Thomas the Contender

originally posted by: Szarah

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Szarah
a reply to: chr0naut

No, a fool is not intelligent by nature and definition.


And comedians act foolISH for money. They can be intelligent off stage and sometimes don't act foolISH on or off stage. You can be wise AND funny.

Jesus is saying a wise man doesn't keep company with fools as in idiots or morons. It's good advice and true. A total fool is the polar opposite of intelligent.

I would hope that I am intelligent, but I've done some really foolish things in my life. So, I am living proof that a fool can be intelligent, too.

What about a live-in nurse, doctor or teacher taking care of the intellectually handicapped? Should they abandon their duty due to this saying?

As a bit of "wisdom" it falls short of the mark.

Why would an intellectually handicapped person be considered a fool?

They are ill, not fools.

So you fall short of wisdom, not the quote.

I find it disturbing that you classify the mentally handicapped as fools.

I

Your confusion is the assumption that intelligence is opposite to foolishness. They are two separate things. As I initially responded, an intelligent person can also be a fool.

I do not classify the intellectually handicapped as fools, nor do I classify them as sick. I would rather classify them as differently abled than the average person. Part of a continuous spectrum of human abilities.

Some intellectual handicap is definable as reduced intelligence (in comparison to the average), not a very PC answer, but factual (this is, again, only in some cases).

I was trying to show that the 'truism' from the Gospel of Thomas is invalid, mixing the meanings of words as if they were opposites.

a reply to: chr0naut

I'm far from confused, your comment was not confusing. Your confusion is not knowing that acting foolISH doesn't make you A fool. But BEING a fool does.

Invalid is merely your opinion, fools are by definition not intelligent. If they were, they wouldn't be fools.

Your suggestion that people should quit their jobs because they work with the disabled who are ill, not fools, was invalid. If you didn't think they were fools you would not have said that.

Your attempt to claim that fools are intelligent in order to invalidate Thomas the contender is invalid. A fool is a fool.

Why would you even want to Invalidate a work of scripture? You can't.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Szarah
a reply to: chr0naut

No, a fool is not intelligent by nature and definition.


And comedians act foolISH for money. They can be intelligent off stage and sometimes don't act foolISH on or off stage. You can be wise AND funny.

Jesus is saying a wise man doesn't keep company with fools as in idiots or morons. It's good advice and true. A total fool is the polar opposite of intelligent.

What about a live-in nurse, doctor or teacher taking care of the intellectually handicapped? Should they abandon their duty due to this saying?

As a bit of "wisdom" it falls short of the mark.

We are discussing fools, and you asked should people quit their jobs because they work with the disabled?

Why else would you ask that, if you weren't calling them fools? If you don't think they are fools the thought of people quitting would not have entered your mind.

So, clearly you have a problem with Thomas the Contender if you're willing to go to these lengths to insult a book about Christ and Thomas the twin.

What did Thomas do to you, personally, that you feel the need to strike out against a work of scripture?

a reply to: chr0naut

"...cannot dwell with a fool. The intelligent person is perfect in all wisdom, but to the fool good and evil are the same...

The wise person will be nourished by the truth, and will be like a tree growing by the stream.


I want you to focus on "but to the fool good and evil are the same." This is the sentence that follows the quote you don't like. I would apply it to "but to the fool, a fool is intelligent." Because they are both opposites.

originally posted by: Szarah

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Szarah
a reply to: chr0naut

No, a fool is not intelligent by nature and definition.


And comedians act foolISH for money. They can be intelligent off stage and sometimes don't act foolISH on or off stage. You can be wise AND funny.

Jesus is saying a wise man doesn't keep company with fools as in idiots or morons. It's good advice and true. A total fool is the polar opposite of intelligent.

What about a live-in nurse, doctor or teacher taking care of the intellectually handicapped? Should they abandon their duty due to this saying?

As a bit of "wisdom" it falls short of the mark.

We are discussing fools, and you asked should people quit their jobs because they work with the disabled?

Why else would you ask that, if you weren't calling them fools? If you don't think they are fools the thought of people quitting would not have entered your mind.

So, clearly you have a problem with Thomas the Contender if you're willing to go to these lengths to insult a book about Christ and Thomas the twin.

What did Thomas do to you, personally, that you feel the need to strike out against a work of scripture?

I doubt that Christ said some of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas text and also I doubt that the writer was called Thomas. I believe it is a fictional heretical account written in Syria in Coptic, at least 200 years after Christ died.

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313 – 386 AD) said: "The Manichæans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort." and "Let none read the Gospel according to Thomas: for it is the work not of one of the twelve Apostles, but of one of the three wicked disciples of Manes."

