There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Ouroboros]

I don't think it is called the gospel of Jesus's wife I think it is called the Magdalen papyrus. But that is semantics. It is under scrutiny, however, as far as I am aware it is still considered authentic. There is other evidence as well, check this article out

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - Probe Ministries

I know about those, but you were talking about the "Jesus Papyrus." So I had to ask which one you were referring to. When it comes to the other sources, there are many discussions on this forum diving into those issues, and I'm not going to derail this thread discussing those.

 

[Serenity7855]

I know about those, but you were talking about the "Jesus Papyrus." So I had to ask which one you were referring to. When it comes to the other sources, there are many discussions on this forum diving into those issues, and I'm not going to derail this thread discussing those.

I have always known it as the Jesus Papyrus, however it is also called the Magdalen Papyrus. There is a very good book out on it called

The Jesus Papyrus: The Most Sensational Evidence on the Origin of the Gospel Since the Discover of the Dead Sea Scroll

In 1901, the Reverend Charles B. Huleatt acquired three pieces of a New Testament manuscript on the murky antiquities market of Luxor, Egypt. He donated these papyrus fragments to his alma mater, Magdalen College in Oxford, England, where they sat in a display case and drew very little attention. Nearly a century later, the fragments--part of the Gospel of Matthew and thought to date from a.d. 180-200--were reevaluated by scholar Carsten Peter Thiede. His research showed the bits of papyrus to be significantly older, written about a.d. 60.

But what is all the fuss about? How can three ancient papyrus fragments be so significant? How did Thiede arrive at this radical early dating? And what does it mean to the average Christian? Now readers have authoritative answers to these pivotal questions, in a book written by Thiede himself and by Times of London journalist Matthew d'Ancona, who originally broke the story to the public. Indeed, the Magdalen Papyrus corroborates three traditions: Saint Matthew actually wrote the Gospel bearing his name; he wrote it within a generation of Jesus' death; and the Gospel stories about Jesus are true. Some will vehemently deny Thiede's claims, others will embrace them, but nobody can ignore THE JESUS PAPYRUS.

The Jesus Papyrus: The Most Sensational Evidence on the Origin of the Gospel Since the Discover of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Matthew D'Ancona, Carsten Peter Thiede: 9780385488983: Amazon.com: Books

I am sure that it has been covered many'' many times and has been critiqued just as many times. It does give an eye witness account of Jesus Christ though, which, I suppose, will come hard to posters like Outhouse who claims Jesus did not exist'

 

[Ouroboros]

I have always known it as the Jesus Papyrus, however it is also called the Magdalen Papyrus. There is a very good book out on it called

I am sure that it has been covered many'' many times and has been critiqued just as many times. It does give an eye witness account of Jesus Christ though, which, I suppose, will come hard to posters like Outhouse who claims Jesus did not exist'

Why would the Magdalen Papyrus be any more of eyewitness account than the Gospel of Matthew? The papyrus only contains fragments of that Gospel. Nothing else. Besides, the early dating of the papyrus is very controversial. A more modest dating places it around 200 AD. I'm not sure why you consider this to be any more credible or more convincing evidence than any other one. Why would finding a papyrus that's dated around the time of the authoring of the gospel make it confirming that Matthew wrote it? I fail to see the reasoning.

 

[Serenity7855]

Why would the Magdalen Papyrus be any more of eyewitness account than the Gospel of Matthew? The papyrus only contains fragments of that Gospel. Nothing else. Besides, the early dating of the papyrus is very controversial. A more modest dating places it around 200 AD. I'm not sure why you consider this to be any more credible or more convincing evidence than any other one. Why would finding a papyrus that's dated around the time of the authoring of the gospel make it confirming that Matthew wrote it? I fail to see the reasoning.

On its own it is not evidence, or it is very little evidence, however, like the big bang and its causation, there are many other evidences that substantiate that Jesus walked the earth.

It proves that Matthew lived and wrote that Gospel at a specific time in history. The dead sea scrolls also confirm that Jesus lived as well. The material that was used to date the Magdalen Papyrus. the ink, the idioms, writing styles, the colloquialism, and the paper can all be dated to the eye witness period of Jesus Christ. Remember that not all of the books relating to Jesus Christ made it into the bible.the Apocrapha was removed from the bible as well. They contain historical evidences to prove that Matthew existed. So there we have it. with all the other evidences it seem pretty certain that he existed. So, you really need to get on them knees and worship Him

 

[Serenity7855]

here is a better unbiased source.

Magdalen papyrus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki is not an accurate source of information. It was written by the general public.

 

[outhouse]

Wiki is not an accurate source of information. It was written by the general public.

Wrong, it would be nice if you knew the topic here.

It is sourced and only credible information can withstand the farewall.

Go and change it yourself if you think it is that wrong.

Your in error again.


Th eonly thing you can do is find an error and try and make your point. Making biased statements gainst education and knowledge, is a sign of desperation and ignorance of the topic at hand.

