It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Bible was written before 70 AD and here is why..

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Might as well argue over spilt milk......
The bible doesn't even contain books that Christ taught out of....(Jasher)
forget the other one....
The bible was Constantines creation...he wanted it he needed it and Nicea delivered it....




posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The bible is a collection of letters, that are collected and rewritten by Rome or Constantinobel.

It is historically wrong ... and mainly a book written to justify victories, murder and genocide. Same as the Quoran.

If you want proof ... take a look at Egypt, the modern Egyptian aren't even related to them. The same applies to the Jews, etc.

And thought theology and morals always apply, taking out of context words, that re obvious propaganda ... as truth in 2014, is close to unforgivable. And it doesn't matter, if it's Hindu, Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: arpgme




There's no date on the writing and no evidence that it was actually written before the event happened.





Marcion's restricted canon: 125-144 AD Marcion's concern was to exclude books that he disapproved of from his "canon." He was not assembling a collection of Christian books, but making a (very restricted) selection from the corpus of texts which already existed and which must already have been recognized as sacred by many in the church-otherwise he would not have needed to insist on abolishing them. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p 342, 2002)






Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew, with dates ranging from the 40s to 80s. Of much debate is whether it was completed before or after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD. If one accepts that Jesus foretold of this event, then the book may have been written before the Temple's destruction. Further, many argue Mark was the first Gospel and that Matthew followed, indicating a date likely in the 60s or 70s. Beyond this, much debate remains, though conservative scholars suggest the evidence may favor a date in the mid to late 60s. Mark, as mentioned, was likely the first written Gospel. Church history teaches it was produced by John Mark, cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:3), with inconsistent testimony from church history that states it was completed before or after the death of Peter in Rome in the mid 60s. The traditional African chronology (Coptic Church) teaches Mark was written in approximately 62 AD and was brought to North Africa by Mark where he was the leader of the church. According to tradition Mark died in or near Alexandria in 68 AD. Though uncertain, there is no strong reason why this could not have been the case. Luke is perhaps the Gospel with the strongest evidence regarding the date of its writing. Luke and Acts were written as two parts of a single work (Acts 1:1-3). Since Acts concludes with Paul under house arrest in Rome in approximately 62 AD, many believe Luke-Acts was written during this general time period. Many Lukan scholars suggest dates from 60-65 AD. John was likely written after the other four Gospels, something affirmed in early church history. Since church history also records him living until near the end of the first century, John could have been written any time between the 60s and approximately 100 AD. Some argue for an earlier date based on the mention of the Sheep Gate in John 5:2 in the present tense as still being in existence at the date of writing (meaning prior to its destruction in the late 60s AD). Most others suggest a post-70 AD date, usually 80s-90s, due to its advanced Christology and other internal factors. Any time between 65-95 AD is possible. Read more: www.compellingtruth.org...



While I will admit that it is possible we dont know who wrote the Gospels they definitely were in Circulation by the close of the 1st century.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: stirling

The Bible was written far before Constantine came on the scene. The Bible is not one man's creation(One God's maybe), but it was written over a vast amount of time and is not one book but a collection of 66 books and letters penned by 40 authors. Name one other religious text that can make such a statement. Not only that but all 66 books coincide perfectly.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: bjarneorn




The bible is a collection of letters, that are collected and rewritten by Rome or Constantinobel.


Do you have any evidence of this supposed rewriting of Scripture, or are you just making claims that have no historical background?




It is historically wrong ... and mainly a book written to justify victories, murder and genocide. Same as the Quoran.


Historically wrong? The Bible is not only accurate as to the events it describes, but its also accurate when we compare it to the geography of the day. Take a look at some of these artifacts, many of them were found using the Bible as a reference.



en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: miniatus

The so called "lost" books of the Bible were never really lost. They were known about far before the council of Nicea and they weren't considered inspired by the Jews or Christians of that time either.


I'm fully aware... they were just excluded and put away in libraries of the time... some possibly even destroyed



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: miniatus
This seems to be another point of contention among both xtian and secular alike. Was the bible compiled by the council of Nicea? Some say yes. Some say no. I say...do we really know for sure, either way?


There were more than one council of nicea
... so that may very well be where the confusion / contention comes about .. if I remember correctly there were a total of 7 ..

Edit: Correction, there were 8 sessions

.. Regardless of that.. your title is more about when the bible was written, not about who assembled it... the council didn't author it and the dates of the individual books are fairly well established.. so that's more to the point.. it was authored both before AND after 70 AD
edit on 10/25/2014 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Also if you'll look into it a bit more you'll see plenty of evidence showing that the majority of the new testament books were in circulation before 70 AD

With the same "authors" listed?? Which books are you talking about? Are you including the "Four Gospels"? Because they (The Four) were not.

