1) Is that measuring standard entirely subjective? It sounds entirely subjective. 2) Am I correct insofar as this truth is known to be true only through a book dug out of the ground without any connection to any people group anywhere on the planet?
Hebrews were and are on the planet. The truth has to be revealed to you by God. Only then will you know if the book is true.
Come on, you're better than that. Religious Jews have zero connection to the Book of Mormon. Ask my buddy CanuckMA how often and when they touch even one page of it. That's not an answer to the question.
It was written by Hebrews. You know that. This measuring rod you're looking for is God. He is the revealer of truth.
Anyway we are getting off topic. Can the Gospel of Thomas seriously be taken as evidence for the Q document or not?
Yes, it can be taken for evidence of some previous document that contained the supposed sayings of Jesus may have existed. It can not be taken for proof of said document.
Thank you, Hannibal, for hearing the question. (whew) I didn't think I was that poor a communicator, but, wow, okay, maybe. No, I don't. I'm still stuck on the unaddressed point about it being dug out of the ground without any connection at all to any people group anywhere on the planet, at all. I took American History. My brother has a PhD in American History. My wife and I homeschooled our children, so we've seen a ton of history books. Through it all I have never heard so much as a whisper of a suggestion that Hebrews lived in New York State before the era of the Indians who met the American Colonists.
The "Q document" is as true to life as Dan Brown novels. Fact. The Gospel of Thomas was not written by anyone who knew Jesus, or who knew someone who knew Jesus. Fact. So, the answer to your question is "no."
At the very least, even if documents haven't gone missing or fallen into a poor state of repair over the last two millennia. There is still the translation problem. So far as I'm aware there is no first century modern English commentary on anything that was written about Jesus Christ. Everything has had to be translated. And where there is no equivalent word. People fill in the blanks as best as they can. http://io9.com/5905257/10-untranslatable-words-and-when-youll-want-to-use-them http://bigthink.com/ideas/41152?page=all http://www.bookofjoe.com/2012/03/8-german-words-with-no-english-equivalent.html http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/94828 http://www.language-museum.com/blog/2011/10/25/more-words-with-no-english-equivalent/ http://jennyzhu.com/2011/10/26/10-wonderful-chinese-words-without-english-equivalent/ http://matadornetwork.com/abroad/20-awesomely-untranslatable-words-from-around-the-world/
The same could be said for any of the four gospels in the New Testament. It's interesting that you make your statement as though your opinion was indisputable. The real truth of the matter is two millennia after the event, we really don't know who wrote what. We don't know what actually happened, what's exaggeration and what was just plain made up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible#Gospels_and_Acts
As a non-seafaring group, it would have been quite a feat to land in the Americas. India is as far as we got during the exiles. And we likely hitched a ride with someone else.
