The Gospel of Thomas and Philip

[Rise]

How can both Israel and Jesus be the son of God?

I don't understand how your question is relevant to what I posted.
Could you please elaborate on what you are asking?

 

[allfoak]

On what historical basis do you come to that conclusion?

There is no historical evidence that the gospel of thomas was anything other than a 3rd century forgery.

The authentic four Gospels we have are witnessed to by church writers in the late 1st and early 2nd century (Clement, Polycarp, Papias).

All throughout the 2nd century we have writings (From writings like Justin Martyr) that all affirm unanimously the four Gospels we have. No other "gospels" are ever seen to be up for consideration as authentic in the early church history.

All of these writers and early church documents, when writing about theological issues, only ever reflect the truth found in the four Gospels. None of it ever affirms the contradictions found in the gospel of thomas.

We have physical fragments and copies of John, Matthew, and Revelation that all date between 100 and 200 AD. In addition to an almost complete copy of Paul's writings from about 200 AD.

We have a physical document called the Muratorian Fragment, which is dated to the 2nd century and gives a canon list of scripture that is the NT we have today minus only four books (James, 1/2 Peter, Hebrews).

Where's the pedigree of theology and history that can trace the gospel of thomas back into the 1st century? There is none. The earliest mention we have is from the church in the 3rd century making reference to a heretical gospel of thomas.

What reason could you possibly have to believe the gospel of thomas represents the original 1st century truth of Jesus, in light of all the historical evidence that says otherwise?

I don't concern myself with historical evidence.
I make my own decision based upon the results of doing what the text says to do.
In other words.. I test things for myself.
It seems to me anyone who trusts church authority is just asking to be deceived.

 

[Rise]

I don't concern myself with historical evidence.

You made three claims in your previous post:
1. That the Bible has been corrupted.
2. The the gospel of thomas represents more accurately what the original followers of Jesus taught.
3. That contradictions don't matter.

You're trying to make claims about history, but you admit you have no evidence that those claims are true.
-You have no evidence that the Bible has been corrupted from what was first taught by Jesus.
-You have no evidence that the gospel of thomas represents the original revelation of God to the church.

You should, instead, rephrase your position to: "I just don't like what the Bible says, but I like what the gospel of thomas says".

That may very well be how you feel, but feelings don't determine what truth is. Where's the evidence that the gospel of thomas is a more true representation of what Jesus said and did?

And just from a logical perspective, your third point falls on itself: 1+1 cannot equal 2 but also equal 5.

The Bible is very clear when it talks about a future physical resurrection, day of judgement, and new reigning order of the saints with Jesus.
The Bible is very clear when it talks about Jesus being the only one who could be considered the Lord and Teacher of your life.
The gospel of thomas cannot also be true when it denies those two foundational pillars of the Biblical message.
One or the other is false: And the OT/NT were around long before "thomas", with all historical sources we have affirming what they say as being what the early 1st/2nd century church believed and taught.

I make my own decision based upon the results of doing what the text says to do.
In other words.. I test things for myself.

What do you believe the gospel of thomas tells you to do that the Bible doesn't?
I agree it is telling you some different things (even though much of it is just ripped out of the Bible and reworded anyway, and most of it is just generic statements of no consequence), but I am curious what specifically about the gospel of thomas you like so much more in comparison with the Bible.

It seems to me anyone who trusts church authority is just asking to be deceived.

I detect you are confused about the sources I put up.
Those sources don't represent "church authority" in the Roman Catholic sense of having the authority to make decrees and enforce them.
The 2nd century sources I mentioned come from a time when the Christians were a persecuted minority, with no ability to force anyone to believe anything.

As such, the fact that we find such uniformity of the canon and teachings from this era is testament to the fact that it represents a genuine 1st century apostalic source.

 

[allfoak]

You made three claims in your previous post:
1. That the Bible has been corrupted.
2. The the gospel of thomas represents more accurately what the original followers of Jesus taught.
3. That contradictions don't matter.

You're trying to make claims about history, but you admit you have no evidence that those claims are true.
-You have no evidence that the Bible has been corrupted from what was first taught by Jesus.
-You have no evidence that the gospel of thomas represents the original revelation of God to the church.

You should, instead, rephrase your position to: "I just don't like what the Bible says, but I like what the gospel of thomas says".

That may very well be how you feel, but feelings don't determine what truth is. Where's the evidence that the gospel of thomas is a more true representation of what Jesus said and did?

And just from a logical perspective, your third point falls on itself: 1+1 cannot equal 2 but also equal 5.

The Bible is very clear when it talks about a future physical resurrection, day of judgement, and new reigning order of the saints with Jesus.
The Bible is very clear when it talks about Jesus being the only one who could be considered the Lord and Teacher of your life.
The gospel of thomas cannot also be true when it denies those two foundational pillars of the Biblical message.
One or the other is false: And the OT/NT were around long before "thomas", with all historical sources we have affirming what they say as being what the early 1st/2nd century church believed and taught.



What do you believe the gospel of thomas tells you to do that the Bible doesn't?
I agree it is telling you some different things (even though most of it is just ripped out of the Bible and reworded anyway), but I am curious what specifically about the gospel of thomas you like so much more in comparison with the Bible.



I detect you are confused about the sources I put up.
Those sources don't represent "church authority" in the Roman Catholic sense of having the authority to make decrees and enforce them.
The 2nd century sources I mentioned come from a time when the Christians were a persecuted minority, with no ability to force anyone to believe anything.

As such, the fact that we find such uniformity of the canon and teachings from this era is testament to the fact that it represents a genuine 1st century apostalic source.

I have already looked into all of these things years ago.
I don't need to do it again.
Once i know i am going in the wrong direction i don't keep going that way.

