D- minus for "Gospel" of Thomas

[Lon]

It is noticeable you are missing some coherency...

....to Clefty. Try not to notice outloud, when it is in your own head. Better? Ask, don't tell. Your hackles are so far up with pride and arrogance, you are on defense mode the whole way. I realize you think you are the cat's meow with nothing left to learn, having obtained complete theological accuracy and no need to be taught, even by anyone with a ThD, but it just shuts people off and becomes brawling. You've said that discussion and encouraging one another rather than "LOL" and posturing is 'no fun' but it is the way some of us do theology. :cheers:

 

[chair]

I don't care what you take kindly (not to be mean, but blunt). I've read a LOT of your traditions. I could give a rip what you, yourself are ignorant of and THEN have the audacity to do it back with your initial question in thread. As it sits? Yeah, I don't think you know even your own traditions as well as you think you do at that point because you haven't bothered to walk in another's shoes nor do you recognize when your question is the SAME THING as being a Jew.

TRY to see your own hypocrisy. It'll give you a lot more grace and understanding in these conversations (granted we are both on "Smack of Truth" TOL). I am college trained which includes a good bit of Jewish commentary which I still read and refer back to going through the Old Testament. Then a good bit of the commentaries were done by converted Jews. Jesus said you Jews were the "light of the world" so try to appreciate a bit more. LIghts aren't defensive but on a positive offense that shines.

You are both ignorant of my background and arrogant. I can't help with your arrogance. I can help with your ignorance:

I am an Observant Jew, and have been since childhood. I started learning Hebrew formally in first grade. I read the Bible in the original Hebrew as well as the common commentaries (also in Hebrew). I do not use translations when reading the Tanakh, except for the parts in Aramaic. I have studied most of the Mishnah, and many parts of the Gemara. I admit to sometimes needing help with the Aramaic in the Talmud. I'm also well-versed in Halacha, and many Midrashim. Oh- I live in Israel today, and have for 30 years or so. I'm bilingual.

So disagree, if you like, but don't call me ignorant.

I would appreciate an apology, if you are capable of writing one.

כל המלבין פני חברו ברבים כאילו שופך דמים

 

[clefty]

....to Clefty. Try not to notice outloud, when it is in your own head. Better? Ask, don't tell.

I picture you up on your inquisitional high chair looking down...such a Pharisee...typical

Your hackles are so far up with pride and arrogance, you are on defense mode the whole way. I realize you think you are the cat's meow with nothing left to learn, having obtained complete theological accuracy and no need to be taught, even by anyone with a ThD, but it just shuts people off and becomes brawling.

did you want to discuss the message or not...these ad Homs are almost worse than your handling of the message...almost

You've said that discussion and encouraging one another rather than "LOL" and posturing is 'no fun' but it is the way some of us do theology. :cheers:

your use of His Word is more annoying than your serious attempt at formal debate and discourse using pretty words and WHAT? silly emojis?.... which actually reveal what else might by altering your clarity comprehension and retention...besides slaps to the forehead

how you "do theology" remains the issue as what you do to scripture is less than sober...

 

[Lon]

You are both ignorant of my background and arrogant.

True, but your background isn't showing, if you have it.

I can't help with your arrogance. I can help with your ignorance:

Probably just the opposite.

I am an Observant Jew, and have been since childhood. I started learning Hebrew formally in first grade. I read the Bible in the original Hebrew as well as the common commentaries (also in Hebrew). I do not use translations when reading the Tanakh, except for the parts in Aramaic. I have studied most of the Mishnah, and many parts of the Gemara. I admit to sometimes needing help with the Aramaic in the Talmud. I'm also well-versed in Halacha, and many Midrashim. Oh- I live in Israel today, and have for 30 years or so. I'm bilingual.

So disagree, if you like, but don't call me ignorant.

Here is where I sited it: At the point where the gospel of Thomas isn't good theology. The similarity? Simply between our books and theology, we both (before you or I were born), Jew and Christian, recognize what is good information and poor. The Gospel of Thomas is poor. You took that further than I intended, but I'm fine with posturing. It usually pans out, offenses as well. We all have our pet peeves.

