What are the reasons to believe Luke wrote it? You realize it wasn't credited to him till the late second century early third century. The same Christians that credited him for it, also credited him for Acts. Which has proven to be around 150 years older than Luke. Which isn't possible. So I would love to hear the reasons why.Nope, it is not just like the Gospel of Luke. Unlike the book of Thomas, there are plenty of reasons to believe that the author of Luke actually was Luke, the physician.
Secondly, even if your claim that Luke did not actually write Luke is true (which I’m not saying it is, but for the sake of argument, even if that were true) the so-called Gospel of Thomas still fails to meet any of the basic principles that determine whether or not a New Testament book was inspired and reliable.
In fact it goes against all the criteria… which is why it was generally known by early Christians to be a forgery.
The book of Thomas is a gnostic writing, and gnosticism is not Christian, it is basically anti-Christian, from a spiritual standpoint.
What are the reasons to believe Luke wrote it? You realize it wasn't credited to him till the late second century early third century. The same Christians that credited him for it, also credited him for Acts. Which has proven to be around 150 years older than Luke. Which isn't possible. So I would love to hear the reasons why.
What are those basic principles? Who created the principles? Who decides on whether something is principled enough?
I disagree. It was thrown out because it didn't meet the requirements of a select few HUMANS interpretation of what Christianity is. The same Christianity you all are involved in...
Please explain how the Gospel of Thomas is gnostic.
As that's currently me right now. A lot of liberals are frustrating me and getting on my nerves and I'm saying things that I shouldn't be saying about them, to them, and about our so called "president" if you take a look into my signature.
The problem with that is Jesus never actually wrote anything down so what you are calling his gospels are second, third... 125th accountsI don't follow the gospels. I don't follow any actual formal religion. 99% of it is dogma.
I am a believer in the Gospel of Jesus as uttered by his own words. The rest is pretty much mankind doing that whole interpretive dance thing.
Besides, why would you believe only a gospel that puts Jesus in the worst light and ignore those that put him in his best light?
I dont read stuff from zealots. I read independent sources.Before I reply to the rest of your post.... something you said needs to be clarified.
Were you claiming that Acts was written 150 years after the gospel of Luke? If so, I don't know where you're getting this stuff from. It is generally agreed upon that Luke and Acts were written roughly around the same time. Even secular sources, as far as I’ve seen, date the book of Acts in the same time period as Luke, Acts being written only slightly after Luke. Or were you saying that the book of Acts was written 150 years after Luke the man lived? If so, that too goes against the consensus among scholars, and there are many reasons for that. Again, where are you getting this stuff? Frankly it sounds like you get your information from extremely anti-Christian sources.
As far as the rest of your post, I'll try to get back to this later because I have something I have to do soon, but the answers to all your questions above are out there, if you sincerely and genuinely want to know the truth. One thing I've noticed that non-Christians and atheists do a lot is demand that others do their homework for them. I don't know if that comes from laziness, or some other reason, but anyone who genuinely wants the truth seeks it for themselves. Jesus said "seek and you will find." I absolutely believe that is true, but seeking doesn't mean only giving weight to hardcore anti-christian atheist sources, while dismissing other sources. Or choosing to only believe late-dated spurious New-Agey "gospels" that portray Jesus negatively and clearly have their own agenda, while at the same time rejecting the Gospels that were/are widely considered inspired and reliable, that point to Jesus as the Messiah.
There is no such thing as a "Trump Jesus" just like there is no such thing as a Biden or Obama or a Trump antichrist. People need to distinguish between history and present day. President Trump and Jesus had different goals. Where they were similar is that they both loved their nations and their histories.at this point christians are denying the biblical jesus for a trump jesus
Thats exactly what it said.No, not really.
If we were to compare the number of innocent folks' deaths that the Christ is supposedly responsible for, in comparison, to say, Moses, or Mohammad? The numbers don't even compare. If you read that complete Gospel, your characterization of him as going on a "murdering spree," is a bit, well, disingenuous.Thats exactly what it said.
