Religions > Atheism > Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels
| 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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
25 Oct 2006 06:47:51 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tk4vj2pj02a50a532131v3u5j8nmqt5kec@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:56:38 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
'Experts' disagree as to when the Bibles were actually written. The dates
vary from 60 AD to 200 AD. In any case NONE of this substantiates the
actual
existence of Jesus the Christ
Who wasn't mentioned in writing until the latter part of the 2nd
century.
This is true of most 1st century figures in the same sense that it iis true
of Jesus. That is that the earliest actual copies we have of most 1st
century writings are from the second or third century.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
25 Oct 2006 07:35:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:47:51 -0500, <joerevskelton@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tk4vj2pj02a50a532131v3u5j8nmqt5kec@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:56:38 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
'Experts' disagree as to when the Bibles were actually written. The dates
vary from 60 AD to 200 AD. In any case NONE of this substantiates the
actual
existence of Jesus the Christ
Who wasn't mentioned in writing until the latter part of the 2nd
century.
This is true of most 1st century figures in the same sense that it iis true
of Jesus. That is that the earliest actual copies we have of most 1st
century writings are from the second or third century.
Josephus, Tacitus. Pliny. Not a word.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OK" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About TheOrigin Of The Gospels |
25 Oct 2006 05:09:06 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:56:38 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
'Experts' disagree as to when the Bibles were actually written. The dates
vary from 60 AD to 200 AD. In any case NONE of this substantiates the actual
existence of Jesus the Christ
Who wasn't mentioned in writing until the latter part of the 2nd
century.
Prove this.
You are obsessed with Jesus.
This is strange for unbeliever who *scoffs* at the Bible. You scare
believers, but not this one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
25 Oct 2006 09:39:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:09:06 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
- Refer: <6gR%g.23000$6S3.19706@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:56:38 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
'Experts' disagree as to when the Bibles were actually written. The dates
vary from 60 AD to 200 AD. In any case NONE of this substantiates the actual
existence of Jesus the Christ
Who wasn't mentioned in writing until the latter part of the 2nd
century.
Prove this.
He does not have to.
You show us existing dated documents from the 1st century that prove
your childish fairy story.
(Hint: You can't)
You are obsessed with Jesus.
This is strange for unbeliever who *scoffs* at the Bible. You scare
believers, but not this one.
Thoise believers who are totally brainwashed will never change their
"minds".
Some are even proud to possess this stunning deliberate self-imposed
ignorance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kendall K. Down" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
26 Oct 2006 01:36:41 AM |
|
|
In message <cr70k295gf4gpsmjjj1ka31l0gaqdntobb@4ax.com>
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
You show us existing dated documents from the 1st century that prove
your childish fairy story.
(Hint: You can't)
Of course he can't. Theide has the documents safe in Oxford. However I am
confident that Theide really does have them, how about you?
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 |
27 Oct 2006 09:39:28 AM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 26 October 2006 2:36
am Kendall K. Down perhaps from wrote:
In message <cr70k295gf4gpsmjjj1ka31l0gaqdntobb@4ax.com>
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
You show us existing dated documents from the 1st century that prove
your childish fairy story.
(Hint: You can't)
Of course he can't. Theide has the documents safe in Oxford. However I
am confident that Theide really does have them, how about you?
Ken Down
Why do keep hanging on to things that have been thoroughly debunked
already? First it was the James Ossuary a crime for which one of the
defendants has already pleaded guilty and now it is the Thiede theory.
Almost nobody in the field agrees with Thiede. You do realize the
fragment upon which you are making a big deal is a postage sized piece,
are you not? You do know that the only complete word is the word "kai"
which means "and" do you not. Theide sees complete letters where
nobody else who examines the fragments see them. He hedges and guesses
and declares a first century guess based upon paleography which even
experts in the field agree is a guessing game based on the ephemeral.
None of these early documents and fragments have been radiocarbon 14
dated. And as long as they remain in biased hands never will. Even
secular universities don't dare have them tested lest they find out a
first or second century fragment turns out to be third or fourth. They
have been hit over the head lately buying forgeries when they were
supposed to be experts. How many failures do you thing they could
sustain before they lose their jobs? And how much less would some
religious organization with a vested interest want to verify what they
already take on faith and wishful thinking?
