"The Great White Throne Judgment"

Originally posted by sonship
This doesn't sound right at all.

Not to a modern Christian, I'll grant you that.

PS I added an EDIT after your post. I earnestly recommend you read the early history of the religion you profess. The modern variants of it are pretty tame compared to what it once was, and Bible itself is a very poor witness as to how the Bible came to be.

Originally posted by moonbus

It's not about what Paul wrote or allegedly wrote or what was subsequently attributed to him.

Skeptics always want to fall back on excuses like this. He never said it. He never wrote it. This is just conspiracy weaving to reason that what you're reluctant to even read wasn't really written in the first place.

What better way for me to cast suspicion on everything else in this post but to just maintain that moonbus never thought, never said, never wrote any of this?

What I don't like, you never said. Someone else allegedly attributed it to you falsely.

Since I have no idea of what moonbus really wrote, there is not much use wasting time to consider it.

It's not about what Matthew or Mark or Luke or John wrote or allegedly wrote or what works were subsequently and pseudonymously attributed to them.

There is no use taking anything else in this post seriously. The layers of imposters and multiple people probably sharing a PC and id makes it impossible to know what moonbus ever wrote, that is if moonbus ever existed in the first place.

There is such comfort in an all out suspicion of a totally apocryphal New Testament.

Long before any apostle Paul or church council Daniel the prophet wrote of final divine judgment.

" ... every one found written in the book, will be delivered.

And many of those who are sleeping in the dust of the ground will awake, some to life eternal and some to reproach, to eternal contempt.

And those who have insight will shine like the shining of the heavenly expanse, and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars, forever and ever." (from Daniel 12:1-3)

"There is no use taking anything else in this post seriously. The layers of imposters and multiple people probably sharing a PC and id makes it impossible to know what moonbus ever wrote, that is if moonbus ever existed in the first place."

Then just look at what the message says instead of making a fetish out of who said it. "These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Thomas wrote down: And he said, "whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death. ... Jesus said ... the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty. ... His disciples said to him: when will the repose of the dead come about, and when will the new world come? He said to them: What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it. ... Jesus said: That which you have will save you if you bring it forth from within yourselves; but that which you do not have within you will kill you if you do not have it within you. His disciples said to him: when will the kingdom come? He said to them: It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is'. Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth and men do not see it."

Let those with ears hear, it matters not who said it.

Originally posted by moonbus
"There is no use taking anything else in this post seriously. The layers of imposters and multiple people probably sharing a PC and id makes it impossible to know what moonbus ever wrote, that is if moonbus ever existed in the first place."

Then just look at what the message says instead of making a fetish out of who said it. "These are the sec ...[text shortened]... the earth and men do not see it."

Let those with ears hear, it matters not who said it. (Page 4)

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity
opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment.
Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."
~Albert Einstein

"Skeptics always want to fall back on excuses like this. He never said it. He never wrote it. This is just conspiracy weaving to reason that what you're reluctant to even read wasn't really written in the first place. "

I quoted from the Gospel of Thomas (in my previous post) to make a point about the canon.

The Gospel of Thomas consists of questions by the disciples and answers by Jesus, quoted verbatim. The source claims to be one of the Twelve, though this cannot now be verified.

Biblical scholars are in general agreement that not one of the synoptic gospels was written by someone who actually knew or ever met Jesus. Biblical scholars are in general agreement that Mark was probably Paul's secretary. Paul never met Jesus; Mark didn't either. So Mark's gospel is already hearsay at two removes. Biblical scholars are in general agreement that Matthew and Luke are based on Mark and some other source called "Q". The existence of Q is hypothetical; no exant MS fits the bill, and no ancient MS refers to any document which would fit the bill either. So Matthew and Luke are no better than a re-hash of Mark's hearsay and a hypothetical MS for which there is no evidence of its ever having existed at all. Matthew, Mark, and Luke weren't there; they did not witness the events which they relate.

One has to wonder why the Council of Nicea canonized a load of gossip and rejected verbatim quotes.

