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.

 

Is the New Testament Accurate and Reliable? Archaeology?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
sneaky devil!


now, what was it we were talking about? oh, yeah - the NT thing.

well, sure there is a lot of accuracy in the NT - places, people, customs, etc.

A lot of that stuff is very well documented and very easy to prove. Like a Tom Clancy novel - you don't have much of a story if you get everything wrong so, most of the background and setting has to be true.

Besides, so much of this is oral history that any good story teller is going to get most of the basic stuff correct. Whether you believe the number of Jesuses is 0, 1, 3, 6, or more...it has no impact on the validity, accuracy, or believability of the divinity of one (or more) of these Jesuses.

So, if you ask me if I think there is some truth in the NT then I'm going to answer "of course!". If you ask me if I believe the entire NT then, well that's pretty hard since a lot of the NT doesn't even agree with itself so, "nope".

And the point of all of this is...?




posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Edsinger,

Why on earth would you offer Tacitus, a man who referred to the Christian belief as an abomination and most mischievous superstition, as proof of God? Superstitions by any rationale is nothing but some psychological diversion. He is the second to last person believers should be hanging their hats on as proof of Christianity.

And why would you also offer Paul's cited mental distortions as proof, when whatever no account lackey wrote about his epiphany in contradictory terms, and when he, the no-account, is the last person believers should be hanging their hats on as proof of Christianity?



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSYou are clearly not conversant with the texts of the "bible" which you seem to quote in English so freely.


It would seem to me that I have never claimed to be a Biblical Scholar by any means.



Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSYour attachments are superficial and do not address the "problem of the scrolls" i.e. the time capsule element of caves 1-11 which were sealed in June of AD 68 which show massive differences between the "bible" of modern Rabinnic Jews (who mainly use the pointed Masoretic Text of AD 980 from a SINGLE copy in Leningrad) and the unpointed Hebrew and Aramaic texts in copies which are more than 1000 years older


Well lets back off of that a bit shall we? The Essenes were a sect of Jews that did not recognize the authority of Jerusalem and were on the fringe even in that day. Does it make them nuts? Not at all and the find of the writings is a HUGE find. What you fail to mention in your explanation is that the book of Isiah is almost entirely INTACT and the SAME. It just so happens that is one of my favorites, especially chapter 53. I have not seen any documents that show that Christ recognized the authority of that sect that dated to before his time, although some of these date after 33AD, but they were around at the time of Christ.



Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSThe Time Capsule element of the Dead Sea Scrolls put a large nail into the coffin of those who would claim that the "bible" is inerrant or "unchanging" (it is neither) or that the texts known to R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (i.e. "Jezzuzzz") were the same as the ones read by (and held to be sacred by) modern day people who style themselves as "Christians" (99% of whom CANNOT read unpointed paleo-Hebrew or even Greek in the first place, and yet "believe every word of the Bible"... )




No, it did not. True I can not read Greek or Hebrew (although I would like to learn and have the software to do so, but no time really, nor the patience). But when I get to an issues between translation (mostly NIV and NKJV, I look up the Hebrew or Greek and try to interpret it myself (armature I know) but it help understand things better at times.




Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSEddie, you CANNOT believe what YOU CANNOT READ....plain and simple. And you CANNOT hold up a book and say "this is the ONLY VERSION" when plainly there are competing versions of the same writing from antiquity (read the fragments of Origen's HEXAPLA that have managed to survive e.g. the Psalms....and notice the 6 to 7 columns he used for the different Greek versions of the OT many of which were widley circulating BEFORE R. Yehoshua was even born !)





Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSEven as late as AD 110, there were Rebbes in Palestine arguing over whether the Song of Songs or the Book of Daniel or the Book of Esther "defiled the hands" i.e. were sacred scripture to be included in the Old Testament---this was more than 70 years AFTER the death of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean---and the Jews STILL did not have an absolutely fixed canon even by then....


Well that is true and if I am not mistaken, at that time the Book of Enoch was still used by the Jews in Jeruslaem. As far as a cannon, the only one they had for sure was the Prohets and the Penteach.




Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSIf you are going to provide links to subjects which are clearly WAAAAAAAY over your head, you need to provide links that actually can be substantiated.


Waaaay over my head huh?....ok you are so entitled to think so.





Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSI would STRONGLY advise you to get a book (which is written in modern English so there is NO excuse for you !!) called THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS BIBLE compiled by real scholars such as Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg (with Eugene Ulrich and Peter Flint) = ISBN # 0-06-060063-2 (1999) put out by Harper Collins Press NY.



