Checking a bible fact

Originally posted by whitewave
Coupla things: 1) thanks

2) has anyone considered that Jesus was probably a member of the Essene religion?

Your welcome, and you know, Anything is possible. But it seems. according to the New Testament, there is some confusion surrounding Jesus, and questions of who he maybe, which seem to indicate, that he wasn't in the Middle East.

The Spainards, seemed to be a looked for fellows, when they arrived in the New World. (?)

India seems to have some tales of Jesus visiting there. (?)

And Glastonbury and the relationship of Joseph of Arimethia, also has legs, so to speak. (?)

Also, since Joseph was a Mariner Merchant, all three of these are possible, for visitation, during the Missing Years.

3) Zorgon asked where all the people came from that Cain would be afraid of and who he might have married. Genesis 3:16 says that a woman's pain in childbearing would be greatly multiplied. This implies that she had children BEFORE Cain and Abel. Who knows how many. Until Moses brought the law that said incest was forbidden, incest was common. It's commonly assumed that Adam and Eve sinned immediately but the Bible doesn't guarantee that assumption. They could've been making babies for years before "the fall". C.H. Dodd (cited by Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with A Commentary) shows that it would have been possible for Adam & Eve to have had over 32,000 descendants at the time Cain went to Nod, all of them having sprung from Cain and Able who married their sisters. In any case, Cain and Abel were old enough to have learned trades from their father (farming and shepherding).

And no offense to you my friend, but crap like this just amazes me. Obviously C. H. Dobb, and Adam Clarke should infact read what they are giving Commentary on. It's clear, they haven't a CLUE.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

So, this Incestual things is complete and utter lunacy, which is likely exactly where it comes from, SATAN. He must be quite proud that he has accomplished this. It make's those who standup and claim to be Christian's pretty ignorant, when they can not even get through the First Chapter of a Book they place their faith and beliefs in. Makes ME want to . But hey, you get what you work for.

And again, I am not picking on you Whitewave. Mr Dobbs and Mr Adams should be re-editing their commentaries IMMEADIATELY.

5) The vastly documented, researched and scientifically validated "Bible Code"......... God is SO cool!

Well, I would agree, God's Word, His letter to us, is and was Devinely Inspired.

Have a Good Day, and Send Dobbs and Adams a report card on their efforts.

Ciao

Shane

having sprung from Cain and Able who married their sisters.

actually as i recall there is a passage there somewhere that states Cain took a wife
" from among the daughters of men". indicating that there were "men" outside
life in the garden.
Or maybe they was doin they momma? or this could be the origin of the phrase

"shaggin the sheep"?

Greetings all,

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
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.

There are no contemporary records of Jesus, Roman or Jewish.
Just later mentions of CHRISTIANS and their beliefs.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
also because the gospels were written by men who actually witnessed the miracles of jesus and were there.

According to modern NT scholars, not one single book of the NT was written by anyone who was an eye-witness to a historical Jesus.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
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.

Jesus did not exist, the legends may have developed for many years. Even if you assume he did exist, the Gospels are from many decades later.


Iasion

Greetings,

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?

The council of Nicea had nothing to do with deciding the books of the bible.
This is a common urban legend.

The bible canon grew over centuries.

Iasion

Greetings,

Originally posted by Essedarius
I will have to disagree on this one.

Jesus is referenced all over the place in a variety of secular historical documents...a few examples (all written within 100 years or so of Christ's death)...

From a Roman historian named Tacitus:

TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
oll.libertyfund.org...

Originally posted by Essedarius
From Flavius Josephus's book "Jewish Antiquities" (written under Roman patronage):

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early CHurch fathers were reviewed Josephus. Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
www.humanists.net...

(The 2nd reference may be to ANOTHER Jesus.)

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.

Originally posted by Essedarius
One of my favorites is a from a letter written by Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan that discusses the "Christian Problem." That is, Pliny has to keep
executing these darn Christians who refuse to curse the name of Christ:

PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Originally posted by Essedarius
This is all, of course, off the original topic by a bit. But I think it's worth clearing up. You can say that the bible has the fingerprints of man all over it, but you can't really call it fiction...or say that Jesus never existed.
Those arguments just don't really hold water (or wine).

