Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels

Religions > Atheism > Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 18 of 32

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Sound of Trumpet"
Date:	25 Oct 2006 05:25:17 AM
Object:	Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels

http://www.equip.org/free/DJ028.htm
BOOK REVIEWS
Eyewitness to Jesus:
Amazing New Manuscript Evidence about the Origin of the Gospels
by Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew d'Ancona
When I first read in the Los Angeles Times in early 1995, that an
expert had reevaluated some papyrus fragments of the Gospel of Matthew
and dated them to the first century, I realized this could have
far-reaching ramifications for biblical scholarship. For the past two
centuries, liberal higher critics have used literary arguments and the
lack of manuscripts from the first century to support their assumption
that the Gospels were written long after the events they describe.
If hard artifacts verify the dating of Matthew's Gospel as far back
as A.D. 60, these artifacts would destroy the foundation of liberal
higher criticism. Since some of these same scholars argue that Mark
wrote the first Gospel, this discovery would push the composition of
Mark to within 20 years, at most, of the events his Gospel describes.
Taken together, the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and
Luke's second volume, Acts, would give us a record of the events of
Jesus' life, death, and resurrection indisputably written within the
lifetimes of those who were eyewitnesses and who, therefore, could have
disputed any untrue assertions. There would be no time for fabrications
to develop, no time for a "Jesus of faith" to replace the "Jesus of
history," no time for the church to evolve a supernatural story from a
simple inspiring teacher, and no time for Christians to transform
first-century events into second or third-century pseudohistory.
Although the literary arguments and philosophical presuppositions of
the liberal higher critics have their own fatal flaws, their subjective
nature sometimes makes them difficult to refute clearly. For example, a
common liberal presupposition is that Jesus Himself never claimed to be
God, so any deity statements attributed to Him in the Gospels must be
later composition inserted in His name. A discovery that depends, not
on changing theories of literary interpretation, but on empirical
evidence from paper, ink, and penmanship, would refute the liberal
theories with unmistakable finality.
I found another report of the discovery in a biblical archaeology
magazine and realized that, if it could be verified, it would provide
an even more important historical context for the New Testament than
that provided for the Old Testament by the 1948 discovery of the Dead
Sea Scrolls. This is because it affirms eyewitness authorship.
Carsten Peter Thiede's work first appeared in a professional journal
on which the London press reported. Shortly thereafter, Thiede
collaborated with Matthew d'Ancona, the London Times editor who broke
the story. The result is the very readable, clearly written Eyewitness
to Jesus. Although the book is not overtly a Bible apologetic, it
certainly lends itself to that. Those who want to learn more about this
fascinating subject will also appreciate the book's helpful
footnotes, glossary, and extensive bibliography.
In addition to Thiede's well-argued redating of the Matthew
fragments, chapter six, "Scribes and Christianity," contains
fascinating auxiliary information for understanding the literary and
historical background of the New Testament. In this chapter Thiede
discusses the multilingual society of first-century Israel; Jesus'
childhood exposure to Greek culture in Sepphoris, the capital of
Galilee, less than four miles from Nazareth; Jesus' use of Greek
literary terms; Jesus' and Paul's familiarity with Greek drama;
first-century scribal techniques; first-century "shorthand," especially
customary religious abbreviations called nomen sacrum; and a summary of
traditions regarding Peter's final days before his martyrdom. The
contents of this chapter alone will enrich anyone's understanding and
appreciation of the New Testament.
The Matthew fragments redated by Thiede are at Magdalen College
(Oxford). They are called The Magdalen Papyrus (listed as Greek 17 and
p64). There are three fragments written on both sides, together
representing 24 lines from Matthew 26:7-33. Two of the three fragments
are a little larger than 4 x 1 cm.; the other is smaller, 1.6 x 1.6 cm.
Another two fragments, located in Spain, are called the Barcelona
Papyrus (P. Barc. inv. 1/p67) and contain portions of Matthew 3:9, 15;
5:20-22, 25-28.
The Magdalen Papyrus surfaced in the modern world in 1901, when Charles
B. Huleatt purchased it from an antiquities dealer in Luxor, Egypt.
Nothing is known of the fragment's preservation before that time.
Huleatt donated the fragments to Magdalen College, where they were
given a cursory examination by Magdalen scholar Arthur Hunt, who
tentatively dated them to the fourth century. In 1953, Colin Roberts
redated the Magdalen Papyrus to the later second century and
established their connection to the Barcelona fragments.
More than 40 years later Thiede reexamined the fragments, using
state-of-the-art electronic scanners with close analysis of the
paper, ink, letter formation, line length, and other factors to redate
the fragments to around A.D. 60. Thiede's tests and skill appear to
be well within responsible papyrology, although his conclusions have
met with strong opposition from critics.
I have examined most of the critical articles and have found their
criticisms less convincing than Thiede's conclusions. A layperson's
paraphrase of one common criticism is that the papyrus must not be from
the first century because there weren't any codexes (book-leafs) in
first-century Jewish/Christian literature but only scrolls, even though
the papyrus has all of the physical characteristics of a first-century
document. As Thiede rightly points out, the argument against
first-century codexes is an argument from silence - of the small
percentage of recovered early manuscript portions, no indisputable
first-century codex portion has been identified. If, however, the
Magdalen/Barcelona codex is first century, then we do have an example
of a first-century codex. Moreover, if critical assumptions are
reconsidered, and cutting-edge papyrology tests are applied to other
previously dated fragments, we may well find other early examples of
codexes.
Time and careful scholarship will tell whether Thiede's redating is
sound. If it is (and the more I study the issue, the more confidence I
have in Thiede), we will have valuable affirmation of the eyewitness
nature of the Gospel records, the uninterrupted and unchanging
preservation of those testimonies, and our twentieth-century
inheritance of "the faith that God has once for all entrusted to the
saints" (Jude 3) by those who "did not follow cleverly invented
stories," but "were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Pet. 1:16).
- Reviewed by Bob Passantino
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	01 Nov 2006 01:12:54 PM

