Hi, I was having a discussion with a friend about the veracity of the bible the other day. I have read many times that there was noone actually writing things down about what jesus did as he did them at the time and it was just passed down as word for ages afterwards, until finally written down around 300 yesrs later. She said that's not true, so I was just wondering if anyone knows for sure?
Is either one true or is even that disputed too?

It was a much shorter time than 300 years, but it was after Jesus' lifetime. For most of the new testament books, it was in about the first few decades after he died, I think. You could probably find reasonable dates for the best guesses when the books were written on wikipedia or something like that. I don't know of any biblical books that were known to have been written while Jesus was actually alive, though many were written by those who had lived when he did.

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
It was a much shorter time than 300 years, but it was after Jesus' lifetime. For most of the new testament books, it was in about the first few decades after he died, I think. You could probably find reasonable dates for the best guesses when the books were written on wikipedia or something like that. I don't know of any biblical books that were known to have been written while Jesus was actually alive, though many were written by those who had lived when he did.

Correct. But you also have to remember that they were edited with prejuidice by the followers of Paul (the creator of Christianity). Correct me if I'm wrong...but we don't actually have the documents that were written in 40-140 AD, only "copied" versions that say they were from ealier sources?

Or something like that...in either case, what you have in your bible is no where near what was originally written about him.

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
in either case, what you have in your bible is no where near what was originally written about him.

Actually probably not....by this time record keeping for Israel as well as the romans was pretty good. there are roman documents in concert with the gospels that a man....jesus of nazareth was crucified at golgotha.

also because the gospels were written by men who actually witnessed the miracles of jesus and were there. and since the time they were written to the time jesus lived was such a short period of time, it stands to reason there probably wasnt much alteration done to the gospels.

now the koran was actually an oral tradition if I recall correctly for several generations before it was written down.

national georaphic had in artical in their may 2006 issue on the gospel of Judas. according to the artical Paul wites the letters between 49 and 62 A.D. these are the earlist know new testament texts according to the artical. It says the gospels were writen between 65 and 95 A.D. For comaprision Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D.

according to the artical Paul wites the letters between 49 and 62 A.D. these are the earlist know new testament texts according to the artical. It says the gospels were writen between 65 and 95 A.D. For comaprision Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D.

with in10-15 years those dates are pretty accurate. As I recall the earliest extant copy
of any of the Canonical or Gnostic writings dates from the mid to late 2nd century.

Originally posted by T0by
Hi, I was having a discussion with a friend about the veracity of the bible the other day. I have read many times that there was noone actually writing things down about what jesus did as he did them at the time and it was just passed down as word for ages afterwards, until finally written down around 300 yesrs later. She said that's not true, so I was just wondering if anyone knows for sure?
Is either one true or is even that disputed too?

No one alive today, unless John the Revelator is still with us, knows whether anyone wrote down anything Jesus said at the time or not because NO ONE LIVING WAS THERE.

We have what are said to be eyewitness accounts in the Bible, whether those accounts were written then or later, or written then and copied out many times over later.

Would you make notes if you saw someone healing the lame, bringing the dead back to life, causing the blind to see, healing incurable diseases and preaching that the meek would inherit the earth?

I do believe it stands to reason that there were scribes busily jotting down notes and sending messages to others WHILE Jesus was on earth.

There is a verse in the Bible where God declares He will protect His Word "throughout the generations". I'm sorry I didn't make note of it when I ran across it, but if you are interested, I will find it.

Originally posted by T0by
Hi, I was having a discussion with a friend about the veracity of the bible the other day. I have read many times that there was noone actually writing things down about what jesus did as he did them at the time and it was just passed down as word for ages afterwards, until finally written down around 300 yesrs later. She said that's not true, so I was just wondering if anyone knows for sure?
Is either one true or is even that disputed too?

No one alive today, unless John the Revelator is still with us, knows whether anyone wrote down anything Jesus said at the time or not because NO ONE LIVING WAS THERE.

We have what are said to be eyewitness accounts in the Bible, whether those accounts were written then or later, or written then and copied out many times over later.

Would you make notes if you saw someone healing the lame, bringing the dead back to life, causing the blind to see, healing incurable diseases and preaching that the meek would inherit the earth?

I do believe it stands to reason that there were scribes busily jotting down notes and sending messages to others WHILE Jesus was on earth.

There is a verse in the Bible where God declares He will protect His Word "throughout the generations". I'm sorry I didn't make note of it when I ran across it, but if you are interested, I will find it.

