breathilizer

Really? Because most scholars believe them to have been written between 85-98 A.D. Apologetic Christians try to avoid certain peculiarities by dating them between 55-60 A.D. but regardless, neither time frames are "within the generation which Jesus lived."

LambdaCalculator

There is absolutely no way that the Gospels of Matthew, Luke or John could have been written by anyone who knew Jesus. Mark may have been written by someone who knew Jesus, but it would have been a very long shot given lifespans in that time period.

There are many scholars who dispute this view, and for good reason:

1. The Gospel of Thomas shares no direct similarities with the Gnostic texts. There are no mentions of demiurges, no postulation of inherent evilness in the world, and no teachings of esoteric "gnosis" (at least as construed by the Gnostic texts).

2. The Gospel of Thomas shows no evidence of reliance on previous sources, and certainly not Gnostic ones.

3. Most Gnostic texts portray Jesus as divine, while the GosTom does not.

That it is an unvalidated historical theory, as there is not enough evidence to decide GosTom's historicity either way. It is just as possible that the orthidox church wished to push the divinity of Christ for political purposes, something that obviously conflicts with the GosTom.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Jesus was born around the year of A.D. 1 and was crucified in 33 A.D.
If Jesus had lived a full lifetime, the Gospels would have been written before His death or closely afterwards. Therefore, if they were not authentic records of Jesus' life, someone would have said something of it given their close vicinity to the events described in relation of time.

Peace.

LambdaCalculator

Since all the gospels mention the fall of the temple of Jerusalum, which occurred in 69 C.E., they all must have been written after that time period.

Incidently, the only wisdom (non-narrative) gospel that we know of does not mention this, and that happens to be the Gospel of Thomas.

breathilizer

Not if Jesus never existed. And that's the whole point. Wow. Really. Wow.

LambdaCalculator

Someone may have said something, but the ortidox church burned all the records once Roman persecution ended, so we don't really know. All we have now are the few scraps of Christian heterodoxy which survived.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Just like there is no evidence in favor of biological evolution? It's strange how atheists, like creationists, can make such outrageous claims without even a phantom of evidence in their favor.

It is the prevailing theory in New Testament scholarship.

Is it not even more possible that the Gospel of Thomas is a heretical second-century fabrication while the divinity of Christ has been believed from the beginning of the Christian faith?

Peace.

Orthodox_Freethinker

<inflammatory comment deleted>

Peace.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Again, that is only the unsubstantiated assumption of the philosophical naturalist. This line of argument is truly pathetic. What we have in the Gospels is Jesus Christ prophecizing that the temple would fall within his generation. Of course, this is impossible if you hold to the philosophical predisposition that Jesus was not a divine prophet. For those who are concerned with historical fact, however, it's not at all surprising that he could make such an accurate prediction. What you've provided is shameless circular reasoning.
Given that John and Thomas were written after the fall of Jerusalem, there was no need to mention it given that the prophecy had already been fulfilled.

Peace.

breathilizer

Except that we have reliable documentation showing that he did in fact exterminate Jews (and others). The Bible is not reliable.