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: Akragon
a reply to: Grimpachi
It won't have any implications at all...
Christianity is stuck in their belief system... We could find a text written by the hand of Jesus himself...
Signed and dated with a artist rendition of his face on the back... and Christians would still believe exactly what they do
In fact IF Jesus himself came back... they would still believe the bible over him...
its just how Christianity works... they don't question... they have faith in their book
originally posted by: DeadSeraph
originally posted by: dr1234
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.
Wrong, look into your roman historians, because you're wrong here.
Explain why you feel that way.
In fact IF Jesus himself came back... they would still believe the bible over him...
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Tangerine
"If Jesus didn't exist, his brother would probably know about it!" without reminding you that the brother of Jesus, if he ever lived, never documented the existence of Jesus!
He wrote the Book of James.
You think the brother of Jesus lived until the late first or early second century when the Book of James was written? That's hilarious. Do you consciously suspend disbelief to come up these outrageous claims?
Authorship
The writer calls himself simply "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ."[Jas 1:1] Jesus had two apostles named James, but it is unlikely that either of these wrote the letter. One apostle, James, the son of Zebedee, was martyred about 44 AD.[6] This would be very early for him to have been the writer. The other apostle James, the son of Alphaeus, is not prominent in the Scriptural record, and very little is known about him.
Rather, evidence points to James the brother of Jesus, to whom Jesus evidently had made a special appearance after his resurrection described in the New Testament. This James was prominent among the disciples. The writer of the letter of James identifies himself as "a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ", in much the same way as did Jude, who introduced the Epistle of Jude by calling himself "a slave of Jesus Christ, but a brother of James". (Jas 1:1; Jude 1) Furthermore, the salutation of James’ letter includes the term “Greetings!” in the same way as did the letter concerning circumcision that was sent to the congregations. In this latter instance it was apparently Jesus’ brother James who spoke prominently in the assembly of "the apostles and the older men" at Jerusalem.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon
In fact IF Jesus himself came back... they would still believe the bible over him...
Well, and the fact that He said many would come claiming to be a Savior, or Him specifically, and to not follow them. Remember, the first one that comes is the bad one, don't follow him. lol
originally posted by: zazzafrazz
back on topic……
I've scratched together some scholars thoughts who have seen the limited photos we all have seen.
-Uncured skin not vellum = medieval
-The gold ink is odd, first thoughts make it younger than 1000 years old (but who knows aways a chance there is an exception to the rule)
-Use of the term "year of our lord" not used in old ancient Aramaic text (actually this is Syriac and matched Cypriot Syriac not ancient Aramaic, Or another possible source of the manuscript could be the Tur-Abdin area of Turkey, where there is still a Syriac speaking community)
-Use of the term pound was not a unit of measurement in 500ad, used first in the Ottoman empire. Turkish-Cypriot region possibly?
-The Syriac writing seems to be have vowel points, making it in the East Syriac script, meaning this wasn't around until the 15th century.
Charging 2 million for photocopy of a page, give me a break.
Granted, none of the arguments scraped together from photos of limited pages means anything unless the whole thing is reviewed by unbiased scholars.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Tangerine
"If Jesus didn't exist, his brother would probably know about it!" without reminding you that the brother of Jesus, if he ever lived, never documented the existence of Jesus!
He wrote the Book of James.
You think the brother of Jesus lived until the late first or early second century when the Book of James was written? That's hilarious. Do you consciously suspend disbelief to come up these outrageous claims?
I think you are confusing the epistle of James with the epistles of 1 and 2 John, written at the very end of the 1st century.
...
Epistle of James ~ Wiki