Notes on God in the Gospel of John

[Clear]

1) REGARDING THE EARLY HEBREW BELIEF IN GOD, IN THE MESSIAH, AND IN THE SPIRIT OF GOD (I.E. A TRINITY OF INDIVIDUALS)

Clear said: "THE JEWS DESCRIBE THEIR BELIEF IN A GOD AND SON IN HEAVEN BEFORE THE WORLD WAS CREATED
In post #14 I gave the example from Jewish Enoch of 300 b.c. where the Prophet says he sees God the Father walking together with his son, the Messiah: “At that place, I saw “he who is of primordial days,” and his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels.”

Thomas replied: Actually I think you'll find that scholars believe that the Book of Parables (Enoch chapters 37-71), are from the 1st century CE, not the 3rd BCE. Scholars point out that these chapters were not found among the Enoch materials at Qumran, and that the parables shows a development of ideas in the Book of The Watchers ... but all this is incidental.

You asked for data supporting my claim that the Hebrews believed in God, they believed in the Messiah and They believed in the Spirit of God. Obviously they did from their textual descriptions of their belief in God, in the Messiah, and in the Spirit of God.

Having said that, I agree your comments of dating are incidental to and do not affect actual Hebrew doctrines on the Father, the Messiah, and the Spirit of God.

Though scholars date the oldest portions of Hebrew 1 Enoch from 2-300 b.c., Extant Enoch is, (as I’ve mentioned), a syncretic document, and other parts come from other eras and other writers, this is true of modern bibles as well.



2) WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE COPTIC VERSION OF ABBATON WAS NOT TAKEN FROM A PRIOR NARRATIVE AS THE TEXT ITSELF CLAIMS?
Thomas said: “all the evidence points to the fact that no such Greek original existed ...”
Clear replied: "Evidence? What actual evidence are you referring to? You've offered claims, but what evidence are you referring to?
Thomas replied: “The argument of the scholars' view of the Coptic pseudepigrapha .”

You've mentioned the Scholars claim. What I asked for what for you to provide the actual evidence for this claim?
What is the actual evidence you are using from the Scholars to show the Copts were not using a prior source text as they claimed to have done?



3) THE COPTS WHO WROTE THE NARRATIVE, TELL US THEY TOOK THE NARRATIVE FROM EARLIER WRITINGS.
Clear said: “Since the text begins with the Copts themselves relating they are writing the narrative that is “The discourse which Ara Timothy…pronounced on the making of Abbaton…” (the angel of death) and they write that “…the Archbishop…went into Jerusalem to worship” and “search through the books which were in the library of Jerusalem, and which had been made by our holy fathers the Apostles, and deposited them therein…”

What actual evidence do you have that they did not take their narrative from prior writings as they claim they did?”
Thomas replied: “Just because a painting has 'Picasso' written on the bottom, that does not make it a Picasso.”

I agree with the logic that not all things are as they seem.
However, what I asked for was your actual evidence to support your claim.
What is YOUR evidence they did not take their narrative from prior writings as they claimed to have done?


4) REGARDING THOMAS' INTIMATION THAT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA ARE "FICTIONAL". REMEMBER, THE BIBLE ITSELF IS "PSEUDEPIGRAPHA"

Regarding your discussion of pseudepigrapha, remember, your point applies to ALL ancient literature, including the bible.
The criticisms that apply to ancient, sacred, literature applies to almost all of sacred literature.
This can turn into a theological rabbit hole very quickly because such criteria has been equally applied to biblical texts as well since they are also pseudepigraphic.

For example, the specific criticism that scholars tend to view certain sacred, ancient text as uninspired because one cannot tell who wrote it applies to biblical literature.

If you simply google the sentence: “Do scholars believe the bible is pseudepigraphical” the following AI comments returns the following answer:

"Yes, many scholars consider some books within the Bible to be pseudepigrapha, particularly certain New Testament letters attributed to Paul, such as Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. While the gospels and other anonymous books are not considered pseudepigrapha, the letters of the New Testament that state an author but are widely believed to have been written by someone else are. Conservative scholars may not consider any biblical books pseudepigrapha, as they accept the traditional authorship.

New Testament examples
Letters attributed to Paul:
Many scholars consider Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus to be pseudepigraphal because they were likely written by a later author in Paul's name.

Anonymous books:
Books like the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not considered pseudepigrapha because they were written anonymously, and the attributions came later. Similarly, the Epistle of James and Hebrews are considered anonymous, not pseudepigraphal.

Old Testament examples

• Some books of the Old Testament, such as Daniel and parts of Isaiah, are considered by some scholars to have been written later than the purported authors, but not necessarily pseudepigraphal, according to Reddit users.
• Other Old Testament works like the Testament of Job, which is not included in the Bible, are considered pseudepigrapha, notes Text & Canon Institute.

What this means for biblical interpretation

• Whether or not a book is considered pseudepigraphal does not necessarily mean it contains false information, but that the authorship is different from the one traditionally associated with it.
• Some scholars differentiate between pseudepigrapha (falsely ascribed) and anonymity (absence of author's name), says Faith Pulpit, notes Quora.

This distinction is important for biblical studies and is a source of ongoing debate among scholars.


SO, while such phrases as "Scholars Say" or "Scholars believe", can be bantered about, the really important claim is: "What actual evidence do Scholars have for making a specific claim."
"Scholars say..." is not actual evidence, but merely the opinion of someone who feels they have evidence for their opinion.
I am asking for actual evidence for your claims.

What actual evidence do you have for your opinions that Coptic Abbaton was not taken from an earlier text as the authors claimed?