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:46:12 +0100, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

In message <h1lck21j097uh0j4phg3htvaula0jrb1js@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

Christians were so-called because they were followers of Christ

If you wish to claim the derivation is from Jesus, you have to show
evidence, not Apologism.

I am sure you are aware of the passage in Acts.

The Bible isn't evidence that what's in the Bible is true. Anyone who
actually has the knowledge you claim would know that.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	01 Nov 2006 04:38:23 PM

In message <lbshk2h5fr8tkkuumb1lqtg6uj112kj89s@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

The Bible isn't evidence that what's in the Bible is true. Anyone who
actually has the knowledge you claim would know that.

No, no document is evidence that what it contains is true. However when an
ancient document makes a statement about something which happened back then,
you have to accept it unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.
You cannot simply say, "Caesar did not cross the Rubicon" unless you have
some evidence to back up your assertion.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	02 Nov 2006 10:19:10 AM

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:38:23 GMT, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

In message <lbshk2h5fr8tkkuumb1lqtg6uj112kj89s@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

The Bible isn't evidence that what's in the Bible is true. Anyone who
actually has the knowledge you claim would know that.

No, no document is evidence that what it contains is true. However when an
ancient document makes a statement about something which happened back then,
you have to accept

Only if there's actual evidence that exists outside the document,
otherwise it's just an assertion. You don't REALLY accept that Caesar
was God, do you? There's more than one document that makes the claim
and no proof that it's not true.

You cannot simply say, "Caesar did not cross the Rubicon" unless you have
some evidence to back up your assertion.

So you accept that Caesar WAS God. Or are you guilty of the fallacy
of special pleading?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"The study of geology is ok-But not when it contradicts what is laid
out in the Bible that the earth is more than 10,000 years old."
- Doug Lee, Creationist
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.

User: " Tom P"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	02 Nov 2006 01:58:14 PM

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9g6kk2d9shksacdhj0ndg221ajb4liovd0@4ax.com...

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:38:23 GMT, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

In message <lbshk2h5fr8tkkuumb1lqtg6uj112kj89s@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

The Bible isn't evidence that what's in the Bible is true. Anyone who
actually has the knowledge you claim would know that.

No, no document is evidence that what it contains is true. However when an
ancient document makes a statement about something which happened back
then,
you have to accept

Only if there's actual evidence that exists outside the document,

Why do you think that is true? And why did you need to modify the meaning
of the word "evidence" by tossing in the adjective "actual"? Is there such
a thing as evidence which is not "actual"?

otherwise it's just an assertion.

Only "just an assertion"? How exactly do you define an historical
assertion? Tell us, can you please, just what are your criteria for
historical truth concerning events and people of classical antiquity?

You don't REALLY accept that Caesar
was God, do you? There's more than one document that makes the claim
and no proof that it's not true.

Can you name "more than one document that makes the claim" "that Caesar was
God"? I ask because I don't think you have any personal experience with any
such document and you are accepting the claims of others that there exists
testimonial evidence in the form of manuscripts, coins, or monumental
inscriptions that claim Caesar was divine. Thus the only basis for your
expressed opinion that someone called Caesar lived, did and said certain
things, and died, is your faith in the trustworthiness of whoever your
received your information from. This is not meant as a personal criticism,
but only as an observation because very, very few people have any idea where
their information concerning ancient history comes from, much less what the
extant sources really are.
When you say "document" do you refer to an ancient manuscript or a
monumental inscription? Or does it matter?
What does the absence of evidence other than testimonial evidence in the
form of manuscripts or inscriptions mean? You imply that the lack of such
evidence removes the possibility that a given person lived or a given event
occurred. Is that what you mean?