--
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 |
28 Oct 2006 12:33:07 PM |
|
|
In message <4qek16Fmrfu1U1@individual.net>
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
Why do keep hanging on to things that have been thoroughly debunked
already? First it was the James Ossuary a crime for which one of the
defendants has already pleaded guilty
Oded Golan has pleaded guilty? Are you sure?
and now it is the Thiede theory.
Almost nobody in the field agrees with Thiede.
Almost nobody is not the same as nobody.
You do realize the
fragment upon which you are making a big deal is a postage sized piece,
are you not?
Me? I haven't even expressed an opinion about the document. I only entered
this thread because of the ridiculous claims being made by Al and others.
None of these early documents and fragments have been radiocarbon 14
dated. And as long as they remain in biased hands never will. Even
secular universities don't dare have them tested lest they find out a
first or second century fragment turns out to be third or fourth. They
have been hit over the head lately buying forgeries when they were
supposed to be experts. How many failures do you thing they could
sustain before they lose their jobs? And how much less would some
religious organization with a vested interest want to verify what they
already take on faith and wishful thinking?
Now you're getting into the conspiracy theorist realm.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OK" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About TheOrigin Of The Gospels |
26 Oct 2006 01:46:04 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:09:06 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
- Refer: <6gR%g.23000$6S3.19706@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:56:38 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
'Experts' disagree as to when the Bibles were actually written. The dates
vary from 60 AD to 200 AD. In any case NONE of this substantiates the actual
existence of Jesus the Christ
Who wasn't mentioned in writing until the latter part of the 2nd
century.
Prove this.
He does not have to.
You show us existing dated documents from the 1st century that prove
your childish fairy story.
(Hint: You can't)
i don't need to. my faith is sufficient enough for me. i am not here to
prove anything. you are here to disprove everything. can't touch this. i
am a fairy. you are right.
You are obsessed with Jesus.
This is strange for unbeliever who *scoffs* at the Bible. You scare
believers, but not this one.
Thoise believers who are totally brainwashed will never change their
"minds".
Some are even proud to possess this stunning deliberate self-imposed
ignorance.
those believers are not my problem. are they yours?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
26 Oct 2006 10:54:37 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:46:04 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:09:06 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
- Refer: <6gR%g.23000$6S3.19706@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>
Prove this.
He does not have to.
You show us existing dated documents from the 1st century that prove
your childish fairy story.
(Hint: You can't)
i don't need to.
Then why do you think anyone has to prove what you ask for?
i am not here to prove anything.
Then don't ask others to.
you are here to disprove everything.
We're "here" (in alt.atheism) to discuss things of interest to
atheists with other atheists. WE aren't the ones who start threads
about imaginary "god" creatures - you theists (mostly of the Christian
variety) do.
You are obsessed with Jesus.
This is strange for unbeliever who *scoffs* at the Bible. You scare
believers, but not this one.
Thoise believers who are totally brainwashed will never change their
"minds".
Some are even proud to possess this stunning deliberate self-imposed
ignorance.
those believers are not my problem.
They would appear to be. If they weren't you wouldn't have raised the
issue of my scaring them.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "OK" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About TheOrigin Of The Gospels |
27 Oct 2006 04:24:30 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:46:04 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:09:06 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
- Refer: <6gR%g.23000$6S3.19706@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>
Prove this.
He does not have to.
You show us existing dated documents from the 1st century that prove
your childish fairy story.
(Hint: You can't)
i don't need to.
Then why do you think anyone has to prove what you ask for?
i came back. i couldn't stay away. i don't think anyone has to prove
what i ask for.
i am not here to prove anything.
Then don't ask others to.
i am sorry. i won't.
you are here to disprove everything.
We're "here" (in alt.atheism) to discuss things of interest to
atheists with other atheists. WE aren't the ones who start threads
about imaginary "god" creatures - you theists (mostly of the Christian
variety) do.
i have started no threads.
You are obsessed with Jesus.
This is strange for unbeliever who *scoffs* at the Bible. You scare
believers, but not this one.
Thoise believers who are totally brainwashed will never change their
"minds".
Some are even proud to possess this stunning deliberate self-imposed
ignorance.
those believers are not my problem.
They would appear to be. If they weren't you wouldn't have raised the
issue of my scaring them.
i am sorry again, you scared one believer, who happens to have a
romantic interest in me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
27 Oct 2006 04:40:57 PM |
|
|
OK wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:46:04 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:09:06 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
- Refer: <6gR%g.23000$6S3.19706@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>
Prove this.
He does not have to.
You show us existing dated documents from the 1st century that prove
your childish fairy story.