I'd like a source for your claims, please.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



Not only that but all 66 books coincide perfectly.


Are you sure there is not even one contradiction?



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: danielsil18

I didn't even notice this contradiction before:

"The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." - John 19:7

"The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." - John 18:31

There's always another contradiction to be discovered. The interesting thing is, the Jews were right in both verses, because "thou shalt not kill" AND many verses which support killing are both in the old testament, so this contradiction comes from another contradiction within an even older book of the bible.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: arpgme

Well, the Romans were in charge at this time, so it wasn't lawful for the Jews to put anyone to death. This isn't a contradiction...
The Jews had their law, but were living under the Roman Empire, and under their rules. The Romans didn't allow them to do that.
edit on 26-10-2014 by graphuto because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-10-2014 by graphuto because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: danielsil18

Well there are a lot of supposed contradictions there and I don't feel like going through them all especially when the site starts with something as ignorant as "yet the Gospels are so poorly written that a logical person is at best left to ponder if Jesus even existed." No serious historian doubts that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.....

So I will tell you what you pick out a few of the contradiction you think are most apparent and I will give you my opinion on them.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: graphuto

Ah, so the morality of this god is relative now also, not perfect/absolute.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: arpgme

I think you misunderstood graphuto.




"The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." - John 19:7
"The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." - John 18:31





(31) Take ye him, and judge him according to your law.—Pilate takes them at their word. They claim the judicial right; let them exercise it. Their law gave them power to punish, but not the right of capital punishment. If they claim that the matter is wholly within their own power of judgment, then the sentence must also be limited to their own power. He can only execute a sentence which is pronounced by himself after formal trial.
It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.—Their words admit that they did not possess the power of life and death, while they imply that they had sentenced Jesus to death. They verbally give up the power, but in reality claim it, and regard the procurator as their executioner. The Jews had lost this power since the time that Archelaus was deposed, and Judæa became a Roman province (A.D. 6 or 7). The Talmud speaks of the loss of this power forty years or more before the destruction of Jerusalem. (Comp. Lightfoot’s Note here, and in Matthew 26:3.)





(7) We have a law, and by our law he ought to die.—The better reading is,. . . . and by the law He ought to die. (Comp. Leviticus 24:16.) They feel the bitter sarcasm of Pilate’s taunt, and appeal to their own law, which, in accordance with the general Roman policy, was in force in all questions which did not directly affect the Government. They change the accusation then from one of treason against Cæsar (John 19:12), of which Pilate claimed to be judge, to one of blasphemy against God, of which they only could be judges; and assert that Jesus is by that law guilty of a capital offence, for which He ought to die.


biblehub.com...
biblehub.com...

First the so called contradictions are quotes from a man who is attempting to have the other man killed. If his words contradicted in reality and someone quoted it, that would have no hold on the precision of Bible. However from what I have quoted hopefully you can see that the verses dont contradict.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

So, the old testament supports killing (Leviticus 24:16) even though another verse doesn't (Exodus 20:13). That's a contradiction. Or maybe it is only ok to kill in some situations, that would be relative morality - not absolute.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: arpgme




So, the old testament supports killing (Leviticus 24:16) even though another verse doesn't (Exodus 20:13). That's a contradiction. Or maybe it is only ok to kill in some situations, that would be relative morality - not absolute.


Leviticus is a consequence of a sin were as exodus forbids murder. Death according to the law and murder are two totally different things.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: arpgme

Leviticus is a consequence of a sin were as exodus forbids murder. Death according to the law and murder are two totally different things.


Like I said, a relative morality - not absolute. Therefore this god is not perfect because there is no absolute goodness to actually judge him to know if he is actually good.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:27 AM
link   
a reply to: arpgme

Murder is objectively wrong. Other aspects that involve killing however are not.

Just one example of many.

"And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. "

Killing in war is also handled differently under the law.

Killing is not objectively wrong, Murder is objectively wrong. Nothing about those verses imply relative morality.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



Killing in war is also handled differently under the law.

Killing is not objectively wrong, Murder is objectively wrong. Nothing about those verses imply relative morality.


Killing at all is wrong according to these verses (more contradictions):

"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." - Matthew 26:52

"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." - Matthew 5:39



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: arpgme

You're completely void of understanding. Murder and killing are two different things. Also, neither of those 2 verses implicitly say that killing is wrong. One says that if you live by the sword, you'll die by the sword. That doesn't say that it's wrong, it just says that if you make your bed you'll lie in it. Or have your cake and eat it too.


As far as the relative morality in regards to my post explaining your "contradiction", what are you even talking about?
Man, you're stubborn.


4 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

edit on 26-10-2014 by graphuto because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join