There are scholars who DO argue that Jesus never existed.
Because the evidence is so weak.

Your examples were merely evidence of CHRISTIANS and their later beliefs.

Not evidence of Jesus himself.

There is a BIG difference.


Iasion

Greetings,

Originally posted by curiousity
The versions are based on the original scrolls

We do not have any originals.
Just later copies of copies of copies, all different.

Originally posted by curiousity
For those of us who do not read the original languages or have access to the original documents, or who are not strongly learned in ancient history, that is, nearly 100% of Christians, many have chosen to use only the KJV, as the most reliable and accurate translation.

The KJV is known to scholars as one of the least reliable versions of all - being based on the later and suspect Received Text.


Iasion

Greetings,

Originally posted by the_blue_sky11
All of the New Testament Books were written within decades of Jesus' death, because you can see who wrote them, like Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew, Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and The Acts, and Paul wrote many of the epistles, all them who wrote the New Testament lived not too long after Jesus' death, so they couldn't have been written later then the people who wrote them died.

That is what Christian legends say about earlier Christian legends.

But,
modern NT scholars take the view that not one book of the NT was written by any eye witness to a historical Jesus.


Iasion

Greetings,

Originally posted by Essedarius
I think dying for a cause is very different than killing for a cause.

The Heaven's Gate cult died for their beliefs.

Does that mean there really was a space-ship hiding behind Hale-Bopp comet?


Iasion

Greetings,

Originally posted by the_blue_sky11
Christians who died in the name of Christ didn't kill themselves, they were given the choice to either deny their faith and live, or die. The ones who chose to die did because they couldn't deny what they knew was the absolute truth.

There is no actual evidnce this happened.
Just later Christian legends.

Anyway,
people die for false beliefs all the time - so what?


Iasion

Originally posted by Iasion
The Heaven's Gate cult died for their beliefs.
Does that mean there really was a space-ship hiding behind Hale-Bopp comet?

Personally, I don't think so. But I tell you what, if the Heaven's Gate cult builds in popularity over the course of my life, I'll give more weight to the possibility. (As it is, I just don't give a lot of credibility to beliefs that can't outlast the calendar year...)

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by the_blue_sky11
Christians who died in the name of Christ didn't kill themselves, they were given the choice to either deny their faith and live, or die. The ones who chose to die did because they couldn't deny what they knew was the absolute truth.

There is no actual evidnce this happened.
Just later Christian legends.

I don't think I understand.
Are you saying that you don't believe that Christians were ever martyred?

I'd stick to attacking the Bible. It's probably easier than going after recorded history as a whole.

Originally posted by Iasion
Greetings,

Originally posted by curiousity The versions are based on the original scrolls

We do not have any originals. Just later copies of copies of copies, all different.

Originally posted by curiousity
For those of us who do not read the original languages or have access to the original documents, or who are not strongly learned in ancient history, that is, nearly 100% of Christians, many have chosen to use only the KJV, as the most reliable and accurate translation.

The KJV is known to scholars as one of the least reliable versions of all - being based on the later and suspect Received Text.

Iasion

Hello Iasion

You seem to have something to say.

I chose this one, just due to the nature of the Claim. Some of this, May even be confirmation of what you have noted, but the ever insightful sentance, does not effectively express this.

True, the Scriptures where amassed through a collections of Copies that had been transcribed several times.

True, the King James 1611 Version Bible, maybe in the Scholarly sense, the worst of available texts, but it is infact, the best English Version available. (Some may argue otherwise, but that's their choice.)

But what does this also bring with it, that should be at least considered, prior to dismissing these facts as a sound bite to obtain an expected acceptance this is enough said and that's all there is?

Now I have asked several times for one of my Jewish brothers to step up, and assist many times in here, and again, that call is extended here.

In respects to the Old Testament and the Original Hebrew and Chaldean Scrolls, these documents had been transcribed over time, and yes, in some cases many times.

I would like to offer some known's in respects to these Transcriptions.

Of the West Coast of the Dead Sea, a series of documents where found in 1947, and in one of these scrolls was found a Copy of the Book of Isaiah.