EDIT: There is a remarkable sentence at the beginning of the Gospel of Thomas which says that whoever understands Jesus's message is already in possession of eternal life. The rest of Tomas is substantially convergent with the synoptic gospels (love thy neighbor etc., but without any of the supernatural stuff--no virgin birth, no resurrection).

Why would Jesus need "secret sayings" ? The whole things smells of Gnostic embellishment.

Whoever understands these "secret sayings" ... raises flags of almost occult like, secret society, hidden knowledge of a special initiated elite. The Gospels speak of salvation through faith not in salvation through inside Gnostic knowledge of "secret sayings".

"Whosoever believes into Him ..." is wide open to the world. I am suspicious of any second of third century Gnostic;'s invitation to have to discern some "secret sayings".

That one sentence invalidates both Paul's claim that faith is in vain if there was no resurrection,

It contradicts the faithful word of Paul that a resurrection-less Jesus Christ is a tragic uselessness. You think that is useful "wisdom" from the Gospel of Thomas probably because you don't believe in His resurrection.

Instead of believing and receiving the risen Christ it is a waste to want to cash in on at least some aspect of Jesus' teaching through this Gnostic teaching.

I really loath to take the time to study these things since I barely have enough time to get into all the vast riches of revelation in the canonical books. Some Jesus mythers, on the other hand, loath to get into the New Testament but run after extra-canonical writings like the Gospel of Thomas's totally non-narrative collection of sayings.

Do you hope to locate something that will make Christ's redemptive death and resurrection unnecessary for you ?

and the Fundamentalist position that the salvation of man is worked by the death of Jesus as atonement for the sins of man.

Paul was right. If Christ be not raised from the dead the Christian's faith is IN VAIN. It means NOTHING ... if Jesus is not raised from the dead.

Not only is His redemption a lie from His own mouth, if He be not raised, but He is not then alive to be the executor of a new covenant. He ever lives to intercede for the saved to be transformed and conformed to be His brothers. In resurrection He is a High Priest by the power of an indestructible life, ever living to be able to save us to the uttermost.

"But He, because He abides forever, has His priesthood unalterable. Hence also He is able to save to the uttermost [not JUST forgiven, but transformed in character] those who come forward to God through Him, since He lives always to intercede for them." (Heb. 7:24,25)

The Apostle Paul was frank and right - No resurrection - NO USE at all to follow Jesus.
What are you "secret sayings" of Jesus penned by Gnostics third century going to do for you?

It invalidates Paul's claim because, if a man need only understand the message to attain eternal life, then there is no need for a resurrection. It invalidates the Fundamentalist position because, if a man need only understand, then there is no need for atonement (which is point 5 on the list of "fundamentals" ).

So you better know if your "secret sayings" of Jesus should be followed rather than the New Testament narrative of the biography, teachings, and life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Now the natural mind my like these "secret sayings" because they say nothing of miracles. So you have no traveling ministry of Jesus, no major geographic areas spoken of and no miracles.

But the Gnostics promise you that if you understand the "secret sayings" you will benefit. You are being deceived. True to Gnostic philosophy you are saved by knowledge - by understanding the meaning of the saints rather than the receiving of the Person in faith.

"Whosoever believes" is not "Whosoever figures out." You see "Whosoever figures out these here secret teachings" still leaves something for MAN to boast in. If you gain this esoteric knowledge that only the initiated master you can boast that you earned your own salvation.

True faith in Christ and receiving Him as Lord leaves nothing at all for a man to boast in in himself. Because you still crave to be able to point to your own worthiness rather than confessing need of the Lord and a Savior, you are attracted to this latter century collection of so-called Gnostic secretive sayings.

Don't be deceived in this way.

It is obvious why the Council of Nicea in AD 325 voted to condemn the Gospel of Thomas as apocryphal and deny it canonical status: if a man need only understand, then he has no need of an Imperial Church with central authority at Rome.

I may come back to that latter.

The church would have obviated itself had it accepted the Gospel of Thomas as canonical.

Before we discuss that, I would point out that the writer of the Gospel of Thomas apparently seems to be quoting Paul. These means he knew of the epistle of Paul which of course means Paul's letter predates the Gospel of Thomas.