(Hint: You can't)
i don't need to.
Then why do you think anyone has to prove what you ask for?
i came back. i couldn't stay away. i don't think anyone has to prove
what i ask for.
i am not here to prove anything.
Then don't ask others to.
i am sorry. i won't.
you are here to disprove everything.
We're "here" (in alt.atheism) to discuss things of interest to
atheists with other atheists. WE aren't the ones who start threads
about imaginary "god" creatures - you theists (mostly of the Christian
variety) do.
i have started no threads.
You are obsessed with Jesus.
This is strange for unbeliever who *scoffs* at the Bible. You scare
believers, but not this one.
Thoise believers who are totally brainwashed will never change their
"minds".
Some are even proud to possess this stunning deliberate self-imposed
ignorance.
those believers are not my problem.
They would appear to be. If they weren't you wouldn't have raised the
issue of my scaring them.
i am sorry again, you scared one believer, who happens to have a
romantic interest in me.
Al???? I believe it is against the atheist doctrines to scare them out
of mating(Subsection 7, Paragraph 3).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
27 Oct 2006 05:13:35 PM |
|
|
On 27 Oct 2006 14:40:57 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Al???? I believe it is against the atheist doctrines to scare them out
of mating(Subsection 7, Paragraph 3).
Out of, but not into. We need more material for the barbecue.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "OK" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About TheOrigin Of The Gospels |
27 Oct 2006 05:28:54 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Oct 2006 14:40:57 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Al???? I believe it is against the atheist doctrines to scare them out
of mating(Subsection 7, Paragraph 3).
Out of, but not into. We need more material for the barbecue.
are you into that kind of kink? ick. not my kink.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
27 Oct 2006 05:12:43 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:24:30 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
i am sorry again, you scared one believer, who happens to have a
romantic interest in me.
If he can't accept reality you have 2 choices - dump him or retreat
into his fantasy world with him.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "OK" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About TheOrigin Of The Gospels |
27 Oct 2006 05:28:27 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:24:30 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
i am sorry again, you scared one believer, who happens to have a
romantic interest in me.
If he can't accept reality you have 2 choices - dump him or retreat
into his fantasy world with him.
i never picked him up, al. i resist most men, remember? he is not the
one that attracts me. i got my own problems with my own fantasies around
men, and he ain't one of them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
25 Oct 2006 07:11:48 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:09:06 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:56:38 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
'Experts' disagree as to when the Bibles were actually written. The dates
vary from 60 AD to 200 AD. In any case NONE of this substantiates the actual
existence of Jesus the Christ
Who wasn't mentioned in writing until the latter part of the 2nd
century.
Prove this.
Okay, here's all the mentions of Yeshua the man written between the
year one and the year 100 that we know of.
You are obsessed with Jesus.
What's the name of the thread?
This is strange for unbeliever who *scoffs* at the Bible. You scare
believers
I haven't told YOU the half of it.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Christians tell us that they love their enemies, and yet all I ask
is - not that they love their friends even, but they treat those
who differ from them , with simple fairness. We do not wish to be
forgiven but we wish Christians to so act that we will not have
to forgive them."
- Robert Ingersoll
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "OK" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About TheOrigin Of The Gospels |
26 Oct 2006 01:44:20 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:09:06 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:56:38 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
'Experts' disagree as to when the Bibles were actually written. The dates
vary from 60 AD to 200 AD. In any case NONE of this substantiates the actual
existence of Jesus the Christ
Who wasn't mentioned in writing until the latter part of the 2nd
century.
Prove this.
Okay, here's all the mentions of Yeshua the man written between the
year one and the year 100 that we know of.
prove this.
You are obsessed with Jesus.
What's the name of the thread?
i am not talking about the subject. i am talking about your thought
patterns and you know it.
This is strange for unbeliever who *scoffs* at the Bible. You scare
believers
I haven't told YOU the half of it.
you don't scare me, al.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
26 Oct 2006 11:12:28 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:44:20 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:09:06 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:56:38 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
'Experts' disagree as to when the Bibles were actually written. The dates
vary from 60 AD to 200 AD. In any case NONE of this substantiates the actual
existence of Jesus the Christ
Who wasn't mentioned in writing until the latter part of the 2nd
century.
Prove this.
Okay, here's all the mentions of Yeshua the man written between the
year one and the year 100 that we know of.
prove this.
Prove that something doesn't exist?
