/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

There was this good audio that talked about the Gospel of Tomas and the other ones (including the one that claims Jesus had sex with a reanimated dead person) and mentioned that the dating of the alternative bibles were much lated than the original bible.

I don't have the source though, which is a shame but the dating is what disproves the alternative gospels, as well as the heresy promoted in them.

da Vatikun's got it in da vault

>>581005

The idea of the Q source is that it’s a quotation gospel. Thomas only proves that there are quotes gospels. However, the q source is based on faulty logic, it assumes that if two sources share the same quotes then they must be quoting from the same source. However, generally it is to be assumed that they are quoting eachother. Luke says that he is following the tradition of the many who wrote the story of Christ, so it’s more likely that Luke had access to Matthew and Mark and was quoting both of them. Why would he be quoting some third source that has never been found? We have more sources on Jesus than any other historical figures, Why was this major source lost to the ages?

>>581005

>OP unironically believes that gospel of Thomas is the earliest literature of Jesus

>>581064

No, I did not mean that. All I meant is that the existence of Thomas proves that sayings Gospels did exist as was hypothesized about Q. I do not believe Thomas accurately represents the teachings of Jesus where it differs from the canonicals.

>>581055

Here's the argument for Q here: http://www.reconstructingq.com/case-for-q.pdf

>>581070

But reason do you think that the gospel of Thomas won't be copying the 4 gospel (after the alleged Q was written down), especially with it's use of John in verses like 105?

>>581005

Oh thank goodness! Another gnostic thread. I was worried our supply was getting low.

>Q

People are still talking about this? I thought interest died out in the 70's.

>>581080

>>581077

Why are we making this thread about Thomas? I just said it shows saying Gospels existed, I meant nothing else but that. Please, don't go off topic. The Gospel of Thomas and Gnosticism are not the topics of this thread. The topic is the Q source.

>>581084

1 Corinthians 11 and 15 is better proof that the gospels existed during the 1st century.

>>581005

Q is God.

>>581203

No this is a real point. Matthew and Luke seem to borrow from the same source, yet this supposed major source is lost to history. An explanation would be that this source is actually God, the Holy Spirit, and Matthew and Luke learned these quotes from him.

IMO, the Q source is just a fancy way of saying "what actually happened and what they had sufficient evidence to believe, as per preached in the early Christian communities". So yes, they did use the Q source - it's called testimony and real life. IMO the Q source is just the early Christian tradition and their preachings that was floating around at the time; I don't know if any of it were written down and copied by Matthew and Luke, and I don't think it can really proven either way. Paul used an extremely early Christian credo in 1 Cor 15 given to him from an earlier Christian community, who is to say that the sayings in Q Source weren't from the same origin?

>>581133

You forgot to enable sound.