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

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

So basically you have nothing relevant to add to the conversation? Just "#*!$ Christianity"?

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: chr0naut

Gnosticism predates the Crucifixion my friend...

And Jesus' in general... Christian Gnosticism came from his time though

Obviously....

How exactly does Christian Gnosticism predate the crucifixion when the earliest known Gnostic text is thought to have been written in the 2nd century (AFTER Tacitus wrote about it), and Jesus is thought to have been executed around 32 or 33 AD?

Read what I just wrote again...

Gnosticism predates the Crucifixion my friend...

And Jesus' in general... Christian Gnosticism came from his time though

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Awen24

originally posted by: Tangerine
I imagine you'll dispute this and, if so, I challenge you to cite contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus actually lived.

...the gospels ARE contemporaneous documentation.
Being a religious text doesn't magically remove them from the historical context they were written in.

You must be confused about the meaning of the word contemporaneous. That means that the source must have existed at the same time as Jesus and claimed to have witnessed him living. All the gospels were written two or more generations after Jesus allegedly lived and none were written by anyone who could have witnessed Jesus living.

The fall of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Herod's Temple and the subsequent diaspora of the Jewish People occurred in AD 70, that is 37 years after the Crucifixion (which occurred in AD 33).

None of the gospels or New Testament books (except perhaps "The Revelation of Jesus Christ") make mention in any way of the fall of Jerusalem, which you will recall was only 37 years after the Crucifixion.

A modern analogy would be several historians, writing histories of 20th to 21st century New York, somehow all missing the bit about the twin towers - Not likely!

So that means that it is most likely that every book in the new testament was written before the big event, 37 years after the crucifixion.

a reply to: chr0naut Editing?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Now I just wish Jesus or Satan could turn to 2 liters of water into 15W-40D engine oil so I dont have to drive to a service station.
My needs are simple, I dont need any "wine at Canna" extravaganzas.
Or he could have rescued St John from Patmos before he wrote that book called Revelation.
Jesus could have returned say, AD 150 and cleared up a lot of heresys and still fulfilled his "redemption of man" BEFORE they started killing in his name. But to no avail.

Let me put it to you all allegorically.

Let's say tomorrow, we found a manuscript dated to around 100 AD that claimed Socrates never existed. Would you be as prone to believe it? After all... Socrates never actually wrote anything down, and the only reason we even consider him a real person is because of Plato.

Yet Plato and contemporaneous commentary from his time, seem to corroborate the story of Socrates existence. So should we believe the earlier works supporting the idea Socrates existed (some of which were written by his proteges) or the later document claiming he was fictitious?

I find it interesting how those who have a bone to pick with the religious persona of Christ are so quick to hoist such ridiculous objections up in a vain effort to do anything to cast doubt on the New Testament narrative. Even going so far as to suggest the man never even existed.

But if such intellectual dishonesty helps you sleep at night, who am I to object? I say power to you. If you'd like to promote ignorance, be my guest. I'm not here to convert or even preach. I'm just here on the grounds of history.

a reply to: lost in space

Yes, I was editing. The space bar on my (borrowed) laptop does not register sometimes and it runs words together.

Is that what you were implying, or were you suggesting that mention of the fall of Jerusalem was removed by a later redactor?

a reply to: Tangerine

Just don't forget that many things in history have been called facts by many highly intelligent people that later proved to be false.

I am not here to prove anything, or change anyone's mind, personally I would love to read a full translation of the text.

But until a full translation is available, seems like some folks have forgotten that we don't have all the facts in a rush to attack all Christians because of a hatred the Catholic church.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

this whole idea that he didn't exist is apparently a new thing...

The thought never crossed anyones mind until recently for good reason...

I find the whole argument silly honestly...

Oh...and if I read "contemporaneous Documentation" one more time my head will explode...

seriously...

Doesnt change a damn thing..... Its still just a book, full of opinions and made up stories written either to profit from or to control people.

Just because something is written in a book doesnt make it true or real. Something all religious people need to wake up and understand.

Start believing in yourself instead of trying tl relieve yourself from responsibility of your own life!

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: DeadSeraph

I find it interesting that you avoided the factual information of my previous post then claim I lack knowledge on the subject.

