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.
Originally posted by silo13
It's my opinion when King James 'decided' (with a handful of butt kissers) what would and would not be 'included' in the Bible? He found great offense at anything that glorified the importance of woman - or - put them on the same level as men... Much less made Jesus a 'real' man - still without sin, as, anything He did under the mantle of a true marriage would (still) allow him to remain blameless/sinless.
Haha...like the gospel of Jesus? The one that should be in the Bible, no matter what, turns out missing? The pivotal character in the Bible doesn't get his own voice? Everyone who WASN'T pure and divine gets to speak for him? Please.
All that need be said.
Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by randyvs
Just look at the pic. So pristine like it was done yesterday. Hey that just might be an indicator of doubt ? You people.
No, it means they did their job by cleaning it as best possible, as any archeologist would in order to leave no doubt when deciphering it.
I'd so love to say 'duh' but I wont.
peace
Originally posted by Sigismundus
καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῇ ἐκεῖνοι• γύναι, τί κλαίεις; λέγει αὐτοῖς ὅτι ἦραν τὸν κύριον μου, καὶ οὐκ οἶδα ποῦ ἔθηκαν αὐτόν.
And they say to her [Miryam haGedolah] Woman, why are you weeping? And she says to them, [I’m weeping] because they have removed [ the corpse of ] my husband and I do not know where they have laid it out ..”
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by adjensen
Cameron did nothing but put up the money for it... I find the statistical analysis compelling, and I have no horse in this race, so please don't project your bias on me...
I have no doubt whatsoever that the historical Jesus and the biblical Jesus are VERY different.
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by adjensen
No, this is based on historical precedent. Since the four Gospels were written 30 to 70 years after his death, and thus were written by people who never actually met him, the accuracy of these 'biographies' is highly suspect.
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by adjensen
Biblical scholars, who practice methodological agnosticism, would disagree. Academic Theologians seem to agree through analysis of the Gospels that Mark was written sometime between 65 and 70 CE, Matthew was written between 75 and 80 CE, Luke was written around 85 CE, and John was written between 90 and 100 CE.
It wasn't until 312 CE that Christianity became an openly practiced religion, and the Bible in its current state wasn't put together until the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. It is commonly thought among academic circles that the four Gospels that were chosen were done so because of the congruity of the four.
Originally posted by adjensen
The Council of Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with the determination of New Testament canon. I wish I had a dollar for every person who thought that, I could retire on it, lol. There is historical proof that the four Gospels were declared canonical in the late Second Century, and as best as can be determined, they are the only four that are known to have met the above listed criteria.
Source
By the turn of the 5th century, the Catholic Church in the west, under Pope Innocent I, recognized a biblical canon including the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which had been previously established at a number of regional Synods, namely the Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and two Synods of Carthage (397 and 419).[14] This canon, which corresponds to the modern Catholic canon, was used in the Vulgate, an early 5th century translation of the Bible made by Jerome[15] under the commission of Pope Damasus I in 382.
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Originally posted by adjensen
The Council of Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with the determination of New Testament canon. I wish I had a dollar for every person who thought that, I could retire on it, lol. There is historical proof that the four Gospels were declared canonical in the late Second Century, and as best as can be determined, they are the only four that are known to have met the above listed criteria.
My apologies, I was incorrect, but you were also
C. AD 200:
But the periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.
(Source)
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Dating of the Gospels. My original post came from my lecture notes from my World Religions class (college level).
Source
The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament. The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in an eighth or 7th century codex that came from the library of Columban's monastery at Bobbio; it contains internal cues which suggest that it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 or as late as the 4th century.