Logic requires proof of the POSITIVE existential assertion - yours, in
this case. It doesn't require that I disprove your assertion.
You are obsessed with Jesus.
What's the name of the thread?
i am not talking about the subject. i am talking about your thought
patterns and you know it.
You don't know anything about my thought patterns.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
26 Oct 2006 01:02:34 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2gn1k2pvjp9n36b9h0avi0igp12f2odvdr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:44:20 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:09:06 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:56:38 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
'Experts' disagree as to when the Bibles were actually written. The
dates
vary from 60 AD to 200 AD. In any case NONE of this substantiates the
actual
existence of Jesus the Christ
Who wasn't mentioned in writing until the latter part of the 2nd
century.
Prove this.
Okay, here's all the mentions of Yeshua the man written between the
year one and the year 100 that we know of.
prove this.
Prove that something doesn't exist?
Logic requires proof of the POSITIVE existential assertion - yours, in
this case. It doesn't require that I disprove your assertion.
Al, the only assertion I recall being made is yours that there were no
references to Jesuswritten before the second century.
You are obsessed with Jesus.
What's the name of the thread?
i am not talking about the subject. i am talking about your thought
patterns and you know it.
You don't know anything about my thought patterns.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
26 Oct 2006 01:23:03 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:02:34 -0500, <joerevskelton@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2gn1k2pvjp9n36b9h0avi0igp12f2odvdr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:44:20 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:09:06 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:56:38 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
'Experts' disagree as to when the Bibles were actually written. The
dates
vary from 60 AD to 200 AD. In any case NONE of this substantiates the
actual
existence of Jesus the Christ
Who wasn't mentioned in writing until the latter part of the 2nd
century.
Prove this.
Okay, here's all the mentions of Yeshua the man written between the
year one and the year 100 that we know of.
prove this.
Prove that something doesn't exist?
Logic requires proof of the POSITIVE existential assertion - yours, in
this case. It doesn't require that I disprove your assertion.
Al, the only assertion I recall being made is yours that there were no
references to Jesus written before the second century.
You need to learn the real world methodology for dealing with
unsupported claims. And that Al wasn't making a claim. It was a
response to the baseless claims of Christians, which it's up to them
to support. Until they do, the falsifiable position is that there is
none.
That's the methodology even Christians use for everything else but for
some reason they expect everybody else to give them a free ride when
it comes to their religious beliefs.
You falsify the working position by providing evidence that stands up
to scrutiny. In this case a genuine mention of Jesus in the first
century.
It's not up those who say "no there isn't, prove it" to do your work
for you. Because until you back up your claim it might as well not
have been made.
"Prove there isn't" is dishonest. It is hardly going to satisfy those
who even have asked for it if Christians hadn't begged the question.
The secular corroboration for the NT, is the obviously tampered
passage in Josephus, and its equally tampered "little brother".
The NT is a work of religious propaganda just like the equivalent
writings from all the other religions, and is no more trustworthy than
eg the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the Hindu, Sikh, etc scrip tires
etc.
And even if you take Paul epistle's at face value, he does not
describe the Jesus of the Gospels. His Christ is an ethereal,
spiritual one not a man called Jesus.
It was edited and changed over time, which is why it needs secular
corroboration, ie outside the Christian tradition.
The trouble is that there isn't any that stands up to the slightest
scrutiny.
And instead of addressing the problems with it,
You are obsessed with Jesus.
What's the name of the thread?
i am not talking about the subject. i am talking about your thought
patterns and you know it.
You don't know anything about my thought patterns.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
26 Oct 2006 09:19:43 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ncu1k25t2qdg4c7uirql454f73bmn7usev@4ax.com...
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:02:34 -0500, <joerevskelton@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2gn1k2pvjp9n36b9h0avi0igp12f2odvdr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:44:20 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:09:06 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:56:38 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
'Experts' disagree as to when the Bibles were actually written. The
dates
vary from 60 AD to 200 AD. In any case NONE of this substantiates
the
actual
existence of Jesus the Christ
Who wasn't mentioned in writing until the latter part of the 2nd
century.
Prove this.
Okay, here's all the mentions of Yeshua the man written between the
year one and the year 100 that we know of.
prove this.
Prove that something doesn't exist?
Logic requires proof of the POSITIVE existential assertion - yours, in
this case. It doesn't require that I disprove your assertion.
Al, the only assertion I recall being made is yours that there were no
references to Jesus written before the second century.
