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

a reply to: Grimpachi

I took your advice and reread what you originally wrote. I'm still not sure I see how it's relevant to the subject? The OP essentially claims this bible proves Jesus wasn't crucified. The point I am trying to make is that there are much earlier manuscripts and fragments of the NT that indicate Jesus WAS crucified. The point you seem to be making, is that if this bible is real, it would predate the oldest intact Christian bible.

So what? We still have all of the other components of the new testament existing in various forms, that predate either by hundreds of years... They might not all be assembled in one intact bible, but they are still older, and almost identical to the versions in modern bibles today.

I guess your comment was made in passing, perhaps out of interest, and I took it out of context?

Not new at all, this has been around awhile and certainly has been seen by the vatican. Check your sources.

a reply to: shauny

"We have to find a way to get past the Van Allen belts"
Now as we know this is between us and the moon.
So NASA called into question the moon landing with an off the cuff comment.

hahaha.. Not to mention the constant bombardment of the astronauts by cosmic particles

Instantly my mind threw up this clip from the TV series Red Dwarf.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: chr0naut

Gnosticism predates the Crucifixion my friend...

And Jesus' in general... Christian Gnosticism came from his time though

Obviously....

I would only agree with that if it were supportable by an ancient text.

Name one pre-Christian Gnostic text.

a reply to: Shiloh7

I cant see any reason for his record to have been removed. Its because there is no record - yet we know the romans were meticulous on their records and letters to each other, that its hard to brush under mere 'blind faith' the version of christ the catholics have impressed onto their followers

My sentiments exactly

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
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.

Wrong, look into your roman historians, because you're wrong here.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Perhaps Rome considered his teaching a threat, so they expunged the records..

Since it was around 300 years later that Rome began adopting Christianity.

originally posted by: dr1234

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
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.

Wrong, look into your roman historians, because you're wrong here.

Explain why you feel that way.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

It was relevant to the poster I was responding to on page one and the statement he made. I never said this would be the oldest manuscript's I have referred to the Codex Sinaiticus three times now as the oldest complete manuscript it is considered the oldest substantial book to survive Antiquity of the highest importance because it is complete.

Yes, there are older fragments of manuscripts. There are thousands of them and there are thousands of discrepancies between them. It is said there are more discrepancies's than there are words in the NT. Pieces of thousands of different manuscripts do not make a complete manuscript.

Having a complete manuscript or a complete Bible from that era is historically monumental.

The content of that Bible is not something I have even commented on but it's claims seem to be of great importance to some and because they don't like what it says and they want to discredit it.

Which brings us back to the post of mine you originally commented on.

Tangerine said:
"It never ceases to amaze me how little Christians know about the history of their own religion. The average 10-year-old girl knows more about the "history" of Hogwarts."

I replied:

"I think it is because most are primarily concerned with reaffirming their faith and not historical accuracy."

Historical accuracy is about facts and historical documents, true historians nor I care about confirming your beliefs or dismissing documents because they don't line up with your beliefs.

I find the history of the NT interesting in all its forms and various claims, but I don't find them believable. To me it is the same as finding a new story from Norse mythology. If this Bible is real it is an important part of history and the stories will deserve further consideration..

a reply to: Grimpachi

Historical accuracy is about facts and historical documents true historians nor I care about confirming your beliefs or dismissing documents because they don't line up with your beliefs.

Yet you don't seem to care about history, because of your beliefs.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

What beliefs may that be because you are making no sense at all to me now.

Are you just looking to argue over something?

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: Grimpachi

It never ceases to amaze me how little Christians know about the history of their own religion. The average 10-year-old girl knows more about the "history" of Hogwarts.

I think it is because most are primarily concerned with reaffirming their faith and not historical accuracy.

I'm sure that's the case but one would think they would have done a little research--and they haven't.

a reply to: Tangerine

I am just concerned with it as a mythology same as any other mythology they are way too invested in one version of it to concern themselves with differing texts.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Tangerine

Paul was alive during Christ's lifetime, and he mentions in his writings meeting with Peter personally. Some of Paul's earliest writings can be dated to around 50AD (not even 20 years after the crucifixion). Surely Peter would have mentioned it to Paul if Jesus had not actually been crucified? Further, Tacitus (a roman historian and senator) writing in 116 AD, mentions the crucifixion and even goes so far as to mention Pilate, further corroborating the New Testament narrative. Archaeological discoveries in the 60's further proved Pilate's existence. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

No, I don't think you can claim it's a toss up when all the earliest writings agree that Jesus was crucified, including non christian sources like Tacitus and Josephus.

