Jews

[Geoff332]

When was (the hypothetical) Q supposed to have been written?

[RebelWithanAK]

xm.bretton, I was talking about the New Testament. We don't have Jesus in the Old Testament.

[fedfem]

Originally posted by xm.bretton@09-22-2003 02:22 AM hearsay? there are copies that date much farther back. there are copies of the book of Isiah (dead sea scrolls) that date back into B.C.E. carbon dating my friend. refrence: http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scroll...ry/library.html

The book of Isaiah is not a gospel. The Dead Sea Scrolls have copies of the Jewish Scriptures not the Christian stories.

[RebelWithanAK]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel@09-22-2003 02:27 AM I explained in my last post pretty clearly to AK that the new testament was mostly written shortly after Christs death and resurrection, was transcribed from Arimathic and Greek to latin which was believe it or not AK was used by the Romans before dark age Europe.

I am aware of Christian emperors of Rome. We are not talking about Christian emperors of Rome, we are talking about the new testament of the Christian bible, which has a very large gap from the actual events to the supposed time of writing - and which was most certainly not written in Aramaic, Jesus' language, or Hebrew. It was either Greek or Latin, and thus most obviously we are talking about secondary sources.

[xm.bretton]

Originally posted by RebelWithanAK@09-22-2003 02:30 AM xm.bretton, I was talking about the New Testament. We don't have Jesus in the Old Testament.

I know.

I was just stating that there are copies of the old testament that go way back. likewise with the new testament. though not as far of course.

[fedfem]

http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/te...anuscripts.html


here is some good info,

[xm.bretton]

Originally posted by fedfem@09-22-2003 02:28 AM The Gospel of John is the only one that makes the claim and the account does not agree with the others.

can you be more specific also.

are you saying that the gospels are not eye witness accounts of jesus life, or of jesus death?

[RebelWithanAK]

No, I'm saying they didn't write the bible - something you have yet to give evidence for.

[xm.bretton]

Originally posted by RebelWithanAK@09-22-2003 02:45 AM No, I'm saying they didn't write the bible - something you have yet to give evidence for.

notice I wasnt quoting you.

[xm.bretton]

Originally posted by fedfem@09-22-2003 02:42 AM here is some good info

You forget how many manuscripts actually exist though.

Cross-refrence comes in handy.

For the Christian Greek Scriptures alone there are now over 4,600 extant manuscript copies, in whole or in part, in Greek; also over 8,000 more copies in Latin and about 1,000 in other languages. Of particular value to modern Bible translators is that they have had available to them three major manuscript discoveries made in about the last forty years.

[RebelWithanAK]

Originally posted by xm.bretton@09-22-2003 02:41 AM ...likewise with the new testament. though not as far of course.

Notice I was responding to you, however.

[xm.bundun]

now now, be nice to each other.

[fedfem]

Originally posted by xm.bretton@09-22-2003 02:43 AM can you be more specific also. are you saying that the gospels are not eye witness accounts of jesus life, or of jesus death?

To be specific--YES. The Gospels are not first hand eyewitness accounts nor do they claim to be except for the fourth which says it is written by the "Beloved Disciple". I do not believe there is any dispute to that fact except by the sheeple.

[fedfem]

Originally posted by xm.bretton@09-22-2003 02:49 AM You forget how many manuscripts actually exist though. Cross-refrence comes in handy. For the Christian Greek Scriptures alone there are now over 4,600 extant manuscript copies, in whole or in part, in Greek; also over 8,000 more copies in Latin and about 1,000 in other languages. Of particular value to modern Bible translators is that they have had available to them three major manuscript discoveries made in about the last forty years.

I forgot nothing. We were discussing the oldest manuscripts not the amount.

As far as recent discoveries; a lot of them contradict and are apocryphal. Now that we have Secular Universities most finds are made public--the ones that agree and those that contradict as well. You mentioned the DSC and still there is controversy around some of the material.

[xm.bretton]

it is clear we were speaking on the oldest manuscripts. but the amount has as much value as the age when it comes to legitimating the books themselves.

these contridictions? are we speaking of minor contridictions in words or in thought? it is quite possible to have difference in words and to not lose the meaning and principles being expressed. different languages will never mesh perfectly of course.

critics have always claimed that the gospels are full of contradictions. historian durant sought to examine the gospel accounts from a purely objective standpoint—as historical documents. though he says that there are seeming contradictions in them, he concludes: “the contradictions are of minutiae [trivial details], not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of christ.”

any contridictions you would like to focus on and discuss?

[xm.bretton]

Originally posted by fedfem@09-22-2003 03:57 PM To be specific--YES. The Gospels are not first hand eyewitness accounts nor do they claim to be except for the fourth which says it is written by the "Beloved Disciple". I do not believe there is any dispute to that fact except by the sheeple.

the book of mark isnt a direct eye whitness acount, but it was in relay from peter.

matthew was an eye-whitness acount. he was present at the sermon on the mount with jesus.

[Fallen Angel]

If you read the new testament a little bit more carefully next time Fedfem, you will notice at various times that Jesus is surrounded almost constantly by twelve men called his disciples who for three years recorded between them his every word to them and move, they were the eyewittness accounts you are trying to disprove.

[xm.bretton]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel@09-22-2003 09:42 PM you will notice at various times that Jesus is surrounded almost constantly by twelve men called his disciples who for three years

you mean apostles. but thats okay :)

[Fallen Angel]

Originally posted by xm.bretton@09-23-2003 01:29 AM you mean apostles. but thats okay :)

Same difference isnt it?

[xm.bretton]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel@09-23-2003 09:45 PM Same difference isnt it?

apostles were his chosen 12.

anyone who follows the christ is considered a disciple.

ie: me or you.