 

[Longfellow]

But he does use the article:
ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου

Hart's translation of the NT offers this commentary:
Here Thomas addresses Jesus as "ho theos", which unambiguously means "God" in the absolute sense. … He addresses him also as "ho kyrios", again, with the honorific article, which also happens to be the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Adonai in the Septuagint, the preferred circumlocution for God's unutterable name, the tetragrammaton (YHWH). Thomas's words here, then, appear to be the final theological statement of the Gospel at its "first ending."


OK. I'm not entirely sure I follow, but OK.

I'm not disputing your point, but I think we'd have to discuss it against the wider idea of Jewish thinking in the 1st century, and 2nd Temple Judaism especially, that regarded the One True God – Jahweh – as utterly transcendent, and that divine manifestations since the days of Moses have been more discreet, and more in the line of oracular and prophetic theophanies, albeit none matching the glory of pillars of fire or columns of smoke, of plagues against particular Egyptian deities, and stuff like that.

Coupled with the idea that 'it's pneuma all the way down' – and we get something akin to the idea of the Christian essence and energies, each distinct with regard to the other, one being God in Himself and the other God as He reveals Himself in the Cosmos, but both being God.

Yeah, my theory is shattered, and it’s just as well. I was forgetting that no theory can capture or encompass what God says about Himself, His actions, and our relationships with Him.

(later) I still feel that it’s just as important for people to be aware of the distinctions as to be aware of the oneness.

 

[Thomas]

@TheLightWithin – I wanted to continue on the theme addressed to you above:

Expanding the biblical storyworld

An important effect (whether intended or not) of these narratives was to contribute to expansion of the Christian storyworld. In receipt of their catechetic teachings, and biblical readings, and following the liturgical cycle, the reader constructs a world in which the stories are told. This storyworld is based on canonical texts, and it is this world in which the reader will locate the later narratives, effectively expanding it. The works are more often supernatural in flavour, of events before the Fall, or discourses of Jesus on the Mount of Olives between his resurrection and ascension. Another takes us on a spiritual journey with the Apostle John, in the company of the Archangel Michael.

These works, by nature trans-narrative and trans-authorial, enlarge the storyworld and add depth, making it, in a sense, more real.

They are notably linked to the Liturgical Cycle, to the feast-days and festivals in the life of the community, and so serve to build a particular sense of Coptic identity and awareness, a sense of belonging to that world. Their primary purpose, I would suggest, is pastoral and pedigogic.

The more Coptic narratives, the richer the Coptic storyworld.

These books were not so much inspired, as intended to inspire the religious imagination.

Invested with patristic as well as apostolic authority, they offer their readers access to the apostles’ own accounts, and would provide a means by which readers might be transported into the biblical storyworld far more effectively than through sermons and exhortations of the presbyter.

Importantly, we might expect this effect to have been significant even among those readers who realised that the pseudodocumentary accounts were not literally true.

 

[Thomas]

Yeah, my theory is shattered ...

Hey, look at it not so much as 'shattered' but as a seedcase or nut which has cracked open to allow something to grow.

Or maybe a lump of stuff that's shattered to reveal a jewel ... actually ...

Look on it not as shattering but polishing jewels.

That's how we grow,
Rubbing shoulders with what we know.
Hey-ho,
And on we go.

(I'll shut up now)

 

[Thomas]

Hi Clear –

Really, I'd like to bring large segments of this to a close, as we're re-walking old ground, in circles.

So from here on, if I do not reply, it's not rudeness, but simply because I don't think there's any more fruit to be had.

1) REGARDING THE EARLY HEBREW BELIEF IN GOD, IN THE MESSIAH, AND IN THE SPIRIT OF GOD (I.E. A TRINITY OF INDIVIDUALS)

I accept the Jews believe in God, in the messiah, and the spirit of God. I do not accept that the Messiah is necessarily a divine being, as Rabbinical Judaism is insisted he will be a purely human being. While Daniel presents a possibly-divine figure, and Enoch declares himself as the Son of Man, Jewish commentaries also regarded the 'Son of Man' as a designation of the Archangel Michael, and also of the People of Israel, so there were a variety of beliefs.

Most references to the Spirit of God infer a power, rather than an individual, possessing personal characteristics, although God and His Holy Spirit were often described in anthropomorphic terms.

If you can show me a Jewish text with all three in a particular relation, akin to the Christian Trinity, then we have something to discuss.

In the absence of such, I see that we have different opinions, and see no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Adrian Mole]

I'm just curious about Thomas and his time travelling. It's now 3:38 pm but Thomas' last three posts are timed at 5:13 pm, 5:27 pm and 7:17 pm (today).

Is the gift of travelling to the future a 'prize' awarded when you get 100+ Points?

(OK - Maybe my profile is set to UTC+6, because that's the time-zone in which I first signed up to this forum.)

 

[TheLightWithin]

Thomas said: “Nevertheless, I see no reference in Jewish literature equivalent to the Trinity in Christian literature.”

Yes, I agree that you've already mentioned multiple times that you do not see a trinity in the Jewish belief in the trinity of God, the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit.

Is there anything in the Jewish literature to suggest that G-d, Mosiach, and the Holy Spirit are considered a trinity?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Thomas said: “Nevertheless, I see no reference in Jewish literature equivalent to the Trinity in Christian literature.”

In post #14 I gave the example from Jewish Enoch of 300 b.c. where the Prophet says he sees God the Father walking together with his son, the Messiah:

Did the Jewish tradition actually see Mosiach as G-d's son? Is that NOT a later Christian development?

