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 24 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: "Paul Ransom Erickson"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	18 Nov 2006 02:20:50 AM

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:50:33 GMT, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

In message <4rp3teFsamcfU1@mid.individual.net>
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

The article clearly identifies his as a Christian not just a resident of
Nazareth. You loose.

Certainly, but he is a Christian in the sense that he is not a Muslim. The
statement says nothing about his personal beliefs and motivations. The IRA
were Catholics and the UDF were Protestants, but neither church would
recognise them as in any way truly Christian.

The Protestant Church is pretty stingy about handing out recognition
to just anyone --
I can't, off hand, think of any well known personage that church has
recognized.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	09 Nov 2006 06:42:15 AM

In <bf6472824e.diggings@diggingsonline.com>, on 11/08/06
at 07:30 AM, Kendall K. Down <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> said:

In message <4rau6vFqe77lU2@mid.individual.net>
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

You can quit pretending to know anything about archaeology.
Archaeologists are the ones who maintain there is no evidence for a
first century Nazareth

Which was true - until the recent discovery. If you subscribe to our

There was and is no first century Nazareth as described in the xian
grimorie. The current city of Nazareth is a relocation from the valley
floor to the hill. Nazareth has no cliff as described in the grimorie
attributed to the xian mythology.

magazines you will be able to keep abreast of the latest discoveries and
developments in the field of Middle Eastern archaeology.

No thanks, I prefer my information to be accurate. But then, I'm not
peddling my point of view for sale, nor is it of great concern to me if
people accept what I have to say or not. What does piqu� my interest is
when people disagree with me and to provide information that is pertinent
to the disagreement. Something you have yet to do.

Ken Down

walksalone who recognizes the argumentum Malcomus & argumentum by Roger
Pearse technique, Ken has no better grip on that particular routine than
they do. It's easy to make a claim, it's quite another to back the claim
up with evidence. I do not recall where I first read or saw that
particular line, it is no less true today that it was then.
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it
does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that
its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a
sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
Benjamin Franklin, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	02 Nov 2006 01:27:29 PM

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 07:13:11 GMT, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

In message <sljik2pmmdifbe2c6bjdagsspv9uc9jucr@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

Pretty good description of an eclipse from a primitive sheep herder,
passed on mouth to mouth for 60 years or so.

Was anyone saying something about ignorance and prejudice?

The Gospels are unanimous in saying that Jesus Himself was a carpenter and
His disciples were fishermen (with the exception of Matthew the tax
gatherer). Not a shepherd in sight.

I'm sure Jesus, even if he actually existed, didn't pass on stories
about the afternoon of his crucifiction. It would have been the
people gathered at the site who would have passed them on.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(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	03 Nov 2006 01:02:22 AM

In message <uihkk2ljk628g440hi7mr7s8kse0jh2vmp@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

Pretty good description of an eclipse from a primitive sheep herder,
passed on mouth to mouth for 60 years or so.

Was anyone saying something about ignorance and prejudice?
The Gospels are unanimous in saying that Jesus Himself was a carpenter and
His disciples were fishermen (with the exception of Matthew the tax
gatherer). Not a shepherd in sight.

I'm sure Jesus, even if he actually existed, didn't pass on stories
about the afternoon of his crucifiction. It would have been the
people gathered at the site who would have passed them on.

And they were all primitive sheep herders? Josephus claims that at Passover
there could be upwards of a million people in and around Jerusalem. Where on
earth did they manage to find so many primitve sheep herders?
Don't tell me: they imported them from Outer Mongolia?
Riiiight.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Darrell Stec"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	05 Nov 2006 06:30:39 PM

After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 03 November 2006 2:02 am
Kendall K. Down perhaps from

wrote:

In message <uihkk2ljk628g440hi7mr7s8kse0jh2vmp@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

Pretty good description of an eclipse from a primitive sheep
herder, passed on mouth to mouth for 60 years or so.

Was anyone saying something about ignorance and prejudice?
The Gospels are unanimous in saying that Jesus Himself was a
carpenter and His disciples were fishermen (with the exception of
Matthew the tax gatherer). Not a shepherd in sight.