You cannot simply say, "Caesar did not cross the Rubicon" unless you have
some evidence to back up your assertion.

So you accept that Caesar WAS God.

Obviously, your assertion does not follow. A comment concerning proofs that
Caesar did or did not cross the Rubicon has no bearing at all on whether or
not Caesar was a god. May I even be so bold as to assert that there can
possibly exist physical or testimonial evidence that Caesar did or not cross
the Rubicon, and while there is no known physical evidence that any human
being was ever a god, there is lots of testimonial evidence of human
experience with gods?
Why not respond to the proposition that, "You cannot simply say, 'Caesar did
not cross the Rubicon' unless you have some evidence to back up your
assertion"? At least that assertion is sensible. And that does raise the
question of whether or not a single source from antiquity means anything
when studying the ancient world, and that issue is worthy of discussion.

Or are you guilty of the fallacy
of special pleading?

Perhaps just as guilty as you are of the fallacy of irrelevance. Obviously,
whether or not Caesar was a god or whether any individual alive today
believes Caesar was or is a god is wholly irrelevant to whether or not
Caesar crossed the Rubicon defying the expressed will of SPQR.

--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"The study of geology is ok-But not when it contradicts what is laid
out in the Bible that the earth is more than 10,000 years old."
- Doug Lee, Creationist
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	03 Nov 2006 01:08:36 AM

In message <454a4789$0$14841$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote:

Why not respond to the proposition that, "You cannot simply say, 'Caesar did
not cross the Rubicon' unless you have some evidence to back up your
assertion"? At least that assertion is sensible. And that does raise the
question of whether or not a single source from antiquity means anything
when studying the ancient world, and that issue is worthy of discussion.

Thanks, Tom. It's amazing the way these religious fundamentalists wriggle to
try and get out of a trap they have set for themselves.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	02 Nov 2006 11:35:43 AM

In message <9g6kk2d9shksacdhj0ndg221ajb4liovd0@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

No, no document is evidence that what it contains is true. However when an
ancient document makes a statement about something which happened back then,
you have to accept

No, but I certainly believe that people back then claimed that he was a god.

Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	03 Nov 2006 01:26:51 PM

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:35:43 GMT, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

In message <9g6kk2d9shksacdhj0ndg221ajb4liovd0@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

No, no document is evidence that what it contains is true. However when an
ancient document makes a statement about something which happened back then,
you have to accept

So why assume that Jesus was anything?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an
old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and
never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in
its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	29 Oct 2006 02:16:36 AM

In message <r7c8k29j0apvtcn1r9pvdrq5vuru6vgtnk@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

Many were called Christ (Christus) back then.

Reference?
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Enkidu"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	29 Oct 2006 03:41:20 PM

Kendall K. Down <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote in
news:6c3d507d4e.diggings@diggingsonline.com:

In message <r7c8k29j0apvtcn1r9pvdrq5vuru6vgtnk@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

Many were called Christ (Christus) back then.

Reference?

Off the top of my head (scanned and OCR'ed, sorry for errors):
The Historical Reality of God
Edward Greenly
Tacitus, Pliny, and Suetonius are commonly cited. By far the most
important is the celebrated passage in the Annals of Tacitus. The
genuineness of this passage has been seriously challenged, but let us
assume it to be genuine. If genuine, it was written about C.E. 117-120.
It runs thus: "He from whom the name (Christianus) was derived, Christus,
* was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilatus in the reign of
Tiberius." Now, either Tacitus merely repeats what was currently believed
among Christians at the time, or he had investigated the origin and
history of the sect. If the first, then the statement is no evidence at
all. If he made researches, he would have to delve into the archives of
an obscure province. From such references to authorities as he does give,
it is patent that he did no such thing. And if he had, what would he have
found? While most Roman provinces were tranquil, Judea was the scene of
incessant small revolts, and a minor disturbance which did not endanger
the Roman rule would be too insignificant to be worth reporting. But we
know that Tacitus never did investigate the history of the sect. For he
also mentions "an immense multitude" of "Christiani" as existing in the
city of Rome in the time of Nero, at which time it is certain that the
number of Christians (as we understand the term) in the city was quite
small. But the city did contain large numbers of Messianic Jews. Now, the
only term which_ a Roman could apply to the devotee of a Messiah was
"Christianus." In the time of Tacitus there were Christiani in our sense
of the word. It is clear, therefore, that, when dealing even with a time
so comparatively near his own as that of Nero, Tacitus confused the two;
and thus that he never investigated the history of Christianity, much
less its origin. That he despised the sect is evident. Now consider our
own time. There are many obscure sects in England today. Imagine a writer
giving a concise "History of Our Own Times." If he so much as mentions
Particular Baptists, Peculiar People, Sandemanians, or the like, does he
delve into original documents to verify what he has heard of their mode
of origin? No more, or rather still less, would a Roman historian.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"Humanity without religion is like a serial killer without a chainsaw."
-- unknown
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	30 Oct 2006 01:37:29 AM