Dead Sea Scrolls - Isaiah 53
The Dead Sea Scrolls have provided phenomenal evidence for the credibility of biblical scripture. Specifically, the nearly intact Great Isaiah Scroll is almost identical to the most recent manuscript version of the Masoretic text from the 900's AD.

(Scholars have discovered a handful of spelling and tense-oriented scribal errors, but nothing of significance. )

In light of Isaiah's rich Messianic prophecy, we thought it would be rewarding to reproduce a portion of the English translation of the actual Hebrew text found in the Great Isaiah Scroll. Specifically, the following corresponds to Isaiah 53 in today's Old Testament. Remember, this text was dated 100 to 335 years before the birth of Jesus Christ!

Now I picked just anyone of the Sites, which can be located.
www.allaboutarchaeology.org...

Now, this is likely the most "Known" of the Old Testament Scrolls, and it is important to understand, the intend had always been on maintaining the integrity of the Text. The Transcribers took care, in completeing this, and here's where I would love to see my Jewish brothers Jump in.

Is this a Lie? Those who study the Jewish Books know, these copies have only small amount of errors in the complete volume of scrolls used in the Torah for instant. Enough to count and not get far past two handfuls.

I have not been provided with any evidence to the contrary, and if any would wish to do so, I would like to review it. I had been told by a jewish Scholar once, when he laughed at me and my Bible, but he had no reason to lie.


As for the King James 1611 Bible, and it's integrity, thats a suspect topic due to the Masonic Influences of Jolly King James that can be brought into question. We also have the translators in some cases, not actually using the Hebrew or Chaldean text, and using the Septuagint Version, that lost some of the message brought forth in the Original Languages.

In one specific case, we find a personage that in the today, 90% may honestly respond and indicate he is an important figure in these end times, but this is only because of the Wrong SOURCE, (the Septuagint Version ) was used, instead of the Hebrew.

So what is this heylel/halal of Isa. 14:12? Here is the problem—too many translations of previous translations without checking the Hebrew manuscripts first.

Lucifer is the Latin Vulgate translation of the word "xosphoruos" in the Septuagint, which is a Greek version of the Hebrew of Isaiah 14:12, which the King James translators then translated over into the English as "Lucifer."

The Latin and the Greek, as well as a supposed form of a "Hebrew" word in verse 12 mean "bright shiner" or "shining one." The problem is, however, that Isa.14:12 was not written in Latin or Greek, but Hebrew. And I assure you that "lucifer" is not a Hebrew word, nor is it an English translation of a Hebrew word. Lucifer is Latin, and is related to a group of Latin derived English words including lucid, luciferin and luciferose, as we saw defined above, all of which suggest brightness or shining. Likewise xosphoros in the Greek derived English words such as, fluorescence and phosphorescence.

But, there seems to be no Hebrew or Aramaic text in which there is a word in this verse to correspond. What we find in all such texts is the word "hehlehl,’ eill, which is a form of the Hebrew stem "yah-lahl," ill. And what is the meaning of "ill"? Are you ready? It means HOWL. That’s right, "Lucifer" turns out to be nothing more than a "howl" (maybe of ‘hot air’)!

bible-truths.com...
Now, unlike the previous link, I do not expect this to be commonly accepted, nor do I expect this to obtain overwelming support from any quarter, but that's not my problem. It's the wish to ensure it is clear, we have the tools to study and know this. This is why the King James 1611 Bible is infact the Best ENGLISH source.

But this is a TRUTH and in this, it's better known than ignored. The Text of this site is a good read, and coveres this INDEPTH.

Now I could go on and offer examples.

Genesis 1:2 And it became a waste and a desolation, and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the
face of the waters.

The King James translators offered, And the earth was without form, and void;, which does not truthfully reflect the Original Hebrew words. This may be due to the fact that at this point, the Earth was considered to be 6000 Years Old, and heresy to say otherwise, but this can also be noted with the tool we have to confirm this.

What's the 6th Commandment??? Thou shall not Kill?? Right
Sorry, Close, but no Cigar

"Thou shalt not murder"
Killing an innocent human being is a capital sin.

It the Act of Pre Meditate Murder against Innocence. Not Killing, such as in defense, or as a sentance for a convicted Murderer, or as in war.

