Ryzo

I couldn't. Which is why I am asking a question, not making an argument.

Steven Carr

Matthew 12: 29 Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.

A useful little tip on burglary there for you all. Let nobody claim that the Bible does not teach things which are useless in our day-to-day lives.

Agemegos

Neither the Matthew who wrote The Gospel According to Matthew, nor the Mark who wrote The Gospel According to Mark, nor the Luke who wrote The Gospel According to Luke, nor the the John who wrote The Gospel According to John was a disciple of Jesus. The Bible doesn't say they were, Church tradition says they weren't, and scholarly opinion puts all of those gospels' compostions too late by decades to have been written by contemporaries of Jesus. And an examination of the texts shows pretty clearly that they weren't written by witnesses, nor even people who lived at the time of the events.

Rowantree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agemegos Neither the Matthew who wrote The Gospel According to Matthew, nor the Mark who wrote The Gospel According to Mark, nor the Luke who wrote The Gospel According to Luke, nor the the John who wrote The Gospel According to John was a disciple of Jesus. The Bible doesn't say they were, Church tradition says they weren't, and scholarly opinion puts all of those gospels' compostions too late by decades to have been written by contemporaries of Jesus. And an examination of the texts shows pretty clearly that they weren't written by witnesses, nor even people who lived at the time of the events.

As where this is true, the gospel of St Thomas has been dated to circa 15 years after the Crucifixion. (The early camp places it's origin around 50 C.E.) This would make it the earliest record of the historical Jesus. Furthermore, unlike the narrative dialogue of the cannonical texts, Thomas is written in a style that suggests it was a transcription from oral teachings/tradition. Thus, the common hypothesis states that it is the earliest historic account of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Should this be true it is a very real possibility Thomas the Unbeliever may have penned the text. (It would certainly be in his nature no?)

Light and Love,
Rowan

Toto

What is your source for this?

Chris Weimer

Perhaps the earliest material in Thomas dates to this era, and but as for Thomas as a whole it is far too late, and the latest parts date to 150's CE.

Perhaps, but only if a) there is an historical Jesus, and b) if all the material in the Synoptics were substantially older, which I highly doubt.

Odd.

Rowantree

I'll be honest I haven't studied it for a while so for the actual dates I just did a quick search to the Gospel of St. Thomas Wiki.

Rowantree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer Perhaps the earliest material in Thomas dates to this era, and but as for Thomas as a whole it is far too late, and the latest parts date to 150's CE. Perhaps, but only if a) there is an historical Jesus, and b) if all the material in the Synoptics were substantially older, which I highly doubt. Odd.

As I said the dates are those of the Early Camp. You are absoultely correct that there are historians (Late Camp) that place it between 150 and 200 C.E. However, I have not really heard of very many historians secular or otherwise debating against a historical Jesus just the accuracy of his portrayal. But, that only means I have never heard of their case and studies, not that they don't exist.

Yeah Thomas is my favorite apostle. Not only did he make Jesus come back a second time to the apostles, the told Jesus he wouldn't believe him until Jesus has him touch his wounds.*

(*According to Biblical accounts.)

Toto

Rowantree: welcome to BCH.

Most of the posters here are familiar with Earl Doherty's book The Jesus Puzzle. I recommend that you check it out for the case against a historical Jesus.

Peter Kirby on the Gospel of Thomas gives some factors that would indicate an early date, but they all seem speculative.

diana

As I read this thread, I find myself wondering why, when we ask for non-biblical contemporary support for a historical Jesus, nobody throws the non-canonical scriptures in our faces? There are just buttloads of them, but instead, people go with the inconclusive reference in Tacitus, the spurious reference in Josephus and the non-contemporary Talmud. Is it because they don't know about the non-canonical gospels? Surely not.

Perhaps it's because they themselves clearly don't believe the truth of those books, or they would be a part of their own bible, and because when you place some of them side-by-side with canonical works, there's little difference, making the canonical works look just as silly.

d