Radcliffe Emerson

The recently discovered Gospel of Thomas is the earliest writings found, predating Paul's letters. Paul's are the next earliest. Neither say anything about a virgin birth, or a physical resurrection. In fact, Paul was a gnostic and indicates in his letters the resurrection was spiritual.
Paul didn't write about the post-crucificion details in his letters because those were unknown at the time and were developed later by the gospel authors, who each modified them or made things up to suit his individual opinions.

Radcliffe Emerson

Thanks for these David! I have read all of this too, but I can't recall all of the details to post something this involved when defending my biblical opinions (See "Is Christianity All About the Evidence?") against zealots who blindly believe it.

CX

Huh? The Oxyrhynchus finds are about 100 years old. That hardly constitutes a "recent" discovery. The complete coptic version was found in 1945 I'd be hard pressed to say that is recent either.

That being said, on what basis do you so confidently assert that GThom is early, much less that it precedes the Pauline epistles? The terminus ad quem is around 140 C.E.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson: Thanks for these David! I have read all of this too, but I can't recall all of the details to post something this involved when defending my biblical opinions (See "Is Christianity All About the Evidence?") against zealots who blindly believe it.

May I ask to whom you are referring when you speak of “zealots who blindly believe it”?

Radcliffe Emerson

Books I've read by John Dominic Crossan and other books state the Gospel of Thomas is older than Paul's writings.
Crossan is possibly the most respected bibal scholar in the world, so I tend to think he's on the mark.

As for zealouts who blindly believe the bible is inspired, I run into them everywhere. Co-workers, family members, all afraid I'm going to "hell" because I dare to mention archaelogists, historians and scholars' statements that biblical accounts in the New Testament are not backed up through any historical evidence of those time periods.

CX

I greatly admire Crossan's work, but he is hardly the "world's most respected biblical scholar". Much of his work is quite controversial. Do you have a specific reference to him stating GThom precedes the Pauline epistles? What I've read seems to have him putting GThom with Q which definitely precedes the gospels, but could be contemporary to or after the corpus paulinum. The problem is we don't have enough evidence to firmly date GThom.

Radcliffe Emerson

I've seen quite a few references that say Crossan is one of the most respected.

Radcliffe Emerson

I personally think that critics who don't want the sacredness of the bible questioned tend to rate him lower. I may be wrong however.
I'll have to check on the Thomas references, those may be from some of the other stuff I've read.

CX

But that isn't what you originally said. Sorry I'm being pedantic. I do that sometimes. Anyway I'd much prefer to see a cogent argument for an early dating of GThom over an argument from authority. We agree that Crossan does good work. My issue is that there is too little attestation to GThom to give anything like a solid dating.

Radcliffe Emerson

You're right about my comment, it should have said books by Crossan OR other books state the Gospel of Thomas is the earliest.

The main thing that bugs me about what Christianity evolved into, is that stuff like the Trinity and even the resurrection were not univerally accepted beliefs in the first couple of centuries, and were basically voted in by groups of men and forced on everyone.
Eternal damnation wasn't an early belief either. It seems to me the religion got away from what Jesus did and taught, and became "Just believe he died and was raised up and you will be saved."
I don't believe in the resurrection, and I don't believe the real Jesus called himself son of God or said everyone who did not believe in him would be condemned.
The books of the bible were voted on too. Some Orthodox churches for example refuse to read anything from Revelation, they say it is not inspired and shouldn't be in the bible.
I've read that the Protestant sects have NEVER formally voted on or agreed what should and shouldn't be in, the bible in its current form was largely decided on by book publishers in the 16th century, not by the churches themselves.