Charlesworth, SD (2007) T. C. Skeat, P64+67 and P4, and the Problem of Fibre Orientation in Codicological Reconstruction, New Test. Stud. Vol.53, pp. 582–604, doi:10.1017/S002868850700029X
Skeat, T. C. (1997). "The Oldest Manuscript Of The Four Gospels?". New Testament Studies 43: 1–34. doi:10.1017/S0028688500022475.
Thiede, Carsten Peter (1995). "Papyrus Magdalen Greek 17 (Gregory–Aland P64). A Reappraisal" (PDF). Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 105: 13–20. Retrieved 2006-12-13.


Peter M. Head, "The date of the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew: A Response to C.P. Thiede": published in Tyndale Bulletin 46 (1995) p. 251-285; the article suggests that he has both overestimated the amount of stylistic similarity between P64 and several Palestinian Greek manuscripts and underestimated the strength of the scholarly consensus of a date around AD 200.
University of Münster, New Testament Transcripts Prototype. Select P64/67 from 'manuscript descriptions' box
T. C. Skeat, The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels?, in: T. C. Skeat and J. K. Elliott, The collected biblical writings of T. C. Skeat, Brill 2004, pp. 158–179.
"Liste Handschriften". Münster: Institute for New Testament Textual Research. Retrieved 26 August 2011.

 

[outhouse]

there are many other evidences that substantiate that Jesus walked the earth.

And that papyrus is not one of them. It has no value here at all.

This is what I study.

I think he did exist and walked Galilee, but it is no slam dunk due to how far the people who write about him were from any actual event. The evidence has to be looked at in total and in context with the very very few Historians that did write about him.

The topic of Jesus helps you in no way for your OP, not in any aspect.

 

[Serenity7855]

Wrong, it would be nice if you knew the topic here.

It is sourced and only credible information can withstand the farewall.

Go and change it yourself if you think it is that wrong.

Your in error again.


Th eonly thing you can do is find an error and try and make your point. Making biased statements gainst education and knowledge, is a sign of desperation and ignorance of the topic at hand.

Charlesworth, SD (2007) T. C. Skeat, P64+67 and P4, and the Problem of Fibre Orientation in Codicological Reconstruction, New Test. Stud. Vol.53, pp. 582–604, doi:10.1017/S002868850700029X
Skeat, T. C. (1997). "The Oldest Manuscript Of The Four Gospels?". New Testament Studies 43: 1–34. doi:10.1017/S0028688500022475.
Thiede, Carsten Peter (1995). "Papyrus Magdalen Greek 17 (Gregory–Aland P64). A Reappraisal" (PDF). Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 105: 13–20. Retrieved 2006-12-13.


Peter M. Head, "The date of the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew: A Response to C.P. Thiede": published in Tyndale Bulletin 46 (1995) p. 251-285; the article suggests that he has both overestimated the amount of stylistic similarity between P64 and several Palestinian Greek manuscripts and underestimated the strength of the scholarly consensus of a date around AD 200.
University of Münster, New Testament Transcripts Prototype. Select P64/67 from 'manuscript descriptions' box
T. C. Skeat, The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels?, in: T. C. Skeat and J. K. Elliott, The collected biblical writings of T. C. Skeat, Brill 2004, pp. 158–179.
"Liste Handschriften". Münster: Institute for New Testament Textual Research. Retrieved 26 August 2011.

The topic is about the likelihood of Jesus walking the earth it is not about me or my personal, or you cannot help yourself but to be odious and duplicitous therefore rendering you no other option You are causing contention.

 

[outhouse]

The topic is about the likelihood of Jesus walking the earth it is not about me or you need to be insulting. You are causing contention.

Even Jesus is off topic to your OP.

Claiming an encylopedia is wrong, is your error that needs to be addressed sir.

I agree it is not the "last say", so to speak. But it does give a good general impression on the current state of study on certain topics.


It gives the best of different unbiased opinions. Not just apologetically inclined opinions that lie to promote faith..

 

[Serenity7855]

Even Jesus is off topic to your OP.

Claiming an encylopedia is wrong, is your error that needs to be addressed sir.

I agree it is not the "last say", so to speak. But it does give a good general impression on the current state of study on certain topics.


It gives the best of different unbiased opinions. Not just apologetically inclined opinions that lie to promote faith..

Sadly you do not have the gift of discernment and the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost testifies of the truth. He is never wrong and is always there. You have chosen to turn your back on him, which means that you do not know the same mysteries of God as we do. You rely on the wisdom of men rather then the wisdom of God. You are more to be pitied than scorned.

 

[outhouse]

Sadly you do not have the gift of discernment and the Holy Ghost.

Sadly that is not required by one credible school that teaches the NT or history.

Your quote is embarrassing to quality Christians everywhere, that they cannot learn anything at all without magical help in study

The Holy Ghost testifies of the truth.

Stop it. You have no credible examples.

You cannot even state it exist, let alone attribute knowledge to it.

Many people claim it as mythology and nothing more, because there is no scientific evidence what so ever.

which means that you do not know the same mysteries of God as we do.