I cannot prove to you anything using the words of man.
That includes using the bible or any other book.
Why is it do you think that these arguments have been going on for so long?
Do you really think i haven't studied all of these things already?
I have been around almost as long as some of these arguments.

There is only one way to find the truth.
We have to get to know who we are.
The truth is located within all of us.
If we cannot find the truth within ourselves then where can we find it?
Do you think we can find the truth in a book somewhere?
Do you think we can trust what we are told?
How are we even supposed to recognize the truth in anything we see or hear if we cannot find it inside ourselves?
People are deceived into thinking that someone is going to tell them the truth.
Study all you like, it is nothing but ink on paper.

The real study is the study of self.

The Gospel of Thomas
saying 3:
3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you.
Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father.
But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

 

[allfoak]

"Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error.
If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing.
So also when speaking about baptism they say, "Baptism is a great thing," because if people receive it they will live".
The Gospel of Philip

 

[Rise]

I have already looked into all of these things years ago.
I don't need to do it again.
Once i know i am going in the wrong direction i don't keep going that way.

I cannot prove to you anything using the words of man.
That includes using the bible or any other book.
Why is it do you think that these arguments have been going on for so long?
Do you really think i haven't studied all of these things already?
I have been around almost as long as some of these arguments.

There is only one way to find the truth.
We have to get to know who we are.
The truth is located within all of us.
If we cannot find the truth within ourselves then where can we find it?
Do you think we can find the truth in a book somewhere?
Do you think we can trust what we are told?
How are we even supposed to recognize the truth in anything we see or hear if we cannot find it inside ourselves?
People are deceived into thinking that someone is going to tell them the truth.
Study all you like, it is nothing but ink on paper.

The real study is the study of self.

So you're just confirming what I said:
You don't have any reason for us to doubt the historical veracity of the Bible, or any reason to believe in the historical veracity of the gospel of thomas/philip.
They can't both be true either, because of blatant, clear, and foundational opposing views in regards to theology.

You are free to have an opinion, but you shouldn't state your opinion as a historical fact if you're not willing or able to defend it as a historical fact.


I would, however, still be interested in your answer to my question:
What do you believe the gospel of thomas tells you that the Bible doesn't, and why do you prefer that?
I'm curious what you think is so great about these 3rd century forgeries.

"Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error.
If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing.
So also when speaking about baptism they say, "Baptism is a great thing," because if people receive it they will live".

1 Thessalonians 4:16

That's a great example of why both the Bible and the "gospel of philip" cannot be true at the same time. On the previous page I gave you probably two dozen verses from the Bible, from the OT to the gospels to the epistles, that teach the exact opposite of what the gospel of philip and thomas are teaching about the resurrection.

Daniel 12:2
Isaiah 26:19
Psalms 71:20

The challenge to your theology is even more insurmountable when you are forced to reconcile it with the OT verses on the subject of the future bodily resurrection after dying, because even the most unbelieving and Bible-hating "scholar" can't force the date of the gospel of thomas back into the 2nd century BC where we've recovered multitudes of OT documents, including Isaiah and Daniel.

 

[allfoak]

So you're just confirming what I said:
You don't have any reason for us to doubt the historical veracity of the Bible, or any reason to believe in the historical veracity of the gospel of thomas/philip.
They can't both be true either, because of blatant, clear, and foundational opposing views in regards to theology.

You are free to have an opinion, but you shouldn't state your opinion as a historical fact if you're not willing or able to defend it as a historical fact.


I would, however, still be interested in your answer to my question:
What do you believe the gospel of thomas tells you that the Bible doesn't, and why do you prefer that?
I'm curious what you think is so great about these 3rd century forgeries.


1 Thessalonians 4:16

That's a great example of why both the Bible and the "gospel of philip" cannot be true at the same time. On the previous page I gave you probably two dozen verses from the Bible, from the OT to the gospels to the epistles, that teach the exact opposite of what the gospel of philip and thomas are teaching about the resurrection.

Daniel 12:2
Isaiah 26:19
Psalms 71:20

The challenge to your theology is even more insurmountable when you are forced to reconcile it with the OT verses on the subject of the future bodily resurrection after dying, because even the most unbelieving and Bible-hating scholar can't force the date of the gospel of thomas back into the 2nd century BC where we've recovered multitudes of OT documents, including Isaiah and Daniel.

The Bible is corrupt
And what we are being told about the other texts are lies..
You dont know that because you have never tested any of it for yourself
If you had we would not be having this conversation.
That's all I have to say about the subject.
I am not here to amuse you.
If you want to know why I choose to accept these texts as true then do what they tell you to do and find out for yourself.
It would be a complete waste of time to argue with you about the words of men and their so called authority.

 

[Rise]

The Bible is corrupt
And what we are being told about the other texts are lies..

There you go again making declarations of opinion as though they are factual statements.

I would ask you what evidence you have of the Bible being corrupt, but we both know you don't have any.

You dont know that because you have never tested any of it for yourself
If you had we would not be having this conversation.

Jesus said his disciples would pray for the sick and see them healed.
I've tested this and seen it's true.

The Bible says we can pray to God and receive answers that are in line with His will.
I've tested this and seen it's true.

Jesus said his disciples would be set free from bondage to sin, transformed to be more like Christ, living in obedience to God with greater peace, love, and joy.
I've tested this and seen it's true.

The Bible says if we live according to God's wisdom, that things will go better for us than if we live according to the world's wisdom.
I've tested this and seen it's true in everything from provision to relationships.

What else would you like me to test from the Bible?

What have you tested and not found to be true? How have you tested it? Maybe you are doing something wrong. If it's not working for you, God has placed people in the world to help you troubleshoot - just find a Bible-believing, spirit-filled, pastor or mature follower of Jesus.