In message <Xns986B8B4DDFD51255229@130.133.1.4>
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote:

Off the top of my head (scanned and OCR'ed, sorry for errors):

Thanks.

The Historical Reality of God
Edward Greenly
Tacitus, Pliny, and Suetonius are commonly cited. By far the most
important is the celebrated passage in the Annals of Tacitus. The
genuineness of this passage has been seriously challenged, but let us
assume it to be genuine. If genuine, it was written about C.E. 117-120.
It runs thus: "He from whom the name (Christianus) was derived, Christus,
* was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilatus in the reign of
Tiberius." Now, either Tacitus merely repeats what was currently believed
among Christians at the time, or he had investigated the origin and
history of the sect. If the first, then the statement is no evidence at
all. If he made researches, he would have to delve into the archives of
an obscure province. From such references to authorities as he does give,
it is patent that he did no such thing. And if he had, what would he have
found? While most Roman provinces were tranquil, Judea was the scene of
incessant small revolts, and a minor disturbance which did not endanger
the Roman rule would be too insignificant to be worth reporting. But we
know that Tacitus never did investigate the history of the sect. For he
also mentions "an immense multitude" of "Christiani" as existing in the
city of Rome in the time of Nero, at which time it is certain that the
number of Christians (as we understand the term) in the city was quite
small. But the city did contain large numbers of Messianic Jews. Now, the
only term which_ a Roman could apply to the devotee of a Messiah was
"Christianus." In the time of Tacitus there were Christiani in our sense
of the word. It is clear, therefore, that, when dealing even with a time
so comparatively near his own as that of Nero, Tacitus confused the two;
and thus that he never investigated the history of Christianity, much
less its origin. That he despised the sect is evident. Now consider our
own time. There are many obscure sects in England today. Imagine a writer
giving a concise "History of Our Own Times." If he so much as mentions
Particular Baptists, Peculiar People, Sandemanians, or the like, does he
delve into original documents to verify what he has heard of their mode
of origin? No more, or rather still less, would a Roman historian.

So there is no evidence that there were lots of people called "Chrestus".
Greenly starts out with the assumption that there were not lots of
Christians in Rome, so when Tacitus says that there were, he must be talking
about something else entirely. Wonderful. I am lost in admiration for his
logic.
A note about the "immense multitude" of Christians. In the absence of proper
census figures and statistical methods, Tacitus cannot be taken literally,
but that applies whether you think (as I do) that he was talking about
Christians, or whether you think (as Greenly does) that he was talking about
Jews. The actual numbers may have been relatively small, but if Tacitus met
a Christian slave and a Christian shopkeeper and a Christian taxi driver,
all in the one day, he might well leap to the conclusion that there was an
"immense multitude" of Christians.
The same vagueness is evident in Josephus, who describes the "immense
height" of the temple buildings above the Tyropoean Valley and how, if you
looked down from this "immense height" you grew dizzy and your eye could
hardly reach to the bottom of the valley. Either the word "immense" had an
entirely different meaning in those days - which is not impossible - or
people used it in a different way - highly likely - or exaggeration was
stock in trade for historians.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	27 Oct 2006 09:30:52 AM

On 26 Oct 2006 23:33:08 -0700, "Frank" <frank_doyle44@hotmail.com>
wrote:

There are frequent references in this thread to "Anointed Ones". Recent
media reports suggested that the anointing oil contained hallucinogens.
Has anyone got a reference?. This would explain a lot.

I don't have a reference to this, but I think that the sect was pretty
much gone by the time the "Jebus the miracle son" stories started, so
I don't think we can blame them on cane toads or 'shrooms.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	27 Oct 2006 01:54:59 AM

In message <tv22k258kndd051out3u93mkf5ln62q02l@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

You need to read Josephus.

The parts he wrote or the obviously Christian parts that were added in
later?

Really? The Christians added in the bits about the Maccabean king who was
the first to crucify his opponents? One lives and learns.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	26 Oct 2006 01:27:12 AM

In message <havvj2h7umjnron6aioqbovi2o61fklspu@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

Why would he be called Nazarene, after a town that didn't exist at the
time he was supposed to have come from it?