Thou shall not do what the two wingnuts sniping people out of their trunk around the East Coast of the US a few years ago.

So again, Yes, Scholars would admit the King James 1611 Bible may be a bad copy to take as a source, but despite this, it is the best, the English Reader can obtain. With the Tool to research the KJV 1611 Bible, you can get back to the Original text, and see exactly what was noted.

Like I noted Eariler, these are important things to also consider, when casting breif statements as you have offered.

I Agree with your statements, but not with what you implied with those statements. Maybe with these things considered, you view may adjust somewhat, but if not, thats your choice. We all have free will.

Ciao

Shane

Recently I found an effective link, and I thought it's notations should also be brought forth for consideration in respects to the matter, as it revolves around the King of Babylon as lucifer.

Meaning: brilliant star (Hebrew helel; Septuagint heosphoros, Vulgate lucifer)

A title given to the king of Babylon (Isa 14:12) to denote his glory.
This entry includes text from Easton's Bible Dictionary, 1897.

The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for "the light of the morning" (Job 11:17), "the signs of the zodiac" (Job 38:32), and "the aurora" (high priest Simon son of Onias (Sir 506), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Rev 22:8), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (2Pet 1:19; Rev 22:16; the "Exultet" of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.

The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, "to lament"; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1:14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4).

Portions of this entry are taken from The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907.

The Balance of this link offers some clarity into the Septuagint translation as well.
bible.tmtm.com...

And if you wish, heres a link to the Index. Hit whatever letter you wish, and scroll for the word. Pretty Simple.
bible.tmtm.com...

I had this matter spoken to in another Topic,

Nearer the end of it, a visitor came, and we had some discussion in respects to Mr Smith.

I checked out this website, which is made by L. Ray Smith, some Bible fundamentalist who regards it as his mission to "expose those who contradict". Well, I confess my heresy and apostacy, that I am indeed one of those infidels who contradict.

I did not have the above to offer in response, as supportive of the View expressed by Mr Smith. I sort of think Mr Smith's site will obtain a vast amount of questioning to his credibility.

Since I was not interested explaining something already expressed far better than I could do, I offered his site.

Well, heres further verification from a more credible source. I happened across it a day or so ago.

Ciao

Shane

Hello all,

I have included three links below, which i hope will help in resolving some questions here about -

a: The historical reliablilty of the new testament, if not the entire bible.
www.infidels.org...

b: The reliabilty of the evidence for the resurrection account in the gospels.
www.apologetics.com...
bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/craig-resurrection.html

and finally, c: the evidence for dating the earliest original manuscripts of the NT within a generation of the accounts recorded therein as compared to the earliest extant copies of other ancient historical texts.
www.examiningthescriptures.com...

The first two articles are fairly long but all are very informative and sholarly and should be ignored by those not willing to use their brains or those who will be unconvinced regardless of the evidence.

I pray that God will use them to educate and inspire some of you who are earnestly and sincerely seeking to know the truth.

May God bless all those seek the truth,

LS

2 things,
1 even if the article is accurate the earliest fragment still dates from 100 years after the
fact. That is 100 years of being passed on mouth to mouth. and this only bears witness to a single passage not an entire compilation.

2 there is no evidence that any of the 4 gospels were written by the person they are attributed to. In Fact there is much to suggest that the names were ascribed by the
scribes that copied them. They could as easily have been the gospels of Fred, Bill , George,and Sue.

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
Paul was a Sadducee, not a Pharisee:

www.vexen.co.uk...

www.jdstone.org...

debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com...

www.crosscircle.com...

www.free-minds.org...

www.sullivan-county.com...

www.askwhy.co.uk...

www.justgivemethetruth.com...

paulproblem.netfirms.com...

query.nytimes.com...

www.biblepages.web.surftown.se...

faithofyeshua.faithweb.com...

Your sources are not acceptable. The number do not make them any more so.

Neither are your statements. They are contradictory to actual recorded statements from the time and are therefore pure and simple bunk.

Here's a source:
www.answers.com...

