no it's a reference to Thomas Wolfe who made up Jesus and put his fictional character back in time by use of the TARDIS.ghost wrote:I'm not entirely sure, but "Thomas" seems to have been an allusion to Marcus Antonius, flamen Divi Iulii. Sounds crazy?Diogenes the Cynic wrote:The Gospel of Thomas claims right up front that it was written by Judas Didymus Thomas, the twin brother of Jesus.
Metacrock is still apologizing...
Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
- Location: Twin Cities, MN
Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...
GThomas? Are you serious? Do you believe all pseudepigraphical claims at face value?Metacrock wrote:what makes it spurious ace?
What makes you think the redactor was part of the community that produced it? The GJohn appears to be a catholic domestication of an originally Gnostic work, so who was the community that really produced it. The original Gnostics or the catholic redactors?claims to authorship. do you have any idea what you are talking about? there is no claim to authorship. you are actual trying to say that the redactors didn't know who the leader of their community was. that's brilliant.
Who wrote 2 Peter? Who wrote 3 Peter?apparently you didn't see what I said about the book did not include "by John" when it was first put about. that was put on latter, even after the committee of redactors.
- neilgodfrey
- Posts: 6162
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm
Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...
Not at all. You explained that you did know what he meant. It was BECAUSE you knew what he meant but chose to "jokingly" mis-interpret it as a "pedant" -- because of your genuine ignorance of the true meaning of "pedant" and ignorance of the correct grammatical use of the demonstrative pronoun* -- that made your "joke" just plain childish silliness.Metacrock wrote:so what you are trying to suggest is that I really didn't know what he meant becuase I'm a Chrsitians and are stupid so therefore I don't know grammar. That's your little idea of a clever come back?neilgodfrey wrote:A true pedant would know that a demonstrative pronoun substitutes for a noun when the noun can be understood from the context. (He would also know the true meaning of "pedantic" and be able to show minimal competence in punctuation.) You just demonstrated grammatical and semantic ignorance and perverse silliness. You need a smiley wearing a dunce cap.Metacrock wrote:sorry to be so pedantic. I said "my view is" you said "what's the evidence for this" so being the pedantic fart that I am... it's a curse, and a blessing.
a true comedian would know humor when he sees. but then little atheists don't have humor. they just literalistic minds that take stuff literally and the urge to mock. funny now illiterate people take stuff literally. how does that work?
(* = "this")
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science