I'm sure Jesus, even if he actually existed, didn't pass on stories
about the afternoon of his crucifiction. It would have been the
people gathered at the site who would have passed them on.

They didn't. Josephus' number is bogus (and it is more than 2 million).
Please see this site for a rational explanation of why Josephus account
of the Passover was pure nonsense:
http://www.keithhunt.com/Lambmany.html

Don't tell me: they imported them from Outer Mongolia?

Riiiight.

Ken Down

--
Later,
Darrell Stec

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	06 Nov 2006 01:23:34 AM

In message <4r7e13Fpp0laU1@individual.net>
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

They didn't. Josephus' number is bogus (and it is more than 2 million).
Please see this site for a rational explanation of why Josephus account
of the Passover was pure nonsense:

But whatever the number, where is the evidence that they were all primitive
sheep herders? Getting hold of even hundred primitive sheep herders at short
notice must have required a miracle of almost divine proportions.
It's a pity that Christians don't have half the faith and blind belief that
you atheists display.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Darrell Stec"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	06 Nov 2006 02:05:09 PM

After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 06 November 2006 2:23 am
Kendall K. Down perhaps from

wrote:

In message <4r7e13Fpp0laU1@individual.net>
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

They didn't. Josephus' number is bogus (and it is more than 2
million). Please see this site for a rational explanation of why
Josephus account of the Passover was pure nonsense:

But whatever the number,

You admit then that the Josephus number is bogus and you don't read
critically with an eye on logic?

where is the evidence that they were all
primitive sheep herders? Getting hold of even hundred primitive sheep
herders at short notice must have required a miracle of almost divine
proportions.

Jerusalem's population has been estimated to be between 30,000 and
45,000. Gathering 100 of them would be a few moments work. You simply
do not make sense.

It's a pity that Christians don't have half the faith and blind belief
that you atheists display.

Ken Down

--
Later,
Darrell Stec

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	07 Nov 2006 01:09:28 AM

In message <4r9ir7Fq2tkdU1@mid.individual.net>
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

You admit then that the Josephus number is bogus

No. I am not going to argue that it was *exactly* whatever number it is that
Josephus states, but neither do I think that he was entirely wrong.
Religious festivals attract huge numbers of people, as for example the Haj
in Mecca or the Kumb Mela in India.

where is the evidence that they were all
primitive sheep herders? Getting hold of even hundred primitive sheep
herders at short notice must have required a miracle of almost divine
proportions.

Jerusalem's population has been estimated to be between 30,000 and
45,000. Gathering 100 of them would be a few moments work. You simply
do not make sense.

So Jerusalem's population were all primitive sheep herders?
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Darrell Stec"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	08 Nov 2006 03:07:22 PM

After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 07 November 2006 2:09
am Kendall K. Down perhaps from

wrote:

In message <4r9ir7Fq2tkdU1@mid.individual.net>
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

You admit then that the Josephus number is bogus

No. I am not going to argue that it was *exactly* whatever number it
is that Josephus states, but neither do I think that he was entirely
wrong. Religious festivals attract huge numbers of people, as for
example the Haj in Mecca or the Kumb Mela in India.

You didn't read the link, did you? So much for you being a scientist or
archaeologist.
There was no way the festival could have serviced even one tenth of
Josephus' number. If you think the author of the webpage to which the
link directed was wrong, please explain why?
I noticed that you conveniently clipped the link so nobody could
validate how wrong you are. That dishonest is a true sign of a fundie
True Believer who will hold onto his believe in spite of the evidence
or logic.

where is the evidence that they were all
primitive sheep herders? Getting hold of even hundred primitive
sheep herders at short notice must have required a miracle of
almost divine proportions.

Jerusalem's population has been estimated to be between 30,000 and
45,000. Gathering 100 of them would be a few moments work. You
simply do not make sense.

So Jerusalem's population were all primitive sheep herders?

You have problems with reading comprehension don't you? You stated that
it would be difficult to find 100 goatherders. I argued that out of
Jerusalem's population it would be a minor task to find 100
sheep/goatherders.
How do you get "So Jerusalem's population were all primitive sheep
herders?" from that? Or is this another of your dishonest attempts?

