Absolute Thomasine Priority

[Giuseppe]

You routinely insult Ben, even when he's shown you that he has blocked you, and for what ends? What do you gain?

This is not "insulting Ben", this is pointing out the qualitative difference between two different approaches by two different human beings.

I have only made clear, by the "idiot" terminology, that only about Barabbas I don't take prisoners.

[Joseph D. L.]

This is not "insulting Ben"

You have called Ben at least three times that I am aware "intellectually dishonest". I can't even begin to describe to you how much of an ignoramus this makes you.

I have only made clear, by the "idiot" terminology, that only about Barabbas I don't take prisoners.

The irony is that, not only are you absolutely wrong, this makes you the intellectually dishonest one.

You are worth no one's time.

I'm following Ben's lead. Fuck you Giuseppe.

[Giuseppe]

G.A.Wells himself would call Ben "intellectually dishonest", insofar Ben would disagree explicitly - as he has done - with the following observation:

Perhaps Doherty's strongest point is Paul's assertion (1 Cor.2:8) that Jesus was crucified by supernatural forces (the archontes). I take this to mean that they prompted the action of human agents: but I must admit that the text ascribes the deed to the archontes themselves.

(my bold)
https://infidels.org/library/modern/g_a ... liest.html

So you are unable to understand the reasons.

As to Barabbas, the rule I have given to myself requires that I call you: an idiot.

[mlinssen]

The thesis of Linssen is that the prophecy about the fate (violent death) of John the Baptist had to be found in the Gospel of Thomas.

Hi Giuseppe, thank you for taking an interest in my thesis / theory. With regards to this exact quote right here, I pose that Mark 9:12 refers to text, likely scripture, without following up:

He said to them, "Elijah indeed comes first, and restores all things. How is it written about the Son of Man, that he should suffer many things and be despised? 13 But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they have also done to him whatever they wanted to, even as it is written about him."

In an indirect attempt to locate said scripture myself, I pose a rather farfetched theory that assumes a lot of misreading on Mark's part, but the death of John the Baptist is not the main point in my "Absolute Thomasine priority". The reason for publishing that paper is, and I quote:

if Thomas created and started it all, then John the Baptist had to be a figment of his imagination. John the Baptist! The legendary, larger-than-life, figure of John the Baptist - not for real? Impossible. The idea was ludicrous,preposterous, and I laughed out loud, with a bitter finish: that was the end of my theory, I thought - it was impossible for John the Baptist to have been made up

I think most everyone would agree to those last sentences, yet I dedicate 30 pages detailing my arguments, the last five of which are about "Zedekiah the Immerser" who indeed does immerse Jeremiah in mud (Jeremiah 38:10-13), with the help of his sons (Jeremiah 38:6), whose eyes are indeed "broken" by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:7, Jeremiah 39:7, 52:11), and who is not around when Jehoiachin gets (freed and) given a seat above all other kings (2 Kings 25:28, Jeremiah 52:32)

Thomas, in his logion 46, points to the entire Book of Chronicles (the very last book of the Hebrew Bible: Divrei ha-Yamim ( ּד ִֵבְר י הַּיִָּ מ םי ) - Chronicles), that starts with Adam: 1 Chronicles 1:1 Adam, Seth, Enosh, and ends with Zedekiah and Jehoiachin. Read the entire chapter 36 and they're all in it, the sons of Josiah, the last good king of Judah.
All his sons, except for Johanan - his first-born, became king - and had their name changed upon doing so:

1 Chronicles 3:15 The sons of Josiah: Johanan the firstborn, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. 16 The descendants of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son;

After Josiah dies, his son Shallum is made king, aka Jeohahaz / Joahaz. After three months the Egyptian king Neco makes his brother Eliakim king, aka Jehoiakim. After eleven years Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, makes his son Jeconiah, aka Coniah, aka Jehoiachin king. After three months and ten days that same Nebuchadnezzar makes his uncle Zedekiah king, aka Mattanyahu / Mattaniah - the fourth son of Josiah, all of which became king and had their name changed, save for Johanan - Ïⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ

Thomas, who loathes the Judeans and their (religious) practices in his text, apparently took great pleasure in the destruction of their last kingdom and the levelling of their temple (and I have unpublished material that puts forth a theory to the latter). That's what he says with his logion 46:

from the very first Jew to the very last, going by their history, Zedekiah is the greatest because he saw to the destruction of their last kingdom, and temple

[Giuseppe]

In an indirect attempt to locate said scripture myself, I pose a rather farfetched theory that assumes a lot of misreading on Mark's part, but the death of John the Baptist is not the main point in my "Absolute Thomasine priority".