“And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. And he will open all the hidden storerooms; for the Lord of the Spirits has chosen him

The Son of Man. Is this the same?

This Son of Man whom you have seen is the One who would remove the Kings and the mighty ones from their comfortable seats, and the strong ones from their thrones.

Again, the Son of Man.

This scripture describes their belief in The Father and his Son, the messiah/Christ in the Heavenly realm.

Does it?

The Jewish Dead Sea Scrolls also witness to us that the ancient temple centric Jews also believed in the Holy Spirit: “I give thanks to You, O LORD, for You have sustained me with your strength, and your Holy Spirit. 4Q429 Frag. 1 Col. 15:6

4Q427 of the Dead Sea Scrolls relates this same Jewish Doctrine: “And I, the instructor, have known you, O my God, by the spirit which you gave me, and I have listened faithfully to your wondrous council by your holy spirit.

The Holy Spirit being the power of G-d rather than a distinct personality as a member of a Trinity. Was that not a later Christian development?

 

[TheLightWithin]

@TheLightWithin – I wanted to continue on the theme addressed to you above:

Expanding the biblical storyworld

An important effect (whether intended or not) of these narratives was to contribute to expansion of the Christian storyworld. In receipt of their catechetic teachings, and biblical readings, and following the liturgical cycle, the reader constructs a world in which the stories are told. This storyworld is based on canonical texts, and it is this world in which the reader will locate the later narratives, effectively expanding it.

Yes, that's definitely what I think is happening when people quote passages from the bible and then are puzzled when others do not know what they are trying to say. It's as if the person quoting the bible is using the context of a storyworld that is in their mind, maybe the minds of many in their own community, but I or others may not be immersed in this storyworld.

This reminds me of something - when I was a really little girl, I heard somebody talking about the bible and asked my mom what the bible was.
She told me "It is a storybook"
I asked if she could read it to me, and she said it was long and confusing and did not have pictures.
But she did find a children's bible with pictures for me to look at.

 

[Longfellow]

Hey, look at it not so much as 'shattered' but as a seedcase or nut which has cracked open to allow something to grow.

Or maybe a lump of stuff that's shattered to reveal a jewel ... actually ...

Look on it not as shattering but polishing jewels.

That's how we grow,
Rubbing shoulders with what we know.
Hey-ho,
And on we go.

(I'll shut up now)

Going back to another topic between us, I’ve said before that I think that what Jesus wants most for us and the best life we can live is in service and obedience to Him, learning together to live the way He says to live. As I understood it then, you don’t agree with thinking of Jesus as a person to serve and obey. I’ll say it differently, although for me it’s equivalent. I think that what God wants most for us and the best life we can live is in service and obedience to Him, learning together to live the way He says to live. The way we know how to do that is from Jesus. One disagreement among people who agree with that might be in *how* to learn from Jesus, for example what role Paul, churches and church traditions play in that. Currently I’m thinking that one good way is in small group study circles using spiritual growth materials from Christian bookstores.

(later) Another way is with mentoring. We can all be mentors for each other, and that’s one way that everyone can benefit from study circles even if they don’t participate in them.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Longfellow —

I think God wants our love. Wants us to come to Him, much like the prodigal son. Service and obedience falls in line with that, but if one comes from a place of love, then service and obedience take on a different light.

I might well be over-thinking it.

 

[Thomas]

More on the Coptic apocrypha –

While the upside view of this, from a contemporary perspective, is the creation of a Coptic storyworld for a community that needed some sense of identity to survive – the break with the larger communion after Chalcedon (451) and then the encroaching Islamic expansion, which saw local dialects (eg Aramaic, Coptic) displaced by Arabic, this is not to say that anything written was received whole-heartedly.

There are also references in the apocrypha to works that are known to have existed, but it is not clear that the reference is actually based on knowledge of the text, or whether the 'content' of the referred-to text is assumed or made up by the scribe.

The 21st Exegesis on the Virgin Mary, attributed pseudepigraphically to Cyril of Jerusalem, but probably originating in Egypt at least a couple of centuries later. In this text, pseudo-Cyril confronts a heretical monk who is said to be using the Gospel of the Hebrews to teach that the Virgin Mary was not a human being, but rather a heavenly power.

While a text known as the Gospel of the Hebrews is quoted by much earlier authorities, the passage quoted in this homily is almost certainly an invention of this particular work, as it bears no resemblance to earlier references to, or quotations from, any work by this title.

Not only does pseudo-Cyril condemn the Gospel of the Hebrews as heretical, there is also an anti-Jewish polemic which was quite common in contemporary Coptic pseudepigraphical homilies.

Shenoute of Atripe, archimandrite of the so-called White Monastery, in the late 4th/early 5th centuries, refers to a "Gospel of Jesus, the Son of God, the Offspring of the Angels" in his anti-heretical treatise known as "I Am Amazed." Polemics against the use of apocrypha is one of its main features. It seems he found fault enough with the title, the idea that Christ was an offspring of angels, to declare the book profoundly heretical. Since Shenoute says nothing about its contents, it could be that this book never actually existed outside his own polemics.

Around 600CE, John of parallos, a bishop in Lower Egypt, argued that apocryphal literature should be banned. He describes his heretical opponents:
"... these blasphemous people are truly more evil than the Jews and the lawless unclean pagans. For they have written books with all sorts of blasphemies, such as these: The (book) called the Investiture of Michael (also by ps-Timothy, along with the "Abbaton"), the Teachings of John, the Laughter of the Apostles, the Doctrines of Adam, and the Counsel of the Savior, and all the blasphemous words they have written down. They have abandoned the light of the Holy Scriptures by which the prophets and the apostles and all the fathers, the teachers of the church, have strengthened the orthodox faith."
(John of Parallos, On the Archangel Michael and on the Heretical Books that are read in the Churches of the Orthodox)

It's quite probable that these texts actually existed, as we have a copy of the Investiture of the Archangel Michael, and John of Parallos’ description of its contents matches the version now held.