The writer appears to be quoting Isaiah 64:4. That is a passage also alluded to by Paul in First Corinthians 2:9. But a close examination of "Thomas" reveals that the writer is using Paul's allusion more likely than directly referring to Isaiah.

Isaiah 64:4 -
"We have not heard and our eyes have not seen"

First Corinthians 2:9 -
What eye has not seen and ear as not heard "

Gospel of Thomas 17

"I will give you what eye has not seen and what ear has not heard and what hand has not touched"

First Corinthians 2:9 -
"and have not arisen in the heart of man"

Gospel of Thomas 17 -
"and [what] has not arisen in the heart of man".

Isaiah 64:4 - (ends)
" .. any god besides you"

"The parallels between 1 Corinthians and Thomas are quite stunning, with the only major difference being the additions of the introductory "I will give you" and a line "and what hand has not touched" in Thomas. Indeed, 1 Corinthians and Thomas are much closer to each other than either is to Isaiah. There is almost certainly some borrowing here, yet three observations suggest that Thomas has borrowed from 1 Corinthians rather than the other way around:

(1) First Corinthians was written in AD 53 - much too early for Thomas to be its source.

(2) The sayings in Thomas follow the order of the elements in 1 Corinthians 2:9 (rather than the order found in Isaiah 64:4), yet adds "and what hand has not touched,:" indicating that this saying may have been growing over time.

(3) The writer in Thomas attributes this saying to Jesus while Paul attributes it more vaguely to Scripture ("It is written ..." ). If Jesus really uttered the saying, why would Paul claim it was from the Old Testament? After all, Paul elsewhere shows that he is conscious of Jesus' words (1 Cor. 11:23-25). even when Jesus' instruction is also found in the Old Testament (Mark 10:5-12; 1 Cor. 7:10-11). Furthermore, if the source for Paul's quotation was the Gospel of Thomas, would he have attributed it to Jesus? In the least, this parallel doesn't easily yield to the early Thomas hypothesis.

[Dethroning Jesus - Exposing Popular Culture's Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ, Darrell L. Bock & Daniel B. Wallace, Thomas Nelson, pg 115,116 (my spacing) ]

Biblical scholars are in general agreement that not one of the synoptic gospels was written by someone who actually knew or ever met Jesus.

You are referring to academics who tell you what you want to hear. And speaking about them as "general agreement". Sure, liberal higher critics of the text agree among themselves on some things.


I am no textural critic of the Greek NT. But I am persuaded that Gospel of Matthew surely was written by the disciple Matthew. And here is why.

When the list of disciples is mentioned in all the synoptic Gospel the disciples are mentioned in a certain order. Jesus sent them out two by two. In all the Gospels except Matthew the name order puts Matthew first before his team member. But in Matthew's Gospel alone he is mentioned second.

" And He called His twelve disciples to Him and gave them authority over unclean spirits, so that they would cast them out and heal every disease and every sickness.

And the names of the twelve apostles were these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaen, and Judas Isacariot, who also betrayed Him.

These twelve Jesus sent forth, ..." (Matt. 10:1-5a)

Thadeus was the other Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13; John 14:22).

Mark and Luke listed Matthew before Thomas (Mark. 3:18; Luke 6:15) but Matthew we can assume listed himself after Thomas in this Gospel after his own name.

The position of his name suggests the writer's humility. Because Jesus taught them the first would be last and the last first, the disciples had humility in following Jesus. Matthew takes second place where as the other writers placed him before Thomas, probably because he actually was considered the senior team member.

Furthermore, Matthew specifically designates himself as "the tax collector" perhaps remembering his salvation with gratitude. He specifies "the tax collector" to autobiographically recall that even despised and sinful people like a tax collector could be an apostle of Jesus.

Biblical scholars are in general agreement that Mark was probably Paul's secretary.

Mark was thought to be Peter's assistant.
Mark was at first dismissed from a missionary journey with Paul and Barnabus. Latter, it is true that Paul said Mark was "useful" to him.

Your condescending tone of I should learn more church history doesn't mean to me I known none. I take it rather as your suggestion that I should read more liberal textural critics of the higher critical sort. I don't mind learning more. Don't expect me to come around to all of your own skeptical opinions.

