The infancy Gospel of Thomas was written well over one hundred years after Jesus had already left earth, in the second century. It claimed that Jesus performed random frivolous miracles for fun, when the Gospel of John said that the water to wine miracle was the first. We also don't know who "Thomas the Israelite" is either.
It's likely just something someone made up to try and give a narrative for Jesus' childhood.
Jesus also likely cast the demons out of Mary Magdalene while in His thirties. Jesus wouldn't need a female partner if He actually was truly God.
When were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John written?
Here, let me save you a quick Google:
The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.
Oh look at that.
after Jesus had already left Earth
Lol ok bud. Whatever delusion makes you happy.
What are you trying to prove? The infancy gospel of thomas was written likely around 180AD and even then, people were already calling it out as being a fake.
You clearly aren't looking for an open-minded discussion by calling me "delusional", anyway.
Imagine using such a piss poor method of finding truth for literally anything in your life besides religion.
Would you consider me delusional if I told you that I have an invisible dragon in my garage, and that he's died several times, and has returned to Earth after each time?
Do you have proof of this invisible dragon?
I'm glad you asked!
Come on by my garage, the dragon's right there. Though I guess I did forget to mention that he's invisible.
(In case you weren't aware, I'm referencing a famous Carl Sagan essay/short story from his book "The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark" and obviously he did a much better job laying it out than I ever could. Here is the text of the essay plus explanation: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage. By the way, incredible book that should be required reading for every adult human on the planet.)
Here is the conclusion of the essay where he does a pretty good job explaining what the point of it was:
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
I do ask you though, how would you prove God, if He was real? It's not like you can say "if God is real, then ice would melt if exposed to heat", could you? What proof would convince you, personally?
I don't know. Scientific evidence that is reproducible would be a good start. The scientific method is the only method I'm aware of that we have to accurately explain and predict the natural processes surrounding us.
One thing I do know, if I were God and I wanted people to know I was real, I would know exactly how to do that. There wouldn't be a question about which sect is correct, because I am all-knowing; I know exactly what it would take for each person.
But we also know that there are people who will not go to heaven, and instead will suffer for eternity in absence of God... So that means that there are people (quite a few) that God created knowing full well that they are "destined" to burn for eternity. Sorry, but that's really fucked up.
The scientific method isn't the only method. It cannot explain why the United Kingdom formed or why WWII happened.
I think it is a matter of perspective. Phil walked into a room and the kettle was boiling. Gregory was already in that room. Phil asked Gregory why the kettle was boiling. Gregory started talking about the heating element, electricity, how it heats the water, why water boils, etc. Then Bill walks in, and Phil asks Bill why the kettle is boiling. Bill responds with "because I wanted a cup of tea!"
Then, there is the historical method.
You say that there wouldn't be a question over what sect is correct. But history records a man who lived around two thousand years ago who said he is "the only way". He also claimed that he was God. Was he just a madman? Anyone can claim to be god. Well, no, because he had miracles to back him up. He was born of a virgin as well and ended up being executed, then somehow coming back to life, and was seen by many people. Then he was seen ascending into heaven. Not only does our past history point to this man, but his past history pointed to this man. There are writings predicting him that even outdate him. And it's not like throwing spaghetti towards the wall, as those writings were being actively held to those people that held them - yet many of them who witnessed his miracles did not believe, one even betrayed him. And then after death, he sent his spirit to aid many people in telling the world about him. To this day, people count the year based on days since his birth.
What I tell you is good news. This man is not just a man. He is Jesus Christ. History points to him.
Salvation is a free gift from Jesus. Even the tiny amount of faith saves from Hell. And if you think this is still mean, that doesn't disprove the reality. The fact your body will decay in the earth and you'll probably be forgotten is a cruel fact which many don't like, but it is reality.
Salvation is free. And it's offered to everybody. No matter their race, age, gender or background.
Empirical reasoning, of which the scientific method is a tool. If you think history is the same thing as faith, then you have no idea what reality is. We don't even know if Jesus even really existed, a problem that we don't have for others who were alive at that time. The Bible isn't a historical record.
My friend, don't waste your time. As soon as I saw that you're attempting to proselytize, I chose not to continue reading your comment. I spent ~20 years of my life as an evangelical Christian, and I probably know the Bible better than you do. I have no interest in your hateful ideology.