Among the ideas in the Investiture of Michael which John of Parallos regarded as heretical, was that of Michael being invested in place of the Devil, who allegedly had this position originally, but who lost it due to his refusal to worship Adam.

In a pseudepigraphical work attributed to Gregory of Nazianzus, said to have been written in response to a question from an archimandrite named Eusebius, who is supposed to have resided in a monastery at Mt. Ararat in Armenia, Ps-Gregory attributes this idea to the arch-heretic Mani, and goes on to refute this idea by arguing that the Devil fell prior to the creation of Adam.

While Ps-Gregory refutes what he claims to be Mani’s heretical teachings, he also engages in his own apocryphal embellishments of this part of the biblical storyworld at the same time as he claims that this part of history was not known to the apostles. However, rather than attributing this information to a written work, this text appeals instead to direct revelation following intense prayer.

Similarly, in Ps-Peter of Alexandria’s homily, On Riches, the idea that Michael replaced the Devil is attributed to the heretic Enotes, and a book of "Genesis" this heretic is supposed to have written, in opposition to the true Book of Genesis, written (as was then assumed) by Moses. While the idea that the devil refused to worship Adam is attributed to another heretic named Sietes.

+++

We can see from this that arguments over the correct teaching raged in both apocryphal and non-apocryphal works, and with references to both real and fictional heretical books and their supposed authors.

One might suggest that as long as an apocrypha did not actually contradict orthodox doctrine, then that was OK. Clearly, where the apocrypha does just that, then the monastic houses, often sources of their own apocryphal writings, speak out against it.

 

[Thomas]

It is not always easy to distinguish between books that never existed, and books that are simply lost to us, but which might have existed at the time they were being referred to.

The question, however, is what difference it makes.

Fictional books might not exist in the world, but they do in people’s imagination. Moreover, things that only exist in people’s imagination can sometimes have an impact on their attitudes, beliefs and emotions that may be just as powerful as references to things that exist in reality.

Research has shown that stories about "invented characters in imaginary situations influence readers’ judgments about people, problems, and institutions in the everyday world."

I am reminded of a story told by an actor who played a villain in a long-running and hugely popular soap on TV. Someone crossed the road to confront him about his conduct in recent episodes of the programme. He explained that he was an actor, playing a part in a tv show, only to be told, in no uncertain terms that, nevertheless, he was an awful man and ought to be in prison.

A scholar points out: "Once in memory, storyworld assertions may migrate to a reasoner’s real-world belief space when they are temporarily dissociated from the nonfactive context in which they are embedded." In other words, fictional references to books, or references to fictional books, could easily influence impressions of the existence and availability of additional literature and their contents and authorship.

 

[Thomas]

2) WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE COPTIC VERSION OF ABBATON WAS NOT TAKEN FROM A PRIOR NARRATIVE AS THE TEXT ITSELF CLAIMS?
Thomas said: “all the evidence points to the fact that no such Greek original existed ...”
Clear replied: "Evidence? What actual evidence are you referring to? You've offered claims, but what evidence are you referring to?
Thomas replied: “The argument of the scholars' view of the Coptic pseudepigrapha .”

You've mentioned the Scholars claim. What I asked for what for you to provide the actual evidence for this claim?

Which I did.

What is the actual evidence you are using from the Scholars to show the Copts were not using a prior source text as they claimed to have done?

Which I did.

3) THE COPTS WHO WROTE THE NARRATIVE, TELL US THEY TOOK THE NARRATIVE FROM EARLIER WRITINGS.
Clear said: “Since the text begins with the Copts themselves relating they are writing the narrative that is “The discourse which Ara Timothy…pronounced on the making of Abbaton…” (the angel of death) and they write that “…the Archbishop…went into Jerusalem to worship” and “search through the books which were in the library of Jerusalem, and which had been made by our holy fathers the Apostles, and deposited them therein…”

What actual evidence do you have that they did not take their narrative from prior writings as they claim they did?”
Thomas replied: “Just because a painting has 'Picasso' written on the bottom, that does not make it a Picasso.”

I agree with the logic that not all things are as they seem.
However, what I asked for was your actual evidence to support your claim.
What is YOUR evidence they did not take their narrative from prior writings as they claimed to have done?

Because there is no reference to a library of apostolic writings anywhere prior to the Coptic apocrypha.

If, for example, Bishop Timothy is supposed to have seen the text and delivered a homily based on it, why did no source, not even those Coptic sources, produce a copy of an apostolic work to stand in its own right, to be read and studied by others, and not simply a reference framed in a homily.

For example, Polycarp of Smyrna, supposedly a disciple of 'John' (which John we are not sure), quotes from 1 John around 155CE. Papias of Hierapolis (2nd century) mentions an epistle, while Irenaeus (2nd c) attributes letters to John.

But no mention of the apostolic writings of John, mentioned in the Coptic apocrypha, by any of the Fathers.

4) REGARDING THOMAS' INTIMATION THAT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA ARE "FICTIONAL". REMEMBER, THE BIBLE ITSELF IS "PSEUDEPIGRAPHA"

Regarding your discussion of pseudepigrapha, remember, your point applies to ALL ancient literature, including the bible.
The criticisms that apply to ancient, sacred, literature applies to almost all of sacred literature.

Indeed it does. So how do we proceed?

