V
vern_humphrey
Guest
That’s not my fault!
I gave you the original. If you can’t deal with it, that’s your problem.
- Status
I gave you the original. If you can’t deal with it, that’s your problem.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
That’s not how it works. You’re the one advancing the affirmative position (that the Gospel of Thomas is genuine and inspired.) The burden of proof is on you.
B
BibleReader
Guest
vern humphrey:
You omitted the note that goes with the Lambdin Translation that says, "TL has ‘secret’ here instead of ‘hidden,’ but nowhere else does he translate [the word] thus…"!!!
geocities.com/Athens/9068/splitv.htm
I.e., it’s a bad translation.
Did you omit that on purpose, my friend? Note how much your post on the term relies on the use of the actual word “secret.” Ooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!..
**Note the emphasis on “secret” in the opening, and “discovering the interpretation” in verse 1. These are Gnostic – the Gnostics claimed to have “secret” teachings and held that knowledge (gnosis) was the key to salvation.
**
Hi, vern.
You omitted the note that goes with the Lambdin Translation that says, "TL has ‘secret’ here instead of ‘hidden,’ but nowhere else does he translate [the word] thus…"!!!
geocities.com/Athens/9068/splitv.htm
I.e., it’s a bad translation.
Did you omit that on purpose, my friend? Note how much your post on the term relies on the use of the actual word “secret.” Ooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!..
**Note the emphasis on “secret” in the opening, and “discovering the interpretation” in verse 1. These are Gnostic – the Gnostics claimed to have “secret” teachings and held that knowledge (gnosis) was the key to salvation.
**
B
BibleReader
Guest
So, you didn’t even get the “secret” business correct.
And Rand didn’t know that Jesus DID say the things Rand characterized as Satanic.
And now suddenly nobody’s offering proof that it’s Gnostic.
Hmmmm. I wonder why?
And Rand didn’t know that Jesus DID say the things Rand characterized as Satanic.
And now suddenly nobody’s offering proof that it’s Gnostic.
Hmmmm. I wonder why?
D
Digitonomy
Guest
You’re absolutely right about the copyright. However, the purpose of this “link your source” rule of thumb isn’t just to protect copyright holders, but also to help people read the entire thing for themselves, or compare this version to their translation, or to see that it’s from New Advent, whose Catholic Encyclopedia hasn’t been updated since ~1911, while the discussion of the Infancy Gospel to which you linked was apparently published in 1886.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
So, to follow your rules, prove it.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Most translators use “secret” as a translation. “Hidden” has the same meaning.
Experts in the field consider it a Gnostic document.
A
aaronjmagnan
Guest
I am a Catholic, and I have come to the same conclusions: the Gospel of Thomas is close to the teachings of Jesus, and I think I read (though I may be wrong) that it was included in some texts reviewed when the canon was put together, but it had some troublesome doctrine.
Technically, we must imitate Christ, man and woman, so although she must not become male, she must become like a male, that is Jesus. :tiphat:
God bless,
Aaron
G
Ghosty
Guest
BibleReader: Hidden and Secret mean the same thing. Hidden is from Old English, and Secret is from Latin, both mean “concealed” or “kept apart”.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The Gospel of Thomas, as we have it may indeed have genuine Thomist roots – but one has only to read it and see all the bizzare additions. These may have been added later by Gnostics (if it has genuine Thomistic roots), or it may have been made from whole cloth, taking known sayings of Jesus from other sources and adding Gnostic material.
A
aaronjmagnan
Guest
But does the word hidden have the same etymology related to sacred as secret does?
Aaron
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Now you have my attention. I’m intrigued by this alleged etymological link. However, I can’t find any evidence online of a shared root. Can you point me to such a source?
A
aaronjmagnan
Guest
You know, I don´t know where to find that…I´ll research it. The thing is, I read it, sadly, in some post-modernist stuff years ago, then, I came to. When I made that post, I had mistakenly thought I had read it in an etymological dictionary…but I think I am wrong.
Sorry to get your hopes up.
Aaron
Sorry to get your hopes up.
Aaron
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
From Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second Edition:
Sacred – from Old French from Latin* sacer*, holy.
Secret – from Old French from Latin pp of se (apart) plus cernere (to sift, discerene)
Not even close.
B
BibleReader
Guest
vern humphrey:
So, to follow your rules, prove it.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Most translators use “secret” as a translation. “Hidden” has the same meaning.
Experts in the field consider it a Gnostic document.
Re “Most translators use ‘secret’ as a translation. ‘Hidden’ has the same meaning.”: Modern Westerners non-expert in translation frequently assume that ancients thought like modern Westerners. It rarely works out that way. YOU say, “‘Hidden’ has the same meaning.” That’s true – if you’re from a modern, English-speaking country. However, a very large portion of translation of ancient texts is guesswork and compromise of logical dynamics. Read Roman Catholic Committee translator Bruce Vawter’s book On Genesis and you’ll see how much guesswork goes into even the Bible’s translation. The truth is rather startling.
Re “Experts in the field consider it a Gnostic document”: Actually, it was an expert who claimed that the Gospel of Thomas ISN’T Gnostic that got me interested in reading and analyzing it years ago. His article asked, “Why do they call it ‘Gnostic’?”
The answer is, It’s a habit. No one ever checks.