You need to learn the real world methodology for dealing with
unsupported claims. And that Al wasn't making a claim. It was a
response to the baseless claims of Christians, which it's up to them
to support. Until they do, the falsifiable position is that there is
none.
That's the methodology even Christians use for everything else but for
some reason they expect everybody else to give them a free ride when
it comes to their religious beliefs.
You falsify the working position by providing evidence that stands up
to scrutiny. In this case a genuine mention of Jesus in the first
century.
It's not up those who say "no there isn't, prove it" to do your work
for you. Because until you back up your claim it might as well not
have been made.
"Prove there isn't" is dishonest. It is hardly going to satisfy those
who even have asked for it if Christians hadn't begged the question.
The secular corroboration for the NT, is the obviously tampered
passage in Josephus, and its equally tampered "little brother".
The NT is a work of religious propaganda just like the equivalent
writings from all the other religions, and is no more trustworthy than
eg the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the Hindu, Sikh, etc scrip tires
etc.
And even if you take Paul epistle's at face value, he does not
describe the Jesus of the Gospels. His Christ is an ethereal,
spiritual one not a man called Jesus.
It was edited and changed over time, which is why it needs secular
corroboration, ie outside the Christian tradition.
The trouble is that there isn't any that stands up to the slightest
scrutiny.
And instead of addressing the problems with it,
That would all be true if any Christian had made such a claim in this
thread. That is not the case.
The only claim made wasAl's negative one. It was in response to no prior
claim. He introduced the subject.
You are obsessed with Jesus.
What's the name of the thread?
i am not talking about the subject. i am talking about your thought
patterns and you know it.
You don't know anything about my thought patterns.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000)
(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 01:45:23 AM |
|
|
In message <ncu1k25t2qdg4c7uirql454f73bmn7usev@4ax.com>
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Logic requires proof of the POSITIVE existential assertion - yours, in
this case. It doesn't require that I disprove your assertion.
Al, the only assertion I recall being made is yours that there were no
references to Jesus written before the second century.
You need to learn the real world methodology for dealing with
unsupported claims. And that Al wasn't making a claim. It was a
response to the baseless claims of Christians, which it's up to them
to support. Until they do, the falsifiable position is that there is
none.
Is Theide a Christian? But whether he is or isn't, his study of the Matthew
fragments is evidence. Why don't you and Al address the evidence instead of
making dogmatic statements based upon your beliefs?
Gee, I just *hate* religious fanatics.
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 |
29 Oct 2006 06:40:58 PM |
|
|
Kendall K. Down <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote in
news:5b37407c4e.diggings@diggingsonline.com:
In message <ncu1k25t2qdg4c7uirql454f73bmn7usev@4ax.com>
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Logic requires proof of the POSITIVE existential assertion - yours,
in this case. It doesn't require that I disprove your assertion.
Al, the only assertion I recall being made is yours that there were no
references to Jesus written before the second century.
You need to learn the real world methodology for dealing with
unsupported claims. And that Al wasn't making a claim. It was a
response to the baseless claims of Christians, which it's up to them
to support. Until they do, the falsifiable position is that there is
none.
Is Theide a Christian? But whether he is or isn't, his study of the
Matthew fragments is evidence.
Actually I looked up Theide's work. He has in no way established that the
fragment he studied has anything to do with G Matthew.
Klazmon.
Why don't you and Al address the evidence instead of
making dogmatic statements based upon your beliefs?
Gee, I just *hate* religious fanatics.
Ken Down
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
30 Oct 2006 02:10:24 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns986C8B3069CE8Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
Kendall K. Down <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote in
news:5b37407c4e.diggings@diggingsonline.com:
In message <ncu1k25t2qdg4c7uirql454f73bmn7usev@4ax.com>
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Logic requires proof of the POSITIVE existential assertion - yours,
in this case. It doesn't require that I disprove your assertion.
Al, the only assertion I recall being made is yours that there were no
references to Jesus written before the second century.
You need to learn the real world methodology for dealing with
unsupported claims. And that Al wasn't making a claim. It was a
response to the baseless claims of Christians, which it's up to them
to support. Until they do, the falsifiable position is that there is
none.
Is Theide a Christian? But whether he is or isn't, his study of the
Matthew fragments is evidence.
Actually I looked up Theide's work. He has in no way established that the
fragment he studied has anything to do with G Matthew.
Klazmon.
