FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-16-2003, 07:07 PM   #11
SLD
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 4,109
Default Re: Re: Dating the Gospel of Thomas

Quote:
Originally posted by Tercel
The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the choosing of the Bible books: It's a common myth.

Wanna know more? Read this thread.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

SLD
SLD is offline  
Old 06-16-2003, 07:13 PM   #12
SLD
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 4,109
Default Re: Re: Dating the Gospel of Thomas

Quote:
Originally posted by Tercel

It seems to me that even if the idea behind this hypothesis is largely true, it need not indicate the existence of the Gospel of Thomas: Merely the existence of a sect which claimed Thomas as its founder.
Well, it would also be that Gnostic Christianity was in fact a very early variant of Christianity. Even if the GoT came later. I have heard argued on these boards, and others, that Gnosticism came much later to Christianity and thus justifying it's gospels from exclusion in the Bible.

Perhaps we need to invite Elaine Pagels to these boards and clear this matter up - of course, then there'd be no need to buy her book.

SLD
SLD is offline  
Old 06-16-2003, 07:14 PM   #13
SLD
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 4,109
Default Re: Re: Dating the Gospel of Thomas

Quote:
Originally posted by Tercel


Except that John was the gospel most liked by the gnostics in general as it contains a comparatively high level of gnostic-type stuff.

[/B]
How do we know that? I mean did they do a gallup opinion poll on early Gnostics?

SLD
SLD is offline  
Old 06-16-2003, 09:28 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 86
Default

Ever heard of Herocleon?
blackthorne is offline  
Old 06-17-2003, 08:54 AM   #15
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by blackthorne
Ever heard of Herocleon?
Umm...Heracleon was a late 2nd century Valentinian. What exactly does he add to this discussion? More telling I think is the fact that Gnostic Xianity was obviously in full swing and widely accepted as early as Polycarp. It strains credulity to think that that happened overnight. Plus the early orthodox church tries awful hard to convince us that gnosticism along with gnostic texts are some new fangled invention even going to the extent of naming their preferred texts after apostles and early followers of apostles while basically discounting all gnostic texts as recent inventions of deluded people. If the gnostic variety of Xianity had won the culture war of the early centuries how then would we view the "canonical gospels" today?
CX is offline  
Old 06-17-2003, 08:58 AM   #16
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Default Re: Re: Re: Dating the Gospel of Thomas

Quote:
Originally posted by SLD
Well, it would also be that Gnostic Christianity was in fact a very early variant of Christianity.

your use of the term "variant" itself belies our modern bias toward what we know today as orthodox Xianity. It seems pretty clear from the evidence that there was a great diversity of opinion very early on. Xianity was defined only later when various competing theologies battled to see who would get to define orthodoxy.
CX is offline  
Old 06-19-2003, 01:23 AM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Default

I just want to know what the dissenting 5 bishops said .
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 06-19-2003, 03:22 AM   #18
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

CX,

Careful there. You may have overstated your case. The fact that 'orthodoxy' won a political battle does not mean we can simply assume that it was not the earliest or dominant sect from square one. The trajectories hypothesis is built on much less evidence and far more theory than is usually supposed.

For instance, nowhere is there evidence (a part from Edessa, perhaps) of non-orthodox Christians arriving earlier than the orthodox. Nowhere is there evidence that non-orthodox ideas were taken into orthodoxy rather than the other way around. The evidence for really early heresy is extremely scanty and has been extrapolated a lot further than it will reasonably go.

To repeat, we cannot assume that there was equivalance between early Christian sects and we have no reason to disbelieve that the main reason orthodoxy won out was because it was by far the largest and earliest group.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason
 
Old 06-21-2003, 04:51 PM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

Quote:
I have heard argued on these boards that the reason for rejecting the Gnostic Gospels, such as Thomas, are that they are obviously much later creations than the four “real” gospels.
At least one segment of Thomas predates all the canonical Gospels. The material that Thomas shares with Q points to an earlier source (or maybe Q1 is the source!).

Quote:
Thus the early Catholic Church was correct in leaving out the other Gospels at the Council of Nicaea and thus only the four Bible Gospels are the authentic word of God.
I think there are three fragments of Thomas or something found in the second century. For some reason it lead Helmut Koester to believe that the Gospel was very popular in the 2d.

Quote:
An interesting article in today’s New York Times, however discusses the findings of one scholar who suggests that the story of doubting Thomas in John is a jab at the Gospel of Thomas – thus indicating that it is in fact older than John.
The problem is that you are seaking of Thomas as a whole. It may have been composed in stages like Q qith layers added. I find Thomas to be independent opf the canonical Gospels and I think part of it is EXTREMELY ancient.

Thats an interesting theory though. I might want to look into that.

Vinnie
Vinnie is offline  
Old 06-21-2003, 09:29 PM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,315
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Well, if we apply the same skeptic methodology that gets applied to the canonical gospels ("They didn't exist until the time of the first extant references and were heavily redacted after that")

List five skeptics who make that claim, please. Or retract this silly nonesense.

Sheesh Vork... you've been here at least as long as I have. Do you really mean to tell me you've managed to not see all the times posters have been doing this?

I find that hard to believe, given that I myself have argued with many such posters here...

Or did my statement hit too close to home perhaps?

Names? Why bother? -As if I would want to spend all my time memorising the names of idiots! But I doubt I'll quickly forget the wackiness of people like Iasion, IronMonkey, Yuri Kuchinsky.
Neville Lindsay has also been brought to my attention recently as another one. Of course, I can't say that people Toto or Steven Carr are a great lot better either, but at least they're not quite as bad. Then we've got the awesome book writers such as Acharys S and Andrew Templeman.
Tercel is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:22 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.