Much in the same way we have done since the 2nd century on. The first step is 'internal evidence' – does a text in question match the language and style of the author, known from other texts attributed to him? Thus we have Fathers in the 2nd/3rd century already disputing traditional sources. Hebrews, for example, traditionally ascribed to Paul, was questioned by the 3rd century. Origen said: "But as to who wrote the epistle, only God knows the truth."

So Tradition is a good but not infallible witness.

Another marker is provenance. Papias speaks of this with regard to the Gospels. The question of the oldest version of John 1:18 is something we have discussed, and which the Fathers were aware of. Indeed, we can trace from the Fathers the fact that both versions were extant and ancient.

My question would be, if Timothy visited a library of apostolic writings, that is a library of eye-witness materials authored by the Apostles, why did no-one else in all of Christendom ever visit this library, or even mention its existence?

Was it Timothy's secret, an accidental discovery? And once he'd mentioned it in his homily, which being bishop of Alexandria would have received a wide, scholarly audience, was there not a pilgrimage of scholars to visit the apostolic library and bring forth this cornucopia of apostolic writings to the world?

 

[Clear]

1) WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE COPTIC VERSION OF ABBATON WAS NOT TAKEN FROM A PRIOR NARRATIVE AS THE TEXT ITSELF CLAIMS?
Thomas said: “all the evidence points to the fact that no such Greek original existed ...”
Clear replied: "Evidence? What actual evidence are you referring to? You've offered claims, but what evidence are you referring to?
Thomas replied: “The argument of the scholars' view of the Coptic pseudepigrapha .”

You've mentioned the "Scholars claim".
What I asked for what for you to provide the actual evidence for this claim?
You say you provided actual evidence underlying their claim.
What is the actual evidence you are using from the Scholars to show the Copts were not using a prior source text as they claimed to have done?



2) THE COPTS WHO WROTE THE NARRATIVE, TELL US THEY TOOK THE NARRATIVE FROM EARLIER WRITINGS.
Clear said: “Since the text begins with the Copts themselves relating they are writing the narrative that is “The discourse which Ara Timothy…pronounced on the making of Abbaton…” (the angel of death) and they write that “…the Archbishop…went into Jerusalem to worship” and “search through the books which were in the library of Jerusalem, and which had been made by our holy fathers the Apostles, and deposited them therein…”

What actual evidence do you have that they did not take their narrative from prior writings as they claim they did?”
Thomas replied: “Just because a painting has 'Picasso' written on the bottom, that does not make it a Picasso.”

The simple logic that all things are not as they appear contains no actual evidence that your claim is correct.
However, what I asked for was your actual evidence to support your claim.
Thomas, what is YOUR actual evidence they did not take their narrative from prior writings as they claimed to have done?



3) ARE THE WORDS “SCHOLARS SAY” A REPLACEMENT FOR ACTUAL EVIDENCE?

Thomas, you have frequently said “Scholars say” and then you describe a scholars opinion without giving us the scholars actual evidence.
This is essentially, merely another claim.
Can you provide some evidence underlying the opinions the scholars offer? I've asked for this evidence before.

Clear asked: “SO, while such phrases as "Scholars Say" or "Scholars believe", can be bantered about, the really important claim is: "What actual evidence do Scholars have for making a specific claim."
What actual evidence do you have for your opinions that Coptic Abbaton was not taken from an earlier text as the authors claimed?


4) MAKING CLAIMS WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IS NOT PARTICULARLY "RUDE", BUT IT DOES FEEL SOMEWHAT DISAPPOINTING AND UNFAIR
Thomas said: “Really, I'd like to bring large segments of this to a close, as we're re-walking old ground, in circles.
So from here on, if I do not reply, it's not rudeness, but simply because I don't think there's any more fruit to be had.

I don’t think it is rude (per se), to simply make a claim and then not offer evidence for your claim, but it does feel somewhat unfair ask me for literary evidence for ancient Jewish beliefs when you either refuse or cannot offer actual evidence to support your theory

At some point, even your theories behind the statement “scholars say”, will require actual evidence as to why they say what they say.

The Coptic authors of Abbaton tell us they took the narrative from a prior historical narrative from Archbishop Timothy. You have repeatedly claim Scholars you read tell you Coptic Abbaton was created by Copts.

Is there any way you can provide some sort of evidence for this claim before you abandon this conversation?



5) ANCIENT HEBREW TEXTS DESCRIBE DIVINE CHARACTERISTICS TO THE SON/MESSIAH/WORD/ETC.

Thomas said: “I accept the Jews believe in God, in the messiah, and the spirit of God. I do not accept that the Messiah is necessarily a divine being, as Rabbinical Judaism is insisted he will be a purely human being.”

As you yourself have mentioned in prior posts, Judaism was not a single religion but rather it consisted of multiple different movements just as Christianity consists of different movements with different doctrines.
Once Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism became the dominant Jewish Movement it adopted the position that the Messiah was human but the position THEY adopted regarding the Son of God/Messiah was NOT the only Hebrew doctrine concerning the Messiah who indeed DID have divine qualities according to their descriptions.