I honestly feel bad for people like you... You dedicate your life to a lie, while simultaneously becoming a smug loser that nobody wants to talk to because they never shut the fuck up about the invisible magic man that has a history of accepting large amounts of children's foreskins as a gift. Totally normal, reasonable stuff. Makes complete sense.
Don't even want to get started on Job. Or the horrific events that took place with Lot's family in Sodom & Gamorrah. Or the first born Egyptian kids who didn't deserve to die. blahblahblabh etc.
Your god isn't even the good guy in his own book.
The Bible is more of a historical record than a scientific textbook. Around the same time of Jesus, Mt Vesuvius erupted destroying Pompeii. An event that was likely witnessed by tens of thousands of people and killed many wealthy romans. Yet we only have one historical record of it from it's time. The rest of the records are archaeological. Historical figures accept the birthplace of Julius Caesar as Suburra, Italy, without question, despite there only being a single source written 175 years written after the fact. The earliest source we have to Alexander the great was written around 300 years after his death, yet people accept that without question.
Heck, going back to birthplaces, we even have three accounts within 90 years of Jesus existence and archaeological evidence of very early first century pilgrimages to show that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Yet people dispute that, and you claim that "We don't even know if Jesus even existed"
It seems your main problem is that personally, you think that God is "mean", so therefore you try and convince yourself that He doesn't exist, even if it means applying an unfair standard to the historicity of Jesus.
Many Evangelical circles don't teach you crap, they deliberately empty the faith to it's barebones. Some of them are very toxic and really just care about politics. Knowing just the Bible and nothing else without knowing how it came about and early church history, historical context, etc, can leave someone lost. But like how the father forgave his prodigal son and partied, you can always come back to God.
So I would recommend dropping the intellectually-dishonest standards and coming back to Him.
Maybe you missed the part where I said I'm not reading your comments? Please stop wasting your time. I see Satan/Lucufer as "the good guy" in your holy book, and I see your "god" as pure evil.
I truly do not care what kind of weird mental gymnastics you can do to justify believing something so idiotic. It's not necessary.
(By the way, there was no census in that area at that time. And even if there was, they only counted adult males. There would be zero reason for a pregnant woman to return home for a census, that's fucking stupid. Also, you know, assuming a single word of it is true, she definitely fucked a dude...)
Proof there was no census? Also "satan is the good guy" is woefully incorrect, it shows you clearly never read the book 🤣
The infancy Gospel of Thomas was written well over one hundred years after Jesus had already left earth, in the second century. It claimed that Jesus performed random frivolous miracles for fun, when the Gospel of John said that the water to wine miracle was the first. We also don't know who "Thomas the Israelite" is either.
It's likely just something someone made up to try and give a narrative for Jesus' childhood.
Jesus also likely cast the demons out of Mary Magdalene while in His thirties. Jesus wouldn't need a female partner if He actually was truly God.
When were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John written?
Here, let me save you a quick Google:
Oh look at that.
Lol ok bud. Whatever delusion makes you happy.
What are you trying to prove? The infancy gospel of thomas was written likely around 180AD and even then, people were already calling it out as being a fake.
You clearly aren't looking for an open-minded discussion by calling me "delusional", anyway.
Imagine using such a piss poor method of finding truth for literally anything in your life besides religion.
Would you consider me delusional if I told you that I have an invisible dragon in my garage, and that he's died several times, and has returned to Earth after each time?
Do you have proof of this invisible dragon?
I'm glad you asked!
Come on by my garage, the dragon's right there. Though I guess I did forget to mention that he's invisible.
(In case you weren't aware, I'm referencing a famous Carl Sagan essay/short story from his book "The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark" and obviously he did a much better job laying it out than I ever could. Here is the text of the essay plus explanation: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage. By the way, incredible book that should be required reading for every adult human on the planet.)
Here is the conclusion of the essay where he does a pretty good job explaining what the point of it was:
I do ask you though, how would you prove God, if He was real? It's not like you can say "if God is real, then ice would melt if exposed to heat", could you? What proof would convince you, personally?
I don't know. Scientific evidence that is reproducible would be a good start. The scientific method is the only method I'm aware of that we have to accurately explain and predict the natural processes surrounding us.
One thing I do know, if I were God and I wanted people to know I was real, I would know exactly how to do that. There wouldn't be a question about which sect is correct, because I am all-knowing; I know exactly what it would take for each person.
But we also know that there are people who will not go to heaven, and instead will suffer for eternity in absence of God... So that means that there are people (quite a few) that God created knowing full well that they are "destined" to burn for eternity. Sorry, but that's really fucked up.
