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

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Awen24

there are copies of New Testament texts from the first century that are still extant.

Well if that is the case you must be hiding them yourself...

Perhaps you might want to show these texts to the scholars of the bible all over the world because none of them know of such things...

there isn't a single original text from the NT in existence from the 1st century...

the earliest fragment we have is a piece of the gospel of john which is about the size of a credit card... and its from the early second century...

so it would be wise to take your own advice... get your facts straight

My facts *are* straight.
I'm not making reference to a complete New Testament - primarily because codices were extremely rare in the first century, so compilations of texts simply didn't happen until a later date.
What you DO have, however, is extant copies (whether fragments or complete texts is irrelevant) demonstrating the existence of these texts within the first century, and (importantly) QUOTES from these texts in other documents from the first century (and you can't quote a text that doesn't exist yet!).

Now, if you want specifics (and I imagine you do)... you reference P52 from the Gospel of John, which is commonly accepted as being from 110-125ad. There also exists a fragment from Mark's Gospel, which has been dated at around 90ad.

Beyond this, numerous Christian writers have quoted extensively from the entire New Testament, including:

Polycarp, Ignatius, 'The Shepherd of Hermas' (likely from the late first century), 'The Epistle of Barnabus' (dated between 70-80ad by the scholars who worked on its translation), Clement (70ad)... and so on.

The evidence is certainly there to solidly argue the existence of the vast majority of the New Testament texts before 70ad. In fact, I'd argue that the fact that the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem is never mentioned in Scripture is a MASSIVE clue to that point. This would have been an incredibly huge deal for the Jewish Church in the first century, and yet it doesn't rate a mention in its most sacred texts. This is for good reason - it simply hadn't occurred yet.

originally posted by: Tangerine
Yes, that's exactly what was done when a second century Bishop named the four gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John despite the fact that they could not possibly have written them.

Assuming you're referring to Irenaeus, he didn't "name" the gospels, he simply defended the position of all four as canonical... as there were arguments in the 2nd Century over which gospel was "the best".

a reply to: Tangerine

I guess it's how you look at it. The four gospels do match up in terms of specific events happening but being told from a different viewpoint.

It didn't matter that the people who wrote it weren't alive when Jesus was. The Holy Spirit inspired man to write the accounts.

I know you're not a Believer. I've read the same comment directed at me to previous members. I don't need to prove Jesus lived or died because for me it comes down to faith. I can't make anyone believe and even if I could that's not free will.

A Christian's faith should be personal and yes shared with other believers and non believers. But I will never hit people over the head trying to make them believe. That's not my place or job. Ultimately when one decides, or not, to be a believer it is only between them and Jesus.

Too many people on this site are trying to make us believers argue our points. I don't need to. I put Jesus in front of all I say, think and do (and sometimes fail but then pick myself back up and try again, i.e.: get my own thoughts out of the way) and you may not know Jesus today, maybe you will look for him some day but in the end every single person that ever existed will know Jesus as they come face to face with Him. You will have your proof then. I'm not arguing, I'm simply speaking from my own faith.

Best regards.

This is horrible timing, but... I have to leave for work, so don't take my future silence as acquiescence :p

Nice grab...I'll be sure and track this thread. S&F4U!

lies of sorts always reveal facts . the location claimed to be where the book was found says the book was marinated in oil and put into an oven .

a reply to: ccseagull

Yeah or the Christians on this site deal with attitudes, petty attacks and insults. But hey, we're barbaric troglodytes believing in a sky daddy and it's not against T&Cs to mock another's beliefs, well, certain beliefs.

a reply to: Awen24

that sounds a little more accurate...

I personally can't help but jump on people that want to push things that aren't true as truth... clearly that isn't what your intention was as you clarified... which is much appreciated

Which fragment from mark are you speaking of... I don't seem to recall anything dating to the first century from Mark... even by speculation... but I would like to believe I am wrong

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

It gets so tiring. Doesn't matter what heading it can come over there's always the same faces chipping away and making fun. I don't have the time to and check out every post and so just look at the ones that catch my attention. And if there is a Muslim or atheist or new ager I keep my mouth shut because that is THEIR view. I'm not out to attack anyone. I might offer a response to a question or try to help but I do not understand this viewpoint of always insisting we prove anything or that we are foolish to believe what we believe.

And then I remind myself of who's running the show and the influence he has over their lives. And so I lay in bed at night and pray for them all. We must guard our hearts not to be hardened against those that oppose us.

But it does get tiring, same old, same old. It's almost like their doing the hover dance, "When will a Christian post appear cause I'm getting antsy to attack." If you don't believe in something or don't agree with it then go and read about the stuff that does interest you. Well maybe one day some little word written will plant a seed.

a reply to: ccseagull

Tell me about it, especially seeing threads about "Please, stop the hate towards Islam" and yet the hatred towards Christianity is accepted. Hypocrites and I'm not scared to say it.

have you... or anyone else here on ATS thought seriously about both this Gospel Discovery and the Shroud-of-Turin Relic being both made or crafted by the same source... a highly gifted and Illuminated person somewhere around 515AD-615AD if the 1,500yo carbon age is somewhere near accurate


noteworthy is the fact that Islam became prominent at the same era that the Gospel and (some say)the Shroud first was re-discovered....
did the Archangel Gabriel give Mohammad 3 'gifts'... the Koran, the Gospel(of Barnabas), the Shroud... to help kick-start Islam ??
As all three religious Icons are from the same time period according to some sources

The Timeline of Muhammad - WikiIslam
wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Timeline_of_Muhammad Cached
... 631 AD All Arabians submit to Islam Muhammad

Muhammad birth
Muhammad of Islam, ... in Mecca in “the Year of the Elephant,” which corresponds to the year ad 570, ...
Muhammad was born in the year 570 in the town of Mecca, a mountain town in the high desert plateau of western Arabia.