I would appreciate an apology, if you are capable of writing one.
כל המלבין פני חברו ברבים כאילו שופך דמים

In the face of companions, bled? I'd need help with the idiom.
Thanks? I've an opportunity here to tell you where you jumped in without recognizing your own history. Does it mean you can't read Hebrew? :nono: I never said that, I said it was odd you'd know that your Scriptures didn't recognize books but then ask strange questions about Christians doing the same. Wherever the offense, it was indeed odd. I cannot apologize for the observation or the inequality. As I said, I too, at that point, could have taken offense. If you can accurately pinpoint your actual affront, I can then assess whether I was the cause, or whether you took offense where it wasn't warranted. If I've overstepped, show me. Show me from the O.T. or show me from my N.T. Where is the offense? I certainly can apologize, but not until the matter is clear and I'm just not getting clarity of offense from you. Figure it out, please.

-Lon

 

[Lon]

I picture you up on your inquisitional high chair looking down...such a Pharisee...typical

Good job, mean, spiteful, judge. Happy?

did you want to discuss the message or not...these ad Homs are almost worse than your handling of the message...almost

:nono: I really don't need to discuss anything with you. You aren't 'nice.' You have no capability for theology growth. Until you change? Yeah, no. Not interested.

your use of His Word is more annoying than your serious attempt at formal debate and discourse using pretty words and WHAT? silly emojis?.... which actually reveal what else might by altering your clarity comprehension and retention...besides slaps to the forehead

how you "do theology" remains the issue as what you do to scripture is less than sober...

"LOL?" lain:

 

[chair]

I don't care what you take kindly (not to be mean, but blunt). I've read a LOT of your traditions. I could give a rip what you, yourself are ignorant of and THEN have the audacity to do it back with your initial question in thread. As it sits? Yeah, I don't think you know even your own traditions as well as you think you do at that point because you haven't bothered to walk in another's shoes nor do you recognize when your question is the SAME THING as being a Jew.

TRY to see your own hypocrisy. It'll give you a lot more grace and understanding in these conversations (granted we are both on "Smack of Truth" TOL). I am college trained which includes a good bit of Jewish commentary which I still read and refer back to going through the Old Testament. Then a good bit of the commentaries were done by converted Jews. Jesus said you Jews were the "light of the world" so try to appreciate a bit more. LIghts aren't defensive but on a positive offense that shines.

You honestly don't see anything offensive in the above? Or arrogant?
By the way, calling commentaries by Jews who converted to Christianity "Jewish commentary" is a bit of a stretch.

 

[clefty]

Good job, mean, spiteful, judge.

this after starting a thread grading a historical text...and harshly as it upheld Sabbath keeping LOL

this after a paragraph of personal attacks...being compared to the historical power of tradition and those who felt they knew best what worship was should be a compliment to you...you should be flattered your imitations are noted

Happy?

here for the game coach...you wanna talk trash you best improve that too...

:nono: I really don't need to discuss anything with you. You aren't 'nice.' You have no capability for theology growth. Until you change? Yeah, no. Not interested.

you mean until I bend the knee kiss your ring and agree with the way you “do theology”...

"LOL?" lain:

You’ll note my lack of LOL as I don’t think what you do with scripture and how you “do theology” is humorous or sober...

Perhaps you actually should give it rest...and as you do...every day...maybe a sabbatical?

 

[clefty]

You honestly don't see anything offensive in the above? Or arrogant?
By the way, calling commentaries by Jews who converted to Christianity "Jewish commentary" is a bit of a stretch.

That’s just his “Smack of Truth” here on TOL...he is as he said (and I’m sure you’ll note) “college trained“...

 

[chair]

כל המלבין פני חברו ברבים כאילו שופך דמים

It's from the Talmud.
One who 'whitens another's face' (i.e. causes him embarrassment in public, so the blood drains from his face) is as if he spilled blood (that is, it's almost as bad as murder).

 

[Lon]

It's from the Talmud.
One who 'whitens another's face' (i.e. causes him embarrassment in public, so the blood drains from his face) is as if he spilled blood (that is, it's almost as bad as murder).

