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.

 

1500 Year Old Bible Found, nobody want's to know - Could be real deal

page: 15
65
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: shauny

Personally...I am religious...but my own kinda religion and God


I think the Edward Abbey quote I abide by is more true in todays world than the first time I read it 30 years ago...

Edward Abbey — 'Orthodoxy is a relaxation of the mind accompanied by a stiffening of the heart.'




posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: RedParrotHead
a reply to: Tangerine

Sorry, I guess my sarcasm wasn't as obvious as I intended. I was just predicting what fanatically religious folks would say.


Ah!



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: soulfire
Well there is no part of the bible found that was written before or during the time of Jesus. That includes old testament new testament, lost books and gnostic gospels. The earliest book was written around 50 AD all the way to 300 AD so the age of this book isn't that far off. I don't think the question here is whether the book is real or fake but whether the bible itself is real or fake. Well obviously real as a book but are many of the stories fake, we know some are so which ones are which? You know Joseph Smith copied the story of Mohamed to create the morman religion and no one seems to see those similarities. See it doesn't matter if the book is real or fake the whole story of Jesus may very well be fake.

a reply to: shauny



They seem incapable of understanding it much like a child who is Harry Potter fan might be convinced that Harry Potter is real and laugh at a child who thinks Frodo is real.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: shauny
a reply to: ccseagull

HA HA @ Zooming into my Kitchen

I respect people, I respect views. In Scotland Catholic/Protestant issues are REALLY bad, people die in 2015 over them still.
The West of my Country has become almost as bad as Northern Ireland. I am in the East and I have not seen as much as a flute band in my life, lucky I guess, they cause huge problems. I think people can do as they please, but when a Protestant band walk through a Catholic area it becomes something else.

Football (Soccer is lived and breathed here, it is what we live for and do, pretty much same as all over Europe I guess. I always say "It's not the flag you fly, it's what you are intending on doing, what your reasons for flying it are"
Here Protestant's fly Israel flags
Catholics fly Palestine flags
It is a LOT more than just flags.
I am half Irish/Scottish.
Called Shaun...
Support Celtic Football Club
Used to be a Catholic
HARD GIG IN SCOTLAND let me tell you!! lol

It is political now, religion is masked these days.
Rangers sing "Up to our knee's in fenian blood"
Celtic sing this:



Scotland is a very loyalist/Unionist place. Mason's are in over drive here.
Saying that a tourist ANYWHERE in my small country would not notice any of this..

This is what our Country is at it's worst...It has subtitles.
It is pretty bad, so I am warning.. lol


I understand oppression first hand, both Scotland and Ireland were killed, raped and more by England.
I lean more towards being 'Republican' NOT IRA! Just Republican. I hate to see oppression, like the song above.
I don't hate Israel, I can't. I do however think Palestine should be seen as a country, whatever.
We gave peace a chance over here, it took a time, but we did it.
The queen shook hands with the man who killer her Cousin, Louis Mountbatten. Many seen hope.
It caused a LOT of problems.



One day Religion will not kill people. It has stopped here in reality.

Sorry for the long reply... I was on a roll lol


Good videos. I rarely watch them but these were worth it. I hope people understand what you were trying to convey.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: OptimusSubprime
a reply to: shauny

Just because this may be a legitimate, authentic "bible" doesn't mean what it says is legitimate. The way our modern Bibles are translated involves an enormous amount of textual criticism that involves the tedious comparing of thousands of manuscripts. If you have 100 manuscripts from all over the known world of Biblical times, and 97 of them agree, while 3 of them do not, then it is safe to say that the 3 that do not were corrupted or copied wrong or whatever, therefore those 3 do not get considered as credible or legitimate when translating the Bible. This book in the OP, if it doesn't agree with the overwhelming, vast majority of manuscripts and codices that have already been discovered and studied then all we have here is a 1500 year old piece of garbage.