I can source everything I posted on the subject do you care to dispute any of it or are you just attacking the messenger?

The older manuscripts are very important because there are fewer copies between them and the one first written. The span between the original writing and the earliest copy is minimal when compared to others in ancient writing. “We have copies commencing within a couple of generations from the writing of the originals, whereas in the case of other ancient texts, maybe five, eight, or ten centuries elapsed between the original and the earliest surviving copy,” (Strobel, 1998). By comparison, the average classical author has at least a 500-year gap between the writing of the original and the earliest copy (Slick).

Papyrus 52 (P52), which contains a small fragment of John’s gospel, (18.31-33, 37-38) is considered to be the earliest copy of New Testament text. Discovered in 1934 by C. H. Roberts, it is believed to have been copied no later than 150 AD but no earlier than 100 AD. “Nothing is unreasonable about assigning a date of 100-125 for P52. If John’s gospel was written in the 70’s or 80’s, we have a fragment 20-25 years removed form the autograph” (Comfort & Barret, 2001). Newly discovered fragments from Egypt have been recently found, one of which may date to the first century. The oldest piece contains verses from Mark’s gospel. The others, dating into the second century have portions of Luke’s gospel and letters from Paul. One fragment contains a sermon from Hebrews 11. The contents of these fragments are still being examined and subjected to dating methods. Scholars hope to publish their findings by late 2013 or early 2014 (Wallace, 2012).

There are 10-15 manuscripts written within the first 100 years of the completion of the New Testament. Some are fairly large fragments, containing significant portions of the gospels or the letters of Paul. When we go out two centuries from the original writings (300 AD), there are at least 48 manuscripts. At three centuries (400 AD), there are 69 copies.

You don't seem to understand that just because there is an intact bible from 500 AD, does not make it the oldest version of the new testament. The fact there were 69 copies of earlier manuscripts 100 years prior should indicate what I am getting at here. The earliest NT fragments found, match almost word for word what is in modern bibles today. Gospels which also corroborate the story that Jesus was crucified.

We should know the drill, if what it says consistently fails to produce claimed results then it's a lie.

originally posted by: flice
Doesnt change a damn thing..... Its still just a book, full of opinions and made up stories written either to profit from or to control people.

Just because something is written in a book doesnt make it true or real. Something all religious people need to wake up and understand.

Start believing in yourself instead of trying tl relieve yourself from responsibility of your own life!

If God exists and created you, wouldn't the purpose He created you for be the most important thing in your life?

Could there be a higher responsibility than ensuring you achieved your mission?

a reply to: ccseagull

And then I remind myself of who's running the show and the influence he has over their lives. And so I lay in bed at night and pray for them all. We must guard our hearts not to be hardened against those that oppose us.

Who's running the show? What that same powerful being that conveniently became a scapegoat in Eden? Where did the Omniscient Omnipresent jehovah go? If I had immature children basking in the sun in paradise knowing my angel was on the loose, I wouldnt turn my back on them. Its like saying I'll put 2 10 year old in a car with the keys in the ignition and a Cobra in the back seat. A recipe for disaster. No Omniscience required

a reply to: ccseagull

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

How about cot death babies...what will they ask him? I mean not why are you so cruel but what language or googoo/gaagaa will they converse in.

On the subject of language Babel was supposed to have been a watershed moment in that God confused men and that they no longer had a unified language.
With the advent of the Internent, free language mp3s, translators I think we'll have a few thousand more years before we get anywhere near a universal language so we wont be seeing any semitic jehovah/baal anytime soon.

a reply to: chr0naut I actually meant they were trying to change history, They always say the ones in power write history they way they want it, Never mind that could never, never happen.

a reply to: ccseagull

It's almost like their doing the hover dance, "When will a Christian post appear cause I'm getting antsy to attack." If you don't believe in something or don't agree with it then go

So you must have been hovering reeeel close....it only took you 1 hour after the OP made their OP before you started dancing for the faith

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: DeadSeraph

I find it interesting that you avoided the factual information of my previous post then claim I lack knowledge on the subject.

I can source everything I posted on the subject do you care to dispute any of it or are you just attacking the messenger?