Manichæus or Manes; (c. 216–276 AD) was an Iranian 'prophet' who opposed Christianity and proposed a Gnostic theology. Iranians in the time of Manichæus, normally wrote in Coptic.

The oldest text of the Gospel of Thomas are the three Oxyrhynchus papyrus fragments which are written in Greek, but show evidence of having been translated to Greek from Coptic. The translation was also quite poor and so it took some time for scholars to figure out that they were actually fragments of the Gospel of Thomas.

The Gospel of Thomas also contains concepts and wording compliant with Manichean teachings and different from the content of the canonized gospels. The canonical gospels have a particular sequence of events interspersed with the teaching of Jesus.

The Gospel of Thomas not only does not have any accounts of the actions of Jesus, but gets the sequence of his sayings different than the canonical gospels.

So that is the reason for my opposition to the Gospel of Thomas. I have nothing against Thomas Didymus one of the the 12 disciples of Jesus.

a reply to: chr0naut

None of that bothers me. I like it either way and feel it is as legit as any biblical book.

You think what you want, this I am not arguing as nothing can ever be proven it is pointless.

You either like it or you don't. Quite a few people do like it.

a reply to: chr0naut

If you don't like it then why did you spend time researching? So you could talk trash?

How about the oldest Bible is from mid 3rd century? Kind of renders your argument useless. I don't think Mani had anything to do with this either, although I have no problem with Manichaeism, he had his own followers and religion stretching to China and is not known for associating with the Sethian/Sophians.

Plus no reliable information about Mani exists as you can't trust those patristic polemics against"heretics."

a reply to: chr0naut

So you can take your anti Gnostic sentiments elsewhere.

It is even possible that the Gospel of Thomas is the source of those Gospel sayings. And who cares about the order? Like that makes a difference.

Quit being a Gnostic hater. Christianity has its own problems to deal with before you harp on other Christ based faiths take a look at your own screwed up religion and it's murderous history.

originally posted by: Szarah
a reply to: chr0naut

If you don't like it then why did you spend time researching? So you could talk trash?

How about the oldest Bible is from mid 3rd century? Kind of renders your argument useless. I don't think Mani had anything to do with this either, although I have no problem with Manichaeism, he had his own followers and religion stretching to China and is not known for associating with the Sethian/Sophians.

Plus no reliable information about Mani exists as you can't trust those patristic polemics against"heretics."

Granted that the oldest COMPLETE Bible is third century but the oldest bible fragment (the Rylands Library Papyrus P52) is dated to about 57 years after the death of Jesus. There are many similar early fragments.

a reply to: Padawan Szarah Googlemiser

Padawan you were going so good with the non-aggressive attitude! For a minute there I thought that a little over 6 months, 50+ banned user accounts and a talk with a mod from another website sorted you out.

Obviously your falling back into your old ways.

Why a thread about 'fools'?. Damn where all fools unless one is mentally retarded, and that's a biological issue. Its funny you talk about fools when you yourself is one. Without a doubt.

originally posted by: Padawan Szarah Googlemiser
a reply to: chr0naut
How about the oldest Bible is from mid 3rd century? Kind of renders your argument useless."

So the Bible is useless because its 3rd century? If so, why do you use it as a base for an argument in any point you make?
From Genesis to Revelation its useless because its from the 3rd century onwards, page saved.

So that means that any and all your Bible references are mute. Will keep that in mind Padawan for any future arguments!

originally posted by: Padawan Szarah Googlemiser
a reply to: chr0naut
So you can take your anti Gnostic sentiments elsewhere.

So your a Gnostic in this particular internet incarnation, that's cool. But if the Bible is incorrect in your mind then why use any of its texts as part of your argument. This is frakin strange Padawan Googlemiser!

If you think the Bible to be incompatible with your beliefs then don't use them Padawan Googlemiser.

Only someone Bat Sh!t Crazy would include something they believe to be wrong into their arguments Padawan Googlemiser.

Thomas was a wise man yes, but I doubt he would put down people who would ask valid questions Padawan.

Here's a thought, how about taking up a sport and get some sun and exercise. Good food intake would be good as well and added to that meet people and try tangible friendship Padawan. Don't say this as having a go but really mean it !

Get out some man, or not a man.

Coomba98... sorry.

Summers Eve
(Your female friendly companion).

a reply to: coomba98

😂

originally posted by: Padawan Szarah Googlemiser
a reply to: coomba98
😂

Funny hay. As you quoted...

"...it is impossible for an intelligent man to dwell with a fool."