To use an analogy from contemporary times, imagine if 1000 people saved the newspaper from the day after 9/11 with the headline "World Trade Center Attacked!!" Let's pretend that out of those 1000 papers, 7 of them made a mistake when printing and the headline said "Empire State Building Attacked!!" 2000 years from now, when archaeologists start digging and find a few copies of these papers, they may find the incorrect papers first, and therefore conclude that the Empire State building was attacked, but over the course of a few years of digging, they find more and more papers, until eventually they have all 1000 or even 850 and all of them but a few say "World Trade Center Attacked!!" It would then be very easy to conclude that the few they have with "Empire State Building" are wrong and have no credibility.


Actually, this is more like 1000 newspapers saying the Zork building was attacked with varying versions about the attack. There is absolutely no reason to believe that any version of the Bible, including the first version, is correct. Variations on myths are still myths.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: primus2012
How convenient that this predicts the coming of Mohammed, the greatest fraud outside the serpent in Eden. It didn't predict Mohammed 3,000 years ago, but approx 1500 years ago, which is approx the time of Mohammed? Yeah, nothing unlikely about that coincidence.

This is likely created by Mohammed's posse after they started their little cult of debauchery and slavery.


It's amazing that you can't see the parallel with the cult of Christianity. Amazing.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: shauny
Well, I agree with Paul being an imposter. Most of what
he says (or allegedly said) directly opposes much of what
the man people call Jesus allegedly said.

That's why I call most fundamental churches, Pauline
Churches, because whenever I quote something "Jesus"
said, they always contradict me with something Paul
said, for example...

Jesus said, "He who believes in me will never die"

I tell people Christians that and then they almost always
immediately quote Paul: "It is appointed for every man to die..."

Great post.

Rebel 5



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: RedParrotHead
a reply to: Tangerine

Sorry, I guess my sarcasm wasn't as obvious as I intended. I was just predicting what fanatically religious folks would say.


Ah!


AH!
Delight in the mockery of others

Seriously Tangerine, I don't like your attitude.
That's a fair comment right? I'm sure you'd say the same about me.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: RedParrotHead
a reply to: Tangerine

Sorry, I guess my sarcasm wasn't as obvious as I intended. I was just predicting what fanatically religious folks would say.


Ah!


AH!
Delight in the mockery of others

Seriously Tangerine, I don't like your attitude.
That's a fair comment right? I'm sure you'd say the same about me.


Sure that's fair. I don't like the attitude of your favorite book but I'm not about to organize a group of people to worship a book and then kill those who worship another book or no book.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: rebelv

It depends on what sort of death you are talking about.

Every man dies because our body is made of corruptible flesh, but if you believe in Christ, your spirit, your soul will never die.

Neither contradicts the other at all taken just in the out of context single verses.



Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die;
John 11:25

Even Jesus says you will die except you will live meaning that your spirit, soul goes on but your body dies.



For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.
Romans 8:13

You continue to live by the Spirit through belief in Christ.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Mods,
If these "contributors" continue to stand on their soap boxes and preach religion, why are they not directed to get back on track. The subject is about an old bible, and it's authentication. Wading through all this religious diatribe is ruining a good thread.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

Well, to be fair, it says "could be the real deal" and that would be a reference to the content which would be all about religion.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Collateral
Very interesting.



How did they come up with the date it was made though? Is it a rough assumption or have they conducted testing to prove this claim?


Good question. How about his find that they claim was written before AD 90.

Was oldest gospel really found in a mummy mask? - CNN.com
www.cnn.com...


Media outlets have been abuzz this week with the news that the oldest fragment of a New Testament gospel -- and thus the earliest witness of Jesus' life and ministry -- had been discovered hidden inside an Egyptian mummy mask and was going to be published.

The announcement of the papyrus' discovery and impending publication was made by Craig Evans, professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. Evans described the papyrus as a fragment of the Gospel of Mark.

