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.
Saintbertholdt
JoinedPosts by Saintbertholdt
-
45
What language was Jesus most at home with?
by fulltimestudent inour former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
-
-
Saintbertholdt
-
45
What language was Jesus most at home with?
by fulltimestudent inour former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
-
-
Saintbertholdt
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.
-
45
What language was Jesus most at home with?
by fulltimestudent inour former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
-
-
Saintbertholdt
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.
-
45
What language was Jesus most at home with?
by fulltimestudent inour former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
-
-
Saintbertholdt
Asked first and you then would know the answer to Thomas.
-
45
What language was Jesus most at home with?
by fulltimestudent inour former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
-
-
Saintbertholdt
Oh thats easy.
In the very same way that Luke and Matthew follow Mark.
And how is that accomplished?
-
43
New here!
by Mandy97 inhi guys !
hm.. i'm new in this website !
my name is mandy and i just want to meet new people!
-
-
Saintbertholdt
I want to know a little more and I love english so my choice for the forum was easy ^^
Well you've certainly come to the right place then and you'll definitely learn a lot more.
-
45
What language was Jesus most at home with?
by fulltimestudent inour former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
-
-
Saintbertholdt
The first account and the simplest is the Petrine Gospel.
The Gospel of Thomas seems to be earlier and is probably Q.
-
43
New here!
by Mandy97 inhi guys !
hm.. i'm new in this website !
my name is mandy and i just want to meet new people!
-
-
Saintbertholdt
I'm a believer, A Jehovah's witness, if you want to know more, come on
Um...What would a wee french lass be doin on a forum like this me wonder to my hagas?
Mandy97, are you sure you'rrrr where you're supposed to be then?
-
43
New here!
by Mandy97 inhi guys !
hm.. i'm new in this website !
my name is mandy and i just want to meet new people!
-
-
Saintbertholdt
Bonjourrrrrr...
-
45
What language was Jesus most at home with?
by fulltimestudent inour former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
-
-
Saintbertholdt
And regardless of that, even a charlatan pretending to be the promised Messiah among my people Israel would not do so speaking the language of a Gentile.
No I'm not saying he did not speak Aramaic, just that he had a heavy Egyptian (Coptic) accent. If he was charismatic perhaps women were attracted to him first and they found his accent foreign and attractive. The men later just went with to listen because their wives would nag them to go.
...such a man would not have gathered such crowds who came to hear him teach if he spoke a language the common Jewish people did not understand.
Like I said perhaps it was a foreign attraction thing and then it evolved into much more. Look at the synoptic gospels. They never fully agree about what Jesus said in any instance. I suspect they couldn't make out what he was saying clearly and had to make things up. The disciples later got together to try and figure it out but they never really cleared up matters. Its almost like a Scotsman addressing an American audience. They share a common language but the Americans would not have a real clue what the Scotsman was saying. They would have to fill in the blanks. Then when one gets to the gospel of John one gets the idea that he might have been ingesting a hallucinogenic of some sort and not paying attention to Jesus at all. Jesus is God and all that and he almost never agrees with the Synoptics. Then when you get to Revelation you know he's on something.
