our 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.
"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)."
BTW, don't you get that I was jesting about Jesus most comfortable with Egyptian? Good lord, I tried to model it as close to a Monty Python sketch as I could. With Jesus talking in a thick Egyptian accent and his disciples not knowing what the hell he was on about while John was dropping acid.
our 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.
but Thomas shows a narrative structure
Have you read it? Give your arguments. All that you're doing is citing authority: "Duke’s professor of religion, Mark Goodacre".
As I mentioned before, Q is supposed to contain only sayings, well-known for being the source of the Eschatological Discourse given on the Mount of Olives, such as appears in Matthew 24. Thomas, on the other hand, has no such discourse in it at all.
Hence source M.
My question to you is how can Thomas be Q in light of the absence of Q’s well-known Eschatological Discourse feature?
Have you read the book of Mark?
our 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.
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.
our 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.
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.
our 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.
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.
our 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.
Asked first and you then would know the answer to Thomas.
our 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.
Oh thats easy.
In the very same way that Luke and Matthew follow Mark.
And how is that accomplished?
hi guys !
hm.. i'm new in this website !
my name is mandy and i just want to meet new people!
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.
our 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.
The first account and the simplest is the Petrine Gospel.
The Gospel of Thomas seems to be earlier and is probably Q.
hi guys !
hm.. i'm new in this website !
my name is mandy and i just want to meet new people!
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?
