The Gospel of Thomas

[myotch]

(06-25-2012 02:51 AM)Zadig Wrote:  But that's what it is when you keep dismissing what I'm saying and insisting that it doesn't matter to me anyway because I'm an atheist.

Your atheism does call into question the validity of your objectivity. I mean no personal attack. You should be proud of your atheism, no? So,own it and move on.

Quote:No hiding. I openly state that I can.

But, you can't be particularly objective on Bible Canon and apocryphal books, can you? Case in point: you have rejected all my answers thus far on this topic. My objections to the canonicity of GofT are reasonable, even by objective standards.

Quote:First of all there's some dispute about which Gospel he was referring to.

No there's not. "Gospel entitled 'According to Thomas'" seems like the book being referred to and the book we are talking about. But further...

Quote:Secondly, that's not a quote from the Gospel of Thomas.

Ah, it does seem to be a misquote and/or from a different translation. But it is referring to the 4th verse of GofT. It's indisputable. The overall criticism H offers here rings entirely true of what GofT, verse 4 says; namely, a hidden and revealed nature of the divine that can be found in young children.

All you have to do is click the link you provided me when I had mistakenly conflated the Infancy Gospel with The Gospel of Thomas. Look down at vs. 4. See if it is reasonably the same verse as the H. quote refers to.

Now, you can be purposefully obtuse in a continued denial of this. It's your objectivity in question here. I'll leave you to the reputation you want to create.

Quote:Third, that doesn't keep it from being qualified for inclusion.

But what qualifies as Canon? Certainly, the early church councils considered this book to be apocryphal. Some Church fathers considered it to be apocryphal. The book was considered to be heretical. The gnosticism that both produced the book and promoted the book was considered heretical. Methinks you are merely fighting a losing battle on this argument. It's not canonical. It won't be canonical. The Canon is closed. Your argument is dead.

Quote:So what? He did not determine the original canon of the Catholic church. There were certain books he claimed to be divinely inspired that were not included. He wasn't the final authority.

Sure, many people had ideas about what books were divinely inspired. Even the Church Fathers. Was there any church father who considered Gospel of Thomas to be inspired? Obviously the Church Fathers and early councils were in agreement on your beloved book.

Quote:You do love the snark don't ya? Apostolic authorship was one of the things that gave great credence to a work. As I mentioned previously, from that standpoint it actually makes it more legitimate than Mark or Luke, which were not written by apostles.

St. Mark was a messenger of St. Peter, and somewhat connected to St. Paul as well. Not much more about him is known. Luke was Greek and a traveler with St. Paul. He also wrote Acts, and must have been familiar with the other Apostles as well.

Quote:What scares you about it that you're working so hard to dismiss it?

No quarter for smart atheists with dumb arguments? You are supposed to be the objective one, more in tune with logic and reason. I do await a more impressive display from you.

[That'sWhatItSays]

There is no dispute between Catholics and non-Catholics about the NT scriptures. Both sides have found little controversy (James maybe a bit disputed, but not really) in the 27 writings accepted to this day. The canon has generally been established by common Christian usage. Quotes from the early records help establish this, particularly the writings of Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and other early Christians. Was the Gospel of Thomas commonly quoted by early Christians in their arguments and letters? There is no reason for us to believe that it was.

[Zadig]

(06-25-2012 05:42 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  Was the Gospel of Thomas commonly quoted by early Christians in their arguments and letters? There is no reason for us to believe that it was.

That's because it was missing.

[Zadig]

(06-25-2012 03:40 AM)myotch Wrote:  Case in point: you have rejected all my answers thus far on this topic. My objections to the canonicity of GofT are reasonable, even by objective standards.

That's because they are purely subjective. You apply one set of standards to this book that you won't apply to the current books of the Bible. Your entire argument thus far could be summarized, "Its not in the Bible therefore it's not biblical and you don't care anyway because you're an atheist!"

Again I ask, what scares you about it that you're working so hard to dismiss it?

[myotch]

Absolutely nothing scare me about it. It's not part of the Canon. It never as been. It will never be. It's just that simple.

Objectively, we know it did not make it into the Canon.

Objectively, we know that gnosticism was a heresy condemned by the early Church.

Objectively, we know the Gospel of Thomas was considered a gnostic collection by the early Church.

Objectively, we know the Canon is currently closed.

Non-sequitor much?

[Zadig]

(06-25-2012 04:56 PM)myotch Wrote:  Objectively, we know it did not make it into the Canon.

Because it was missing.

Quote:Objectively, we know that gnosticism was a heresy condemned by the early Church.

But it's not gnostic by any other sense other than it's a gospel not included in the current canon.

Quote:Objectively, we know the Gospel of Thomas was considered a gnostic collection by the early Church.

No you don't know that.

Quote:Objectively, we know the Canon is currently closed.

Then why does it keep changing?

Quote:Non-sequitor much?

Cliche much?

So what scares you so much about it?

[myotch]

Again, it's your objectivity on the line here.

I've given proof of 3rd century condemnation of the so-called Gospel of Thomas (and the condemnation of gnosticism). If you want to read the full passage or what's available of the greater book, here ya go: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050105.htm (if you wish, concern yourself with Chapter2).

Now, this was 3rd century. The Canon of Hippo (pretty much the Canon we Catholics accept today) was late 4th century.

I am not scared by the Gospel of Thomas. It's just not Canon. It's useful in studying the gnosticism of the day. I'm puzzled by your insistence that I am somehow scared by it (not really puzzled - atheists like to get theists to paint themselves in a corner, usually by some mischaracterization).

Anyway,you won't consider the evidence. You won't try to refute my points other than to say, effectively "no it's not". I'm afraid we are at an impasse.

Thank you for this enlightening discussion. I've learned a lot.

[Zadig]

One or two people does not equate "the early church".

Seems like Christians would be excited to know that a lost gospel had been discovered and would be anxious to include it, not anxious to dismiss it. Unless of course it demonstrated that they had misinterpreted the message of Jesus for the previous 2000 years. That's a lot of egg to remove from one's collective faces.

[myotch]

Christians are in agreement on the New Testament Canon.

But thank you for playing. You definitely did your best.

[Zadig]

(06-25-2012 08:23 PM)myotch Wrote:  Christians are in agreement on the New Testament Canon.

Oh they are? How is the following verse translated in the NIV?

"However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting." Matt 17:21?

How about these?
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 21:44
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Mark 16:9-20
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24
I John 5:7

And since they are not in agreement on the OT canon, why does it even make sense to pretend they are in agreement on the NT?