The vast majority of what has been said here is roughly correct. While I don't have my notes in from of me, the chronology of the New Testiment is roughly in this order
Pauls Letters to other cities and communities (Corinthians, Romans, etc)
Acts of the Apostles
Gospel of Mark
Gospel of Luke
Gospel of Matthew (the first 3 gospels were written roughly the same timeframe: 45-60AD)
Gospel of John (at about 90-95AD)
Revelation (which is said to be written by the apostle John at the end of his life: 105AD or so)

We must keep in mind that everything in the New Testiment was written for the purpose of ministry and recruitment first and history second. Each of the Gospels has a target audience and thus focuses on a different aspect of Jesus' life. The first three are said to have been targeted at gentile communities (Greeks, Romans, and other non-Jews in the region. John is said to have been written with practicing Jews as its target, it therefore is a little more intensive on Jesus' miracles in order to convince practicing Jews that he was in fact devine.

So, rule of thumb, don't read the Bible as an historical book (while many thing in it did in fact happen they are colored or told in a way to push an agenda) rather, read the Bible as a roadmap to your personal spiritual relationship with God. If you read the Bible in this manner, it need not be historical anyway.

Also, FYI on Slate magazine David Plotz has a fantastic blog about the Bible going. He is reading it cover to cover and commenting on it. Since he has no thological schooling and is non-religious (he did come from a Jewish family) his insights are funny and enlightening. His blog is called "Blogging the Bible"

Thanks for all your help, I think it's abit clearer now. : )

Originally posted by Pragmatist Centrist
The vast majority of what has been said here is roughly correct. While I don't have my notes in from of me, the chronology of the New Testiment is roughly in this order
Pauls Letters to other cities and communities (Corinthians, Romans, etc)
Acts of the Apostles
Gospel of Mark
Gospel of Luke
Gospel of Matthew (the first 3 gospels were written roughly the same timeframe: 45-60AD)
Gospel of John (at about 90-95AD)
Revelation (which is said to be written by the apostle John at the end of his life: 105AD or so)

We must keep in mind that everything in the New Testiment was written for the purpose of ministry and recruitment first and history second.

On what do you base your information? I'll say that if I look in 5 different accounts of what and when someone THINKS these were written, I'd find 5 different lists. Even if they agreed what they would be based on is assumptions based on someone else's writings, and on back until the mish-mash is incredible.

Your statement that what was written for the purpose of "ministry and recruitment first" is just your opinion but stated as if it were fact. And that is how the learned studies on the "order" of the books and the "content analysis" and so on are done as well, mostly opinion, a little fact, a lot of theory, a little hard research.

I'm tired of it for one.

The Bible is God-breathed, leave it at that.

I often don't like getting into talks about the history of the bible, because i don't know everything myself and find it hard to dispute things people say. Even though I KNOW that they don't know for sure what they're talking about. It's abit frustrating for that reason.
One would say okay then lets talk about what the bible says. But even that is open to debate, and it goes on and on. At times I wish i could follow it, but i'm too much of a thinking person and i need much more difinitive answers and history than it provides, or any other religion for that matter.

So can i get this straight, is the bible that we read today the bible that was edited by the council of Nicea?
Are the dead sea scrolls earlier than the bible? How much do they correspond?

Originally posted by curiousity

On what do you base your information? I'll say that if I look in 5 different accounts of what and when someone THINKS these were written, I'd find 5 different lists. Even if they agreed what they would be based on is assumptions based on someone else's writings, and on back until the mish-mash is incredible.

Your statement that what was written for the purpose of "ministry and recruitment first" is just your opinion but stated as if it were fact. And that is how the learned studies on the "order" of the books and the "content analysis" and so on are done as well, mostly opinion, a little fact, a lot of theory, a little hard research.

I'm tired of it for one.

The Bible is God-breathed, leave it at that.

Prove it.

First off, if the books were written any later, and embelished (hilghly), would that make you go nuts and stop being a christian, and stop being a good person? Cuz if it would, you don't deserve to have a religion at all.

Science is not here to take out religion, only show the folly of man, and where not to follow. If you can find the actual documents, from the actual EYE WTINESSES, then you might...just maybe...have something, assuming it wasn't all made up anyway.

But right now, we do not have those documents, only many many contradicting later documents.

If you think that concrete dates of some god-man (which is highly blasphemous to Jews in the first place, but that's for another thread) is needed to keep being a christian, or even just a good person, then you should stop now.

'cuz you know as well as eveyone here, that Paul of Tarsus was the inventor of Christianity, not your Jesus (the were many self-proclaimed Messiahs before, during, and after his time as well), and although I respect his views and deem his thoughts extremely enlightening (though common place among Pharisees at the time), I have no reason why I should he is the child of some God.