By your personal bias to history, it is YOU who is lost and blind here.

You are more to be pitied than scorned.

While you qualify to both, I wont stoop to your level.



If I were you, due to the mistakes, and contradictions in the bible, I would ask for a REAL professor and fire the ghost.

 

[outhouse]

Without credible study from a college or class by a professor, your doing nothing but fighting education and knowledge here.


I cannot believe you hate education as much as you do.

 

[outhouse]

Does the holy ghost train doctors and lawyers ???????????????? :biglaugh:


Or do unbiased colleges do that??????


Would you let a doctor who only had a bible to train with, operate on you????? :tribal:


What exactly does this ghost do?

 

[Ouroboros]

On its own it is not evidence, or it is very little evidence, however, like the big bang and its causation, there are many other evidences that substantiate that Jesus walked the earth.

Sure. There's also evidence that suggests that he wasn't as big of a story during that time, based on contemporary writers' lack of mentioning him.

Personally, I believe there was someone, a cult leader of sorts, that it all started with. However, I also believe that he wasn't a miracle worker.

It proves that Matthew lived and wrote that Gospel at a specific time in history.

How? A couple of fragmented copies of Gospel of Matthew would only confirm that the gospel was written in an early time, as was already suspected. But it doesn't confirm Matthew as author. Does the fragment contain a signature by Matthew or does it mention him by name as the author?

The dead sea scrolls also confirm that Jesus lived as well. The material that was used to date the Magdalen Papyrus. the ink, the idioms, writing styles, the colloquialism, and the paper can all be dated to the eye witness period of Jesus Christ.

I doubt that. The blunder about the demon possess Gerasene suggest that the authors of Mark and Matthew had poor geographic knowledge.

Remember that not all of the books relating to Jesus Christ made it into the bible.the Apocrapha was removed from the bible as well. They contain historical evidences to prove that Matthew existed. So there we have it. with all the other evidences it seem pretty certain that he existed. So, you really need to get on them knees and worship Him

I know about the apocrypha, but I don't know that any of them provide evidence for Matthew's authorship of the gospel. Do you remember which one?

By the way, just so you know, I was a Christian for 30 years, but I became an atheist more than 10 years ago. Today, my beliefs and views are a bit more complex than just atheism. I consider myself a naturalistic pantheist (or panentheist even, if I'm in the mood for the day), and I don't see that God, the god of literalistic Christianity, to have any foundation in reality at all. So no, I'm not going on my knees and pretend that some magical person in a supernatural dimension demands my worship. It's just silly. Sorry, but it is.

 

[outhouse]

. So, you really need to get on them knees and worship Him

:biglaugh:


lordy lordy

 

[outhouse]

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry,

What real mindless bigotry are you talking about. I suppose you have credible examples of this you can demonstrate.

void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists

I suppose you have credible examples of this you can demonstrate? or is it all unbiased education and knowledge that you hate?


Do mindless bigot's, use brainwashing techniques of theist?

 

[Fredcow9]

Hey everyone, this is a very interesting topic and Im new to the discussion so sorry if Im bringing some old view to the table. As far as I can gather it appears this is generally about if a God exist or doesnt, ect.
I think there is definitely something to be said given the history of man and his belief of the divine. I really dont think there is a shred of evidence to suggest the oldest cultures we know of from a religious and secular standpoint came up with these ideas out of thin air.
When it comes to science its generally something observable and testable. I would argue over the course of time God has been observed and tested, just read any religious text. Peoples individual experiences certainly give ground to evidences something greater exists. To say religions all over the world in every part of the planet just sprang out of nowhere would be extremely inconsistent with history...
Given the many experiences I have had with atheist it really seems to come down to not wanting to be held accountable outside the rule of man. Yes they search and put up frankly unreliable theories of why we can exist without God but it all always comes back to the question of how nothing came from something. Usually the answer to this is that science is working on it, however one could easily make the same claim for the spirit, except there is an answer there. God did it. How do we know? Check out pretty much any ancient culture. They had interactions and people still have interactions today. It kind of baffles me when the first sets of civilization are looked at as believing in magic when they clearly were not stupid...people have not changed, everyone still has the same questions, has the same thirsts for the why in life. Most of the forefathers of science were indeed religious men and there are plenty of well educated scientists that also believe in God and that he's the originator of all we know.
As for my last point, if we all assume there is a God (I certainly do) what makes anyone think your going to outsmart the creator of all things as you know it when even our best chess players can no longer beat the best super computer? I think many people do miss the point that if your not interested in God, hes not going to reveal anything to you. Why would he? Its really comparable to would you help someone who constantly spits in your face?
Just some thoughts

 

[adi2d]

Nice sermon. Any evidence?

 

[Fredcow9]

Nice sermon. Any evidence?

Ancient texts and peoples concluding there is a God.
No different than any academia papers today concluding theres not.

 

[Fredcow9]

Nice sermon. Any evidence?

Would also add that because there has to be a finite begining there has to be an unknown force that started it all. Thats actually what the science says