I agree.

So is the Bible a souce of proof?

Coomba98.. sorry

Summers Eve
(Your friendly companion)

Anyone interested here is the Acts of Thomas which has Thomas heading to India.


As well as the Apocalypse of Thomas

originally posted by: Szarah
a reply to: chr0naut

So you can take your anti Gnostic sentiments elsewhere.

It is even possible that the Gospel of Thomas is the source of those Gospel sayings. And who cares about the order? Like that makes a difference.

Quit being a Gnostic hater. Christianity has its own problems to deal with before you harp on other Christ based faiths take a look at your own screwed up religion and it's murderous history.

I am not required to go elsewhere and I was discussing the topic. You suggested that I had something against Thomas and I responded, clarifying the case.

It is also not possible that the Gospel of Thomas is the source of the other gospel sayings. The consistency of the narratives of the synoptic gospels is indicative of them being eyewitness accounts, and/or copied either from each other, and/or copied from a lost document called "Q".

The Gospel of Thomas leaves too much out and includes too much that is not in the other gospels to classify it as being "Q". The Coptic source, late date and the anti-Christian implications of what it does say also speak against that proposition.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Szarah
a reply to: chr0naut

So you can take your anti Gnostic sentiments elsewhere.

It is even possible that the Gospel of Thomas is the source of those Gospel sayings. And who cares about the order? Like that makes a difference.

Quit being a Gnostic hater. Christianity has its own problems to deal with before you harp on other Christ based faiths take a look at your own screwed up religion and it's murderous history.

I am not required to go elsewhere and I was discussing the topic. You suggested that I had something against Thomas and I responded, clarifying the case.

It is also not possible that the Gospel of Thomas is the source of the other gospel sayings. The consistency of the narratives of the synoptic gospels is indicative of them being eyewitness accounts, and/or copied either from each other, and/or copied from a lost document called "Q".

The Gospel of Thomas leaves too much out and includes too much that is not in the other gospels to classify it as being "Q". The Coptic source, late date and the anti-Christian implications of what it does say also speak against that proposition.

I know many people who disagree with your opinion and consider the Gospel of Thomas of if not the most authentic Gospel. It isn't that it left out things but that things were added later and excerpts from Thomas used as source material.

However Thomas the Contender is the book this thread is about. As much as I love the Gospel of Thomas, it is a different genre of scripture and from an earlier date.

The rhythmic flow and profound Wisdom of the Contender is worthy of respect and for that reason I will redirect the discussion in that direction.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Szarah
a reply to: chr0naut

So you can take your anti Gnostic sentiments elsewhere.

It is even possible that the Gospel of Thomas is the source of those Gospel sayings. And who cares about the order? Like that makes a difference.

Quit being a Gnostic hater. Christianity has its own problems to deal with before you harp on other Christ based faiths take a look at your own screwed up religion and it's murderous history.

I am not required to go elsewhere and I was discussing the topic. You suggested that I had something against Thomas and I responded, clarifying the case.

It is also not possible that the Gospel of Thomas is the source of the other gospel sayings. The consistency of the narratives of the synoptic gospels is indicative of them being eyewitness accounts, and/or copied either from each other, and/or copied from a lost document called "Q".

The Gospel of Thomas leaves too much out and includes too much that is not in the other gospels to classify it as being "Q". The Coptic source, late date and the anti-Christian implications of what it does say also speak against that proposition.

Actually, it is known that none of the Gospel writers witnessed the crucifixion, the most important event in the Bible. Everyone fled but the women disciples.

The temptation of Jesus certainly is not eyewitness. Neither is any event leading up to the baptism of Jesus and choosing of the Apostles as well as the disciples.

I don't think Luke even met Jesus and his whole Gospel is second hand information.

The Gospels in the New Testament are hardly historical eyewitness testimony of the life and times of Jesus and are highly embellished.

Gospel of Thomas is just a book of wise quotes of the Christ. I find it far more believable as a legitimate Gospel and the actual words of the Christ. It has even been given a first century dating by the newest scholars to examine it and the previous scholars concur.

Far from impossible it is that the Gospel of Thomas was source material.

It is actually probable.

a reply to: chr0naut

Why do you hate Apocrypha when the New Testament itself is not reliable as a source of historical records?

Why is church approved mythology all you are interested in?

If you like the Apostles and Jesus, what would make you not like more books about them?

To each their own I say, but I prefer to choose for myself what is relevant to Christ Knowledge and am happy that more texts have been made available at the click of a button. How many times can you read the same book and refuse to read the books that tell the stories about the adventures of the Apostles?