Gospel of Thomas

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by vampyregirl, May 23, 2012.

  1. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    umm we are talking about evidence for the Q document here. I think you're confused.
  2. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

    Nope I'm not. I'm just wondering why you would question the validity of those documents from a "quasi Christian sect" considering your own religion is loaded with questionable documents of its own. Yet for some reason you question those which actually have some historical basis yet fully believe in ones that are at best dubious and at worst outright forgeries.

    It's incredibly ironic.
  3. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    The Gnostics were clearly a humanistic sect. Naturally im suspicous of such people. Another thing, the sect no longer exist. And, as i already said, i can't imagine the Jesus of the Bible saying those things attributed to him in the Gospel of Thomas.
    Get it now?
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    But you are not suspicious of a convicted fraud with the worst "origin" story for his dogma in history?

    That is the question Kuma is asking
  5. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen Hold strong not


    hey man. it's not his fault the government was trying to get him!


    the man decided to change his life after finding a book in the ground
  6. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Nope - convicted AFTER thhis so called "first vision"

    The man was a criminal and a liar - end of story
  7. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

    No. I acknowledge there are no conclusive direct first hand accounts of what went on. And simply put the majority of scholars it seems agree that we don't really know who wrote the gospels. Perhaps you know something they don't? Please do share.
  8. Mitch

    Mitch Lord Mitch of MAP Admin

    Hopkins was a Jesuit and had some ideas about Christ showing in the human, the divine in the mundane :)

    As kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies dráw fláme;
    As tumbled over rim in roundy wells
    Stones ring; like each tucked string tells, each hung bell’s
    Bow swung finds tongue to fling out broad its name;
    Each mortal thing does one thing and the same:
    Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;
    Selves—goes itself; myself it speaks and spells,
    Crying Whát I do is me: for that I came.
    Í say móre: the just man justices;
    Kéeps gráce: thát keeps all his goings graces;
    Acts in God’s eye what in God’s eye he is—
    Chríst—for Christ plays in ten thousand places,
    Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his
    To the Father through the features of men’s faces.

  9. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    You're hypocritical and you wear blinders. Talking with you is like talking with VampyreGirl. What you are ignoring are the assumptions that the "scholars" begin with. I see their assumptions, and I call foul. You ignore their assumptions and trot their conclusions as gospel truth.
  10. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

  11. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

    Choosing to side with the majority of scholars is hypocritical? Well fine. Prove me wrong. Who wrote the gospels? Frankly I think you're blinded by your own faith and arrogance.
  12. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    Actually he was accused in 1826 but never convicted of anything. DO your research. Read the court documents sometime.
  13. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    His conviction is disputed...by Mormons...he was not convicted of anythinge else because he is a liar and a coward who skipped on the charges

    Here is an explanation; The man was a crook and the so called "witnesses" were in on the scam - it is the least credible origin story ever

    Or you can believe the story

    I know which one actually makes sense, especially as pretty much everything he claimed has no basis in reality
  14. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

    Hmmm. According to my own research he WAS convicted of being engaged in flim-flamming others.


    In late 1825 a wealthy Pennsylvania farmer named Josiah Stowell (sometimes spelled Stoal) came 150 miles to hire Smith because of Smith's reputation. Smith was hired to help Stowell locate a supposed old Spanish silver mine on Stowell's farm. During this time two significant things happened. First, Smith met his future wife, Emma Hale, and in later interviews her father explained how he didn't like Joseph Smith when he first met him because Smith was a money-digger, and Mr. Hale didn't want any criminals marrying his daughter! Perhaps even more damaging, however, was the fact that Smith was tried and convicted in court in March 1826 for "glass-looking". The charge had been brought up by Stowell's nephew, who saw through the con that his uncle didn't. Mormon historians now acknowledge that this trial happened and that Smith was convicted on this charge.
  15. Knight_Errant

    Knight_Errant Banned Banned

    Moon Quakers. That's all I'm prepared to say on the subject.
  16. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    Umm no they don't. Smith was accused of glass looking but not convicted. This is according to court documents.
  17. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

  18. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Like I said - disputed by Mormons, not by anyone else. The phrase "overt agenda_ springs to mind

    What is your take on him fleeing charges then? Making him a fugitive AND a criminal
  19. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    I haven't been in this thread for a while but from reading this page is it now being said that J. Smith wrote the Gospel Of Thomas?

  20. vampyregirl

    vampyregirl Moved on

    You're claim that he fled charges is absurd being that he married Emma in that very town 10 months later. But m1k is right, this is getting off topic.

Share This Page