For examples from Jewish documents (some are syncretic, but all have Jewish origins):


A) ANCIENT LITERATURE DESCRIBES THE SON/MESSIAH/WORD/RIGHT HAND HAVING MULTIPLE APPELATIONS:

Ancient Hebrew literature describes the Son as the “word” (among other appellations.) saying: “He, before either earth or starry heaven, was sovereign Word, with the Father and Holy Spirit. He put on flesh but quickly flew to his Father’s home. Sibylline Oracles book 7 vs 68-73

Other appelations include: “…the Mediator himself, the Supervisor, the lawgiver, the cause of resurrection, the firstborn of all creation, the divine Word, and Man,… and having died, is also (the one) having arisen from (the) dead. Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - #5:20

“I will show you the right hand of the Omnipresent one...as it is written, ‘He made his glorious arm go at the right hand of Moses.’...For my own sake, for the sake of my own merit and righteousness, I shall deliver my arm, and by it save my sons from among the gentiles,”…” Then the Holy One, blessed be he, will reveal his great arm in the world, and show it to the gentiles: ...and the glory of it’s splendor shall be like the brilliant light of the noonday sun at the summer solstice. At once Israel shall be saved from among the gentiles and the Messiah shall appear to them and bring them up to Jerusalem with great joy. Moreover, the kingdom of Israel, gathered from the four quarters of the world, shall eat with the Messiah, and the gentiles shall eat with them, as it is written, “The Lord bares his holy arm In the sight of all the nations, And all the ends of the earth shall see The salvation of our God.” 3rd Enoch 48:1,6-10


B) Ancient hebrew literature relates that God the Father created the world through the Son/Messiah/Word/Right hand
“...nothing exists without the Lord. He was before anything was, and our worlds were made by his word, his thought and his heart. “THE ODES OF SOLOMON ODE 16


C) Ancient Hebrew literature tells us that God the Father created Adam/mankind but the Son/Messiah/Word/Right hand created all else
The Jewish Haggadah relates this specific doctrine thusly: “The superiority of man to the other creatures is apparent in the very manner of his creation… He is the only one who was created by the hand of God. The rest sprang from the Word of God.”

O Master Almighty, the God of the universe, you created the world and what is in it through him… (you are)…the one who sent forth upon earth Jesus your Christ... Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - #1. A Prayer of thanksgiving

“Blessed are you, O Lord, King of the ages, who through Christ made everything, and through him in the beginning ordered that which was unprepared; who separated waters from waters with a firmament, and put a lively spirit in these; …You have loosed the boundary of death, You who are the Maker of life for the dead, through Jesus Christ, our hope! Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - #3:1, 18,24-27

““O Lord, Almighty One, you created the cosmos through Christ, and marked out a Sabbath day for a remembrance of this… Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - #5:1-2,4,-5,8



D) Ancient Hebrew literature describes the nomination/naming of the Son/Messiah/Word/Right hand before the world was created

2 At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts. All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him: they shall glorify, bless, and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. For this purpose he became the Chosen One; he was concealed in the presence of (the Lord of the Spirits) prior to the creation of the world, and for eternity. And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and the holy ones, for he has preserved the portion of the righteous because they have hated and despised this world of oppression (together with) all its ways of life and its habits in the name of the Lord of the Spirits; and because they will be saved in his name and it is his good pleasure that they have life.” 1st Enoch V1 48:1-7;

Thus the Hebrew text says: “…he is the Elect One before the Lord of the Spirits according to his good pleasure. 1st Enoch 49:4;

“I will send my chosen one, having in him one measure of all my power, and he will summon my people, humiliated by the heathen. The Apocalypse of Abraham 31:1;

“You assigned his inheritance in order that You might establish Your name there […] it is the glory of Your inhabited world and upon it...and You tested Your good judgments for him to […] in everlasting light, and You appointed him as Your firstborn son. There is none like him, as a prince and ruler in all Your inhabited world […] the crown of the heavens and glory of the clouds THE INHERITANCE OF THE FIRSTBORN, THE MESSIAH OF DAVID 4q369 Frag.1 Col. 1


E) Ancient Hebrew literature describes The Son/Messiah/Word/Right hand as the being that saves all nations of the earth

“He shall come as a man eating and drinking with human beings,] crushing the dragon’s head in the water., He will save Israel and all the nations,… Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Asher 7:3-7;

Come and I will show you the right hand of the Omnipresent one,....3...as it is written, ‘He made his glorious arm go at the right hand of Moses.’...6...then the Holy One blessed be he, will at once remember his own righteousness, merit, mercy, and grace, and, for his own sake, will deliver his great arm, and his own righteousness will support him, as it is written,... 8...For my own sake, for the sake of my own merit and righteousness, I shall deliver my arm, and by it save my sons from among the gentiles,” as it is written, “For my own sake and my sake alone shall I act— is my name to be profaned?” Then the Holy One, blessed be he, will reveal his great arm in the world, and show it to the gentiles: ...and the glory of it’s splendor shall be like the brilliant light of the noonday sun at the summer solstice. 10 At once Israel shall be saved from among the gentiles and the Messiah shall appear to them and bring them up to Jerusalem with great joy. Moreover, the kingdom of Israel, gathered from the four quarters of the world, shall eat with the Messiah, and the gentiles shall eat with them, as it is written, “The Lord bares his holy arm In the sight of all the nations, And all the ends of the earth shall see The salvation of our God.” (Isa 52:10) 3rd Enoch 48:1,6-10

And the angels and mankind and all the earth rejoiced over him. These things will take place in the last days. “11 you, therefore, my children, keep the Lord’s commandments; honor Levi and Judah, because from their seed will arise the Lamb of God who will take away the sin of the world, and will save all the nations, as well as Israel.” Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Joseph 19:8-11

“The Savior makes us alive and does not forget our souls. The humbled are exalted in him. The son of the highest one appeared in the Father’s perfection… The Messiah is one, known before the foundation of the world. He saves souls in his truth, in his name. “ THE ODES OF SOLOMON ODE 41;