Decades ago, for about 5 years, medical school textbooks ran a photo over a caption reading something like, “Photo proving humans have 48 chromosomes.”
Then someone finally actually counted the chromosomes in the photo.
Across the country, medical school textbook warehouses threw out their books.
Beware of experts. The entire psychiatric field, for example, has declared that deciding to make love to another human’s biological sewer system is normal. “Expert” =/= “correct.”
So, to follow your rules, prove it.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Most translators use “secret” as a translation. “Hidden” has the same meaning.
Experts in the field consider it a Gnostic document.
Re “Most translators use ‘secret’ as a translation. ‘Hidden’ has the same meaning.”: Modern Westerners non-expert in translation frequently assume that ancients thought like modern Westerners. It rarely works out that way. YOU say, “‘Hidden’ has the same meaning.” That’s true – if you’re from a modern, English-speaking country. However, a very large portion of translation of ancient texts is guesswork and compromise of logical dynamics. Read Roman Catholic Committee translator Bruce Vawter’s book On Genesis and you’ll see how much guesswork goes into even the Bible’s translation. The truth is rather startling.
Re “Experts in the field consider it a Gnostic document”: Actually, it was an expert who claimed that the Gospel of Thomas ISN’T Gnostic that got me interested in reading and analyzing it years ago. His article asked, “Why do they call it ‘Gnostic’?”
The answer is, It’s a habit. No one ever checks.
Decades ago, for about 5 years, medical school textbooks ran a photo over a caption reading something like, “Photo proving humans have 48 chromosomes.”
Then someone finally actually counted the chromosomes in the photo.
Across the country, medical school textbook warehouses threw out their books.
Beware of experts. The entire psychiatric field, for example, has declared that deciding to make love to another human’s biological sewer system is normal. “Expert” =/= “correct.”
S
sweetchuck
Guest
that’s a bit of a false dichotomy and an overcategorization. Even your analogy has holes. The elites in the psychiatric field, not the entire field, has abandoned sound judgment in favor of politics. But even this analogy does not necessarily transcend all academic fields. Theologians must deserve a little more credibility, especially those in line with the Church, because they are living the contemplative life, searching the meanings of the Scriptures. It’s an environment that fosters spiritual development. This is the flaw of the secular fields – they are secular.
B
BibleReader
Guest
You are wrong about the change being limited to just the “elites.” The change in professional guidelines is grounds for discipline and malpractice accusations against anyone in ther profession. The change in guidelines really is changing everything in the profession – textbooks, scholarly writings, counciling, expert advice in court, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
S
sweetchuck
Guest
I didn’t say it was limited to the elites. I said “not the entire field” not is “limited to” – you should not project your thoughts (especially when they are erroneously drawn) into other people’s words when you want to disprove what they have to say. There are many decent psychiatrists, though the elites are making it harder and harder for decent psychiatrists to make it in the field.
But that’s irrelevant, you did not address the crux of my point – that your weak analogy about an overly secularized field whose problem lies in its secular nature does not transcend into the theological field.
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
I didn’t characterize Jesus’ words words as Satanic. Don’t put words in my mouth. What I said was is that the ENTIRE “gospel” seems to be from the devil because it contains truth within the overall lie (the lie being that it is apostolic in origin). I don’t have the Bible memorized and I just didn’t remember Jesus saying those things. Not once did I say that Jesus’ words were of Satanic origin and I would appreciate it if you didn’t insinuate that again.
In Christ,
Rand
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
I havent read the GoT yet but I see very valid points made by BibleReader.
I was under the impression that every other page told some naked heresy that people didnt even waste their time refuting the GoT. But I havent seen hardly any passages cited that were controversial.
At the same time Ghosty makes the claim that why wasnt such a book accepted in the first place or at least thrown on the ECF’s book shelf right by the Didache and other stuff.
Call me pants wetter or whatever, but my gut feeling tells me there is some major problems with that book and people just havent listed it yet. Im going to look into it right now.
I was under the impression that every other page told some naked heresy that people didnt even waste their time refuting the GoT. But I havent seen hardly any passages cited that were controversial.
At the same time Ghosty makes the claim that why wasnt such a book accepted in the first place or at least thrown on the ECF’s book shelf right by the Didache and other stuff.
Call me pants wetter or whatever, but my gut feeling tells me there is some major problems with that book and people just havent listed it yet. Im going to look into it right now.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
WHAT? Is this what the problem is over? I just read that thing and I spoke in total ignorance in my last post, that book was nothing. Only about the size of 2-3 Bible chapters worth of words.
There was no organization or anything, just cut and paste random qoutes that book is totally worthless unless you have read the 4 Gospels, otherwise you dont know who/what most of those things are.
Where is the doubting Thomas in all this? Where is the “My Lord and my God?” after the Resurrection?
That “book” was fabricated and plagiarized by a few guys way after the 4 Gospels were well established. It doesnt even deserve the title of “gospel” in the sense we know it.
There was no organization or anything, just cut and paste random qoutes that book is totally worthless unless you have read the 4 Gospels, otherwise you dont know who/what most of those things are.
Where is the doubting Thomas in all this? Where is the “My Lord and my God?” after the Resurrection?
That “book” was fabricated and plagiarized by a few guys way after the 4 Gospels were well established. It doesnt even deserve the title of “gospel” in the sense we know it.
- Status