So, if you're "Tired of hearing it"....prove it!

Originally posted by T0by

So can i get this straight, is the bible that we read today the bible that was edited by the council of Nicea?
Are the dead sea scrolls earlier than the bible? How much do they correspond?

I'm not too sure about the Dead Sea Scroll's date's. Maybe someone has knowledge of that, any help?

But for what came out of the Council of Nicea. No. Everything is different. Roman Catholics, Protestants, and some others all have different books and they're all in different order. They've been copied and recopied from one language into another and back again, always achieving different results. Kinda like that telephone game you play in pre-school, everything is skewed, sometimes on purpose, but most of the time because languages dont interact as we'd like them to.

Originally posted by T0by
So can i get this straight, is the bible that we read today the bible that was edited by the council of Nicea?
Are the dead sea scrolls earlier than the bible? How much do they correspond?

Some of the Bible we read today may have been chosen by the Council of Nicea, but I really don't know. I have read or heard that it was put together by committee, but I dont know which one or ones.
According to Wikipedia, (see my earlier post for the link) the council was to resolve the issue of who or what Jesus was. The quote below is from that link.

The purpose of the council (also called a synod) was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same or of similar substance as God the Father.

The Dead Sea Scrolls---At least some of them are from the Old Testament, as I think part of Isaiah was found. I am going to make a guess because I do not know the answer. Anybody knowing for sure, please correct me, if needed.
Because the Old Testament is basically a type of History of the Jewish People in relation to their God, I assume it had been assembled for some time before the Scrolls were hidden. Any fragments containing New Testament writings would have been hidden before the New Testament was "codified" or put together.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING that the Scrolls and the written Bible are similar.

They CLAIM that the first editions were written around 60-80 C.E at the latest, but the earlier written scriptures found are at 120 C.E. at the latest, and the majority of what you read in the bible comes from heavily edited and changed editions from as late as 1400 C.E.

Don't believe all you read.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
They CLAIM that the first editions were written around 60-80 C.E at the latest, but the earlier written scriptures found are at 120 C.E. at the latest, and the majority of what you read in the bible comes from heavily edited and changed editions from as late as 1400 C.E.

Don't believe all you read.

EXACTLY.

I wish more peopld saw it that way...oh well.

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
Prove it.

If you can find the actual documents, from the actual EYE WTINESSES, then you might...just maybe...have something, assuming it wasn't all made up anyway.

But right now, we do not have those documents, only many many contradicting later documents.....'cuz you know as well as eveyone here, that Paul of Tarsus was the inventor of Christianity, not your Jesus.....

Prove it. Any of it. Find anything to back yourself up. Or stop spouting your opinion. And by the way, that is what I am MOST tired of. Your opinions, you and the others that like to play around with Christianity like it is a toy or your own to do with what you like. TIRESOME!





[edit on 3-7-2006 by curiousity]

Here's what I have been able to discern both in college and afterward. This is a 'nut-shell- statement that, I believe, is born out in research but is qualified as my opinion.

There are between 2o and 30 so called "gospels" purporting to tell the Christian messianic story. It appears that every group of Semitic peoples had some sort of messianic expectation through the history of Mesopotamia and the "New Judaism" version which was made into Christianity by Constantine is now the best known.

Your friend is mostly correct is she says that most were written long after the event as the four which made it into the final canonization (done by the Catholics well over 300 years after the claimed events, were the ones closest to the time. I'm guessing, (because I don't remember for sure), that Mark was written by committee around 70+ CE which would make it the closest to the time of the character Jesus. Matthew and Luck, essentially copies of Mark by later committees make up the synoptic gospels. They contradict each other but not nearly so much as does John and those caused to be rewritten or reconstructed, as it were, by Constantine's edict, (this would be the 300 + year later that scholars refer to when discussing the gospels).

Whoever said that there is no evidence whatever that Jesus was an actual, living breathing person is correct, at least to the extent that no writings, so far, have been found saving one claimed reference to a messiah by a Hebrew writer of the time. Of course, Christians take this reference to be related to Jesus but evidence for that claim is also not to be found.

Regarding the highly fragmented and almost completely misunderstood Dead Sea Scrolls, about the only thing scholars agree on is the controversy surround them and the outlandish claims made by various if uninformed true believers.

Good luck with your research; it can mostly be done on the web and it will be an eye opener except, of course, for those who already have deluded themselves that they actually know everything about the bible and that delusional group is contained in the universally uninformed masses, the many, the true believers!