F) Ancient Hebrew literature relates the Son/Messiah/Word/Right Hand will be the one who will gather those who have died and are in the world of spirits and will bring them out of Hades through the resurrection

The twelve tribes shall be gathered there and all the nations, until such time as the Most High shall send forth his salvation through the ministration of the unique prophet…And the temple curtain shall be torn, and the spirit of God will move on to all the nations as a fire is poured out. And he shall ascend from Hades and shall pass on from earth to heaven. I understand how humble he will be on earth, and how splendid in heaven.” Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Benjamin 9:1-3:

Describing this decensus into Hades, the ancient Odes text has the Messiah/Son/Word/Right hand himself explain concerning those in hades: “Sheol saw me and was shattered, and Death ejected me and many with me. 12 I have been vinegar and bitterness to it, and I went down with it as far as its depth. 13 Then the feet and the head it released, because it was not able to endure my face. 14 And I made a congregation of living among his dead; and I spoke with them by living lips; in order that my word may not fail. And those who had died ran toward me; and they cried out and said, “Son of God, have pity on us. “And deal with us according to your kindness, and bring us out from the chains of darkness. Odes of Solomon #42 vs 10-17;

Yet another description from Hebrew literature of the Messiah/Son/Words descent into Hades is as follows: “…I opened the doors which were closed. 10 And I shattered the bars of iron,....11 And nothing appeared closed to me, because I was the opening of everything. 12 And I went toward all my bondsmen in order to loose them; that I might not abandon anyone bound or binding. 13 And I gave my knowledge generously, and my resurrection through my love. Odes of Solomon #17:3,6-15;

“In Those days, Sheol will return all the deposits which she had received and hell will give back all that which it owes. 2 And he shall choose the righteous and the holy ones from among (the risen dead), for the day when they shall be selected and saved has arrived. 3 In those days, (the Elect one) shall sit on my throne, and from the conscience of his mouth shall come out all the secrets of wisdom, for the Lord of the Spirits has given them to him and glorified him. 4 ...And the faces of all the angels in heaven shall glow with joy, because on that day the Elect One has arisen.” 1st Enoch 51:1-5;


G) Ancient Hebrew literature confirms their doctrine that the Son/Messiah/Word/Right Hand will inaugurate the resurrection of mankind from Hades

“In Those days, Sheol will return all the deposits which she had received and hell will give back all that which it owes. And he shall choose the righteous and the holy ones from among (the risen dead), for the day when they shall be selected and saved has arrived. In those days, (the Elect one) shall sit on my throne, and from the conscience of his mouth shall come out all the secrets of wisdom, for the Lord of the Spirits has given them to him and glorified him. ...And the faces of all the angels in heaven shall glow with joy, because on that day the Elect One has arisen. 5 And the earth shall rejoice; and the righteous ones shall dwell upon her and the elect ones shall walk upon her. 1st Enoch 51:1-5;



H) Ancient Hebrew Literature describes the Son/Messiah/Word/Right hand as the being who will sit on a throne of Glory in heaven and Judge the world

King, potentates, dwellers upon the earth: You would have to see my Elect One, how he sits in the throne of glory and judges Azaz’el and all his company, and his army, in the name of the Lord of the Spirits!” 1st Enoch 55:4

And him, the First Word, they shall bless, extol, and glorify with wisdom. They shall be wise in utterance in the spirit of life and in the Lord of the Spirits. 8 He placed the Elect One on the throne of glory; and he shall judge all the works of the holy ones in heaven above, weighing in the balance their deeds. 1st Enoch V1 P42 61:5-8;

Describing the various accomplishments of the Son/Messiah/Word/Right hand, Jewish Haggadic literature describes that:

“He will proclaim to them the jubilee, thereby releasing them from the debt of all their sins... the “Day of Atonement” shall follow…when he shall atone for all the Sons of Light and the people…and by his might he will judge God’s holy ones and so establish a righteous kingdom, as it is written about him in the Songs of David, “A godlike being has taken his place in the council of God; in the midst of the divine beings he holds judgment” (ps 82:1) Scripture also says about him, “Over it take your seat in the highest heaven; A divine being will judge the peoples (ps 7:7-8). The Haggadah (The Second day)


Thomas, I will have to respond to your last post later.

 

[Clear]

1) WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE COPTIC VERSION OF ABBATON WAS NOT TAKEN FROM A PRIOR NARRATIVE AS THE TEXT ITSELF CLAIMS?
Thomas said: “all the evidence points to the fact that no such Greek original existed ...”
Clear replied: "Evidence? What actual evidence are you referring to? You've offered claims, but what evidence are you referring to?
Thomas replied: “The argument of the scholars' view of the Coptic pseudepigrapha .”
Clear pointed out: "You've mentioned the Scholars claim. What I asked for what for you to provide the actual evidence for this claim?
Thomas said: “Which I did.”

Can you give readers a reference where you offered actual evidence that the Coptic authors of Abbaton were lying about using a prior narrative as the source for their Abbaton Text?s



2) WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM TO HAVE GIVEN READERS FOR YOUR THEORY?

Clear asked: “What is the actual evidence you are using from the Scholars to show the Copts were not using a prior source text as they claimed to have done?”
Thomas responded: “Which I did.”

I see where you said "Scholars claim", thus providing us another opinion, However, their summary opinion is not the data they based their opinion on. Can you tell readers where you provided actual evidence that the Copts were not using a prior source text as they claimed?



3) IS IT EVEN LOGICAL TO ASSUME ANCIENT SYNAGOGUES AND CHURCHES DID NOT GATHER AND PRODUCE COPIES OF SACRED LITERATURE?
Thomas said: Because there is no reference to a library of apostolic writings anywhere prior to the Coptic apocrypha.

