It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
None of the NT books were written by the people who actually knew him that by itself should say plenty.
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
and yet the prevailing scientific model is the big bang.......
It seems people are forced to choose between two polarized directions: scientific logic and faith.
Exactly. My whole post was to show that there are tons of people who are religious (even priests and monks) but also scientists from their education. There is no contradiction in there.
That doesn't necessarily mean they wrote the books that have their names attached to them.
There is much scholarly debate when it comes to the authorship of the Gospels and other books in the Bible, as you can imagine.
It's widely agreed that the Gospel of John was written last
Also, consider this. If they were all written by men who knew Jesus (and/or were divinely inspired), how come they contradict each other in many important details? What could account for the lack of consistency?
It's only because you have a misconception in your mind regarding what god is supposed to mean. I can't help you regarding that misconception.
They have different tools because they deal with different facets of a singular reality.
Science is ignoring the conscious observer human factor while the human is at the center of the observable universe (even particle physics remind scientists the influence of the observer and his action cannot be ignored).
Religion is minimizing the importance of matter while matter is the substrate allowing the consciousness to rise.
And with the latest dating methods and equipment the later dates of some of these fragments are being moved up in time to earlier in the 1st century, not later.
The style of the script is Hadrianic, which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE.
Although Rylands P52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text, the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars.
As the fragment is removed from the autograph by at least one step of transmission, the date of authorship for the Gospel of John must be at least a few years prior to the writing of P52, whenever that may have been. The location of the fragment in Egypt extends that time even further, allowing for the dispersal of the documents from the point of authorship and transmission to the point of discovery.
some of these fragments are being moved up in time to earlier in the 1st century, not later.
You know, even if we allow for the gospels to have been written by the people that they are attributed to, they were still written years and decades after the alleged events happened. That is like asking a 40 year old man to describe his first trip to the carnival when he was ten in vivid detail.
Where did these tales even come from?
Did you just ignore everything and rewrite what you wanted to hear?
is not supported by the community as a whole.