(March 25, 2019 at 3:25 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:(March 25, 2019 at 10:11 am)Drich Wrote: No one of any serious scholarship would consider this anything other than a 14th century work Unless something older vets it.
"No scholar?" This is just pure trolling as the rest of your post which is also rambling and flaming. In any case it is not a conversation.
not what I said.
I said no one of any serious scholarship.. as I have here honorary 'doctors of theology' turn to the book of thomas more than once. Again serious scholarship is one who understand the vetting process of canonical litergy. Meaning the process the bboks of the bible went through to become the books of the holy bible.
Having one scrap or verse fragment in the 3rd century means again nothing for the very reason I stated. in that whenever the next oldest full copy is found (in this case mid 1300 when the church was rife with corruption and constantly trying to find relics and reasons to invade the middle east and kill muslims, is when your book first makes it's full appearance. Not to mention the teachings and revelations in the book of thomas are also consistent with the 14th century view of Jesus and what direction the church should go. So it is very easy to conclude that a 3rd century scrap was fund and a whole book was created around it. As there are no other original codices to confirm this book in that time. Unlike the book of Matthew or Luke which have tens if not hundreds of codacees/manuscripts dating back to the 2nd century complete books as far back as the third, in comparison to thomas' 13 century pedigree, I say again no one serious about their studies would consider the book of thomas with any regard outside of MAYBE being a gnostic mess that dark age church authors tried to recreate.
No flaming no trolling just sharing facts and how the bible was compiled and how the book of thomas falls far short which is why it was not included..