Ken Down

--
Later,
Darrell Stec

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	09 Nov 2006 01:40:38 AM

In message <4rev7uFr2888U1@mid.individual.net>
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

There was no way the festival could have serviced even one tenth of
Josephus' number. If you think the author of the webpage to which the
link directed was wrong, please explain why?

Ah, another infallible pope. How do you *know* Josephus' number is wrong?
Answer: you don't. You are guessing. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but
why not admit it?

Ah, so we have gone from "the only witnesses were primitive sheep herders"
to goat herders, presumably non-primitive. Well, well. All we have to do now
is demonstrate that none of them were out herding their sheep and your case
is proved.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Darrell Stec"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	09 Nov 2006 03:54:49 PM

After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 09 November 2006 2:40
am Kendall K. Down perhaps from

wrote:

In message <4rev7uFr2888U1@mid.individual.net>
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

There was no way the festival could have serviced even one tenth of
Josephus' number. If you think the author of the webpage to which
the link directed was wrong, please explain why?

Ah, another infallible pope. How do you *know* Josephus' number is
wrong?

You didn't read the link I provided, did you? The numbers do not work.
Remember they were there for the festival and had to go through a
specific sacrificial rite. The link explained everything.
It seems you don't follow links and prefer to remain adamantly ignorant.

Answer: you don't. You are guessing. Nothing wrong with that, of
course, but why not admit it?

I'm not guessing. The link I provided gave very specific reasons why
the number couldn't be accurate even if it were downsized to one tenth
its value. Please read the link and respond to the point made therein.

You are daft. Nothing in this last paragraph of your makes any sense
whatsoever. Those nomadic tribes herded both sheep and goats. Nobody
went from primitive to non primitive except in you own mind. Does a
fireman quit being a fireman when he is at home with his family? He is
still a fireman but not putting out fires at the time. As I said, you
make no sense.

Ken Down

--
Later,
Darrell Stec

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	10 Nov 2006 01:41:05 AM

In message <4rhmcrFquv58U2@mid.individual.net>
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

No, I am just suspicious of all this clever reasoning when it contradicts
the evidence. It may be right, it may not be; none of us were there and we
cannot say for sure what went on, how everything was organised, how exactly
the rules were interpreted on the day. As I said:

Answer: you don't. You are guessing. Nothing wrong with that, of
course, but why not admit it?

Ah, so the inhabitants of Jerusalem were really a nomadic tribe? This gets
better and better.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Darrell Stec"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	12 Nov 2006 12:04:58 PM

After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 10 November 2006 2:41 am
Kendall K. Down perhaps from

wrote:

You are daft. Nothing in this last paragraph of your makes any sense
whatsoever. Those nomadic tribes herded both sheep and goats.
Nobody went from primitive to non primitive except in you own mind.
Does a fireman quit being a fireman when he is at home with his
family? He is still a fireman but not putting out fires at the time.
As I said, you make no sense.

Ah, so the inhabitants of Jerusalem were really a nomadic tribe? This
gets better and better.

Ken Down

If the goatherders were in Jerusalem for the passover feast, it did not
mean they were inhabitants.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	13 Nov 2006 01:56:09 AM

In message <4rp61tFsbhb0U2@mid.individual.net>
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

If the goatherders were in Jerusalem for the passover feast, it did not
mean they were inhabitants.

So now you are claiming that the only witnesses to the crucifixion were a
group of goatherders (primitive?) who just happened to be in town at the
time - and nobody else.
What a wonderful grasp of history you have.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Darrell Stec"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	13 Nov 2006 11:40:30 PM

After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 13 November 2006 2:56 am
Kendall K. Down perhaps from

wrote:

In message <4rp61tFsbhb0U2@mid.individual.net>
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

If the goatherders were in Jerusalem for the passover feast, it did
not mean they were inhabitants.

So now you are claiming that the only witnesses to the crucifixion
were a group of goatherders (primitive?) who just happened to be in
town at the time - and nobody else.

I'm claiming no such thing. There is no evidence of a Joshua of
Nazareth and there was no evidence of a crucifixion. It was a fable
made up 100 years after the events were supposedly to have taken place.

