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

originally posted by: Awen24

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: shauny

Of course, the Bible (the official holy canon in all its versions) has the same problem when it comes to Jesus. Not a word of it was written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived nor witnessed him saying a word.

...care to substantiate that?
Obviously the Bible is 66 books, not just one - and written over 2500 years, so... no, none of the Old Testament was written by contemporaries of Jesus. Really, you're only talking about the gospels, of whom the authors are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, ALL of whom were contemporaries of Jesus. In fact, each of these books was in circulation prior to the destruction of the temple in 70AD, which absolutely places both them and the authors "when Jesus allegedly lived".

If you want to continue to talk about the epistles, both Gentile (written predominantly by Paul) and Hebrew (Peter, John, Jude), then you're STILL talking about Jesus' contemporaries. At the time of Stephen's stoning (around 34ad), Paul was already a Pharisee, meaning that he must have been at least 33 years old - which in turn means that he was probably born around the same time as Jesus, give or take a year or two, and was most likely alive for Jesus' entire lifespan.

Seriously, this stuff is pretty basic. I'll never understand why people keep trotting out the same misinformation time and time again.

Actually, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John most certainly weren't the authors of the gospels. Their names weren't attached to those books until the late second century by Bishop Erenaeus of Lyon. If you check the dates the four books were written, you will realize that the oldest has been dated to 70 AD, that's two generations after Jesus and Mark allegedly lived. The Gospel of John wasn't written until around 110 AD. The rest were written in between.

If you want to claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John even lived you'll have to prove it. 1Peter has been dated to 81 and 2 Peter to 80-90.

Paul did live at the time Jesus allegedly lived but never even claimed to have witnessed Jesus living.

Bottom line, there is absolutely zero contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus actually lived. Add to that the fact that virtually everything written about Jesus had already been written about much older deities and the scale tips heavily toward Jesus being a mythological figure. You must understand that in order to be contemporaneous documentation of someone's existence, the author must have a) lived at the same time as the person in question and b) witnessed the person in question living.

a reply to: eisegesis

I am a lad of science, science proves things, like why our eyes water, how and why our hearts beat blood through our bodies. Science is a learning place, it will always learn, Science has an open mind and will change it's views when things are proved differently. Why I like Science, you can trust it...To a point.

a reply to: ccseagull

Can you divulge further in scientific terms why you think this is fake?
I mean no disrespect whatsoever, I just love to learn other cultures, others thinking.
Being disabled I can't leave Scotland any day soon, so my view of the World is right here..

a reply to: schuyler

Totally, I agree.
But at the same time we have to question why, as said before this page "Why did someone go to all this trouble"
At the time stamp on this book it took a long time and a lot of amazing work to make a book of this size.

Cheers

originally posted by: Awen24

originally posted by: Tangerine
Yes, that's exactly what was done when a second century Bishop named the four gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John despite the fact that they could not possibly have written them.

Assuming you're referring to Irenaeus, he didn't "name" the gospels, he simply defended the position of all four as canonical... as there were arguments in the 2nd Century over which gospel was "the best".

Actually, he did ascribe authorship to them and name them.

a reply to: Awen24

I have to get my facts right?
The reason I write is to learn, so by placing this article here I learn.
I love to learn, read my last reply, you will see what I mean.
I have no facts, neither do you, we have books, and many question them

Again, no hard feelings, I respect you and everyone in here, I am just a lad who has to ask questions. I mean no offence EVER..

Thanks

originally posted by: ccseagull
a reply to: Tangerine

I guess it's how you look at it. The four gospels do match up in terms of specific events happening but being told from a different viewpoint.

It didn't matter that the people who wrote it weren't alive when Jesus was. The Holy Spirit inspired man to write the accounts.

I know you're not a Believer. I've read the same comment directed at me to previous members. I don't need to prove Jesus lived or died because for me it comes down to faith. I can't make anyone believe and even if I could that's not free will.

A Christian's faith should be personal and yes shared with other believers and non believers. But I will never hit people over the head trying to make them believe. That's not my place or job. Ultimately when one decides, or not, to be a believer it is only between them and Jesus.

Too many people on this site are trying to make us believers argue our points. I don't need to. I put Jesus in front of all I say, think and do (and sometimes fail but then pick myself back up and try again, i.e.: get my own thoughts out of the way) and you may not know Jesus today, maybe you will look for him some day but in the end every single person that ever existed will know Jesus as they come face to face with Him. You will have your proof then. I'm not arguing, I'm simply speaking from my own faith.

Best regards.

The Holy Spirit? Can you prove that such a thing exists? Thought not yet you made a claim of fact.

You're correct, you do not have to prove your claims of faith. However, you do have to prove your claims of fact. May I suggest that you use the words, "I believe" or "in my opinion" or "I think" to present your beliefs as beliefs and not try to pass them off as facts?

if it really is 1,500 years old then it certainly contains more truth than the bastardized versions we have today.

It`s no secret that the modern version of the bible that we have today is a product of editing, mis-translations,deletions etc, that were inspired by politics,deception,bribery,etc.

in order to get as close to the truth as you can, people need to set aside their egos,beliefs and bias.

a reply to: Tangerine

What if James, Matthew, Luke and John were wrong, made up, false?
What if this book was the real deal?