I bought it in 2000. Mainly for Enoch, but there are many good parts of it. I have not read the whole thing yet, just parts when I am looking for something specific. Its mainly a reference.

Oh yeah and at the same time I bought that I also bought Vol 1, of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, again mainly for the 3 Enochs

(1) The Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch.
(2) The Slavonic Apocalypse of Enoch
(3) The Hebrew Apocalypse of Enoch

But is has many others in it also. It too is for refernence only.






Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSIt shows the various differences between the Masoretic Text of the OT (AD 980), the SamPent (BC 420), the HEBREW UNPOINTED VORLAGE (Hebrew underlay) to the Greek Septuaginta Old Testament (BC 200) as well as the various Qumran versions which show MARGINALIA (i.e. added verses placed into the margins) dating from BC 250 (to the sealing of the caves in AD 68) as well as the various Aramaic Targums of books like Job (BC 150 to AD 68) and show these differences by ITALICS and also in footnote format.




Yeah but remember these were a sect of Jews, not the ones in power at teh Temple, which was still the Temple of God at the time.



Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSIt is a GREAT book for the beginner who is (like yourself) NOT CONVERSANT with the essential problems of establishing a coherent text of "the Bible's Old Testament"....


Well thank you very much sir scholar. I own Bibleworks 6, E-Sword, Quickverse8, PC Study Bible 4, Theopholis, plus many others so I have the text and the resources to find what I need, I just dont have the time anymore to do what I really want. I am really at the point of early Constatine and pre-Nicea in my studies. It revloves around Enoch for me, I really need understand why it wasnt added and why Gen 6:4 was not explained in a manner that the early Church understood it to be, but then again I am just an ignorant goof that watches the 700 Club everyday ok?



Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSAnd a MUST READ for people like you who like to spout nonsense based on the fear you might discover that many of the most beloved tenets of your "Christian" belief systemand the assumptions that spring from these tenets are based on nothing more than empty air....


Nonsense because you don't believe it? So what makes you the Einstein of the first Century world? There are people many times smarter than you OR I that DO believe, so I guess that means nothing and you are right.....




Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSThis discussion group is for people who DEAL WITH FACTS, so let's start there, Eddie!!


Facts? Well facts are relative to the belief system in which you hold. Fact, I have seen something in my own life that PROVES to me that God exists and HE loves me and that He wants to call me His own. But I guess I should just toss that and believe some dude on the internet huh?







Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Edsinger,
Why on earth would you offer Tacitus, a man who referred to the Christian belief as an abomination and most mischievous superstition, as proof of God? Superstitions by any rationale is nothing but some psychological diversion. He is the second to last person believers should be hanging their hats on as proof of Christianity.



Good question but if you go back and read, marg was telling me that there was no non-Bible history of Jesus in the first century. I figured if anything would have an non-Christian clout it would be a non-Christian Roman. So in what interest would a Roman have for recording that on a man whom did not exist?



Originally posted by SomewhereinBetweenAnd why would you also offer Paul's cited mental distortions as proof, when whatever no account lackey wrote about his epiphany in contradictory terms, and when he, the no-account, is the last person believers should be hanging their hats on as proof of Christianity?



Again I was making the case that Paul did MEET Jesus. You don't have to believe it, but if I was walking down the street with the blood of many people on my hands and I was suddenly blinded and confronted that I was in the wrong and yet the people next to me did not witness anything other than a blinding flash. I would say I had a Divine encounter and that I met the man in whom I was persecuting and who was already dead but risen, simply because He said as much and I wouldnt argue.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

It would seem to me that I have never claimed to be a Biblical Scholar by any means


You might not have claimed to be a scholar, but you have still made claims amongst some which are easily refutable. Please for your own sake study a bit more..........

And perhaps to help you with the defense of your faith, may I suggest you read some Kierkegaard ......On becoming a christian might be of particular interest. IMHO Christianity would of been dead a long time ago had it not been for Kierkegaard, hell I have even heard priests and preachers quote him.

"What now is the absurd?The absurd is-that the eternal truth has come into being in time, that God has come into being, has been born, has grown up, and so forth, precisely like any other individual human being quite indistinguishable from other individuals"....(Concluding Unscientific Postscript)-Kierkegaard


"For the absurd is the object of faith, and the only object that can be believed"-(Journals) Kierkegaard

Here perhaps this can help you as well. Online reference of many early Jewish texts, including your beloved book of enoch, amongst others.....enjoy. Oh and if anyone reading can read Greek Aramaic or hebrew then there is an open scrolls project that can use some help.

www.earlyjewishwritings.com...