What a wonderful grasp of history you have.

Ken Down

--
Later,
Darrell Stec

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	14 Nov 2006 01:36:05 AM

In message <4rt361Fsi42qU2@mid.individual.net>
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

If the goatherders were in Jerusalem for the passover feast, it did
not mean they were inhabitants.

So now you are claiming that the only witnesses to the crucifixion
were a group of goatherders (primitive?) who just happened to be in
town at the time - and nobody else.

Maybe you are not claiming that, but the original poster to whom I was
replying dismissed the Gospel accounts as "the only witnesses were primitive
sheepherders" (or words to that effect). If you don't take such a position,
it would be wise not to defend it.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "Darrell Stec"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	12 Nov 2006 12:16:19 PM

After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 10 November 2006 2:41 am
Kendall K. Down perhaps from

wrote:

You didn't read the link I provided, did you? The numbers do not
work. Remember they were there for the festival and had to go through
a specific sacrificial rite. The link explained everything.
It seems you don't follow links and prefer to remain adamantly
ignorant.

No,

That is what I thought. No wonder nobody can have an intelligent
converstion with you. The moment they produce a link with evidence,
you refuse to look at it.

I am just suspicious of all this clever reasoning when it
contradicts the evidence.

What evidence? It was a bogus statement by Josephus, just one of many
of his exaggerations.

It may be right, it may not be; none of us
were there and we cannot say for sure what went on,

That is just plain stupid reasoning. The author of the link, an expert
in Jewish customs describes the passover rite of sacrifice and includes
the proceedure and prayers that are used. Divide the time needed per
ceremony, the number of people and animals that could fit in the
disclosure, it is pattenly absurd to think one million people could be
serviced.
Do we have to be there to definitely determine that ten thousand people
could not fit into a standard sized Volkswagen? Using your argument
you just singlehandedly deleted the need for archaeology because none
of today's archeologists were there. That is stupid, inane reasoning.

how everything was
organised, how exactly the rules were interpreted on the day. As I
said:

The author of the link was an expert in such matters. He just told you
that information.
You were right. You didn't read it. Yet you disagree with it.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	13 Nov 2006 02:00:12 AM

In message <4rp6n7Fsne96U1@mid.individual.net>
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

What evidence? It was a bogus statement by Josephus, just one of many
of his exaggerations.

And how do you *know* it was a bogus statement?

That is just plain stupid reasoning. The author of the link, an expert
in Jewish customs describes the passover rite of sacrifice and includes
the proceedure and prayers that are used.

He is doubtless an expert in Jewish customs of today as laid down by the
Talmud or whatever. He is not and cannot be an expert in what was done in
the first century AD for the simple reason that we have no information about
that period.

Divide the time needed per
ceremony, the number of people and animals that could fit in the
disclosure, it is pattenly absurd to think one million people could be
serviced.

Quite possibly - *if* people in the first century used the same ritual as
those of the time the Talmud was written.

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

User: "Paul Ransom Erickson"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	18 Nov 2006 02:16:30 AM

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:00:12 GMT, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

In message <4rp6n7Fsne96U1@mid.individual.net>
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

What evidence? It was a bogus statement by Josephus, just one of many
of his exaggerations.

And how do you *know* it was a bogus statement?

That is just plain stupid reasoning. The author of the link, an expert
in Jewish customs describes the passover rite of sacrifice and includes
the proceedure and prayers that are used.

Except that some guy died and came back to life, etc?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	08 Nov 2006 07:38:40 AM

In <029eec814e.diggings@diggingsonline.com>, on 11/07/06
at 07:09 AM, Kendall K. Down <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> said:

In message <4r9ir7Fq2tkdU1@mid.individual.net>
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

You admit then that the Josephus number is bogus

No. I am not going to argue that it was *exactly* whatever number it is
that Josephus states, but neither do I think that he was entirely wrong.

In other words, you're dragging it out because you can see no other
recourse if you anticipate ever being taken seriously on the atheist
newsgroup.

Religious festivals attract huge numbers of people, as for example the
Haj in Mecca or the Kumb Mela in India.

