Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Thomas logion 71. Response. Re-submitted

Expand Messages
  • jmgcormier
    Thank you both Dr.Bóid and Mike Grondin for your insightful contributions on my question regarding Thomas 71. If indeed The Greek of the New Testament and
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 19, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you both Dr.Bóid and Mike Grondin for your insightful
      contributions on my question regarding Thomas 71.

      If indeed "The Greek of the New Testament and related texts usually
      follows standard Hebrew technical terminology, even to the point of
      sounding artificial" and if "the word temple is misleading" (both
      quotes Dr Boid), then I will have to find another way of resolving
      why the discrepancy still seems so real to me in a dogmatic sense
      (body vs "what have you") between John and Thomas. Perhaps others
      can make equally insightful contributions.

      Had your (Dr Boid)note not arrived when it did, I might have been
      tempted to argue on Mike's closing comment (his Post of one day
      earlier) about "One possibility is that the Temple was no longer
      relevant (because it was no longer in use) when L5 reached the form
      in which we find it" ... that if Thomas was written as an integral
      manuscript at one specific point in time (this, of course being
      contrary to the "manuscript evolutionists'" views about Thomas) that
      given Jesus' suggestion to his Disciples in Logion 12 (because James
      died c. 62 C.E. and the temple was only destroyed 8 years later in
      70 C.E.) that Jesus, in suggesting that the disciples "go to James"
      for proper advice, Jesus would have been suggesting a chronological
      impossibility ... thus throwing Thomas' reliability into a bit of
      doubt.

      Again, thank you both for your valuable insights ...


      Maurice
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.