Posted: Oct 06, 2015 8:34 am
Mike S wrote:Leucius Charinus wrote:Mike S wrote:All writings about Jesus originated after 70 AD?
The Early Christian Writings Site readily shows that isn’t true. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is dated 50 to 140, whereas Paul’s epistles are said to hail from 50 to 65, and of course there are many more writings with starting dates before 70.
This is simply repeating the dogma of the Biblical Historians as if it were true. The CW site has simply gathered together all the dogma of Biblical Scholarship. And if you don't like the term dogma, feel free to replace it with the term hypotheses. But please don't confuse it with the term "historical truth".
Please provide the evidence for the HYPOTHESIS that the Gospel of Thomas, for example, is dated 50 to 140 CE.
See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html
If you disagree with the analysis/evidence presented, internally derived or otherwise, please present your own reasoning/substantiation accordingly.
That is precisely what I have been striving for in this discussion thread.
Read the OP.
I explained only days ago that Eusebius’ assertions must be handled with great care.
At least we agree on this.
But allow me to point out that Eusebius's assertions about the orthodoxy in the capacity of an (ahem) "Biblical Historian" are in an entirely different category that his assertions - as a practicing heresiologist - about the heretical authors of blasphemous "Other Books". In respect of the latter he is a hostile witness. The heretics are his political enemies. The orthodox are not.
This thread is about the books of the heretics. Not the books of the orthodoxy.
What would any sensible person expect Eusebius to write about his political enemies?