Paul is the only one contemporary with them. Some may have been alive when the gospels were written. And you are distinguishing between inside and outside the Bible which doesn’t make sense.m
Josephus and Tacitus mention Jesus and Christians but none of the disciples by name nor anything really specific. Just that the movement continued after his death.
If you know of any earlier forts century evidence, feel free to list it.
Vinnie
I was arguing about the first Christians which we have some extra biblical evidence about their customs and practises.I too agree that we dont have anything on the other disciples as ive argued in another thread to you
What on earth are you talking about? I have read numerous books directly on GThomas and a host of scholarly journal articles. Not to mention many scholarly works on the historical Jesus as well where authors have to list and defend their source presuppositions. The vast majority date GThomas from 50-140.
From Peter Kirby on Early Christian writings:
The Gospel of Thomas is extant in three Greek fragments and one Coptic manuscript. The Greek fragments are P. Oxy. 654, which corresponds to the prologue and sayings 1-7 of the Gospel of Thomas; P. Oxy. 1, which correponds to the Gospel of Thomas 26-30, 77.2, 31-33; and P. Oxy. 655, which corresponds to the Gospel of Thomas 24 and 36-39. P. Oxy 1 is dated shortly after 200 CE for paleographical reasons, and the other two Greek fragments are estimated to have been written in the mid third century. The Coptic text was written shortly before the year 350 CE.
A very small number of scholars date it to 250CE. But the vast majority fit in the 50-140 range. He also have potential references by Origin and Hippolytus ca 225.
Obviously Thomas exists before we find partial Greek manuscripts of it it’s sayings. But it was a sayings Gospel and easy to alter and expand so it may have existed in multiple forms so when we date it we have to be conscious of what we are actually dating.
Patterson argued for 70-80 dating:
“While the cumulative nature of the sayings collection understandably makes the Gospel of Thomas difficult to date with precision, several factors weigh in favor of a date well before the end of the first century: the way in which Thomas appeals to the authority of particular prominent figures (Thomas, James) against the competing claims of others (Peter, Matthew); in genre, the sayings collection, which seems to have declined in importance after the emergence of the more biographical and dialogical forms near the end of the first century; and its primitive christology, which seems to presuppose a theological climate even more primitive than the later stages of the synoptic sayings gospel, Q. Together these factors suggest a date for Thomas in the vicinity of 70-80 C.E. As for its provenance, while it is possible, even likely, that an early version of this collection associated with James circulated in the environs of Jerusalem, the Gospel of Thomas in more or less its present state comes from eastern Syria, where the popularity of the apostle Thomas (Judas Didymos Thomas) is well attested.”
I’m not sure what conservative propaganda you have been reading but this is the standard dating range for GThomas which does not fit into the full pattern of second century gnostic texts.
Vinnie
What is the extra-Biblical references you are referring to? Sure. We have texts allowing us to reconstruct what Judaism was like at the time and Greco-Roman culture as well.
Thats wasnt for the date.No one argues it is dependent on the canonical Gospels.Its silly and idiotic
deleted by moi.
Not even my highschool teachers were citing wikipedia.
Also what was that about a letter by a bishop to discard the Gospels?Conspiarcy theory much?
Prove it or cite another sources.If not you did right to delete that comment
Avoidance, much?
I was under the impression that you were casting doubt on the age of the Gospel of Thomas. In later posts it appears that you agreed with the 60-250 AD date for the gospel. That was my only comment on the subject, so I deleted the post.
Sure.Let me go edit your source now 
These?
Valantasis, Richard (1997). The Gospel of Thomas . London; New York: Routledge.
Porter, J. R. (2010). The Lost Bible . New York: Metro Books.
No your wikipedia page. Also a book is not a source.Ancient sources please that gives validity to your claim or im not convinced ,and anyone with a brain shouldnt be
All I am saying is that there are scholars who date the Gospel of Thomas to 60-250 AD. You seemed to claim that no scholars did this, unless I misread your post.
Would you agree that there are scholars who assign these dates to the Gospel of Thomas?
Yeah sure .But that wasnt my argument above.The wikipedia page you cited and deleted said something conspiracional(at least to me )about an intended redaction for the Gospel of Thomas by some Bishop.All i said was that to prove this you need to provide sources and to be precise ancient ones that point out to this.By citing
these you prove nothing.I can too go to google and search whatever site i want with the author claiming to be whatever he likes.Thats why wikipedia its(most of the time) a joke
So you think no scholar believes the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas are dependent upon the synoptic sayings? And you call this belief idiotic? The irony is strong here as I have many historical Jesus books on my shelf arguing precisely this.
