Sorry about the quote box issue...
There are hundreds of ancient manuscripts, written within 100 years AD33, that are different lanuguages, and different parts of the world, that can easily be pieced together to read the original letters.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would men die for something they did not believe?
- Thread starter 4troof
- Start date
Sorry about the quote box issue...
There are hundreds of ancient manuscripts, written within 100 years AD33, that are different lanuguages, and different parts of the world, that can easily be pieced together to read the original letters.
Great. Then it should be easy for you to cite a couple of specific ones. What letters?
I know,9. I was using his usage of it as an example of how not to quote someone.
Again; name one that supports your argument.
I could just as easily say "There are hundreds of manuscripts written in the apostles own hand that prove that Jesus' ministry was all a front for a clandestine, ancient Judean bowling league".
If I'm not required to present said manuscripts, I can make any claims I want to (which is what you're doing).
Ok...just to name a few...
Manuscript (MS)Contains:DateEyewitness page ref.NotesMagdalen Papyrus (P64)Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23 and 31.Before 66 A.D.1253Dead Sea Scroll MSS 7Q5Mark 6:52-53Before 68 A.D.
"could be as early as A.D. 50"464Dead Sea Scroll MSS 7Q41 Timothy 3:16-4:3Before 68 A.D.1405Barcelona Papyrus (P67)Matthew 3:9, 15; Matthew 5:20-22, 25-28 Before 66 A.D.68-716Paris Papyrus (P4)Luke 3:23, 5:36"not much later" than 66 A.D.707Pauline Codex (P46)Paul's Epistles (??)85 A.D.70-71Bodmer Papyrus (II) (Johannine Codex P66)Gospel of John, "near complete"125 A.D.71P32?175 A.D.71P45?150 A.D.71P77?150 A.D.71P87?125 A.D.71P90?150 A.D.71John Rylands Greek 457 (P52)John 18:31-33, 37-38100-125 A.D.115, 126, 1388Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2683 (P77)Matthew 23:30-39150 A.D.126P. Oxyrhynchus 2 (P1)Matthew 1:1-9, 12, 14-20"not much later" than P4 (ca. 100 A.D.?)1269P. Oxyrhynchus 3523 (P90)John 18:36-19:7ca. 125-150 A.D.?127
These are just ones I found quickly on the internet...easily found with pictures for you too!!
None of these says anything at all about the apostles death. Nor do the examples you give in the following post.
All these do is show that the gospels were written sometime before or right around the first cent. CE. (except for the Dead Sea Scroll reference. That one is either a hoax or a typo because there's absolutely nothing in the DSS that represents anything in he NT.)
You obviously haven't even read these manuscripts or you would know they have nothing at all to do with what we're discussing here.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Well, the "troof" is that the whole Christ fable is just a derivative amalgam of older pagan myths.
That's not true at all; there are plenty of post-Christian myths tacked on as well.
spiritually inclined
Active Member
The "eyewitness" gospel accounts are not history for a resurrection. The details of the resurrection accounts deviate too wildly to constitute historical evidence. Examples of this can be found at the following link:
Rejection of Pascal's Wager: The Empty Tomb
In the very beginning verses of the first chapter of Luke, the author does not even claim to be an eyewitness himself!
This and other evidence makes it very likely that the gospels were intended to be something other than history.
James
Rejection of Pascal's Wager: The Empty Tomb
In the very beginning verses of the first chapter of Luke, the author does not even claim to be an eyewitness himself!
This and other evidence makes it very likely that the gospels were intended to be something other than history.
James
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I'm sorry, Penguin was right, it was the Gospel of Mark, not Peter. However, the original (we think) ending was the one I gave.
From the great Wiki:
Ending
Main article: Mark 16
Starting in the 19th century, textual critics have commonly asserted that Mark 16:920, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, was a later addition to the gospel. Mark 16:8 stops at the empty tomb without further explanation. The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.[43] The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:8, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.) Some scholars[who?] believe that a scribe who was copying the text thought it was vague and/or confusing how it ended, so he added v. 9-20 for additional clarification.
Main article: Mark 16
Starting in the 19th century, textual critics have commonly asserted that Mark 16:920, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, was a later addition to the gospel. Mark 16:8 stops at the empty tomb without further explanation. The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.[43] The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:8, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.) Some scholars[who?] believe that a scribe who was copying the text thought it was vague and/or confusing how it ended, so he added v. 9-20 for additional clarification.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Then why are there no contemporary accounts?
Uh, no, any real historical research reveals that we don't know who wrote any of them, not for sure.
spiritually inclined
Active Member
To add to this point, the gospel of Matthew records people coming from the graves and walking about. If that happened, why isn't such a miraculous event evidenced in secular historical sources?
James
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
The Ghost Dancers saw people come back from the dead, they saw a lot of miracles.
They were a very powerful religious revival among the oppressed Native American people.
They were hunted down by the American Government and killed.
They died for their faith, for their way of life.
wa:do
They were a very powerful religious revival among the oppressed Native American people.
They were hunted down by the American Government and killed.
They died for their faith, for their way of life.
wa:do