Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/29/04 12:40pm
In reply to:
QUITTNER
's message, "Re: Gospels" on 03/26/04 2:33pm
>Wade A. Tisthammer, you wrote in part: >>> Well,
>Thomas wasn't. The Gospel of Thomas was written in
>the mid-second century, after all the 4 main gospels
>were. ...<<<
>..... According to "Eerdmans Dictionary of the
>Bible" (2000), page 1303, "... Thomas may derive
>from the same time as Q, ca. 50-80 ... hints at a
>somewhat later date for Q. ..."
You've left out some words here and replaced them with ellipses, so it's difficult for me to understand what was being said here without the full context. In any case, the Gospel of Thomas was written in the mid-second century, and the hypothetical Q (if it existed) predates by several decades the original gospels. As such, the date 80 C.E., for instance, is not plausible.
>>>> "... God wasn't the literal Father here, and these
>weren't begotten Sons. ..."<<<
>..... Can you prove that there was a difference?
It just seems rational from the evidence to me. John 3:16, for instance, speaking of God's only begotten Son.
>>>> "... they are evidently not true followers of
>Jesus. These people would be hypocrites. "<<<
>..... But then obviously these are Christians in name
>only, and should be expelled from their churches for
>disobedience.
Perhaps so.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 