You were angry, but I don't buy the 'made me do it' argument. We are very much responsible for our own offenses. If you, for instance, said you didn't believe I knew even my own traditions, it'd simply be 'wrong' than a slight, if you follow. You don't seem to see that you do this to Christians, then take offense when such is offered back. We were talking about why the Gospel of Thomas is bad theology as well as not written by the apostle. I gave it a "D-minus" because it is poor quality. You countered, with: "...as graded by...yourself. I wonder how you would have viewed Thomas if it had been included in the official Bible, while Luke had been unknown for centuries, until finally unearthed somewhere."

Now if I countered in anywise snarky, it is because the above is seen as snarky. Did you really wonder, or were you just making a jab here? It 'seemed' the latter.

Further and next:

What actually happens is that books that are considered more reliable by, and fit the ideology of, whoever is doing the canonization get in the canon and are afterwards called "scripture".

By the way, I do not take kindly to people who know almost nothing about my traditions telling me what they are and how I ought to think about them.

It isn't just willy nilly, nor as ad hoc as you are intimating. This in itself it highly offensive as to accusation. I realize you want an apology, probably because you didn't intend the offense, but the offense, to me, is against God. For spiritual beings, it is very apparent what is clear and from God, and what is problematic. My point? To simply get you to grasp both your and my own canonization. As far as these go, both for the Jew and the Christian, I'm staunch orthodox. I believe God had a CLEAR hand in our respective canons.

At this point, I'd simply ask that you read between the lines: There was no offense other than address the offenses already given in a manner that fit the context. If I read you wrong? Surely I need to revisit my responses, but please provide feedback on these particular concerns. Thanks. -Lon

 

[chair]

You were angry, but I don't buy the 'made me do it' argument. We are very much responsible for our own offenses. If you, for instance, said you didn't believe I knew even my own traditions, it'd simply be 'wrong' than a slight, if you follow. You don't seem to see that you do this to Christians, then take offense when such is offered back. We were talking about why the Gospel of Thomas is bad theology as well as not written by the apostle. I gave it a "D-minus" because it is poor quality. You countered, with: "...as graded by...yourself. I wonder how you would have viewed Thomas if it had been included in the official Bible, while Luke had been unknown for centuries, until finally unearthed somewhere."

Now if I countered in anywise snarky, it is because the above is seen as snarky. Did you really wonder, or were you just making a jab here? It 'seemed' the latter.

Further and next:



It isn't just willy nilly, nor as ad hoc as you are intimating. This in itself it highly offensive as to accusation. I realize you want an apology, probably because you didn't intend the offense, but the offense, to me, is against God. For spiritual beings, it is very apparent what is clear and from God, and what is problematic. My point? To simply get you to grasp both your and my own canonization. As far as these go, both for the Jew and the Christian, I'm staunch orthodox. I believe God had a CLEAR hand in our respective canons.

At this point, I'd simply ask that you read between the lines: There was no offense other than address the offenses already given in a manner that fit the context. If I read you wrong? Surely I need to revisit my responses, but please provide feedback on these particular concerns. Thanks. -Lon

Well, my comment wasn't meant as "snarky". I simply don't think "the hand of god" was involved in any canonization- yours or mine. What bothered me was the accusation of my being ignorant of my own traditions, while bragging of your college education- implying that you know more about my traditions than I do.

But let's that lie, as I think we are both tired of this part of the conversation. Take this as burying the hatchet.

Of more interest is where and what you studied.

 

[7djengo7]

Well, my comment wasn't meant as "snarky". I simply don't think "the hand of god" was involved in any canonization- yours or mine. What bothered me was the accusation of my being ignorant of my own traditions, while bragging of your college education- implying that you know more about my traditions than I do.

Guess what: Nobody is obligated to you to take it for granted, or to take your word for it that you know what you're talking about--regarding ANY subject.

 

[Lon]

Well, my comment wasn't meant as "snarky". I simply don't think "the hand of god" was involved in any canonization- yours or mine.

Such is a HUGE separation. Not only do I think that, but God has made Himself known to me. So while I can see you weren't being snarky, you came in to the middle of this with some offensive assessments. I cannot BUT believe G-d had His hand in both canonizations.

What bothered me was the accusation of my being ignorant of my own traditions, while bragging of your college education- implying that you know more about my traditions than I do.

