Simply demonstrate here, using the critical method, how Thomas can be Q since Thomas has no Eschatological Discourse and that is an essential facet of Q.
And yes, I have the facsimiles of Thomas with me. And of course I've read Mark.
CalebInFloroda
JoinedPosts by CalebInFloroda
-
45
What language was Jesus most at home with?
by fulltimestudent inour former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
-
-
-
45
What language was Jesus most at home with?
by fulltimestudent inour former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
14 minutes ago
I didn't say I didn't know.
Yeah so you say, but you didn't prove it now did you? You could not write down a similar first three paragraphs of my response.
You had no idea.
So I've done my bit. You haven't.
Prove that Thomas is NOT Q.--Saintbertholdt
Q is theoretical. There is great doubt in some quarters over its existence. But Thomas exists.
Q is supposed to be a sayings-source, but Thomas shows a narrative structure. Unlike what many people think, scholars see a narrative in Thomas. Duke’s professor of religion, Mark Goodacre, is one of them, for example. He has written extensively against Q and compared it to what we have learned from Thomas.
As I mentioned before, Q is supposed to contain only sayings, well-known for being the source of the Eschatological Discourse given on the Mount of Olives, such as appears in Matthew 24. Thomas, on the other hand, has no such discourse in it at all.
Therefore Thomas cannot be Q, if Q exists.
My question to you is how can Thomas be Q in light of the absence of Q’s well-known Eschatological Discourse feature?
-
45
What language was Jesus most at home with?
by fulltimestudent inour former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
Besides, if you have read Thomas, you would know it was was written in Coptic, proving my original point that the language of that era was not "Egyptian" as you put it (Thomas was discovered in Egypt).
Also, Thomas is known for being very independent of Q. Q is noted for the Eschatological Discourse, but Thomas doesn't have it or other well-known earmarks of the theoretical Q.
So I am only asking you for proving your views via a critical methodology. When I said that this is what everybody else should be asking, I didn't mean a lot of people were reading this, but that all people who consider religion should ask that others prove their points employing a critical methodology that employs logic.
-
45
What language was Jesus most at home with?
by fulltimestudent inour former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
Here's the statement:
"Saintbertholdt,
Okay, if you say the Gospel of Thomas seems to be earlier and was probably Q, simply use the scientific method to prove that, right here and now.
The scientific method is the model used in Biblical criticism by philologists to demonstrate textual transmission. I am sure you know how to do this because I doubt you would be making any such claims here without having validated your views without due process.
Make sure you include the data of those who validate your conclusions as well."
-
45
What language was Jesus most at home with?
by fulltimestudent inour former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
I didn't say I didn't know. I said your conclusions are incorrect.
I asked you to use the scientific method to prove what you are saying, adding that I would believe you if you employed the known rules of critical methodology with validating witnesses, and their supporting data, to demonstrate why your conclusions are what you said they were.
-
45
What language was Jesus most at home with?
by fulltimestudent inour former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
For those others who are indeed reading, what you are witnessing here is a classic case of what in logical fallacy is called "dodging."
You challenge another to answer a question or demonstrate their logic, but instead of doing it they try to avoid by dodging, in this case asking me to do what I asked the other person to do even though the points I raised was not in question.
This has not only gone off the path of the topic, but calls into question the claims and views of the one dodging.
We wouldn't allow a JW to get away with, Saintnertholdt, so why are you doing it here? You obviously have no intention to follow through.
You do know the JWs win just a little when we fail to be intellectually honest with ourselves.
-
45
What language was Jesus most at home with?
by fulltimestudent inour former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
Yes, I did ask first. I think everyone here should demand what I am demanding of you, conclusions which are logical, based on a logic methodology, validated by independent and disinterested parties.
I'm a big believer in the scientific and critical methods.
-
45
What language was Jesus most at home with?
by fulltimestudent inour former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
Go ahead. Don't weasel out. I can do it. I'm pretty sure you know I can. You first. It shouldn't be hard or distasteful to repeat the process that has led to your current convictions. Surely they are all based on validated conclusions.
-
45
What language was Jesus most at home with?
by fulltimestudent inour former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
Saintbertholdt,
Okay, if you say the Gospel of Thomas seems to be earlier and was probably Q, simply use the scientific method to prove that, right here and now.
The scientific method is the model used in Biblical criticism by philologists to demonstrate textual transmission. I am sure you know how to do this because I doubt you would be making any such claims here without having validated your views without due process.
Make sure you include the data of those who validate your conclusions as well.
-
45
What language was Jesus most at home with?
by fulltimestudent inour former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
None of the gospels are historical records like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Fundamentalist Christians teach. Each is a catechesis built upon the Gospel message that was being preached by the Christians. Regardless of what you may have learned from the Watchtower, the Gospels don't agree becuase simply they are not supposed to.
The first account and the simplest is the Petrine Gospel. Composed by Mark, a non-apostle, because of its Petrine source the composition became the basis for Luke and the finalized version of Matthew. Mark is the primitive account, written simply to impress the Christian view that the Passion of Christ was a victory and not a defeat.
The Matthean account is based on a sayings gospel (tradition holds that the oracles are those spoken of by Papias and may even be the theorized Q), and is a catechesis for Jewish Christians. It is designed not in chronilogical order like Mark, but in in order of five lessons to impress upon Jews that Jesus is the Messiah that Israel has been waiting for. The five sections are meant to copy the five Books of Moses. This gospel relies heavily on midrash, a Jewish form of exegesis to "prove" Jesus is he Messiah of Hebrew Scripture.
Luke's account is a Gentile catechesis, meant to impress the universality of Jesus. Written in the style of a lesson to a Gentile who has converted to Judaism, Luke also builds on Mark, employing a chronilogical and very precise order to show that Jesus is the Savior not only of the Jews but of the world.
None of are meant to be history. The Jehovah's Witness theology on this point is contrived on the Gnostic belief that a written text is a greater revelation from a divine source than anything. In reality Christianity is based on a person, Jesus of Nazareth, and the confession of the college of apostles. Each gospel is merely a different tool used to spread this witness in catechism form. Like all catechisms, each is adjusted for the culture and audience it is designed for. The synoptic gospels are catechisms.
The gospel of John is a late testimony, not so much catechesis as it is reflection and theology based on the gospel message. It uses none of the earlier sources because it's intention is exegesis, explain what Jesus means and why this meaning should convince an audience in the face of the growing threat from Gnosticism and other worldly philosophies.
One has to let go of the Watchtower views which demand the gospels are historical accounts, even those who become agnostic or atheist. It is the earmark of academic ignorance to claim that these books were even intended to be read like history.
Regardles if Jesus was real, regardless of what he spoke, one should not fan the flames of Watchtower/Fundamentalism ignorance by advancing the equally contrived in order to disprove straw man claims.