The older manuscripts are very important because there are fewer copies between them and the one first written. The span between the original writing and the earliest copy is minimal when compared to others in ancient writing. “We have copies commencing within a couple of generations from the writing of the originals, whereas in the case of other ancient texts, maybe five, eight, or ten centuries elapsed between the original and the earliest surviving copy,” (Strobel, 1998). By comparison, the average classical author has at least a 500-year gap between the writing of the original and the earliest copy (Slick).

Papyrus 52 (P52), which contains a small fragment of John’s gospel, (18.31-33, 37-38) is considered to be the earliest copy of New Testament text. Discovered in 1934 by C. H. Roberts, it is believed to have been copied no later than 150 AD but no earlier than 100 AD. “Nothing is unreasonable about assigning a date of 100-125 for P52. If John’s gospel was written in the 70’s or 80’s, we have a fragment 20-25 years removed form the autograph” (Comfort & Barret, 2001). Newly discovered fragments from Egypt have been recently found, one of which may date to the first century. The oldest piece contains verses from Mark’s gospel. The others, dating into the second century have portions of Luke’s gospel and letters from Paul. One fragment contains a sermon from Hebrews 11. The contents of these fragments are still being examined and subjected to dating methods. Scholars hope to publish their findings by late 2013 or early 2014 (Wallace, 2012).

There are 10-15 manuscripts written within the first 100 years of the completion of the New Testament. Some are fairly large fragments, containing significant portions of the gospels or the letters of Paul. When we go out two centuries from the original writings (300 AD), there are at least 48 manuscripts. At three centuries (400 AD), there are 69 copies.

You don't seem to understand that just because there is an intact bible from 500 AD, does not make it the oldest version of the new testament. The fact there were 69 copies of earlier manuscripts 100 years prior should indicate what I am getting at here. The earliest NT fragments found, match almost word for word what is in modern bibles today. Gospels which also corroborate the story that Jesus was crucified.

Nothing you posted contradicts what I said. I never claimed a complete Bible from 500 AD would be the oldest version of the NT. You should go back and re-read what I wrote but for good measure I will reiterate.

So if this 1500 year old bible is real it will be one of the oldest complete manuscripts in the world.

You do understand the difference between a complete manuscript and fragments of manuscripts don't you and the significance of having a complete manuscript.

It wasn't until 4th-century parchment (also called vellum) began to be a common medium for New Testament manuscripts

No New Testament papyrus manuscript is complete they mainly consist only of a single fragmented page.

The oldest known complete manuscript is the Codex Sinaiticus which I already mentioned.

What is Codex Sinaiticus?
Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript of the Christian Bible written in the middle of the fourth century, contains the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament. The hand-written text is in Greek. The New Testament appears in the original vernacular language (koine) and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors.

The significance of Codex Sinaiticus for the reconstruction of the Christian Bible's original text, the history of the Bible and the history of Western book-making is immense.

www.codexsinaiticus.org...

If you have anything you wish to dispute in my posts I am still waiting because so far you haven't presented anything that contradicts what I have written. Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I have written because it seems you didn't comprehend it the first time and if you did I have no idea why you posted what you did and argued something I never argued against.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

The difference would be I am taking part in a conversation, not attacking.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

This world is full of ugliness, destruction, evil acts. God is allowing Satan to do his thing. The Bible prophecies about what is to come. And it says that every knee shall bow to Him. I prefer to bow my knee in love to him now instead of waiting for the last moment and realizing that he is real and all he said was true and that I now must face my consequences.

Think of God as you will. I choose to believe in the Bible and what the Holy Spirit inspired man to write.

It's pretty simple: believe or not. That is each person's own choice. I'm not going to argue or even try to explain what people don't want to hear and instead want to treat it as if I"m proclaiming I've seen leprechauns.

This post has turned into the usual scenario of non believers trying to put down Christians. That's fine, that's your choice, but I am not going to get involved in endless back and forths on something you choose not to believe in, are willingly trying to make us believers look like idiots when in the end you will push and push and push just for the thrill of trying to push your antagonizing attitudes. You could have chosen to converse with me in a mature and respectful manner but you choose to lower yourself to a childlike behaviour.

I'm so sorry we can't seem to get along. I really do wish you the best.