Yes, I have seen, but I confess that what leads me to find your article was a research for arguments against the historicity of John the Baptist (in my view, in absolute the most enigmatic figure of the holy fable).

all of which became king and had their name changed, save for Johanan - Ïⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ

In my view, the force of your argument is to have the name of John in a book starting with Adam and immediately preceding the mention of the "Messiah" Cyrus the Great, about which J. M. Robertson argued that he could be the original Suffering Servant of Isaiah, since he was crucified:

It's from Diodorus Siculus, 2.44.2

For instance, when Cyrus the king of the Persians, the mightiest ruler of his day, made a campaign with a vast army into Scythia, the queen of the Scythians not only cut the army of the Persians to pieces but she even took Cyrus prisoner and crucified him; and the nation of the Amazons, after it was once organized, was so distinguished for its manly prowess that it not only overran much of the neighbouring territory but even subdued a large part of Europe and Asia.

Thomas, who loathes the Judeans and their (religious) practices in his text, apparently took great pleasure in the destruction of their last kingdom and the levelling of their temple (and I have unpublished material that puts forth a theory to the latter).

I hope that you publish that material, too.

I would like to compare your hypothesis about John the Baptist with other reasons about how he was invented midrashically.

Until now, I have found, in addition to you, other scholars about the invention of John the Baptist:

• Jean Magne's reasons: John was the noûs personified

• Greg Doudna's reasons: John was Hyrcanus II

• Maurice Mergui's reasons: John was John Maccabee

• Arthur Drews's reasons: John was the Fish Oannes

• Georges Ory's reasons: John was Theudas the Samaritan Prophet

[Giuseppe]

As to Gospel of Thomas priority, Jean Magne argued that the Logion 16, 55 and 101 are more faithful to the original message,

(101) <Jesus said:> He who does not hate his father and his mother like me cannot be a [disciple] to me. And he who does [not] love [his father] and his mother like me cannot be a [disciple] to me. For my mother [ . . . ], but [my] true [mother] gave me life.

...the sense being that the Christians have to follow the example of Jesus/Sabaoth if they want to be saved:

Now when his offspring Sabaoth saw the force of that angel, he did metanoia and condemned his father and his mother, matter. He loathed her,

(Hypostasis of the Archons 143:13)

According to Magne, it was the same metanoia requisite of the kenosis in the Philippians Hymn:

Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing

...the "God" meant there is the demiurge Yaldabaoth father of Sabaoth.

[mlinssen]

Until now, I have found, in addition to you, other scholars about the invention of John the Baptist:

• Jean Magne's reasons: John was the noûs personified

• Greg Doudna's reasons: John was Hyrcanus II

• Maurice Mergui's reasons: John was John Maccabee

• Arthur Drews's reasons: John was the Fish Oannes

• Georges Ory's reasons: John was Theudas the Samaritan Prophet

Markan Priority is a given, of course, and thankfully almost everyone agrees there.
Mark wrote a complete Gospel, leaving some loose ends and making quite a few mistakes, but in essence his story was round, full, complete

Right? Right

And this is the entire stage that he reserves for that Profet of Most High, the only Prophet ever, allegedly, to meet an alleged Messiah:

Mark 1:4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. 6 Now John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist and ate locusts and wild honey. 7 And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." 9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

Every breath on John B is a total waste - Elijah gets almost double the verses from Mark

[Giuseppe]

Martijn,

a question: among the logia of Thomas, what are according to you the logia where the Jewish god is more explicitly attacked ?

Thanks in advance for any answer.

[mlinssen]

Martijn,

a question: among the logia of Thomas, what are according to you the logia where the Jewish god is more explicitly attacked ?

Thanks in advance for any answer.

Hi Giuseppe, at first I thought that Thomas does so in logion 65, accusing God of "not knowing them". But the "he" mentioned there is the Seeker, the owner of the vineyard, and the "master" making that comment is self reflecting on the entire story

Thomas doesn't ridicule God, he attacks the religious systems and their proponents - and slavish followers. He does, however, name The Rock in logion 9, that offers no depth, and certainly doesn't bring you near heaven - yet it stands for the Jewish monotheism

Jewish, or rather, Judean. I suspect Thomas was Samarian - that, on a side note

[davidmartin]

Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing

This hymn and the statement in Hebrews that Jesus spent all his time on earth on his knees in prayer is only meant to achieve one thing: to diminish and attack the teaching of Jesus as found in the GoT (and the gospels!) and make him a sacrifice for later theologians to manipulate
So, one strand of the early church, pre-gospels, wanted to white wash things and they failed! Because everyone is aware he had a teaching and it's been preserved so the these other statements are shown to be lies from the pre-gospel era