A lot of that has to do with the travel involved. In today's world, it's
relatively easy to cross the globe to attend a religious festival. In the
first century B.C., it was a matter of serious consideration as to whether
or not you would go. Was there increase in the transient population of
Jerusalem during these festivals, no reasonable doubt about that. Did
they get into the millions, extremely unlikely. A few thousand, maybe
even up to 200,000 would be realistic. Given the travel conditions, it
would be unlikely that the average Jewish mythologist would be able to
afford the time or the expense if they lived much further away than a
couple of hundred miles.

where is the evidence that they were all
primitive sheep herders? Getting hold of even hundred primitive sheep
herders at short notice must have required a miracle of almost divine
proportions.

Jerusalem's population has been estimated to be between 30,000 and
45,000. Gathering 100 of them would be a few moments work. You simply
do not make sense.

So Jerusalem's population were all primitive sheep herders?

Your claim, the likelihood is against that. The likelihood is the
mentality is that of a primitive sheep herder if one is to use an average
of the writings of having left to us from that region and time. It was
the elite class, in every society of scum will rise to the top sooner or
later. The problem has always been to prevent this, from solidifying &
choking off the growth of the society. I'm not aware of any society it
has been able to do this as of yet. Even that the Hunter-gatherer
societies faced that problem, though in a case it was easier to remove the
scum once it was no longer useful.

Ken Down

walksalone who has a suspicion that as long as anyone responds to Ken,
like an untreated case to the clap, he will make his presence known.
The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the
more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion,
his race or his holy cause. A man is likely to mind his own business when
it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own
meaningless affairs by minding other people's business.
--
Eric Hoffer, philosopher and author (1902-1983)
--
thewalksalone
skype
If I remember to activate it that is.
.

User: "hippo"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	08 Nov 2006 03:28:00 PM

<walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc> wrote in message
[.]

No historian can or will make the claim that Josephus is right in everything
he says. They can't even be sure anything is what Josephus actually wrote.
There are copy errors from as recently as 1544, for example. The best
estimates I have seen generally agree that Jerusalem's early first century
population of about 25,000 quadrupled or quintupled during festivals at the
very most (Smith), 2-3000 of them would have been the household, staff, and
escort of the Roman Prefect from Caesarea. -the Troll
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	08 Nov 2006 04:48:15 PM

In <12l4iv6e1eujl75@corp.supernews.com>, on 11/08/06
at 04:28 PM, "hippo" <hippo@south-sudan.net> said:

<walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc> wrote in message
[.]

No historian can or will make the claim that Josephus is right in
everything he says. They can't even be sure anything is what Josephus
actually wrote. There are copy errors from as recently as 1544, for
example. The best estimates I have seen generally agree that Jerusalem's
early first century population of about 25,000 quadrupled or quintupled
during festivals at the very most (Smith), 2-3000 of them would have
been the household, staff, and escort of the Roman Prefect from
Caesarea. -the Troll

IOW, Kendall is playing name that authority again. I understand. BTW, I
suspect that you will find I do not disagree with the estimate you gave,
but probably for different reasons.
Was there anything else?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	08 Nov 2006 11:59:10 AM

In message <eisnv8$1oa$1@news.datemas.de>

wrote:

Yet, despite the probabilities, the only figure - the only fact - which we
have is Josephus' statement that there were two million. Any other figure is
your guess; it may be a reasonable guess, but it is still a guess based on
nothing more than your gut instinct or your prejudices or your intuition or
something.

So Jerusalem's population were all primitive sheep herders?

Your claim, the likelihood is against that.

No, it's not my claim: it is the claim of your fellow atheist, Pope Klein.

The likelihood is the
mentality is that of a primitive sheep herder if one is to use an average
of the writings of having left to us from that region and time. It was
the elite class, in every society of scum will rise to the top sooner or
later. The problem has always been to prevent this, from solidifying &
choking off the growth of the society. I'm not aware of any society it
has been able to do this as of yet. Even that the Hunter-gatherer
societies faced that problem, though in a case it was easier to remove the
scum once it was no longer useful.

