This Man
Top Comments
All Comments (70)
-
Those "notes in the margins" are a result of the bible originally being written in Greek.
One word in greek can be translated into many different English meanings, therefore the context of the chapter needs to be understood before it can be translated.
The notes in the margins (or at the bottom of the page) in your Bible explain the minor differences between similar translations.
-
"Would you like them for your perusal? "
Yes, gladly. A list of publications would be a good read I'm sure.
-
(A)
"the majority of historians to date believe it is a late 2nd or early 3rd century text."
No, sorry this is NOT correct. As I said, the OVERWHELMING scholastic consensus is that the G.O.T. is derived from the first century and probably predated ALL the canonical Gospels (Davies 1999). Similarly Earl Doherty argues that when the Gospel of Thomas does parallel Q or the New Testament, it shows a less developed, more "primitive" or "original" form than the latter. Sorry but that's the way it is
-
The general consensus now is that the Q document is not part of Mark 4 but has to do with an Old Testament book that they have not been able to identify.
-
"it would have spread from country to country- people traveled between Israel and other non-Jewish regions because they had trade routes that took many people from different regions into Israel and vice versa, because Israel was a trading port to many regions outside of itself."
So... your talking about traveling, transcontinental, translinguistic Chinese whispers aren't you?
And what do you suppose the corruptibility potential for that would be?
Its all getting a bit silly now isn't it?
-
It is true that some historians in 1998 did believe the Gospel of Tomas did originate from the first century, and during that time some considered it an old christian text, the majority of historians to date believe it is a late 2nd or early 3rd century text. And based on what is contained in the Gospel of Thomas, it is clearly a gnostic text- it references the person being god and not Christ being God, it has nothing to do with Christianity itself.
-
WRONG!
The Pharisees had to be able to read and right, and yes, a select few of them had a command of Greek and even Latin. However, I don't recall any Pharisee derived Gospels...do you?
The rank and file peasants that supposedly followed Christ would quite definitely have been illiterate.
-
[c]
I can provide many, many scholarly references that support this expert consensus.
Would you like them for your perusal?
Amazing video. Great job...
christchica 4 years ago 3
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Jesus Christ
Matthew Chapter 10, verse 34.
"Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division"
Jesus Christ
Luke Chapter 12, verse 51.
"If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."
Jesus Christ
Luke 14, Chapter 14, verse 26.
Hammersley1967 3 years ago