Oh dear oh dear. Ignorance allied to prejudice is not a pretty sight.
Recent excavations in Nazareth have turned up a large Roman bath house from
the 1st century, which has been interpreted as evidence that the place had a
large Roman garrison.

And there was a solar eclipse. Physically impossible.

A solar eclipse, eh? How about a reference?

It's almost certain that the Gospels weren't written in the 1st
century. Paul could also be 2nd century - there's no strong evidence
either way.

Apart, of course, from the Gospel of Matthew.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	26 Oct 2006 02:26:32 PM

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:27:12 +0100, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

In message <havvj2h7umjnron6aioqbovi2o61fklspu@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

And there was a solar eclipse. Physically impossible.

A solar eclipse, eh? How about a reference?

Matthew 27:45. Either a passing cloud, which even stone-age
chimpanzees wouldn't have thought unusual enough to remark upon, or a
solar eclipse, which cant happen when the moon is near full.

It's almost certain that the Gospels weren't written in the 1st
century. Paul could also be 2nd century - there's no strong evidence
either way.

Apart, of course, from the Gospel of Matthew.

Evidence?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Does it ever amaze anyone else how little faith some heterosexuals have
in heterosexuality? It's supposed to be this god-given human instinct
that only the warped and perverted ever stray from; but, it seems, if we
once tell our straight children a message even as mild as "some people
are gay, and that's all right," that'll be enough to send lil' Suzy into
the arms of women forever. It's a wonder the race has survived this
long, really..."
-

Charles M Seaton (21 Dec 1994)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	27 Oct 2006 01:53:23 AM

In message <lr22k21cjd0h5a501g47p1n5dsj4mojc9a@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

And there was a solar eclipse. Physically impossible.

A solar eclipse, eh? How about a reference?

Matthew 27:45. Either a passing cloud, which even stone-age
chimpanzees wouldn't have thought unusual enough to remark upon, or a
solar eclipse, which cant happen when the moon is near full.

The reference simply says that there was darkness for three hours. It says
nothing about the cause of that darkness. Your claim that it was a solar
eclipse is simply a straw man.

It's almost certain that the Gospels weren't written in the 1st
century. Paul could also be 2nd century - there's no strong evidence
either way.

Apart, of course, from the Gospel of Matthew.

Evidence?

Thiede.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	03 Nov 2006 06:57:36 AM

In <b0f2407c4e.diggings@diggingsonline.com>, on 10/27/06
at 07:53 AM, Kendall K. Down <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> said:

In message <lr22k21cjd0h5a501g47p1n5dsj4mojc9a@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

And there was a solar eclipse. Physically impossible.

A solar eclipse, eh? How about a reference?

Matthew 27:45. Either a passing cloud, which even stone-age
chimpanzees wouldn't have thought unusual enough to remark upon, or a
solar eclipse, which cant happen when the moon is near full.

The reference simply says that there was darkness for three hours. It

It also says a lot of other things about that happened during those three
hours. The back to the three hours, unless you invoke a supernatural
event, an eclipse is all that's left.

says nothing about the cause of that darkness. Your claim that it was a
solar eclipse is simply a straw man.

It certainly could not be a lunar eclipse, so let's hear your artificial
explanation as to what those three hours of darkness were, & why they were
never noticed anywhere else but Jerusalem. This really should be good, if
you can do it or are capable of rising to the question.

It's almost certain that the Gospels weren't written in the 1st
century. Paul could also be 2nd century - there's no strong evidence
either way.

Apart, of course, from the Gospel of Matthew.

Evidence?

Thiede.

Again, you're claiming authority who has not been established as an
authority. Your claim that nobody has rebutted him is just that, your
claim.

Ken Down

walksalone who is not so disappointed to find out that the other person is
a one dog and pony show individual, the majority that make claims such as
he has in this thread usually are of that variety. It would've been nice
to encounter somebody that could back up their claims with more than
desire to be right on their part as well as another person's.
......If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of
skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from
the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	05 Nov 2006 02:51:33 PM

In message <eifecv$sl4$1@news.datemas.de>

wrote:

Let's see ... after intense thought allow me to present my latest outlandish
theory for your exalted consideration ... how about thick clouds? They block
out the sun, they are not noticed anywhere but in Jerusalem, they last for
three hours. Crazy, I know, but ... it fits the data and, best of all,
there's not a straw man in sight!
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	06 Nov 2006 09:03:26 PM

In <953530814e.diggings@diggingsonline.com>, on 11/05/06
at 08:51 PM, Kendall K. Down <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> said:

In message <eifecv$sl4$1@news.datemas.de>
walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc wrote:

Where did they come from, clouds always have a cause.