He added that a combination of handwriting analysis (paleography) and carbon dating led him and his team of researchers to conclude that the fragment was written before 90 A.D.


The interesting thing about the Gospel of Mark is how the story ends (with the empty tomb). All the events that take place after that (Jesus appearing to people, etc) are not to be found in this the first Gospel to be written. Did the other gospel writters just make stuff up?






edit on 5-2-2015 by wasaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Ta



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: primus2012

I am just saying my friend.
But is this type of talk not the reality of the hatred within Religion?
I see what you mean but it comes across as if you are calling a whole people a "Posse"
Calling them a cult is no different from people in Europe calling all Christianity a cult due to Westboro Baptist Church

This is what religion does yet most in religion don't see it..

Cheers



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I think it has always been ok to have a relationship with God without a building or a book.
Simply because there used to be no books or buildings


#Logic



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: shauny


I am saying, if the Bibles of today are real, then this is real. If this new book is fake, they are all fake. I dislike what religion does to this planet. So for me I know it will hurt friends and family, but to all religious people reading this, you can't have your cake and eat it. This is either real or fake.

Several weeks ago there was an article in the news that confirms a fragment of the book of John from the first half of the second century. So this predates your Barnabas manuscript by well over several hundred years. John clearly describes Jesus as being put to death by crucifixion and is proven as being early 2nd century. So which should be believed if being judged by date?
www.bible-researcher.com...

The difference being that John's fragment was put on display for all science to scrutinize and nothing secret or hidden from investigations. If a find is hidden and restricted then it can not be verified by the field authorities and is in doubt till it can be openly shown. Why would one manuscript outweigh thousands of opposite manuscripts? Seems as though that is not even sane to compare one outweighing well over five thousand.

Also the liturgy of the Christian Jews was almost all Hebrew and not Aramaic and they were the progenitors of Christianity. Rome was not the founders of Christianity. Barnabas would not have scribed in Aramaic unless it was a letter intended to an Aramaic congregation. If it were a letter to the congregates it would have been Hebrew as that was used in the Christian Synagogue and Hebrew was used in the preaching and teaching. Greek was not allowed nor encouraged in the first congregations. Why a Barnabas manuscript is shown in Aramaic is not very well understood unless it is not the Christian Barnabas of which the NT understands.

Then we have the religious perspective. Do you really understand how complicated this entire claim would have had to be? According to thousands of manuscripts and scores of scribes in various locations, there were witnesses at every step from a trial of seventy two judges to the Roman authorities involved in the death of Jesus. And you say they got the wrong guy. Now that would be more of a feat than telling me that D day never happened. And then to say that this phoney Jesus never died but went to heaven alive while the other guy was nailed. That is really a stretch but then if that is your understanding then what else can be said?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I don't think people listen. Kids are born to hate in many places in the West all over Football. Protestant's voted no in the Referendum because they have ties, political ties to London and the Royal Family through songs they sing at a football match.



Lyrics from the Blue team's fans..
A song against Catholics and Irish



After the referendum on September 14th, these very same SCOTTISH BORN loyalist sick B********S Did this..



The Union flag chaps beat the $h1t out of kids, old people.


And these are the people who voted NO and won!! denying my county freedom from the UK War machine due to political/religious sick idiots. Not much coverage on it to be fair..

edit on 5/2/2015 by shauny because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/2/2015 by shauny because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: shauny

That sort of behavior is disgraceful and unjustified. I was sorry to hear that the no vote prevailed. There's always next time.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: soulfire
Well there is no part of the bible found that was written before or during the time of Jesus. That includes old testament new testament, lost books and gnostic gospels. The earliest book was written around 50 AD all the way to 300 AD so the age of this book isn't that far off.

There are certainly LXX and DSS manuscripts that predate Jesus. There is no question that the Tanakh or Old Testament was written before Jesus, and it is universally accepted that the canonical New Testament books were written in the first century of the common era.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join