On this, the chasm between what we believe about the Tanakh as well as the New Testament. I can see your intention was not to be offensive, but asking from your belief system.

We are just so far apart that our particular estimates aren't viable in agreement.

But let's that lie, as I think we are both tired of this part of the conversation. Take this as burying the hatchet. Of more interest is where and what you studied.

. We've both been steeped in study from a young age. I've had close to a year of Hebrew (not enough) and two of Greek (also not enough), but I've had a lot of education on the traditions of Protestants. I read often through the Old and New (not quite once a year, but I take my time these days). It isn't simply theology that drives canonization, but whether it honors God.

 

[Lon]

I'll try to address this in getting this off in the right direction.

...as graded by...yourself. I wonder how you would have viewed Thomas if it had been included in the official Bible, while Luke had been unknown for centuries, until finally unearthed somewhere.

This part is where I was set on edge, but it shows where we greatly differ in what we take away respectively from such discussion.

My answer was 'the same as the Tanakh' not realizing you thought it had no Divine Hand.

Wikipedia does a nice job (I think) of bridging the gap and moving the discussion into laymen terms (if it works for you):

Development and codification[edit]

The inter-relationship between various significant ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament (some identified by their siglum). Mt being the Masoretic text. The lowermost text "(lost)" would be the Urtext.
Main article: Development of the Hebrew Bible canon
There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty,^[16] while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later.^[17]

According to Louis Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews, the twenty-four book canon of the Hebrew Bible was fixed by Ezra and the scribes in the Second Temple period.^[18]

According to the Talmud, much of the Tanakh was compiled by the men of the Great Assembly (Anshei K'nesset HaGedolah), a task completed in 450 BCE, and it has remained unchanged ever since.^[19]

The twenty-four book canon is mentioned in the Midrash Koheleth 12:12: Whoever brings together in his house more than twenty four books brings confusion.^[20]

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible

Wiki, I think underlines the tension here but it doesn't seem to correlate your take "that just men codified the bible.' The reason here, is that either a council or a prophetic office; thus the hand of Deity in my view through Ezra (or godly men (not singular) thus with spiritual concern also signifying the hand of God. The issue in mind between us then, isn't the same as 'just me' deciding the Gospel of Thomas was poor theology, history, or even Greek grammar. The books are already set, so bringing in another book must pass a test at this point, as I'm sure it would if the Tanakh were given contention of a newly found book.

On this point, instead of taking offense, I should have seen past the accusation into what and how you viewed collation. 1) apology, it is where it all started to go South and 2) I pray this meaningful for a better address.

The Book of Maccabees is actually a good book but it isn't in either of our canons (Catholic and Orthodox, yes). Why? Because for the Protestant, it is good history but lacks Divine instruction and perspective thus is not 'theology.' IOW, it fails one test but is very good on other counts, so should be read, but not in connection with the canon, collated for spiritual instruction and life.

You could shed light on the Tanakh here is well as to why Maccabees is not in your canon either. My original statement was that it was not included for the same reason as above for Christians (though I did not explain the comment at the time as I've done here). My understanding is that the book of Maccabees isn't in the Tanakh 1) because it was already canonized (closing it) and 2) because Maccabees is good history, but not spiritual instruction.

 

[clefty]

You've said that discussion and encouraging one another rather than "LOL" and posturing is 'no fun' but it is the way some of us do theology. :cheers:

Hey Coach!

lookie here!

From the Letter of Barnabas:

[God] says to them, "Your new moons and Sabbaths I cannot endure." You understand what he's saying. Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath I have made is. When I give rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day; that is, a beginning of another world. Therefore we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose from the dead. (ch. 15)

https://www.christian-history.org/lords-day.html

wonder how you would grade that?

But here is the real doozie that made me think of you and others here:

“Barnabas goes on to say that 'keeping the day' means being pure in heart in all things rather than refraining from working, as the Jews do. Justin Martyr, writing around A.D. 150, concurs with Barnabas:

The new law requires you to keep perpetual Sabbath, and you [Jews], because you are idle for one day, suppose you are godly, not understanding why this command was given to you. (Dialogue with Trypho 12)“ ibid.

So I imagine you to grade this non canonical text quite high...even fashioning a lifestyle after it...