One is handicapped in trying to make sense of the above by the fact that
large portions of it are pure nonsense. What is "an average of the writings
of having left to us"?
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	09 Nov 2006 07:15:15 AM

In <14efab824e.diggings@diggingsonline.com>, on 11/08/06
at 05:59 PM, Kendall K. Down <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> said:

In message <eisnv8$1oa$1@news.datemas.de>
walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc wrote:

Yet, despite the probabilities, the only figure - the only fact - which
we have is Josephus' statement that there were two million. Any other

We don't have it as a fact, we have it as he written item by a man who's
known as a traitor to his own people as well as one who is willing to
curry favor with the powers that be. We also know the style writing in
that era was loaded with hyper bol, it's not just in his writings that we
find this.

figure is your guess; it may be a reasonable guess, but it is still a
guess based on nothing more than your gut instinct or your prejudices or
your intuition or something.

In this does not apply to you in what manner. Wait, it can apply to you,
you are the one pointing the finger & claiming to know more than you can
demonstrate. By the way, it's more than an educated guess. It's based on
the conditions in the population of the region.

So Jerusalem's population were all primitive sheep herders?

Your claim, the likelihood is against that.

No, it's not my claim: it is the claim of your fellow atheist, Pope
Klein.

Atheists do not have Pope's, of course giving your limited knowledge about
what atheism or an atheist is, it's a natural conclusion on people as
ignorant as yourself. Erronious, but natural.

One is handicapped in trying to make sense of the above by the fact that
large portions of it are pure nonsense. What is "an average of the
writings of having left to us"?

Supposedly your archaeologist, supposedly you would understand the
evidence they had been examined to come to conclusions, instead, I suspect
you of no more than a salesman. You're handicapped in trying to make sense
of the above because you're unaware of the information that is readily
available. That recently ignore it because it does not concur with your
limited version of reality in first century Judea.

Ken Down

Yes, we know. Repeating your name does not make an expert just as
repeating your claims does not make you an expert in anything except
repetition.
Walksalone is not surprised that Ken does not understand the reality of
first century Judea, after all, it does not agree with his opinion and
that is not allowed.
Necrohippoflagellation, theists love to use it.
Even though the horse has died, they will still abuse it.
If they beat it long enough, they think you must enthuse it.
Necrohippoflagellation, theists can't refuse it!
--
Lord calvet
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	31 Oct 2006 02:57:28 AM

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

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?

Eclipses were well understood since Thales of Miletus.

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	01 Nov 2006 01:17:26 PM

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:57:28 +0100, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

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

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?

Eclipses were well understood since Thales of Miletus.

They're not even understood NOW - by the man in the street. the
authors of the Bible weren't astronomers.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"For aught we know a priori, matter may contain the source, or spring, of order
originating within itself, as well as the mind does."
- David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
(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	01 Nov 2006 03:08:13 PM

Al Klein wrote:

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:57:28 +0100, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

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

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?

Eclipses were well understood since Thales of Miletus.

They're not even understood NOW - by the man in the street. the
authors of the Bible weren't astronomers.

Just for grins, let's ask him if there's gravity on the moon.
.

User: "Kendall K. Down"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	01 Nov 2006 04:40:35 PM

In message <1162415293.880061.228110@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

wrote:

Just for grins, let's ask him if there's gravity on the moon.

Nah, the moon is a joyous and delightsome place. Nothing grave about it at
all.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

User: "JessHC"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	02 Nov 2006 09:15:55 AM

Kendall K. Down wrote:

In message <1162415293.880061.228110@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
jesshc@phantomemail.com wrote:

Just for grins, let's ask him if there's gravity on the moon.

Nah, the moon is a joyous and delightsome place. Nothing grave about it at
all.

So you don't know?
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels	01 Nov 2006 07:59:54 PM

On 1 Nov 2006 13:08:13 -0800,

wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:57:28 +0100, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

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

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?

Eclipses were well understood since Thales of Miletus.

They're not even understood NOW - by the man in the street. the
authors of the Bible weren't astronomers.

Just for grins, let's ask him if there's gravity on the moon.

I want to know if he knows if there's gravity on the ISS.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their
numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion,
only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.

Page 24 of 32