Jerusalem, they last for three hours. Crazy, I know, but ... it fits the
data and, best of all, there's not a straw man in sight!

Just an assumption that the evidence does not support. Remember, it was
not strictly Jerusalem, that was affected. According to the official word
of the official gospel gossip, known as Matthew. Supposedly it affected
the whole world. Hyperbole of course, but they were trying to peddle a
myth, for reasons unknown to ourselves. One expects fallacies of this
nature when the original claims are based on the dangerous child myth.
You are aware, of course, the dangerous child myth and how much is found
in the mythology of the revealed gods of the desert aren't you?

Ken Down

walksalone who is not really certain how long ago it was he heard the
cloud claim, but it was much better presented, and just as much a
clutching at straws.
Readers may be divided into four classes:
1. Sponges, who absorb all that they read and return it in nearly the same
state, only a little dirtied. 2.Sand-glasses, who retain nothing and are
content to get through a book for the sake of getting through the time.
3. Strain-bags, who retain merely the dregs of what they read. 4. Mogul
diamonds, equally rare and valuable, who profit by what they read, and
enable others to profit by it also. -Samuel Taylor Coleridge, poet, critic
(1772-1834)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	06 Nov 2006 12:40:39 PM

Kendall K. Down <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

In message <eifecv$sl4$1@news.datemas.de>
walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc wrote:

Yeah. Too bad the two big events of Matthew 27 were missed by everyone keeping records at the time.
Oh well, one bad myth deserves another.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor

A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.

User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	29 Oct 2006 06:54:25 PM

Kendall K. Down <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote in
news:b0f2407c4e.diggings@diggingsonline.com:

In message <lr22k21cjd0h5a501g47p1n5dsj4mojc9a@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

And there was a solar eclipse. Physically impossible.

A solar eclipse, eh? How about a reference?

Matthew 27:45. Either a passing cloud, which even stone-age
chimpanzees wouldn't have thought unusual enough to remark upon, or a
solar eclipse, which cant happen when the moon is near full.

The reference simply says that there was darkness for three hours. It
says nothing about the cause of that darkness. Your claim that it was a
solar eclipse is simply a straw man.

It's almost certain that the Gospels weren't written in the 1st
century. Paul could also be 2nd century - there's no strong
evidence either way.

Apart, of course, from the Gospel of Matthew.

Evidence?

Thiede.

Why do you find Theide's assertion convincing? The evidence he presents is
laughable.
Klazmon.

Ken Down

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	30 Oct 2006 02:01:26 AM

In message <Xns986C8D7812703Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6>
Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:

It's almost certain that the Gospels weren't written in the 1st
century. Paul could also be 2nd century - there's no strong
evidence either way.

Apart, of course, from the Gospel of Matthew.

Evidence?

Thiede.

Why do you find Theide's assertion convincing? The evidence he presents is
laughable.

I don't find it laughable, though I am not entirely convinced by it. My
point is not that Thiede is right but that the statement at the start of
this exchange simply cannot be as dogmatic as it was presented. You can say
that the evidence for an early date is "weak" or "not convincing" or any
other appropriate phrase. You cannot say "there is no evidence".
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	30 Oct 2006 04:34:32 PM

Kendall K. Down <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote in
news:b0afd27d4e.diggings@diggingsonline.com:

In message <Xns986C8D7812703Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6>
Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:

It's almost certain that the Gospels weren't written in the 1st
century. Paul could also be 2nd century - there's no strong
evidence either way.

Apart, of course, from the Gospel of Matthew.

Evidence?

Thiede.

Why do you find Theide's assertion convincing? The evidence he presents
is laughable.

I would agree if by evidence you mean, wishful thinking.
Klazmon.

Ken Down

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	28 Oct 2006 12:42:37 PM

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:53:23 +0100, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

In message <lr22k21cjd0h5a501g47p1n5dsj4mojc9a@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

And there was a solar eclipse. Physically impossible.

A solar eclipse, eh? How about a reference?

Matthew 27:45. Either a passing cloud, which even stone-age
chimpanzees wouldn't have thought unusual enough to remark upon, or a
solar eclipse, which cant happen when the moon is near full.

The reference simply says that there was darkness for three hours. It says
nothing about the cause of that darkness. Your claim that it was a solar
eclipse is simply a straw man.

So make your own supposition. We know enough physics to account for
any possibility.

It's almost certain that the Gospels weren't written in the 1st
century. Paul could also be 2nd century - there's no strong evidence
either way.

Apart, of course, from the Gospel of Matthew.

Evidence?

Thiede.

