mlinssen wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:50 am
It is the best refutal of Thomas, who started the whole euanggelion thing (in my theory), and who is full of beginning and end.
Note his different uses of the Greek loanword ⲁⲣⲭⲏ (logion 18, 3 times) and the ordinary Coptic ϩⲏ (logion 19, 21, 84, 103), and the verb ⲁⲣⲭⲉⲓ in logion 109 - whenever Thomas uses Greek he's on to something "meta"
18. say(s) the(PL) Disciple to IS : tell it as-regards we : we end she/r will come-to-be within what? manner say(s) IS did you(PL) uncover Indeed outward the(F) Beginning in-order-that you(PL) will seek-after the(F) end : in the place who/which the(F) Beginning therein the(F) end will come-to-be therein a(n) Blessed he-who will stay to foot he in the(F) Beginning and he will know the(F) end and he will take taste not of death
The Gospel of Thomas
(1) The disciples said to Jesus: "Tell us how our end will be."
(2) Jesus said: "Have you already discovered the beginning that you are now asking about the end?
For where the beginning is, there the end will be too.
(3) Blessed is he who will stand at the beginning.
And he will know the end, and he will not taste death."
It's interesting how well this coordinates with the original ending of GMark/Paul:
5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. 6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” 8 So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.[a]
You are told that Jesus was resurrected and there is no historical witness that is promoting this. You have to choose whether or not to believe based only on faith. If you choose to believe based on revelation then the ending of GMark is the beginning of your belief that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. And that is how Paul begins and ends.
Regarding your likely correct conclusion that the original Jesus witness was GThomas/Q and was still Judaism and not Christianity, deductive reasoning like that found in Foundation and Empire
(for those familiar with the Classics) is the best we can do:
Historical Jesus witness is like a giant Jewsaw puzzle. The only pieces we can be certain of placement are the Impossible claims which form the borders -
- 1. We can be certain that Jesus did nothing impossible.
2. We can be certain that witness to Jesus did not witness anything impossible.
3. It's improbable that witness to Jesus wrote that they witnessed Jesus doing significant impossible because they did not.
4. It's improbable that witness to Jesus witnessed that they witnessed Jesus doing significant impossible because they did not.
5. It's unlikely that non-witness to Jesus wrote that Jesus did significant impossible based on witnesses to Jesus.
6. It's possible that non-witness to Jesus wrote that Jesus did significant impossible and was not based on witnesses to Jesus.
The above is more valuable historical evidence than anything and everything most supposed Bible scholars have written on the
subject, including Skeptics like Ehrman, and especially for those who have an assumption of being neutral on claims of the
impossible. It moves all related conclusions in the direction of fiction, such as the improbable, unlikely, contrived and possible.
Disclaimer - for those who need points sharply explained/tend to Strawmen = The above is Literary Criticism and not Source
Criticism so it does not prove that non-impossible claims are fiction. Far from it. It's just quality evidence against the conclusion
that they are history (uncertainty
Why Must You Be Such An Angry Young Man? GMark 1:41 - Was Jesus Angry?