Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

[MissileMan]

According to your site, the documents were 1600 years old. So Thomas lived that long?

Anyone could have written those documents.

An interesting book called "The Case for Christ" was written by an ex-atheist investigator who proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the gospels were authentic. Perhaps you could provide the same level or proof.

You were the one who claimed authenticity. The burden of proof is on you. Is your faith in the fallibility of the Bible strong enough?

Authenticity can't be used to gauge accuracy or veracity. Even though you like to imply a correlation, none exists.

 

[glockmail]

The originals were estimated to have been written around 50 AD, which is around when most of the Gospels were thought to have been written. Thomas was alive at that time.

I believe it was authentic, that is it was written by who the author whose name appears on the parchment. I do not think that the content of the gospel can be proven any more or less authentic than the Bible.

There's something that you should understand, which is that I'm saying they are as authentic as the Bible, so that they are not absolutely authentic.

I've asked you for some proof, some links, and all you've come up with is your opinion. Then you have the audacity to say that this is the same standard as the Bible, which is obviously untrue.

Get real man.

You've lost a ton of credibility with your inability to back up what you have posted.

 

[glockmail]

Authenticity can't be used to gauge accuracy or veracity. Even though you like to imply a correlation, none exists.

If its not authentic, then the other properties are moot. Therefore we need to begin with authenticity. I've asked for proof of same, not to waste time on the other unless it is warranted.

 

[Hamiltonian]

I've asked you for some proof, some links, and all you've come up with is your opinion. Then you have the audacity to say that this is the same standard as the Bible, which is obviously untrue.

Get real man.

You've lost a ton of credibility with your inability to back up what you have posted.

When looking at the synoptic problem, the links between Q and Thomas are from Q1 and Q2, so the Gospel of Thomas was likely to have been written before Q3. Q1 and Q2 are even earlier than the four gospels. There are also similarities between Paul's Epistles and the Gospel of Thomas suggesting that they are both early works. The Gospel also lacks the diction specific to the second century, and this is more evidence that it was composed even earlier.

Tell me, what reasonable doubts do you have about the book. There is more support for the Gospel of Thomas being written by Thomas than the Gospel of John being written by John. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not have the author's name recorded on them. Why do you doubt the authorship of the Gospel of Thomas yet take for granted who wrote the canonical gospels.

 

[glockmail]

When looking at the synoptic problem, the links between Q and Thomas are from Q1 and Q2, so the Gospel of Thomas was likely to have been written before Q3. Q1 and Q2 are even earlier than the four gospels. There are also similarities between Paul's Epistles and the Gospel of Thomas suggesting that they are both early works. The Gospel also lacks the diction specific to the second century, and this is more evidence that it was composed even earlier.

Tell me, what reasonable doubts do you have about the book. There is more support for the Gospel of Thomas being written by Thomas than the Gospel of John being written by John. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not have the author's name recorded on them. Why do you doubt the authorship of the Gospel of Thomas yet take for granted who wrote the canonical gospels.

I'm simply asking for some element of proof, with links, not simply your opinion or recitation of what you have read. I've read about the origin of the four Gospels myself an am reasonably assured of their authenticity, mainly for the reasons already stated.

 

[Hamiltonian]

I'm simply asking for some element of proof, with links, not simply your opinion or recitation of what you have read. I've read about the origin of the four Gospels myself an am reasonably assured of their authenticity, mainly for the reasons already stated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didymus_Judas_Thomas
http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-5g.htm
Ehrman, Bart (2003). Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament
Ehrman, Bart (2003). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings

 

[glockmail]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem...

None of this is proof, just an explanation of what this text is. I shall not waste my time reviewing your other sources unless you provide a more focused proof.

An interesting quote from a link in your source:

Elaine Pagels, in her book Beyond Belief, argues that the Thomas gospel at first fell victim to the needs of the early Christian community for solidarity in the face of persecution, then to the will of the Emperor Constantine, who at the Council of Nicea in 325, wanted an end to the sectarian squabbling and a universal Christian creed. She goes on to point out that in spite of it being left out of the Catholic canon, being banned and sentenced to burn, many of the mystical elements have proven to reappear perennially in the works of mystics like Jacob Boehme, Teresa of Avila and Saint John of the Cross (as long as they did not deny the uniqueness and divinity of Jesus). She concludes that the Thomas gospel gives us a rare glimpse into the diversity of beliefs in the early Christian community, an alternative perspective to the Johannine gospel and a check on what many modern Christians take for granted as being heretical. However the church at large considers the Thomas gospel not as a reflection of "Christian diversity" but as an example of one of the early heresies that attacked the church.

[emp. mine]

 

[Hamiltonian]

None of this is proof, just an explanation of what this text is. I shall not waste my time reviewing your other sources unless you provide a more focused proof.

An interesting quote from a link in your source:

[emp. mine]

Well obviously the Church doesn't like it since it conflicts with the Bible.