An assertion by one man isn't evidence, something you'd be saying if
one man somewhere made an assertion that the Gospel was written
subsequent to 150 AD.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	29 Oct 2006 02:14:19 AM

In message <mf57k2l20grh3g6tioh5af53u7q3qf0vfq@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

The reference simply says that there was darkness for three hours. It says
nothing about the cause of that darkness. Your claim that it was a solar
eclipse is simply a straw man.

So make your own supposition. We know enough physics to account for
any possibility.

Dark heavy storm clouds adequately fulfil the specifications.

Thiede.

An assertion by one man isn't evidence, something you'd be saying if
one man somewhere made an assertion that the Gospel was written
subsequent to 150 AD.

An *assertion* is not necessarily evidence, but a study by a reputable
scholar is. You are confusing "evidence" with "proof". Thiede's study is
evidence, it is by no means proof.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	29 Oct 2006 07:26:24 PM

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 09:14:19 +0100, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

In message <mf57k2l20grh3g6tioh5af53u7q3qf0vfq@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

The reference simply says that there was darkness for three hours. It says
nothing about the cause of that darkness. Your claim that it was a solar
eclipse is simply a straw man.

So make your own supposition. We know enough physics to account for
any possibility.

Dark heavy storm clouds adequately fulfil the specifications.

But not the writing. Peasants know the difference between thick heavy
thunderheads and some unnamable darkness.

Thiede.

An assertion by one man isn't evidence, something you'd be saying if
one man somewhere made an assertion that the Gospel was written
subsequent to 150 AD.

An *assertion* is not necessarily evidence, but a study by a reputable
scholar is.

Not if one man, reputable scholar or not, makes the assertion and no
other scholar in the field thinks that his "evidence" even warrants a
serious look. Look at the simple assertion, against all common
knowledge, of the discovery of cold fusion. Everyone who could got
into the act. Same with high temperature superconductors. With a
claim that we may have proof that the Bible was written during, or
immediately after, Jesus' lifetime, it seems as if everyone who could
spare the time looked at the assertion, yawned and turned over for
some more sleep.
*I'M* not calling it unconvincing - all the experts in the field are.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Never in human history have such genocide and cruelty been
witnessed. Such a genocide was never seen in the time of the pharaohs nor
of Hitler nor of Mussolini."
- Mehmet Elkatmi, head of Turkish parliament's human rights commission
on Bush's genocide in the Iraq war. 11-28-2004
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	30 Oct 2006 02:14:17 AM

In message <trkak2586c2l7rn3109k3lc9un91ko923j@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

The reference simply says that there was darkness for three hours. It says
nothing about the cause of that darkness. Your claim that it was a solar
eclipse is simply a straw man.

So make your own supposition. We know enough physics to account for
any possibility.

Dark heavy storm clouds adequately fulfil the specifications.

But not the writing. Peasants know the difference between thick heavy
thunderheads and some unnamable darkness.

And peasants know the difference between an eclipse and some unnamable
darkness. Odd, don't you think, that the gospel writers didn't claim that it
was an eclipse and that was left to modern atheists to devise such a straw
man?

An *assertion* is not necessarily evidence, but a study by a reputable
scholar is.

Your point is? People are still investigating both phenomena.

With a
claim that we may have proof that the Bible was written during, or
immediately after, Jesus' lifetime, it seems as if everyone who could
spare the time looked at the assertion, yawned and turned over for
some more sleep.
*I'M* not calling it unconvincing - all the experts in the field are.

Certainly - but I repeat myself: do not confuse evidence with proof. There
is no proof that the gospel of Matthew was written in 60 AD, but there is
evidence. It may be weak evidence, it may be evidence that is dismissed by
the majority of scholars, but there is evidence.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	30 Oct 2006 01:44:50 PM

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:14:17 +0100, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

In message <trkak2586c2l7rn3109k3lc9un91ko923j@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

The reference simply says that there was darkness for three hours. It says
nothing about the cause of that darkness. Your claim that it was a solar
eclipse is simply a straw man.

So make your own supposition. We know enough physics to account for
any possibility.

Dark heavy storm clouds adequately fulfil the specifications.

But not the writing. Peasants know the difference between thick heavy
thunderheads and some unnamable darkness.

And peasants know the difference between an eclipse and some unnamable
darkness.

Really? First century illiterates (they're the ones who passed the
story on to those who write it down) knew what an eclipse was? Funny
there's nothing in writing to even come close to that.

An *assertion* is not necessarily evidence, but a study by a reputable
scholar is.

Your point is? People are still investigating both phenomena.

Citations of current studies? (Not of superconductors.)
You ARE aware, of course, that many experts have called the claim
nonsense.

Certainly - but I repeat myself: do not confuse evidence with proof. There
is no proof that the gospel of Matthew was written in 60 AD, but there is
evidence.

Citation?

It may be weak evidence, it may be evidence that is dismissed by
the majority of scholars, but there is evidence.