The scientific method isn't the only method. It cannot explain why the United Kingdom formed or why WWII happened.
I think it is a matter of perspective. Phil walked into a room and the kettle was boiling. Gregory was already in that room. Phil asked Gregory why the kettle was boiling. Gregory started talking about the heating element, electricity, how it heats the water, why water boils, etc. Then Bill walks in, and Phil asks Bill why the kettle is boiling. Bill responds with "because I wanted a cup of tea!"
Then, there is the historical method.
You say that there wouldn't be a question over what sect is correct. But history records a man who lived around two thousand years ago who said he is "the only way". He also claimed that he was God. Was he just a madman? Anyone can claim to be god. Well, no, because he had miracles to back him up. He was born of a virgin as well and ended up being executed, then somehow coming back to life, and was seen by many people. Then he was seen ascending into heaven. Not only does our past history point to this man, but his past history pointed to this man. There are writings predicting him that even outdate him. And it's not like throwing spaghetti towards the wall, as those writings were being actively held to those people that held them - yet many of them who witnessed his miracles did not believe, one even betrayed him. And then after death, he sent his spirit to aid many people in telling the world about him. To this day, people count the year based on days since his birth.
What I tell you is good news. This man is not just a man. He is Jesus Christ. History points to him.
Salvation is a free gift from Jesus. Even the tiny amount of faith saves from Hell. And if you think this is still mean, that doesn't disprove the reality. The fact your body will decay in the earth and you'll probably be forgotten is a cruel fact which many don't like, but it is reality.
Salvation is free. And it's offered to everybody. No matter their race, age, gender or background.
Empirical reasoning, of which the scientific method is a tool. If you think history is the same thing as faith, then you have no idea what reality is. We don't even know if Jesus even really existed, a problem that we don't have for others who were alive at that time. The Bible isn't a historical record.
My friend, don't waste your time. As soon as I saw that you're attempting to proselytize, I chose not to continue reading your comment. I spent ~20 years of my life as an evangelical Christian, and I probably know the Bible better than you do. I have no interest in your hateful ideology.
I honestly feel bad for people like you... You dedicate your life to a lie, while simultaneously becoming a smug loser that nobody wants to talk to because they never shut the fuck up about the invisible magic man that has a history of accepting large amounts of children's foreskins as a gift. Totally normal, reasonable stuff. Makes complete sense.
Don't even want to get started on Job. Or the horrific events that took place with Lot's family in Sodom & Gamorrah. Or the first born Egyptian kids who didn't deserve to die. blahblahblabh etc.
Your god isn't even the good guy in his own book.
The Bible is more of a historical record than a scientific textbook. Around the same time of Jesus, Mt Vesuvius erupted destroying Pompeii. An event that was likely witnessed by tens of thousands of people and killed many wealthy romans. Yet we only have one historical record of it from it's time. The rest of the records are archaeological. Historical figures accept the birthplace of Julius Caesar as Suburra, Italy, without question, despite there only being a single source written 175 years written after the fact. The earliest source we have to Alexander the great was written around 300 years after his death, yet people accept that without question. Heck, going back to birthplaces, we even have three accounts within 90 years of Jesus existence and archaeological evidence of very early first century pilgrimages to show that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Yet people dispute that, and you claim that "We don't even know if Jesus even existed"
It seems your main problem is that personally, you think that God is "mean", so therefore you try and convince yourself that He doesn't exist, even if it means applying an unfair standard to the historicity of Jesus.
Many Evangelical circles don't teach you crap, they deliberately empty the faith to it's barebones. Some of them are very toxic and really just care about politics. Knowing just the Bible and nothing else without knowing how it came about and early church history, historical context, etc, can leave someone lost. But like how the father forgave his prodigal son and partied, you can always come back to God.
So I would recommend dropping the intellectually-dishonest standards and coming back to Him.
Maybe you missed the part where I said I'm not reading your comments? Please stop wasting your time. I see Satan/Lucufer as "the good guy" in your holy book, and I see your "god" as pure evil.
I truly do not care what kind of weird mental gymnastics you can do to justify believing something so idiotic. It's not necessary.
(By the way, there was no census in that area at that time. And even if there was, they only counted adult males. There would be zero reason for a pregnant woman to return home for a census, that's fucking stupid. Also, you know, assuming a single word of it is true, she definitely fucked a dude...)
Proof there was no census? Also "satan is the good guy" is woefully incorrect, it shows you clearly never read the book 🤣