Ummm are there extra resources(asside those from wikipedia) that confirm a certain article wikipedia has?If so i accept them.As i said to you before there are some recources outside the Bible about the first christians and their beliefs.And as you said yourself there are historical evidence for the existance of the apostles.So these validate somewhat the core message of the NT.
Unless something similar happens with wikipedia(which sometimes it does im not saying its that untrustworthy) i cannot accept it
Do you guys still use that thing at universities?Here at least citing from wikipedia will get you laughs from academics
That wasnât my impression. In a previous post, you wrote:
"Isnt that [the Gospel of Thomas] a forgery of the middle ages? You know at that time Christianity was pretty much spread already. "
There werenât any citations. I was just following your lead, and actually went above and beyond your post by at least providing an online source for academic sources.
Yeah there are so many gospels forgeries out there i lost the count.Sorry for misdating it .I later corrected it but i guess you were too lazy to read my other post here .
Present arguments not scholars. I donât do appears to authority. I only mention scholars because you stated unequivocally that scholars donât believe something about Thomas which was exactly the opposite of what most in fact believe.
What are they and what are you taking about?
Iâm talking exclusively about the textual integrity of the NT. If you donât like Wikipedia because anyone could edit it, why do you like the NT texts which anyone could also edit them. We have 100 years of darkened in the manuscript evidence. Are the gospels then unreliable like Wikipedia to you? Why quote them as if they are encyclopedic theology sources when anyone could have edited them?
I will explain the theological messages that arise from the story of the flood.
First of all understand that Noah is the savior of mortal human life, just as Jesus is the savior of spiritual life, a divine allegory. Then imagine a picture of four sets of 77 on the Cross of Jesusâ generations. Mat 1:17 provides three sets of naturally descending 14 distilled to 77 for the Son of Man. Then Luke provides 77 ascending Patriarchs to God for the Son of God as the 4th step result on the cross. (14 = 7+7 = 77) because spiritual numbers are non-quantitative)
Now imagine a picture of four sets of 77 on the Cross of the Flood as follows:
Step 1 (the foot) 7 days to wait and then the 7 days waited.
Step 2 (clockwise) 7 pair of clean beasts
Step 3 (top) 7 pair of birds of heaven
Step 4 (4th step result) 7 days to wait for the dove (twice)
Jesusâ Generations Cross is Cipher 31, and Noahâs Generations Cross is Cipher 4 in a complete set of 77 Ciphers called JWâs Cipher.
[WE ARE writing] about the Word of Life [in] Him Who existed from the beginning, Whom we have heard, Whom we have seen with our [own] eyes, Whom we have gazed upon [for ourselves] and have touched with our [own] hands. And the Life [an aspect of His being] was revealed (made manifest, demonstrated), and we saw [as eyewitnesses] and are testifying to and declare to you the Life, the eternal Life [in Him] Who already existed with the Father and Who [actually] was made visible (was revealed) to us [His followers]. What we have seen and [ourselves] heard, we are also telling you, so that you too may realize and enjoy fellowship as partners and partakers with us. And [this] fellowship that we have [which is a distinguishing mark of Christians] is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ (the Messiah).
Any evidence. I am not fussy. Obviously, the author of this work was an eyewitness who engaged with the Son of God in a very up close and personal way having seen, touched and heard him personally.
I believe it makes more sense to understand the use of the expression, âthe wordâ in Acts 6 to refer to their written account of Christâs life and sayings. It doesnât make sense to me to describe what they were giving themselves to as âthe testimoniesâ of one another. How often is something like that depicted in that fashion in the NT? Giving themselves to prayer is clear. They would spend time in prayer, bathing everything, their intentions, their desire for direction, for Godâs will and sustenance and the furthering of their outreach, in prayerful devotion to God. I think they were reminded of the mission He gave them to take what they had found and to deliver all they could to the entire world. If you were present when Christ gave that instruction, I am certain you would have recommended preserving in writing what had just taken place. They wouldnât take chances that any of the essentials of his life on earth could be lost. These were proud and capable Jewish men and women. The stakes were high. They were leaving their old lives and traditions behind. Some of them could read and write. Jesus stood and read a portion of the OT earlier. It wasnât unheard of to do so during times of gatherings in the Synagogues. Writing up the accounts of what transpired that rocked their world were undertaken by many we are told.
That is not obvious to me. The Gospel of Thomas claims to be written by Thomas. Many works were falsely attributed to someone who did not write them. Several letters were written in Paulâs name.
John also has multiple authors. Ch 21 was redacted and gives it away. If John was written by an original follower of Jesus it is still not history remembered. John is restating post-easter beliefs in synoptic tradition. John may even co twin some responses to material in GThomas:
Authorship has to be inferred based on internal arguments for the Gospels. External attestation and self-claims arenât good enough for early Christian writings as evidence by all the works you reject as spurious and non-apostolic despite them claiming to be so.
Yet, even if that is true, it doesnât prove anything about 1 John. I know the popular answer to this question, but I donât accept it: What was in it for the person to write such an account?
What has developed recently is a kind of mob oriented conviction among some that guilty is the standard understanding regarding the NT and proof of innocence is necessary.
It is fashionable to attack the NT in every way conceivable and unsubstantiated claims magically become established facts. There is a ground swell of bitterness and rage towards Christians these days, particularly in the U.S. A gathering storm of sorts. People from all backgrounds are devoting their energy to squash Christianity. Momentum is pushing it forward more than facts. It is still appropriate to read the NT as a collection of books describing actual events of historical significance. Personally, whenever I see âthe crowdâ move in a direction with such gusto, I take a closer look at the details behind the enthusiasm. I remember when âloveâ and flowers were happening. Everyone was supposed to love everyone to be in and hip and groovy. That crowd, that unorganized movement, transformed, revolutionized America in months. Or, I should say it began the revolution. Woodstock is an example of its reach.
I refer to it because it was based on a few terrific ideas, but the hypocrisy was striking. Love everybody they cried, but all cops are pigs. Hate cops. Love everyone, but hate the pigs. I smell something like that happening today with the anti-Christian rhetoric pervading our culture and frankly, I donât trust it. Not because of my thoughts about Christ, but because of its celebrity, the speed with which it is growing, the momentum that sweeps people along.
You somehow believe that Jesus is loaded with God, yet I have no idea how you have arrived at that conclusion. I am trying to understand why you believe as you do. I have no doubts that you have good reasons, I just would like to understand what they are.