Paul of Tarsus
Saint Paul

Apostle to the Gentiles
Born ~3 january in Tarsus
Died ~65 beheaded in Rome during Nero's Persecution
Venerated in Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, Protestantism
Major shrine Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls
Feasts January 25, June 29, November 18
Attributes thin-faced elderly man with a high forehead, receding hairline and long pointed beard; man holding a sword and a book; man with 3 springs of water nearby; sword; book
Patronage Extensive list, see [1]
Saul, also known as Paul, Paulus, and Saint Paul the Apostle, (AD 3 – 67) is widely considered to be central to the early development and spread of Christianity, particularly westward from Judea. Many Christians view him as an important interpreter of the teachings of Jesus. Paul is described in the New Testament as a Hellenized Jew and Roman citizen from Tarsus (in present-day Turkey). He was a persistent persecutor of early Christians, almost all of whom were Jewish. Then came his "Road to Damascus" experience, which brought about his conversion to faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Through his Epistles to Gentile Christian communities, Paul attempted to show that the God of Abraham is for all people rather than for Jews only. He, however, did not originate this idea. Jewish tradition teaches that all people ought to recognize the God of Abraham, though Judaism has not historically encouraged conversion or proselytism. (For other examples, see Isaiah 56:6-8 or proselyte or Great Commission, or Simon Peter's vision of the sheet descending from Heaven in Acts 10:9-23a).

Paul is venerated as a Saint by all the churches that honor them, including those of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican traditions, and some Lutheran sects. He is the "patron saint" of Malta, the City of London and has also had several cities named in his honor, including São Paulo, Brazil, and Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA. He is also venerated as a prophet by Latter Day Saints, or Mormons. He did much to advance Christianity among the Gentiles, and is considered to be one source (if not the primary source) of early Church doctrine, and the founder of Pauline Christianity. His epistles form a fundamental section of the New Testament.

And here's another www.bartleby.com...

. A.D. 64? or 67?, the apostle to the Gentiles, b. Tarsus, Asia Minor. He was a Jew. His father was a Roman citizen, probably of some means, and Paul was a tentmaker by trade. His Jewish name was Saul. He was educated in Jerusalem, where he studied under Gamaliel and became a zealous nationalist; he was probably a Pharisee. The chronology of St. Paul’s life is difficult, but there is general agreement (within a few years) on almost all details. The hypothetical dates given here are according to one chronological system.

Here's another: www.historyworld.net...

Saul of Tarsus: AD c.10-c.35
Saul of Tarsus, known to Christians as St Paul, grows up in a strict Jewish family in the port of Tarsus, in what is now southern Turkey. As part of Asia Minor, this is a Greek-speaking town. It is also within the Roman empire, and this family is distinguished enough to have been granted Roman citizenship.

A Greek-speaking Jewish Roman citizen is well equipped to have influence in the wide and stable Mediterannean world of this period, benefiting from the Pax Romana of the new Roman empire.

But the boy's father, who arranges for him to go to Jerusalem to study among the Pharisees, ....After studying with a leading rabbi in Jerusalem, Saul becomes closely linked with the religious authorities in the city and zealously helps to suppress the Jewish heresy which is being spread by the followers of the crucified Jesus.....

Good post, Curiosity- Paul was definitely a pharisee as he points out himself in his epistles. He makes no bones about the fact that he was one of the chief persecutors of the early church, arresting many and having them thrown into jail. He even admits that he held the cloaks of several people who were involved in the stoning to death of Steven, the first Christian martyr, as recorded in the book of Acts.

Now, how does a man who was a zellous defender of pharisaic judaism and fierce adversary of Christianity suddenly become one of those he once persecuted? Seems to me it would take something very convincing for such a man to surrender up all that he had believed was true and place his own life in jeopardy as well.

It is a very simple though very profound truth: he met the Lord Jesus, Himself, who changed pauls mind and heart in a single moment of blinding clarity[Acts 9:1-21]. My own moment of truth was not anywhere near as dramatic as Pauls but sufficient to the purpose. I did not seek God, I sought the truth; I did not set out to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior but I was persuaded by God's grace and love and mercy. It would be much more"convenient" for me in this life if I did not, though I wouldn't surrender what I now know to be true for all the gold in Fort Knox - to use a phrase from a classic hymn, "I'd rather have Jesus than anything the world has to offer today"; or to borrow a quote from the great, martyrd, missionary Jim Elliot: " A man is no fool who gives up that which he can not keep for that which he can not lose".