Paul never met Jesus;

Paul says he met Jesus.
Luke agrees in recording the activity of Paul in the book of Acts.

You saying "Paul never met Jesus" probably comes with some presuppositions.

1.) Jesus did not rise so he could not be "met" after His death.
2.) Only the disciples before His death could be thought of as meeting Jesus.

Am I right that these are something of your a priori beliefs ?

Paul met Jesus. And it both significant that men "met" Jesus in His resurrected and exalted state. For to Jesus it was not just important that people held some objective information about Jesus but they receive Him and lived in the sphere and realm of His resurrected state. And Paul both met Jesus in this state and was an important pioneer in the experience of living by the resurrected Jesus.

Of course to live by the resurrected Jesus was an intrinsic kernel of the teaching of Jesus. It is crazy to think it was an afterthought.

So Paul met Jesus and teaches the churches and the readers of his epistles how we can not only meet Jesus too but also live with Jesus, in Jesus, unto Jesus and in oneness with Jesus.

"The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)

This resurrected Jesus is in a form that men can receive Him as divine life - the Holy Spirit - the divine life giving, life imparting Spirit.

Mark didn't either.

You don't know that. And the young man who ran off naked in the night at the arrest of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, many scholars believe to be Mark's humble and youthful signature. That young man may well have been a youth - Mark.

He latter became a assistant to Peter, knew well Peter's messages and sermons. And he became a Gospel writer. That's what I am running with. You can believe what you want.

So Mark's gospel is already hearsay at two removes. Biblical scholars are in general agreement that Matthew and Luke are based on Mark and some other source called "Q".

I know about Q.
No one has ever seen this Q.
And I think this is mostly red herring development of one perhaps not well read in any of the four Gospels.

Would I be mistaken to assume you mastered higher criticism of the New Testament before you gained a working familiarity with the New Testament ? I say this because I have found that the Bible has a funny effect on some people. The less they read it the more they fancy themselves to be an expert about it.

The existence of Q is hypothetical; no exant MS fits the bill, and no ancient MS refers to any document which would fit the bill either. So Matthew and Luke are no better than a re-hash of Mark's hearsay and a hypothetical MS for which there is no evidence of its ever having existed at all. Matthew, Mark, and Luke weren't there; they did not witness the events which they relate.

I reject this nearly completely as red herring spinning.
You'd rather spend more time on The Gospel of Thomas as a collection of Gnostic sayings probably to avoid the New Testament canon.

There is no narrative framework in that Gospel of Thomas. It has many parallels to [b]John, Romans, 1 Corinthains besides Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Such parallels are difficult to explain on the basis of a complete independence of Thomas.

I have no doubt that the disciple Thomas didn't write the Gospel of Thomas. I do not use that to make the case that no writer of the Gospels was an eyewitness to the three and one half years of Jesus' ministry. The guilt by association is not valid. That many extra-cononical writings were produced in subsequent centuries doesn't prove the Gospels we all written by non- eyewitnesses.

I could Matthew and John to be from eyewitnesses.

In the case of Thomas the more likely situation is that the author knew of the books of the New Testament. He wrote his own spin of sayings he liked and called it secret sayings collected by Thomas.

Its bogus. Historically interesting perhaps, but bogus as a witness to Jesus. Chase after it at your own peril.

Originally posted by moonbus
"Skeptics always want to fall back on excuses like this. He never said it. He never wrote it. This is just conspiracy weaving to reason that what you're reluctant to even read wasn't really written in the first place. "

I quoted from the Gospel of Thomas (in my previous post) to make a point about the canon.

The Gospel of Thomas consists of questions by ...[text shortened]...
One has to wonder why the Council of Nicea canonized a load of gossip and rejected verbatim quotes.

Originally posted by moonbus
"Skeptics always want to fall back on excuses like this." <--- Like what? `GB

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by moonbus
"Skeptics always want to fall back on excuses like this." <--- Like what? `GB

sonship said the words you quoted, not moonbus.

Grampy,

I was arguing with moonbus.

sonship

Originally posted by FMF
sonship said the words you quoted, not moonbus.

where