ADD

originally posted by: schuyler


Interesting, of course, but hardly a deal-breaker in any sense of the term.
1500 years ago is still 500 years shy of the New Testament events.

A book written/assembled 500 years after the fact is not going to be blowing anything wide open.

well, my response is in the above reply...
I point out the fact that Islam almost supernaturally came into existence in that 500 years after the Ministry era you say was when 'nothing happened- of any consequence'

I haven't seen any follow up to this story about a first century fragment of Mark . "E arly copies of the Gospel of Mark are not as common as the other three gospels. The reason: 90 percent of Mark is in the Gospel of Matthew, so few early scribes copied it, says Daniel Wallace, founder of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts and New Testament Studies professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.

But in February, Wallace announced during a debate that not only has a new fragment of Mark's gospel been discovered in Egypt, but it is the oldest portion of the New Testament now known. He claimed the fragment dates to the first century, within decades of the time of Christ.

Speculation about the fragment's whereabouts has centered on the Green Collection: tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts bought over the past three years by the owners of Hobby Lobby. In December, collection director Scott Carroll issued a tantalizing message on his Twitter account: "For over 100 years the earliest known text of the New Testament has been the so-call[ed] John Rylands Papyrus. Not any more. Stay tuned …" A publicist for the Green Collection denied that it owns the Mark fragment." www.christianitytoday.com... a reply to: Akragon

a reply to: schuyler

Exactly, find something from 40AD and you might have something...

Jaden

a reply to: shauny

My take on bibles?

1. Man writes / prints them
   
2. Man has created multiple versions
   
3. Man has fought over the control of what goes into the bible
   

All things being said, sorry, I don't trust a bible any more than I would trust Sorcha Faal.

The idea that a "God" would have their words transcribed by man, and therefore up for editing by man...well, is pretty damned silly in my opinion.


OP - I'm not throwing this in your face, I think you and I are probably on the same page (pardon the pun)

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Unfortunately its actually harder to trust Christian sources then any other because all of Christianity jumps on anything that even remotely proves their religion to be true... and it spreads like wildfire through the denominations as absolute truth and accuracy even if the information isn't even close to being proven true... or accurate for that matter

Other New Testament scholars won't get a chance to study this gospel portion until it is published in a book about a year from now. They are admittedly skeptical, since the alleged fragment would be almost two centuries older than the current oldest copy of Mark

Basically saying... the information about this "fragment" won't be made public until someone can make some money on it first... how appropriate

You might notice the title of your link... Sensation before scholarship...

that is the route of Christianity... and its not to be trusted in my opinion

All anyone has to do is watch a debate between a Christian scholar and a secular scholar... the Christian will rely on anything they can to prove their case... even resort to outright lies and speculation... or just blind faith regardless of the information that is actually known to be factual

Secular scholars don't have that same trend from what I've seen...

latintimes.com

According to their translation, the main inscription reads, “In the name of the Lord, this book is written by monks of the high monastery in Nineveh in the 1500th year of our Lord.”

The inscription apparently says 1500AD, which makes it a 515 year old bible. Perhaps it was commissioned to try and add a scriptural 'coming of Muhamed to' Christianity.

the Muslim media is confusing the age 1500-year old of the book with the year 1500 AD. The Muslim media has supposedly reported that “‘an ancient, 1500-year-old bible predicted the coming of Muhammad,” but once again the site disagrees. The Vatican Insider claims that media reports are confusing the 1500 years attributed by the media and the date of 1500 AD written in the book’s main inscription and due to this confusion

a reply to: Elton

ROFLOL

This has been on sale ( Illegaly ), asking price £ 18 million . It was claimed that this was a really really old Bible which was written on a Gazelle skin with Gold used for decoration.

2pence

a reply to: shauny

I'm at a loss to explain why you feel this is some sort of victory over Christianity? This bible (should it prove to be authentic) is from 500 years after the events detailed in the gospels...

How exactly would this prove that Jesus wasn't crucified? Lots of people have claimed all kinds of ridiculous things about the life of Jesus hundreds and even thousands of years after he walked the earth. That doesn't necessarily make them true. If this particular bible predated the earliest known fragments/manuscripts of the gospels (which it doesn't), you might have a case.

As it stands, this is just another gnostic writing. There have been a wealth of them discovered which make a number of spurious claims that are not supported by the oldest and most reliable documents. For instance that Jesus killed people with his powers when he was a boy, or that Judas was actually his favorite disciple and Jesus asked Judas to betray him. Even certain roman historians made mention of Jesus crucifiction, much earlier than 500 AD.

a reply to: Collateral

I believe they did Radiocarbon dating on the bible or so called book of God, the contents are to be scrutinised by people who have a hard time wondering why over 90% of our species believe in the book of their own choice, yet our World is one of hatred, death, war and more.

I always have this stupid story
"Imagine an Alien ship landed in peace, they were seated with all the World leaders, and through dialogue they learnt that over 90% of our species believed in God and lived by whatever book. The Alien's, in the context of what that % means to them would presume Earth is a peaceful place"

It is the total opposite, this is why I ask questions of Religion and more so the people in Religion. I respect anyone's views unless they are hateful or spiteful, but the question is being asked and must continue to be asked "Why is the World so messed up when 90%+ believe in God/Bible"

Can never get my head around this question

Cheers