There is not anyone Indeed while he is hiding, who will reveal outward not; and there is not anyone, while he is covering, who will remain with lack of him being uncovered.
Not anti-Judaic enough for you?
In essence, yes. I'm guessing it took fierce oppression for 1st - 5th CE at least, and continued for another few centuries. But that's just a fit feeling at the moment - but here we are now, and we can only conclude indeed that it was successful, yes
Yes, agreed. I doubt that any if many Judaics wanted to convert, as this extremely Hellenic religion is completely different from theirs - even with the fake Judaic elements thrown in, the bogus prophecies, the false "translations" of the Tanakh. Only an idiot or fool would fall for it, but then again what exactly is the average fool percentage among religious? It's relatively high of you ask me - but we can conclude, by looking at the complete absence of anything Judaic in Christianity, that only an insignificant percentage of Christians came from JudaismBut what about the Judaics? Do we have any evidence that this new movement was able to make any headway among the Judaics or was that attempt eventually abandoned? What makes me wonder about this is that, the four canonical gospels that we have still seem to have very strong polemics in them.
"Essentially" - which essence exactly are you brewing there? I don't even know where else this name occurs in CopticJudas essentially means Judah. If Judas is a symbolically written character, that could reek of severe polemic. And while some of the gospels may focus the blame on Pharisees, other gospels try to broaden it out again, having the people claiming guilt over the spilled blood and all.
Absolutely not at all if you ask me, although I have no idea of anything Judaic back then. But when I look at what the Tanakh offers and what the NT does, I can only see 2 completely different carrots as well as sticks. The only thing I can imagine it's disgruntled Judaics joining Chrestianity or Christianity: I don't feel like the NT is delivering Judaics what their Tanakh promised them; I don't see how the NT would be a rival or competitor to anything JudaicHow plausible really would it be for the Judaics to just go along with any of this back then, assuming these were polemics from the earlier religion that stayed intact after the merger?
Are you being serious?Jair wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:27 am Matthew 27:25 re-shifts the focus from the Jewish leaders to “all the people” for that specific line, which sounds like a brutal polemic. This is absent from Mark. And throughout John, we have Pilate arguing with “the Jews”; a more specific generalization than the Synoptics which have the leaders riling up “the crowd”.
As for Judas, I used the interlinear and concordance on my bible app to find that Judas means Judah. But, the sources used could be biased. I don’t even know if they looked into the Coptic. What is the Coptic for Judas?
As for the Thomas quote being Anti-Judaic, I must be missing something in trying to read that highlighted passage. I don’t quite see it. Is it that the answer disregards fasting, prayer, and alms and is therefore an anti-Judaic polemic? I guess it just doesn’t seem like a very strong polemic. If anything it comes across as simply pushing an alternative philosophy.
You can find answers to questions like that in the Commentary if you like, perhaps that's an easier way to find out why I claim what I claim: page 15-21 cover the Prologue
Sorry for baiting LOL, but yes: Salvation from your Self. Thomas removes the yoke, the thing that connects two: Ego and SelfJair wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 5:27 pm Interesting. So once again the working hypothesis is the name, Judas, in this case, also had no connection originally with Hebrew. Of course by the time the canonical gospels were written/edited/redacted, there could have still been syncretism occurring that linked Judas with Judah but with this information that now enters the land of speculation.
I decided to read further into your commentary. So far it’s pretty interesting. I’ve barely scratched the surface though, and there’s a possibility you answer this in the commentary and that I just haven’t gotten there yet, so if that’s the case, apologies. But you mention salvation multiple times in the early parts of the commentary. Salvation from what, do you think Thomas is writing about? I’m curious because iirc you refer to Thomas as a non-religious work. By that do you mean it’s more philosophical than religious? Spiritual? Or fully secular?
You have already demonstrated the previously unpublished claim that the NHL Gospel of Philip explicitly mixes the two terms. So you just have to be able to unpack this Gospel of Philip.
Good luck with that.as well as the link between Thomas and Marcion