I feel bad for christians like you who try to make claims and come up against people who truly have studied this, but in another sense I do not as you make claims about things you obviously do not understand...Not a good idea ever.

[edit spelling]

[edit on 20-8-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisinI feel bad for christians like you who try to make claims and come up against people who truly have studied this, but in another sense I do not as you make claims about things you obviously do not understand...Not a good idea ever.



Well it nice to know that you feel that way. I guess my level of understanding is much much to ignorant to even hold conversations here.

Well BS, just because you CHOOSE to not believe in God, the Trinity, or a Creator for that matter is YOUR business. You can claim all you wish that you know more than anyone in specific, it really doesn't matter to me. I can hold my own just fine thank you. I believe in those things and they make sense to me.

Funny how I am told to buy a book that will prove that the Bible is untrue and fiction and what not, and to know that I already bought it and did not draw the same conclusion form that said book. The Human mind is very unique and people can get different meanings from the same thing.

You can deny God all you wish, worship science if you feel it has the answers. Its your right.


I would hope that one day you can witness a true medically unexplainable healing, or for that matter a demonic possession.

Your science will fail you for it can not explain it.....I would guess that is why most doctors do BELIEVE in God, whether it be Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever...



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Well BS, just because you CHOOSE to not believe in God, the Trinity, or a Creator for that matter is YOUR business


Do you actually read what people post or do you just respond to what makes you feel better? Funny thing was I was trying to be nice ed, and perhaps give you some things that could help you, because honestly you look pretty foolish by now.


I guess my level of understanding is much much to ignorant to even hold conversations here.


That's what I have been trying to tell you this whole time, even before you were ripped a new one with evidence to counter your claim.


You can deny God all you wish, worship science if you feel it has the answers. Its your right.

I already said I DO believe in God, I just do not believe that some Jew in the first century was God in the flesh, and there is plenty of reason for this. Try reading what people write THEN respond


Sorry to break it to you ed but-To believe in Christ is to believe in the absurd, however it is this leap of faith that is nec for one to believe in anything. Until you realize this you will continue to sound foolish ed. After all if any religion just dealt with facts then there would be no need for faith now would there ED? Quit trying to prove your religion is right, you will never be able to do it, especially with such a limited understanding of it.



[edit on 20-8-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Do you actually read what people post or do you just respond to what makes you feel better? Funny thing was I was trying to be nice ed, and perhaps give you some things that could help you, because honestly you look pretty foolish by now.


Feel better? Not even close. Foolishness in whom's eyes?



Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
That's what I have been trying to tell you this whole time, even before you were ripped a new one with evidence to counter your claim.


Evidence? Well to counter my thoughts do you not try the same thing?

Fair enough I guess.




Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
And I already I said I DO believe in God, I just do not believe that some Jew in the first century was God in the flesh, and there is plenty of reason for this.


Well on that one you got me, I had you confused with another poster. There are so many conversations I am involved in and I admit that I get confused on whom I am addressing. I am glad you believe in A god. At least there is hope for you (In my eyes).





Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
To believe in Christ is to believe in the absurd, however it is this leap of faith that is nec for one to believe in anything. Until you realize this you will continue to sound foolish ed. After all if any religion just dealt with facts then there would be no need for faith now would there ED? Quit trying to prove your religion is right, you will never be able to do it.


Well right there, you call my belief absurd based on your own knowledge. To believe in Christ is not foolish. Issac Newton whom I would bet was smarter than either of us, did. Many extremely smart people today also do believe, so by your own reckoning, all these people are foolish also?

I can NEVER prove God and I understand this and you have already supplied the reason why. Its Faith.

But when folks try to disprove it, I can counter the argument in the same manner that they dismiss it. Its faith.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Well right there, you call my belief absurd based on your own knowledge. To believe in Christ is not foolish


Yes it is which is why I STRONGLY suggest you read Kierkegaard, let me try to explain. To believe in God is one thing, yet when you take the next step and claim that an omnipotent being has actually manifested himself in the flesh, through somemwhat normal processes (i.e like every other human entered this world) then that completely defies logic.

God is supposedly limitless, boundless, beyond total human comprehension, and limits , would we agree so far? Now, If God is outside the human experience then it is truly ABSURD to claim that any living human is in fact God. Do you not see that?