How much proof do you want. The first article explains how Q is relevant in the context of my previous statement of Thomas and its similarities to Q1 and Q2.

The proof is all there. If you want the big stuff, it's in the two books that I listed. Read them, for they contain a large amount of proof with regard to my claims, and most importantly, contextual analysis. Come back and tell me what you disagree with in the books.

 

[eots]

I am more interested in how much it has been pr oven right

 

[eots]

I am more interested in how much it has been proved right

 

[glockmail]

Well obviously the Church doesn't like it since it conflicts with the Bible.

How much proof do you want. The first article explains how Q is relevant in the context of my previous statement of Thomas and its similarities to Q1 and Q2.

The proof is all there. If you want the big stuff, it's in the two books that I listed. Read them, for they contain a large amount of proof with regard to my claims, and most importantly, contextual analysis. Come back and tell me what you disagree with in the books.

Sure, troll. I'll do all your work for you, read your books and get back to you in a month with a thorough analysis.

If you can’t be specific I’ll have to assume that you simply can’t back up your claims.

But I’ll entertain this: if the Thomas Gospel was an accepted part of the Bible, then how specifically would that make the Bible incorrect?

 

[glockmail]

I am more interested in how much it has been proved right

Then you've entered the wrong thread.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Sure, troll. I'll do all your work for you, read your books and get back to you in a month with a thorough analysis.

If you can’t be specific I’ll have to assume that you simply can’t back up your claims.

But I’ll entertain this: if the Thomas Gospel was an accepted part of the Bible, then how specifically would that make the Bible incorrect?

Check out the books. They back up everything I've said about the Gospel and give proof the the Gospel of Thomas was written by St. Thomas. You told me to read the "Case for Christ" and refute it, so you're being a bit hypocritical. I'll just assume that you're faith isn't strong enough to read those books. If you really cared as deeply as you do about this matter wouldn't you take your time to read these books?

For the answer to your second question about the contradiction between the Bible and the Gospel of Thomas, read "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas" (2003) by Elaine Pagels. She was a student of the author of the previous books I mentioned.

 

[jillian]

Sure, troll. I'll do all your work for you, read your books and get back to you in a month with a thorough analysis.

If you can’t be specific I’ll have to assume that you simply can’t back up your claims.

But I’ll entertain this: if the Thomas Gospel was an accepted part of the Bible, then how specifically would that make the Bible incorrect?

Amazing how you're still totally missing the point. It must take huge energy to keep up that type of fallacious argument.

 

[glockmail]

Check out the books. They back up everything I've said about the Gospel and give proof the the Gospel of Thomas was written by St. Thomas. You told me to read the "Case for Christ" and refute it, so you're being a bit hypocritical. I'll just assume that you're faith isn't strong enough to read those books. If you really cared as deeply as you do about this matter wouldn't you take your time to read these books?

For the answer to your second question about the contradiction between the Bible and the Gospel of Thomas, read "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas" (2003) by Elaine Pagels. She was a student of the author of the previous books I mentioned.

And just where did I say that?

 

[glockmail]

Amazing how you're still totally missing the point. It must take huge energy to keep up that type of fallacious argument.

This thread but be sarting to stink, to attract liberals like sh-- attracts flies.

 

[jillian]

This thread but be sarting to stink, to attract liberals like sh-- attracts flies.

You truly are a moron. Find a fundie site to post on if you have a problem with people responding to you. (And I'd remind you that lots of us were here waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before you. You're the one who showed up to troll).

 

[glockmail]

You truly are a moron. Find a fundie site to post on if you have a problem with people responding to you. (And I'd remind you that lots of us were here waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before you. You're the one who showed up to troll).

Insults tinged with elitism. Classic liberal.

The reason why I choose not to respond to you, Jilly, is that you have chosen to pick and choose answers to the questions that I have given you. Therefore you have zero credibility with on the glockster scale.

 

[MissileMan]

The Truth is rarely so simple.

Apparently, you don't have a clue what truth is. In the case of the question about the great flood, the truth is either a) The biblical account is true, and all mankind except for those on the ark was destroyed OR b) The biblical account is untrue. It really is that simple.

Trying to muddy the waters with claims of complexity in order to avoid answering the question has weakened your argument to the point of crumbling.

 

[Hamiltonian]

And just where did I say that?

An interesting book called "The Case for Christ" was written by an ex-atheist investigator who proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the gospels were authentic. Perhaps you could provide the same level or proof.

You were the one who claimed authenticity. The burden of proof is on you. Is your faith in the fallibility of the Bible strong enough?

You asked me to provide the same level of proof as "The Case for Christ," which is a book. So I cited several books and then you criticized me for giving you a book to read. That's hypocritical.

You keep arguing that "The Case for Christ" proves something beyond a reasonable doubt. To be able to counter that argument I would have to go and read your book and tell you where it is wrong.