
or bad. You were the one that said the politics played no role.

And, suddenly, now you want to deny the canon that was the official stance of the
Christian church from the inception of its defined canon was somehow incorrect.

Keep in mind that the Christian church did not universally agree what was and
was not Scripture. Some found Revelation (nee Apocalypse) to be too gnostic and
inappropriate for Scripture. Some found the Shepherd of Hermas to be Scripture, or
the two letters by St Clement.

In the 4th century, the church agree what was Scripture and it was the norm for 1000
years afterwards: no ifs, ands or buts.

How do you justify excluding these works that were regarded by the early church as
Scripture?

Nemesio

Originally posted by orfeo
There was a man sometime in the 20th century who accurately recited the Koran from memory, which is about the same size as the whole New Testament. So he'd find a Gospel or two to be pretty easy.

Actually, learning the whole Qur'an by heart is not uncommon in the Muslim world. A person who memorises the entire Qur'an is called a hafiz - and there are millions of them around the world.

Originally posted by Nemesio
You are imagining things. I never stated my opinion about whether politics were good
or bad. You were the one that said the politics played no role.

And, suddenly, now you want to deny the canon that was the official stance of the
Christian church from the inception of its defined canon was somehow incorrect.

Keep in mind that the Christian church ...[text shortened]... u justify excluding these works that were regarded by the early church as
Scripture?

Nemesio

In fact, the early editions of the King James Bible had 73 books and not 66.