Go ahead. Don't weasel out. I can do it. I'm pretty sure you know I can. You first. It shouldn't be hard or distasteful to repeat the process that has led to your current convictions. Surely they are all based on validated conclusions.
What language was Jesus most at home with?
Asked first and you then would know the answer to Thomas.
Yes, I did ask first. I think everyone here should demand what I am demanding of you, conclusions which are logical, based on a logic methodology, validated by independent and disinterested parties.
I'm a big believer in the scientific and critical methods.
Well if you know on what basis scholars suppose Mathew and Luke follow Mark, then you should IMMEDIATELY understand why Thomas is probably Q. To scholars this is not news so I do not have to prove it.
You wrote yourself: "I can do it."
So do it.
"I think everyone here should demand what I am demanding of you"
Nobody's here. Just you and me. You have the entire internet and your scholarly library at your disposal.
For those others who are indeed reading, what you are witnessing here is a classic case of what in logical fallacy is called "dodging."
You challenge another to answer a question or demonstrate their logic, but instead of doing it they try to avoid by dodging, in this case asking me to do what I asked the other person to do even though the points I raised was not in question.
This has not only gone off the path of the topic, but calls into question the claims and views of the one dodging.
We wouldn't allow a JW to get away with, Saintnertholdt, so why are you doing it here? You obviously have no intention to follow through.
You do know the JWs win just a little when we fail to be intellectually honest with ourselves.
So you don't know. You could have just said so.
Let me explain: Of the three synoptic Gospels Mark is the most condensed. Luke and Mathew both contain all the narratives of Mark with wording even similar in places. So Mark is viewed as primary source material because it is a simpler narrative and is found in both Luke and Mathew.
Source Q is supposedly a source for Luke and Mathew because both share material. However because there are differences within the same narratives, there might be other sources for Luke called L and M for Mathew.
If you notice the method of determining chronology is quite simple: Simpler gospels are reasonably dated earlier than later more complex gospels. And that is the primary way that the Gospels are chronologically placed.
So why can Thomas as Q be considered a primary source for Luke and Mathew. It does not contain narratives but just sayings of Jesus and thus can be considered the simplest of all available gospels. Hence according to the method employed with Mathew, Mark and Luke the earliest.
Another point that is salient is that Thomas as document is very important because it indicates that very early on in Christian history sayings of Jesus on their own were being passed around within Christian society.
Why couldn't you explain this? It is very straight forward.
I didn't say I didn't know. I said your conclusions are incorrect.
I asked you to use the scientific method to prove what you are saying, adding that I would believe you if you employed the known rules of critical methodology with validating witnesses, and their supporting data, to demonstrate why your conclusions are what you said they were.
Here's the statement:
Okay, if you say the Gospel of Thomas seems to be earlier and was probably Q, simply use the scientific method to prove that, right here and now.
The scientific method is the model used in Biblical criticism by philologists to demonstrate textual transmission. I am sure you know how to do this because I doubt you would be making any such claims here without having validated your views without due process.
Make sure you include the data of those who validate your conclusions as well."
I didn't say I didn't know.
Yeah so you say, but you didn't prove it now did you? You could not write down a similar first three paragraphs of my response.
You had no idea.
So I've done my bit. You haven't.
Prove that Thomas is NOT Q.
Besides, if you have read Thomas, you would know it was was written in Coptic, proving my original point that the language of that era was not "Egyptian" as you put it (Thomas was discovered in Egypt).
Also, Thomas is known for being very independent of Q. Q is noted for the Eschatological Discourse, but Thomas doesn't have it or other well-known earmarks of the theoretical Q.
So I am only asking you for proving your views via a critical methodology. When I said that this is what everybody else should be asking, I didn't mean a lot of people were reading this, but that all people who consider religion should ask that others prove their points employing a critical methodology that employs logic.