Better look again. I think his arguement about the date fails; but he is
arguing about a known fragment of Matthew's gospel.
Why don't you and Al address the evidence instead of
making dogmatic statements based upon your beliefs?
Gee, I just *hate* religious fanatics.
Ken Down
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
30 Oct 2006 04:31:43 PM |
|
|
<joerevskelton@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:w_s1h.78425$zF5.20553@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
"Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns986C8B3069CE8Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
Kendall K. Down <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote in
news:5b37407c4e.diggings@diggingsonline.com:
In message <ncu1k25t2qdg4c7uirql454f73bmn7usev@4ax.com>
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Logic requires proof of the POSITIVE existential assertion -
yours, in this case. It doesn't require that I disprove your
assertion.
Al, the only assertion I recall being made is yours that there were
no references to Jesus written before the second century.
You need to learn the real world methodology for dealing with
unsupported claims. And that Al wasn't making a claim. It was a
response to the baseless claims of Christians, which it's up to them
to support. Until they do, the falsifiable position is that there is
none.
Is Theide a Christian? But whether he is or isn't, his study of the
Matthew fragments is evidence.
Actually I looked up Theide's work. He has in no way established that
the fragment he studied has anything to do with G Matthew.
Klazmon.
Better look again. I think his arguement about the date fails; but he is
arguing about a known fragment of Matthew's gospel.
The word "and" is a fragment of G Matthew? ROFL.
Klazmon.
Why don't you and Al address the evidence instead of
making dogmatic statements based upon your beliefs?
Gee, I just *hate* religious fanatics.
Ken Down
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
30 Oct 2006 04:04:33 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 30 October 2006 3:10 pm
perhaps from
wrote:
"Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in
message news:Xns986C8B3069CE8Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
Kendall K. Down <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote in
news:5b37407c4e.diggings@diggingsonline.com:
In message <ncu1k25t2qdg4c7uirql454f73bmn7usev@4ax.com>
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Logic requires proof of the POSITIVE existential assertion -
yours,
in this case. It doesn't require that I disprove your
assertion.
Al, the only assertion I recall being made is yours that there
were no references to Jesus written before the second century.
You need to learn the real world methodology for dealing with
unsupported claims. And that Al wasn't making a claim. It was a
response to the baseless claims of Christians, which it's up to
them to support. Until they do, the falsifiable position is that
there is none.
Is Theide a Christian? But whether he is or isn't, his study of the
Matthew fragments is evidence.
Actually I looked up Theide's work. He has in no way established that
the fragment he studied has anything to do with G Matthew.
Klazmon.
Better look again. I think his arguement about the date fails; but he
is arguing about a known fragment of Matthew's gospel.
Most scholars do not accept the tiny postage sized fragment as being
from the gospel according to Matthew. There is only ONE complete word
in the manuscript, the word "kai" which means "and" and only 18 other
discernable letters, some of which are not entirely clear.
Add to that that there are two other fragments which Theide refuses to
consider as part of the papyrus page but clearly based upon the grain
of the papyrus belong somewhere on the page, totally invalidates the
Matthew claim. Rather it fragment most probably belongs to one of the
books of Enoch, though it is entirely possible the author of the gospel
according to Matthew borrowed a passage or two from Enoch.
Please look at the fragments, all three of them. Notice their size and
the paucity of letters that are clearly defined.
By the way the word "kai" appears well over 1000 times in the first book
of the New Testament and about that many times in the first book of the
Old Testament. Almost every book of scripture or Classic Greek
literature contains about the same. It would be like trying to
distinguish between For Whom the Bell Tolls and Bells of Saint Mary's
based upon the word "and" and 15 other random letters, from handwritten
manuscripts by different authors and times.
Theide's assertion is based upon faith and not scholarship.
Why don't you and Al address the evidence instead of
making dogmatic statements based upon your beliefs?
Gee, I just *hate* religious fanatics.
Ken Down
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
30 Oct 2006 09:48:13 PM |
|
|
"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:4qnb74Fo3lajU1@individual.net...
After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 30 October 2006 3:10 pm
perhaps from
wrote:
"Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in
message news:Xns986C8B3069CE8Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
Kendall K. Down <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote in
news:5b37407c4e.diggings@diggingsonline.com:
In message <ncu1k25t2qdg4c7uirql454f73bmn7usev@4ax.com>
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Logic requires proof of the POSITIVE existential assertion -
yours,
in this case. It doesn't require that I disprove your
assertion.
