No, biblical historians, archeologists, are not scientists and likewise have an agenda. Science is a process. We just don't know vs. he was wrong. I don't get your point. Is it a true account of Jesus' sayings or is it a reconstruction?
What is Christian Origination Science, Ive never heard of it.
That doesn't sound like they have a Christian agenda to you? It sounds like they have a Christian agenda to me.
Biblical Studies on the other hand, studies the bible, they could be Christian, Jewish , Islam, non-denominational, et al. The field draws on disciplines ranging from archaeology, ancient history, historical criticism, cultural anthropology, textual criticism, literary criticism, historical backgrounds, mythology, and comparative religion.
There is no such thing as Biblical Science. If you go to school for biblical studies you receive a Bachelor of Arts degree not a Bachelor of Science. They use the scientific method in the Biblical Study disciplines. Im guessing C.O.S. is some pseudo science on the fringes of scholarly pursuits of religious studies with an agenda. Again show me a web site for Christian Origination Science.
You said it was a reconstruction, not me. The Nag Hammadi Library is a least 200 years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls both are the oldest know example of the corresponding texts, Gnostic Text and the New Testament respectively. If there were any "reconstruction" of texts going on it was the D.S.S reconstructing the N.H.L. because the N.H.L. is much older therefore first based on archeological evidence. Gnosticism is older than Christianity.
So to answer your question straightly, The Gospel of Thomas is as true as the N.T. if not truer, because the Catholic Church tried to stomp Gnosticism out of existence, trying to hide the truth. The N.T. and the Catholic Church were created by the Flavian Dynasty and Josephus in order to control the masses.
As for the Q source, I suspect that it's the Sumerian texts. The Sumerians were the oldest civilization to date. Many of their histories have parallels with the OT and NT. Adam and Eve, Noah, Cain and Able, ect. you might even say the Bible is a reconstruction of the Sumerian texts, a very bad reconstruction.
On a preliminary reading (Its going to take me a while to read the whole thing). He seems ligit. He's not a C.O.S. is he? He has a B.A. and a M.A. along with a PhD.
I need to admit that I was thinking you were coming for a completely different perspective. That is to say I thought you were a Christian. You're links make me think otherwise, at least in the conventional sense.
Im not ruling out that the Q source is from outer space. The Sumerians may very well be from outer space or another dimension.
No, biblical historians, archeologists, are not scientists and likewise have an agenda. Science is a process. We just don't know vs. he was wrong. I don't get your point. Is it a true account of Jesus' sayings or is it a reconstruction?
What is Christian Origination Science, Ive never heard of it.
That doesn't sound like they have a Christian agenda to you? It sounds like they have a Christian agenda to me.
Biblical Studies on the other hand, studies the bible, they could be Christian, Jewish , Islam, non-denominational, et al. The field draws on disciplines ranging from archaeology, ancient history, historical criticism, cultural anthropology, textual criticism, literary criticism, historical backgrounds, mythology, and comparative religion.
There is no such thing as Biblical Science. If you go to school for biblical studies you receive a Bachelor of Arts degree not a Bachelor of Science. They use the scientific method in the Biblical Study disciplines. Im guessing C.O.S. is some pseudo science on the fringes of scholarly pursuits of religious studies with an agenda. Again show me a web site for Christian Origination Science.
You said it was a reconstruction, not me. The Nag Hammadi Library is a least 200 years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls both are the oldest know example of the corresponding texts, Gnostic Text and the New Testament respectively. If there were any "reconstruction" of texts going on it was the D.S.S reconstructing the N.H.L. because the N.H.L. is much older therefore first based on archeological evidence. Gnosticism is older than Christianity.
So to answer your question straightly, The Gospel of Thomas is as true as the N.T. if not truer, because the Catholic Church tried to stomp Gnosticism out of existence, trying to hide the truth. The N.T. and the Catholic Church were created by the Flavian Dynasty and Josephus in order to control the masses.
As for the Q source, I suspect that it's the Sumerian texts. The Sumerians were the oldest civilization to date. Many of their histories have parallels with the OT and NT. Adam and Eve, Noah, Cain and Able, ect. you might even say the Bible is a reconstruction of the Sumerian texts, a very bad reconstruction.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/17358
I suspect the Q source is from outer space.
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Outer-Space-Earliest-Christians/dp/1634311949
On a preliminary reading (Its going to take me a while to read the whole thing). He seems ligit. He's not a C.O.S. is he? He has a B.A. and a M.A. along with a PhD.
I need to admit that I was thinking you were coming for a completely different perspective. That is to say I thought you were a Christian. You're links make me think otherwise, at least in the conventional sense.
Im not ruling out that the Q source is from outer space. The Sumerians may very well be from outer space or another dimension.
He is for the advancement of Christian Origin Science. Yes.
Well, maybe not THE real outer space, as the human authors understood it.
I'm Christian. I'm a Christian Origin Scientist.
sorry for the downvote but just wanted to say, I dig your knowledgebase.
Not a problem. Thanks.