Now I know this is your faith but there are plenty of men throughout time who have claimed to be God in the flesh. So please tell me why it is this particular story that you ascribe to? Why not Krishna, Koresh, or anyone else for that matter? At the risk of making an Ass of you and me (to assume) I will guess it was because that was what you were taught as a child, no?

When I say absurd I do not mean it as a personal attack. Even I realize that my belief in God is absurd as it flies in the face of everything that we as humans can experience and perceive. For this very fact, my belief requires a "leap of faith" as Kierkegaard would say.



"The existing individual who chooses to pursue the objective way enters upon the entire approximation-process by which it is proposed to bring God to light objectively. But this is in all eternity impossible, because God is a subject, and therefore exists only for subjectivity in inwardness."

"Faith is the objective uncertainty along with the repulsion of the absurd held fast in the passion of inwardness, which precisely is inwardness potentiated to the highest degree. This formula fits only the believer, no one else, not a lover, not an enthusiast, not a thinker, but simply and solely the believer, who is related to the absolute paradox"

Kierkegaard-Truth is Subjectivity

[edit on 20-8-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
So it all comes to one point made and one point only with ed, he is not for facts or irrefutable true but rather for the power of faith.

So we can post pages of information but as long as he compare them with his faith and the bible is not comparison.

The bible will stand because that is what Ed wants.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

Well right there, you call my belief absurd based on your own knowledge. To believe in Christ is not foolish


Yes it is which is why I STRONGLY suggest you read Kierkegaard, let me try to explain. To believe in God is one thing, yet when you take the next step and claim that an omnipotent being has actually manifested himself in the flesh, through somemwhat normal processes (i.e like every other human entered this world) then that completely defies logic.


God did not manifest himself in Flash, but appeared as his Son. And it was a virgin birth.. even if the earthly mother was with sin, and didn't stay a virign. We often called that process a "Miricle" or others like to use words like "Magic" amd Mumbo Jumbo, cause they do not understand, nor want to understand the processes or act invovled and are jsut as happy being ignrant to what has happened, or sit in awe.

sorry to burst your bubble. But sometimes Logic has to be thrown out when there is not enough facts to supply reason to it.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Until this day is not archaeological prof or historical prof of a God born into man to save the world.

But interesting I found this quote that I think it makes more sense that the divinity of "Christ"



Jesus, a Semite and a man among men, continues to speak throw all the ages. His Human personality, his loving nature and his simple teachings will live forever and continue to enrich and embrace the hearts of the human family everywhere.

When the unpretentious teachings of Jesus are fully realized, all subtle forms of imperialism which advocate absolutism - such as an infallible Church, infallible bible, infallible doctrines or infallible anything- can no longer stand.

The desire for infallibility is a lust for undisputed authority, absolute power, and seeks to dominate individual freedom and free thought. The Human Jesus was a simple man. His source was God, and his spiritual insight continues to ignite the hearts and souls of men, women and children the world over.


By Rocco A. Errico, PhD, lecturer, ordained minister and bible scholar.

Now that quote talks about the Jesus that perhaps was the real one. not some made up myth of some "divinity" that we for the sake of "salvation" need to believe and throw away rational thoughts to keep the myth alive for the benefit of the church.





[edit on 20-8-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Until this day is not archaeological prof or historical prof of a God born into man to save the world.


Well Marg, that IS the whole point of Chrisitanity is that only someone who believes Jesus CHrist was real and died to save them can achive salvation. It is that leap of faith that is required, and sperates it from any other religion on the planet that uses "works" to achive salvation.

it is easy for a person who has a chip on thier shoulder, or doesn't belive to assume it is a consipiracy. I was one of those people myself at once until I turned away from a sinful life, and God opened up my heart to him.

Is thier something wrong about having a reason to live now, then before, when I wanted to, and even attempted to end my life?



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat

sorry to burst your bubble. But sometimes Logic has to be thrown out


Who's bubble do you think you are bursting? Did you even read what I wrote, or was it a bit much for you. I don't get it, you are trying to argue with one of the only philosophies that has kept christianity alive for the last hundred years or so. Please read Kirkegaard, then get back to me.

Of course logic is suspended when one believes, that was my whole point, that is the "LEAP OF FAITH".

Your claim of a virgin birth is nothing as it is more of the ABSURD that I was talking about earlier. What was your point of even mentioning that? Do you think that I am not aware of your mythos?