Al, the only assertion I recall being made is yours that there
were no references to Jesus written before the second century.
You need to learn the real world methodology for dealing with
unsupported claims. And that Al wasn't making a claim. It was a
response to the baseless claims of Christians, which it's up to
them to support. Until they do, the falsifiable position is that
there is none.
Is Theide a Christian? But whether he is or isn't, his study of the
Matthew fragments is evidence.
Actually I looked up Theide's work. He has in no way established that
the fragment he studied has anything to do with G Matthew.
Klazmon.
Better look again. I think his arguement about the date fails; but he
is arguing about a known fragment of Matthew's gospel.
Most scholars do not accept the tiny postage sized fragment as being
from the gospel according to Matthew. There is only ONE complete word
in the manuscript, the word "kai" which means "and" and only 18 other
discernable letters, some of which are not entirely clear.
Add to that that there are two other fragments which Theide refuses to
consider as part of the papyrus page but clearly based upon the grain
of the papyrus belong somewhere on the page, totally invalidates the
Matthew claim. Rather it fragment most probably belongs to one of the
books of Enoch, though it is entirely possible the author of the gospel
according to Matthew borrowed a passage or two from Enoch.
Please look at the fragments, all three of them. Notice their size and
the paucity of letters that are clearly defined.
By the way the word "kai" appears well over 1000 times in the first book
of the New Testament and about that many times in the first book of the
Old Testament. Almost every book of scripture or Classic Greek
literature contains about the same. It would be like trying to
distinguish between For Whom the Bell Tolls and Bells of Saint Mary's
based upon the word "and" and 15 other random letters, from handwritten
manuscripts by different authors and times.
Theide's assertion is based upon faith and not scholarship.
I think you must be looking at some of his questionable work on the Dead Sea
fragments, and not his work on the manuscript of Matthew which is the topic
of this thread. There has never been any question that the munuscript in
question is of Matthew's Gospel. It is not a few postage sized fragments.
Why don't you and Al address the evidence instead of
making dogmatic statements based upon your beliefs?
Gee, I just *hate* religious fanatics.
Ken Down
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
30 Oct 2006 11:18:16 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 30 October 2006 10:48 pm
perhaps from
wrote:
Theide's assertion is based upon faith and not scholarship.
I think you must be looking at some of his questionable work on the
Dead Sea fragments, and not his work on the manuscript of Matthew
which is the topic of this thread. There has never been any question
that the munuscript in question is of Matthew's Gospel. It is not a
few postage sized fragments.
You are absolutely daft. There is NO manuscript. Theide makes his
entire argument on a tiny fragment. He excluded two other fragments.
The information in his book and his theory are not new. They have been
around for more than a decade and have been thoroughly debunked.
Did you read his book? Did you look at the papyrus?
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
29 Oct 2006 06:35:57 PM |
|
|
Kendall K. Down <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote in
news:5b37407c4e.diggings@diggingsonline.com:
In message <ncu1k25t2qdg4c7uirql454f73bmn7usev@4ax.com>
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Logic requires proof of the POSITIVE existential assertion - yours,
in this case. It doesn't require that I disprove your assertion.
Al, the only assertion I recall being made is yours that there were no
references to Jesus written before the second century.
You need to learn the real world methodology for dealing with
unsupported claims. And that Al wasn't making a claim. It was a
response to the baseless claims of Christians, which it's up to them
to support. Until they do, the falsifiable position is that there is
none.
Is Theide a Christian? But whether he is or isn't, his study of the
Matthew fragments is evidence. Why don't you and Al address the evidence
instead of making dogmatic statements based upon your beliefs?
If valid, that would be evidence that at least part of the Matthew gospel
was written around 60-68 AD. It doesn't corroborate the content. A
document itself is not evidence for the claims it makes.
Gee, I just *hate* religious fanatics.
You consider it to be fanatical to ask for evidence? Curious.
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 01:57:15 AM |
|
|
In message <Xns986C8A56ADFF4Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6>
Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
If valid, that would be evidence that at least part of the Matthew gospel
was written around 60-68 AD. It doesn't corroborate the content. A
document itself is not evidence for the claims it makes.
Very true - though a document nearer the time of the events it describes is
more likely to be accurate than one further removed. The usual claim is that
the gospels were the end result of a long process of oral tradition and
accretion. If there wasn't time for such a process one of the main planks
for dismissing the historicity of Jesus is seriously weakened if not removed.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