But the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph; and he took a branch of a willow and dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered together. 2 And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said unto him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. 3 And straightway that lad withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and went unto Joseph's house. But the parents of him that was withered took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and accused him 'for that thou hast such a child which doeth such deeds.'
IV. 1 After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died.
"murdering spree" was a bit hyperbolic but it is what it is.If we were to compare the number of innocent folks' deaths that the Christ is supposedly responsible for, in comparison, to say, Moses, or Mohammad? The numbers don't even compare. If you read that complete Gospel, your characterization of him as going on a "murdering spree," is a bit, well, disingenuous.
. . . and even still, when the community had been taught those lessons of the creator? "immediately all they were made whole which had come under his curse."
For, if folks truly believe that he is the product if a divine and omniscience creator, we can not really know why he would choose to end those lives that he did, when, and why, at that time, for the creator's purposes. Why did God ask Abraham to sacrifice his only son?
For it is also stated in that gospel, that this five year old child was saddled with the knowledge and wisdom of every person's days, from beginning to end. SO? What are we to make of that? Who are we to say what activities these folks may have committed in the future had the fear of the lord not be put into their souls?
All of those curses which he performed, after he had confounded his tutor, Zacchaeus, and explained to the community his purpose, and the knowledge and wisdom of the divine he was burdened with, he undid those deaths, and things which he had done as lessons for the community.
"VIII. 1 And as the Jews were counselling Zacchaeus, the young child laughed greatly and said: Now let those bear fruit that were barren (Gr. that are thine) and let them see that were blind in heart. I am come from above that I may curse them, and call them to the things that are above, even as he commanded which hath sent me for your sakes. 2 And when the young child ceased speaking, immediately all they were made whole which had come under his curse. And no man after that durst provoke him, lest he should curse him, and he should be maimed."
These of course, are legends and parables, and I do agree with you, about early scholars having an agenda as to which to make doctrine. But it does not help with you twisting their meaning out of context.
I suppose, that is one way to look at it."murdering spree" was a bit hyperbolic but it is what it is.
He murdered people as a child. I didnt claim much more than that, so far.
Jesus was a punk ass kid up until the town was fed up with it. Then, the Pharisees slaps a bit of reality of into him, as well. Then he saw the error of his ways. Thats what i get from the Gospel. It was him maturing. Realizing his selfishness and anger wasnt the way to live. Which is part of the reason why this book got excluded. Because it shows he isnt perfect.
I dont think I twisted anything, my man.
. . . and upon this statement?He murdered people as a child. I didnt claim much more than that, so far.
No, the pharisees at the temple. His mother found him there after Jesus separated from themI suppose, that is one way to look at it.
That interaction with Zacchaeus? This doesn't sound like the confessions of a man that "slapped a bit of reality into a child. . . "
". . . I have deceived myself, thrice wretched man that I am: I strove to get me a disciple and I am found to have a master. 3 I think, O my friends, upon my shame, for that being old I have been overcome by a young child;- and I am even ready to faint and to die because of the boy, for I am not able at this present hour to look him in the face. And when all men say that I have been overcome by a little child, what have I to say? and what can I tell concerning the lines of the first letter whereof he spake to me? I am ignorant, O my friends, for neither beginning nor end of it (or him) do I know. 4 Wherefore I beseech thee, my brother Joseph, take him away unto thine house: for he is somewhat great, whether god or angel or what I should call him, I know not. . .. "
Reasons such as bumping into them walking down the street?. . . and upon this statement?
The Christ "murdering people?"
When god or prophets smote folks, for whatever its' reasons, they don't classify it as, "murder." Believers tend to defer to the divine has having its' reasons for doing what it does.
No one really accuses the creator of, "genocide," for the flood of Noah.
I believe you are an atheist or an agnostic, so you probably come at this from a different perspective.
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." -- 1 John 1:8 The question is.........simply because you become angry does that anger always end with sin? There is no sin in confronting lies and deceit.As that's currently me right now. A lot of liberals are frustrating me and getting on my nerves and I'm saying things that I shouldn't be saying about them, to them, and about our so called "president" if you take a look into my signature.
< Previous Thread