Your Jesus did travel through the birth canal yeah? He did have a birth by a mother (according to you) yeah? That is pretty much how EVERYONE comes into this existence, no? That is all I was saying. Except for your "miracle" of immaculate conception he was born and he died just like every other human.

Please read all I write then respond , if you need help understanding just let me know yeah? Quit getting offended because you see the word absurd and listen to my point, in case you forgot I even admitted my faith is absurd, and I have no problem saying that. As a matter of fact that is what gives my faith power and allows me to live my life without trying to convinve others, and myself that my faith is "right", or somehow based in historical fact.

Which brings us full circle to the point of this thread, which supposedly claimed that the NT was historically and archaeologically accurate. Since both you and ED have both admitted that your faith only exists through the suspension of logic, then quit trying to logically prove the existence of your "god".



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   
OK, I was going to stay out of this but I just had to point one thing out as far as the virgin birth goes, does anyone think that we are not tech. advanced that we could actually have a woman give birth without sex? See artificial insemination. If we can do it, why couldn't God have done it?



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Intrepid,

Why would you want to stay out of this?

As for immaculate conception, I do not think anyone said that it was not possible. I mean if such a thing as an omnipotent being exists, then theoretically it should be possible for it to do whatever it pleases, wether it be immaculate insimination, or manifesting himself in the flesh.

Like I said though I do not remember anyone saying it was not possible, so I don''t quite think I get your point. Maybe I missed something though



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Like I said though I do not remember anyone saying it was not possible, so I don''t quite think I get your point. Maybe I missed something though


I must have missed your point:


Your Jesus did travel through the birth canal yeah? He did have a birth by a mother (according to you) yeah? That is pretty much how EVERYONE comes into this existence, no? That is all I was saying. Except for your "miracle" of immaculate conception he was born and he died just like every other human.


I read it as "not possible".



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
The problem is Inteprid that Christianity claims that they are the ones with the genuine “divine savior” but the truth is that the Christian divinity myth is one of the more recent ones.

Are plenty of stories from other religions older that Christianity, that claim divine virgin birth making the Christian virginal version a borrowed one.

Many other religions claim ownership to the true “messiahs, saviors, and sons of God, in different countries and through the ages.

Are about twenty claims of divinity or virgin birth stories from other civilizations, before Christianity came to be.

From Chrishna, Budha, Osiris, Odin, Zoroaster, and many others. All this saviors descended from haven and took form of men, performed miracles and they all were to help their people and heal the world.

As a matter of fact is sacred records from 1200 B.C that talks about Virishna as the Savior with the same characteristics as the Christ.

Born from a virgin, by the a holy ghost, his life was in danger when he was child, that his parents had to flee to keep him safe, that all males under the age of two years were slain, Angels and shepherds attended his birth, that he birth was prophesied, that he was worshiped as the “Savior of Men” he led a life of humility, he performed miracles, and that he was crucified rose from hell and ascended back to heaven with witnesses.

www.kingdavid8.com...

The problem here is that this divine man called Virishna was born before Jesus.

Then we have the 16 crucified saviors.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Intreped,

Sorry not trying to say it is not possible, I will say that it is not that probable which is part of the reason it is absurd. Anything is possible especially when you add the possibility of an omnipotent being into the equation.

I guess I had two points above though.

1) I did not understand why Jehosephat felt the need to explain the immaculate insimination to me as if I did not understand the concept, or as if that validated his point.

2) I did not understand how he choose one of the most absurd aspect of christianity to use as an argument against the statement that his belief is absurd.


Another thing-Sure artificial insimination (A.I)is a reality now, but that has only been for a few decades at max. It is easy to argue the A.I perspective but that is a fairly modern perspective. If you would of asked someone one hundred plus years ago how possible, or probable it would be for a virgin to conceive, I am confident most peolple ( outside of christianity) would of told you that was an absurd question to even ask.

[edited for extra point

[edit on 20-8-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin


2) I did not understand how he choose one of the most absurd aspect of christianity to use as an argument against the statement that his belief is absurd.


And there lies your problems, its absurd to you, so you assume you are correct.......just as I feel for my opinion.

You can try your best to convince me that Jeshua was just a really good carpenter all you like, but when you look at the speed in which Christianity grew and at the threat of death even, something motivated these people. What did they see that totally made them fearless?

Well I tend to think it is just as the Word said it was.....



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
sorry to burst your bubble. But sometimes Logic has to be thrown out when there is not enough facts to supply reason to it.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Throwing logic out is the quickest approach to self destruction.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join