Don't confuse evidence with someone's assertion.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	30 Oct 2006 02:14:14 PM

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:aclck29klufmt0mlktafr65l80982vvhj0@4ax.com...

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:14:17 +0100, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

In message <trkak2586c2l7rn3109k3lc9un91ko923j@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

The reference simply says that there was darkness for three hours.
It says
nothing about the cause of that darkness. Your claim that it was a
solar
eclipse is simply a straw man.

So make your own supposition. We know enough physics to account for
any possibility.

Dark heavy storm clouds adequately fulfil the specifications.

But not the writing. Peasants know the difference between thick heavy
thunderheads and some unnamable darkness.

And peasants know the difference between an eclipse and some unnamable
darkness.

Really? First century illiterates (they're the ones who passed the
story on to those who write it down) knew what an eclipse was? Funny
there's nothing in writing to even come close to that.

You're absolutely right, Al; those illiterates should have left a written
record of their understandings.....

An *assertion* is not necessarily evidence, but a study by a reputable
scholar is.

Your point is? People are still investigating both phenomena.

Citations of current studies? (Not of superconductors.)

You ARE aware, of course, that many experts have called the claim
nonsense.

Certainly - but I repeat myself: do not confuse evidence with proof. There
is no proof that the gospel of Matthew was written in 60 AD, but there is
evidence.

Citation?

It may be weak evidence, it may be evidence that is dismissed by
the majority of scholars, but there is evidence.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	30 Oct 2006 07:25:12 PM

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:14:14 -0600, <joerevskelton@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:aclck29klufmt0mlktafr65l80982vvhj0@4ax.com...

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:14:17 +0100, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

And peasants know the difference between an eclipse and some unnamable
darkness.

Really? First century illiterates (they're the ones who passed the
story on to those who write it down) knew what an eclipse was? Funny
there's nothing in writing to even come close to that.

You're absolutely right, Al; those illiterates should have left a written
record of their understandings.....

So you have a citation showing that the mechanism we call a solar
eclipse was known as anything other than "God making it dark" in those
days? Or you're just asserting that they knew what it was?

An *assertion* is not necessarily evidence, but a study by a reputable
scholar is.

Your point is? People are still investigating both phenomena.

Citations of current studies? (Not of superconductors.)
You ARE aware, of course, that many experts have called the claim
nonsense.

I guess none, huh?

Certainly - but I repeat myself: do not confuse evidence with proof. There
is no proof that the gospel of Matthew was written in 60 AD, but there is
evidence.

Citation?

And just as many of those.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Given that you exist and that you are aware of your situation and
surroundings, you will find yourself in a place which has conditions
exactly suitable to your being there. If the environment was
hostile or incompatible in some important way then you would not be
there in the first place. Therefore the suitability and seeming
perfection of your universe cannot be taken as evidence of anything
more than your existence in it."
- Edward Warren, "The naturalistic fallacy"
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	30 Oct 2006 09:51:08 PM

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ia9dk2pngaikqnj5emne2uhn1d5kb5uerg@4ax.com...

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:14:14 -0600, <joerevskelton@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:aclck29klufmt0mlktafr65l80982vvhj0@4ax.com...

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:14:17 +0100, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

And peasants know the difference between an eclipse and some unnamable
darkness.

Really? First century illiterates (they're the ones who passed the
story on to those who write it down) knew what an eclipse was? Funny
there's nothing in writing to even come close to that.

You're absolutely right, Al; those illiterates should have left a written
record of their understandings.....

So you have a citation showing that the mechanism we call a solar
eclipse was known as anything other than "God making it dark" in those
days? Or you're just asserting that they knew what it was?

No, I am commenting on the fact that your post ablve asumes that illiterates
should have left a written record of their knowledge. Is there another Al
Klein on the internet who is an athiest. I remember reading one who could
actually comprehend the English language and follow logic.

An *assertion* is not necessarily evidence, but a study by a
reputable
scholar is.

Your point is? People are still investigating both phenomena.

Citations of current studies? (Not of superconductors.)

You ARE aware, of course, that many experts have called the claim
nonsense.

I guess none, huh?

Certainly - but I repeat myself: do not confuse evidence with proof.
There
is no proof that the gospel of Matthew was written in 60 AD, but there
is
evidence.

Citation?

And just as many of those.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Given that you exist and that you are aware of your situation and
surroundings, you will find yourself in a place which has conditions
exactly suitable to your being there. If the environment was
hostile or incompatible in some important way then you would not be
there in the first place. Therefore the suitability and seeming
perfection of your universe cannot be taken as evidence of anything
more than your existence in it."
- Edward Warren, "The naturalistic fallacy"
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/