Tacitus:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

Josephus:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

So not only do you have the original gospels which confirm the crucifixion, but Paul's epistles, 2 non Christian historians, and a number of gnostic gospels written later.

Paul never claimed to have witnessed Jesus living nor heard him say anything. Tacitus wasn't even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed him living. Surely, it is not too difficult to grasp, is it, that one has to actually witness someone living to document their existence and actually has to hear them say something to document their words?

Not one word was written about Jesus by anyone who lived when he allegedly lived and witnessed him living.

So we should completely disregard everything the earliest documents say about the individual in favor of a document authored 500 years later? Ok.

As for your last sentence, I already illustrated why that is completely false.

You should take very lightly and possibly disregard any non-contemporaneous documentation about an individual person. You seem to be arguing over whether "The Hobbit" is a more accurate version of life in the Shire than is "Lord of the Rings".

In a general message to everyone here I would recommendation the book "Misqouting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman. It is clear lot of people take have misinformed veiws on the subject of how the bible became the thing it is today.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Awen24

originally posted by: Tangerine
I imagine you'll dispute this and, if so, I challenge you to cite contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus actually lived.

...the gospels ARE contemporaneous documentation.
Being a religious text doesn't magically remove them from the historical context they were written in.

You must be confused about the meaning of the word contemporaneous. That means that the source must have existed at the same time as Jesus and claimed to have witnessed him living. All the gospels were written two or more generations after Jesus allegedly lived and none were written by anyone who could have witnessed Jesus living.

The fall of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Herod's Temple and the subsequent diaspora of the Jewish People occurred in AD 70, that is 37 years after the Crucifixion (which occurred in AD 33).

None of the gospels or New Testament books (except perhaps "The Revelation of Jesus Christ") make mention in any way of the fall of Jerusalem, which you will recall was only 37 years after the Crucifixion.

A modern analogy would be several historians, writing histories of 20th to 21st century New York, somehow all missing the bit about the twin towers - Not likely!

So that means that it is most likely that every book in the new testament was written before the big event, 37 years after the crucifixion.

Biblical scholars disagree with you except, of course, for a couple who attended three months of Bible School in Pork Rind, Oklahoma.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Tangerine

Just don't forget that many things in history have been called facts by many highly intelligent people that later proved to be false.

I am not here to prove anything, or change anyone's mind, personally I would love to read a full translation of the text.

But until a full translation is available, seems like some folks have forgotten that we don't have all the facts in a rush to attack all Christians because of a hatred the Catholic church.

Facts are based on testable evidence only. The only way one can possibly prove that an individual person existed is with contemporaneous documentation of said person's existence. It is, of course, possible to interpret such documentation in various ways and scholars can debate the legitimacy of the documentation.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: flice
Doesnt change a damn thing..... Its still just a book, full of opinions and made up stories written either to profit from or to control people.

Just because something is written in a book doesnt make it true or real. Something all religious people need to wake up and understand.

Start believing in yourself instead of trying tl relieve yourself from responsibility of your own life!

If God exists and created you, wouldn't the purpose He created you for be the most important thing in your life?

Could there be a higher responsibility than ensuring you achieved your mission?

If Gandalf exists and created you, wouldn't the purpose for which he created you be the most important thing in your life? Maybe, but it's really moot until you can prove that Gandalf (or God, if you prefer) exists and created you--or me. Doesn't that seem logical to you?

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: ccseagull

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.

Who's running the show? What that same powerful being that conveniently became a scapegoat in Eden? Where did the Omniscient Omnipresent jehovah go? If I had immature children basking in the sun in paradise knowing my angel was on the loose, I wouldnt turn my back on them. Its like saying I'll put 2 10 year old in a car with the keys in the ignition and a Cobra in the back seat. A recipe for disaster. No Omniscience required

Well said.