You do understand what this means right? The first three gospels were written and the sayings became popular. The Gospel of Thomas used that sayings material to make his own list with his own theological outlook. So the argument is Thomas provides us with no new or independent information outside the Gospels. What on earth do you find so ridiculous about this? That is the exact position of countless conservative scholars.
I think you would agree with that. You simply don’t understand it. The truth is there are a bunch of sayings which do look dependent on the canonical Gospels and a bunch that look independent. It’s quite a mess especially since in translating and copying it sometimes Thomas might have been assimilated to the canonical text. It also was probably constructed in stages as well. It’s very easy to add sayings. Thus, some could be dependent and some sayings come from before the canonical Gospels were written.
You are very defensive about the Gospel of Thomas and to be quite honest, extremely ignorant about scholarship on the issue. Do you find it threatens your faith? There was some diversity within the church. There always is. It’s not really an issue.
Vinnie
Erhman and other scholars believed it was written by a gnostic. So by all means go ahead and accept the Jesus “secret” message as the Gospel points out .For me its idiotic.
Im drawn by some gnostics beliefs myself but this is stupid
I was only referring to the dates given to the Gospel of Thomas. That’s it.
Grumpy pants doesn’t like Wikipedia. Noted.
I though we had a serious debate or at least people were serious at citing sources.Guess not.I cant understand over the internet if the conversation we are having is just a joke,but i shouldve guessed since you cite wikipedia .Thats fine by me
And yeah for the most part i dont like wikipedia 
Nonsense. I never said I accepted the secret message. Dating a work does not mean accepting its message despite your fallacious argument.
It’s clear you possess close to zero knowledge about Thomas. Your appeal to Bart is meaningless. He is one of the many scholars who see Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet and place Thomas in the second century, dependent in many cases on synoptic traditions. Many scholars argue as he does and others like Patterson, Davies, Crossan, Koester and countless more argue the opposite.
You are just assuming it’s gnostic and therefore assuming it’s late. That is not an argument. Assumptions are not arguments. Many recent scholars have challenged the notion that Thomas is a full blown gnostic text like those in the second century. There are some differences.
Ron Cameron:
“Those who argue that Gos. Thom. is dependent on the Synoptics not only must explain the differences in wording and order, but also give a reason for Gos. Thom. ‘s choice of genre and the absence of the gospels’ narrative material in the text. To assert, for example, that Gos. Thom. erased the passion narratives because Gnosticism was concerned solely with a redeeming message contained in words of revelation (Haenchen 1961: 11) is simply not convincing, since the Apocryphon of James (NHC I, 2), the Second treatise of the Great Seth (NHC VII, 2), and the Apocalypse of Peter (NHC VII, 3) all indicate that sayings of and stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus were reinterpreted by various gnostic groups. For any theory of dependence of Gos. Thom. on the NT to be made plausible, one must show that the variations in form and content of their individual sayings, together with the differences in genre and structure of their entire texts, are intential modifications of their respective parallels, designed to serve a particular purpose.“
Many would argue that sayings list of Jesus must be earlier, before narratives took over. There are scholarly views on both sides of Thomas, knowledge of which is not reflected in any of your comments.
Vinnie
You don’t like Wikipedia because it can be edited? Amazing how there are really no even partial copies of our Gospels the first 100-130 years of their existence (save potentially the Ryalnds fragment which dates anywhere from 125-225ce and has 5 whole verse from GJohn) . We also don’t get any significant quotations until about ~60 years later (harmonies of Justin, Irenaeus ca 180 quoting all 4 in a few parts)…
Copies of copies of copies of copies of copies, all completely editable just like Wikipedia pages. Literally anyone who received a copy could alter the work as they saw fit in producing a new copy. Matthew be Luke certainly did it with Mark. We don’t get significant attestation until well over hundreds of years later. Granted your disdain for Wikipedia, the greatest intellectual resource the world has ever known, despite its flaws, I guess the NT is even more untrustworthy as well since it was editable by anyone.
Vinnie
So why should i listen to your scholars and not mine?Are they more credible?See you say i have zero knowledge and such and yet you only cite YOUR scholars.So why dont you instead say something like"I listen to my own scholars and think of them more credible because im biased" and the debate is over
If thats the case why you cite scholars who try to validate it (yourself trying to do that )
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.