We can NEVER know for sure.
Do we know for sure James, Matthew, Luke and John all REALLY wrote the bible? Can we be sure it is accurate?

Again, if you read my last 2 comments above you will see, I really just love to debate and ask questions.
Never to cause hate or place a person or people in a class you know?

Just a dude having debate.
We are mostly adults in here, we can debate this no problem with no hate.
Read what I wrote about the "Alien" Just a made up story, this will answer why I write this stuff.
I have done 100 more with no new bible..

Respect

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.

Yes, and the Gospels weren't written by anyone who witnessed the alleged events, either.

Jesus walked on the earth? Where's the contemporaneous documentation proving that?

This is like watching people debate who wrote the earliest account of Gandalf walking the earth.

a reply to: nullafides

Yeah we are, totally my friend..

Cheers,

originally posted by: Tardacus
if it really is 1,500 years old then it certainly contains more truth than the bastardized versions we have today.

It`s no secret that the modern version of the bible that we have today is a product of editing, mis-translations,deletions etc, that were inspired by politics,deception,bribery,etc.

in order to get as close to the truth as you can, people need to set aside their egos,beliefs and bias.

So a document that is 1500 years old and describes events that occurred 500 years previously, is more accurate than the documents which were written within 70 years of said events? Interesting logic.

originally posted by: shauny
a reply to: Collateral

I believe they did Radiocarbon dating on the bible or so called book of God, the contents are to be scrutinised by people who have a hard time wondering why over 90% of our species believe in the book of their own choice, yet our World is one of hatred, death, war and more.

I always have this stupid story
"Imagine an Alien ship landed in peace, they were seated with all the World leaders, and through dialogue they learnt that over 90% of our species believed in God and lived by whatever book. The Alien's, in the context of what that % means to them would presume Earth is a peaceful place"

It is the total opposite, this is why I ask questions of Religion and more so the people in Religion. I respect anyone's views unless they are hateful or spiteful, but the question is being asked and must continue to be asked "Why is the World so messed up when 90%+ believe in God/Bible"

Can never get my head around this question

Cheers

90% of the Earth's population do not believe in God. Do you think 90% of the world is monotheistic? It's not.

Why would anyone expect a world largely populated by monotheists would be anything but barbaric, violent and warlike?

Nope




Sure it might be old, but that it overrules the bible we have today, nope.

originally posted by: shauny
a reply to: Tangerine

What if James, Matthew, Luke and John were wrong, made up, false?
What if this book was the real deal?

We can NEVER know for sure.
Do we know for sure James, Matthew, Luke and John all REALLY wrote the bible? Can we be sure it is accurate?

Again, if you read my last 2 comments above you will see, I really just love to debate and ask questions.
Never to cause hate or place a person or people in a class you know?

Just a dude having debate.
We are mostly adults in here, we can debate this no problem with no hate.
Read what I wrote about the "Alien" Just a made up story, this will answer why I write this stuff.
I have done 100 more with no new bible..

Respect

They probably were made up. Of course we can't be sure either way whether they lived but we can be sure they didn't write the Gospels.

a reply to: Tangerine

90% of the Earth's population do not believe in God.

Where did you come up with that figure? Do you have any links to support it? Given the fact there is an estimated 2 billion Christians and 2 billion Muslims alone (and that figure doesn't even account for Jews or peoples of other faiths), I think your estimate might be in error.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

EH? lol
I don't claim anything. I am asking questions via the article.
As I have said in my 3 previous comments, I don't post to boast or write to bite.
I love to research and I am fascinated by the unknown.
For me all bibles were written by man.
How can it be the word of God if Man wrote it?
Where is God now? Why did he stop speaking to people?
Someone will say "But he does, everyday" and I guess you will have a point.
But in this context, this article, it's interesting.

I should have said.
I believe in God. My God.
I read no book..
I go to no room on Gods day off to proclaim God

God works for me on my time, I have a relationship with God and try my best as a person to adhere to the 10 commandments or to just be good.
If I go to hell, that is a very harsh God!

a reply to: Tangerine

I don't really have a come back or argument my friend..
All I can do is go with what I research, example
www.washingtontimes.com...

The fun for me is finding the truth, if I never do it will be fun trying to.
Life is for having fun, for me writing, researching is amazing.
It is pretty much all I can do

a reply to: DeadSeraph

www.washingtontimes.com...

I can't be 100% sure on numbers, most of the research I did was around 85% (ish)
Call it 50%/70% whatever my friend. More people believe in God than don't on this Earth..

Cheers

a reply to: shauny

Ok? That's not really what I asked. You can believe in whatever God you like. That's your prerogative, and I'm not here to convert you to my own set of beliefs. I guess I simply don't understand why you feel this particular bible is of such great significance?

I mean, even if it were proven to be authentic, it still dates from 500 years after the events it's supposedly detailing. There are much much older documents that all contradict it, while agreeing on certain specific details (in this case that Jesus was crucified).