Recent content by moralorel

Welcome!

My apologies. It seemed to me like you were trying to push the Gospel of John to a later date while trying to push the "Gospel of Thomas" to an earlier date. If that was not your intention than I apologize. "Q source" is the source that scholars believe the 4 gospels came from. Believers see...

Your comparison is better than my Pluto comparison.

As I told Wil, this would be a nice subject to either bump or start over on a thread. I'm super busy with my kids right now, so I'm sure Thomas would have a wealth of information on this subject. As would others. I don't want to get off the subject of Thomas right now.

And bats were probably considered birds by scientists at one time... so are we defending old classifications now? Not trying to stoke an old debate, just seeing some irony here. My comparison was simple. Trying to make the claim that the "Gospel of Thomas" is the exact same type of source as...

I find it funny that you do whatever you can to try to push the date of authorship of the 4 gospels to a later date... while trying to shove the Gospel of Thomas to an earlier date. Even the biggest skeptics of the 4 gospels admit they had some sort of Q source. At the same time the biggest...

1. I "refuse" Mark and Luke? Mark wasn't one of the 12 but he was Simon Peter's close colleague who followed him around during the events of the gospels. Therefore a witness. Luke admits that he didn't witness all of the events of the gospels. But he makes no such disclaimer about the book...

If you'd like to debate about the authors of the 4 gospels, feel free to either bump a thread on the matter (there has to be at least one on here) or start a new thread. That is if you want to debate about it. Either way, my point is quite valid. The 4 gospels are at worst second-hand...

1. Not what I said. Read what I wrote again. 2. Not my opinion. Let us use a similar analogy. You claim Pluto is the 9th planet. I point out that Pluto is classified as a dwarf planet and not considered to be the 9th planet. You dismiss it as my opinion. I'm just stating what the...

So Matthew and John never met Jesus? Weird since they were part of the original 12.

Exactly!

I'm not disagreeing with you overall statement. Just adding something. You mentioned this holding up in court. In the courts in Judea one would require at least 2 witnesses, preferably 3 witnesses to prove that an event had occurred. 4 would be even better. If all of the accounts matched up...

1. You might "think" that the 4 authors didn't have a common Q source, but most scholars (even non-believers) believe that these gospels came from a Q source. The believers see that Q source as being Jesus himself. The non-believers are still searching for a Q source that was written down...

You and I differ on the definition of a "valid 5th source". I view a valid 5th source as something that came from the same Q source, which we appear to agree that this "gospel" is definitely not from the original Q source. As you stated before, it is at LEAST a third hand account. The others...

No. It just pointed out how unexpected it was. That was all.