Paul certainly learned that truth on the road to Damascus.

Grace and peace,

LS

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
2 things,
1 even if the article is accurate the earliest fragment still dates from 100 years after the
fact. That is 100 years of being passed on mouth to mouth. and this only bears witness to a single passage not an entire compilation.

What is your point? If the earliest original mss of the Gospels date from A.D. 100-120 which is 70-90 years after the events they record and the earliest known copies of most other ancient historical documents dates no earlier than 300-900 years after they were written how can you argue that the NT documents lack veracity? and how about the fact that except for very minor errors, the oldest mss and the newest translations are identical and unchanged?

2 there is no evidence that any of the 4 gospels were written by the person they are attributed to. In Fact there is much to suggest that the names were ascribed by the
scribes that copied them. They could as easily have been the gospels of Fred, Bill , George,and Sue.

The internal evidence of the four Gospels themselves disprove your theory - each Gospel writers "voice" is unique from the others and retains that unique character throughout the narrative. I think even the greatest writers of all time would have trouble passing their work off as someone elses, not to mention several writers doing it. Another thing that is misunderstood: scribes were just that, scribes; they were responsible for reprinting documents word for word, not making it up themselves as they went along.

Here is a website address that goes into the authorship question in a very thorough and lays out the evidence step by step. www.themoorings.org...

In conclusion, there is ample evidence, both historical and internal in the NT itself to verify the reliablity of the dating and authorship issues you offerd.

Grace and Peace,

LS

Greetings,

Originally posted by Essedarius
Personally, I don't think so. But I tell you what, if the Heaven's Gate cult builds in popularity over the course of my life, I'll give more weight to the possibility. (As it is, I just don't give a lot of credibility to beliefs that can't outlast the calendar year...)

So,
according to your argument,
Mormonisn is true,
and Jehovah's Witnesses,
and Scientologists,
and Buddhism,
and, and, etc, etc.

Their beliefs have grown over the years.
Which,
according to YOUR argument, means they are true.

Many religions have lasted LONGER than Christianity, which proves they are MORE TRUE - according to your argument.

Perhaps you should THINK about your arguments first.

Originally posted by EssedariusI don't think I understand.
Are you saying that you don't believe that Christians were ever martyred?

There is no evidence that any Christian accepted death rather than recant - just later legends. If you think there is EVIDENCE of that, why didn't you quote it?

Anyway - people die for false beliefs all the time - it proves NOTHING.

Christians never grasp this.


Iasion

Greetings Shane,

Thanks for your comments.

the King James 1611 Version Bible, maybe in the Scholarly sense, the worst of available texts, but it is infact, the best English Version available. (Some may argue otherwise, but that's their choice.)

What?
Scholars agree the KJV is rubbish.
No-one but fundies think it is the best English version.
Do you even know what the Textus Receptus is?

Modern textual criticism has come a LONG way since the KJV.

Of the West Coast of the Dead Sea, a series of documents where found in 1947, and in one of these scrolls was found a Copy of the Book of Isaiah.

Wrong again.

They found TWO copies of Isaiah - DIFFERENT copies.

One (the most DIFFERENT one) had about 1375 differences to the modern text,
the other (the least DIFFERENT one) had many significant differences.

These differences actually caused CHANGES in the modern bible text of Isaiah :

(See below for lits of these differences.)

The Transcribers took care, in completeing this, and here's where I would love to see my Jewish brothers Jump in.

You had NO IDEA there were TWO copies of Isaiah found, did you?

You had NO IDEA the two copies were very DIFFERENT, did you?

You had NO IDEA the LEAST different copy (the famous Great Isaiah scroll) had many DIFFERENCES to the old text, did you?

This is why the King James 1611 Bible is infact the Best ENGLISH source.

Only fundies think this.
No scholar agrees.

Yes, Scholars would admit the King James 1611 Bible may be a bad copy to take as a source,

Oh, so it IS a bad copy?
Hard to follow what you are arguing...


Iasion


[edit on 3-8-2006 by Iasion]