Trying to recycle this earlier debunked claim is silly.
Even Ignatius (a follower of John the apostle) refers to the literary archives (library of texts) making up the old testament at the same time the gospel biblical library was being gathered (Ign to Phil 8:2)

As I’ve already mentioned Eusebius also described a library in Jerusalem and he even describes texts he discovered there.

IF readers will simply google: “EARLIEST MENTION OF A CHRISTIAN LIBRARY IN JERUSALEM” this search will reveal this.

Why do you think it is logical to assume Jerusalem and even its’ various synagogues did not possess libraries?
Can you offer any actual evidence for your claim that there was no Library in Jerusalem?
Do you think it is even logical to assume ancient Synagogues or ancient churches did not gather and copy sacred literature anciently as modern synagogues and churches collect texts?



4) WHY IS IT RELEVANT THAT NO APOSTLE WAS A COPT, PRODUCING A “COPTIC APOSTOLIC WORK”?
Thomas: “If, for example, Bishop Timothy is supposed to have seen the text and delivered a homily based on it, why did no source, not even those Coptic sources, produce a copy of an apostolic work to stand in its own right…”

I expect that the logical reason the copts did not produce an apostolic work is that none of the 12 apostles were Coptic.
IF one of the 12 apostles had been a copt, then his work would have been a Coptic work…



5) THE STRANGE CLAIM THAT WRITINGS OF JOHN DO NOT APPEAR IN COPTIC LITERATURE
Thomas said: “But no mention of the apostolic writings of John, mentioned in the Coptic apocrypha, by any of the Fathers.”

Actually, all apostolic writings, including those of John are included in the Coptic bible library.
However, Is there some arbitrary requirement that apocrypha, epigraphs, or other literature must mention Johns writings?
If so, how is it relevant to your theory that the copts did not use any source text for Abbaton as they claimed to have done.

Do you have any actual evidence other than to claim “scholars say” this?



6) REGARDING THOMAS' INTIMATION THAT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA ARE "FICTIONAL". REMEMBER, THE BIBLE ITSELF IS "PSEUDEPIGRAPHA"

Clear said: "Regarding your discussion of pseudepigrapha, remember, your point applies to ALL ancient literature, including the bible.
The criticisms that apply to ancient, sacred, literature applies to almost all of sacred literature.
This can turn into a theological rabbit hole very quickly because such criteria has been equally applied to biblical texts as well since they are also pseudepigraphic.

For example, the specific criticism that scholars tend to view certain sacred, ancient text as uninspired because one cannot tell who wrote it applies to biblical literature.

If you simply google the sentence: “Do scholars believe the bible is pseudepigraphical” the following AI comments returns the following answer:

"Yes, many scholars consider some books within the Bible to be pseudepigrapha, particularly certain New Testament letters attributed to Paul, such as Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. While the gospels and other anonymous books are not considered pseudepigrapha, the letters of the New Testament that state an author but are widely believed to have been written by someone else are. Conservative scholars may not consider any biblical books pseudepigrapha, as they accept the traditional authorship.

New Testament examples
Letters attributed to Paul:
Many scholars consider Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus to be pseudepigraphal because they were likely written by a later author in Paul's name.

Anonymous books:
Books like the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not considered pseudepigrapha because they were written anonymously, and the attributions came later. Similarly, the Epistle of James and Hebrews are considered anonymous, not pseudepigraphal.

Old Testament examples

• Some books of the Old Testament, such as Daniel and parts of Isaiah, are considered by some scholars to have been written later than the purported authors, but not necessarily pseudepigraphal, according to Reddit users.
• Other Old Testament works like the Testament of Job, which is not included in the Bible, are considered pseudepigrapha, notes Text & Canon Institute.

What this means for biblical interpretation

• Whether or not a book is considered pseudepigraphal does not necessarily mean it contains false information, but that the authorship is different from the one traditionally associated with it.
• Some scholars differentiate between pseudepigrapha (falsely ascribed) and anonymity (absence of author's name), says Faith Pulpit, notes Quora.

This distinction is important for biblical studies and is a source of ongoing debate among scholars.

Thomas replied: Indeed it does. So how do we proceed?


I think all individuals should proceed with more humility, better research and fewer assumptions about early literature without having more data.

We can avoid criticizing early literature using criteria the bible literature itself cannot overcome.
Creating an arbitrary and inaccurate double standard historically is not helpful to a study of sacred texts..

We can be less irrational in creating such double standards.

I also think that if we are going to use the claim “scholars say”, we can realize this is not actual evidence but is merely offering another opinion in an attempt to create the illusion of authority. IF one says “scholars say” then one can proceed to include the actual evidence offered by our pet scholars.



Thomas asked; “My question would be, if Timothy visited a library of apostolic writings, that is a library of eye-witness materials authored by the Apostles, why did no-one else in all of Christendom ever visit this library, or even mention its existence?

Your assumptions seem (to me) to be illogical.

Why assume that no one else visited this library mentioned by the copts?
Why assume they would make mention of their visit to a library?
I've been to libraries before but I've never mentioned it in my diary. Why would others mention it unless it is relevant to a narrative?

Directing the establishment of a library does not mean the library contains only the writings of the person establishing it.
Why assume a library established by a person/persons means it is a library containing the writings of the person who established it?

For example: Ptolemy II may have helped create the great library of Alexandria but he does not seem to have contributed to its writings


Thomas: "I'll have to review your prior posts to see if there are relevant points I missed."
TheLightWithin - I will have to get back with you regarding the points your made in post #108