For All Hallows Eve

Too funny.The facts are what was written. What Faith presented is stuff written after the fact and not what actually happened but rather what the authors wished were true.The fact is there is nothing in the Exodus Passover story to even vaguely suggest Jesus. It is not in any way a Prophecy.The authors of the New Testament works though claim that Jesus fulfills some prophesy that does not even exist in the original.It is pure apologetics.It has nothing to do with textural criticism but rather honesty, reality and the evidence itself.

Of COURSE it's figurative. Sheesh. It means Christ functions for us as the lamb slaughtered for passover functions, as a sacrifice that protects us from eternal death. His blood protects us from the angel of death as the original Passover lamb did. In this case the "second death" or eternal suffering.The trouble with critics of the claim to literalness is that you take it way too literally. But since you do it's not the best word: what is meant is that we read the bible as it is meant to be read.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well since you put yourself above the entire history of Christian theology, two thousand years' worth of the world's best theologians, I guess you feel you and you alone can tell us what scripture means since they are obviously idiots and you have some special ability to read scripture they and all the rest of us lack.What is your evidence that the scripture was invented to pretend to fulfilled prophecy?

Some of the most famous modern textual critics admit to being unbelievers, even to such things as denying that the obviously prophetic Book of Daniel is in fact prophetic. I forget his name, the most famous one, he doesn't mind destroying the narrative continuity of the book and accusing Daniel of lying about when he wrote it, just because he doesn't believe in prophecy. It's crazy that these guys got any authority in Biblical criticism at all.

Sorry, the theologians understand that prophecy in the OT is often cryptic; it takes spiritual acumen to recognize it. This is so that Satan and insincere people can't understand it. But nobody has to work TOO hard to see the truth: the NT makes clear what was meant as prophecy and is now fulfilled. Jesus himself told the disciples on the way to Emmaus that the OT is all about Him. To you that means he's lying or the writers of the passage are lying. You really have some nerve the way you put yourself above scripture and Christian exegetical history.

Then I proclaim myself as the Messiah, and if you don't agree it is because you are being influenced by Satan and are insincere.

You'd have to have a couple of millennia of testimony from millions as well as the work of great theologians interpreting the scriptures before you'd have any chance of being taken seriously by serious people. Perhaps you'd get a small following from your EvC buds though. Sometimes that is enough to get a small movement going. Have fun.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The evidence is the fact that the New Testament stories were written long after the facts of Jesus if Jesus actually existed and there is nothing in the Old Testament material to even suggest that they refer to Jesus in any way.It takes no special ability, only honesty.

Sorry but spiritual acumen is simply shorthand for bullshit. And that is a really great example of trying to shovel ten pounds of shit into a one pound bag. Sorry but that is simply laughable. No nerve required, only honesty faith, something totally lacking in the Biblical Christian culture.

That's a big fat lie of the modern critics that the NT was written long after the events. Jesus said the OT is about him and if you know how to read it correctly, which obviously you don't, you can find him on every page.

quote:

---

That's a big fat lie of the modern critics that the NT was written long after the events.

---

He spoke in Aramaic but there are no original Aramaic Gospels.All scholars agree that the 4 Gospels were written in Greek.So at best, the Gospels are somebody in Greek writing the words of an Aramaic Galilean.There were over 5000 New testament manuscripts before 1000 AD and no two agree 100%.Only after the printing press was invented were there copies known to have been word for word.

Yet once again reality says you are wrong. For example, Paul never even met Jesus so everything Paul wrote is from after Jesus died. The author of John was writing over a half century after Jesus died.You claiming something is a lie is simply another of your unsupported assertions,.The reality is that all of the New Testament was written after Jesus died. All of the New Testament is written after anything in the Old Testament. And nothing in the Old Testament mentions or refers to Jesus.

In our Greek class in the early 1970's, we worked from Bruce Metzger's Greek New Testament. It is considered a translator's bible because it is heavily annotated. For each verse, the source manuscripts and papyri are noted along with variant text from those sources.What I remember is that while most of those sources were in Greek, there were some, though a rather small number, in Aramaic. What I do not remember is whether any of those Aramaic sources were to any verses in the Gospels. I have Metzger's book, "The Text of the New Testament", but I have better things to do than to read through that entire book in order to cast pearls before Faith (we all know her response to such efforts all too well).As for the dates of the earliest manuscripts, we have New Testament Manuscripts in Wikipedia giving c. 125 CE as the date of the earliest manuscript, which was to a verse in John. That date agrees with what I've always heard and read. That date would also place the earliest written NT source at about one full century after the purported events.Of course, if Faith disagrees and wants to claim that there are earlier manuscripts, then she should name some of those earlier manuscripts.

quote:

---

In our Greek class in the early 1970's, we worked from Bruce Metzger's Greek New Testament. It is considered a translator's bible because it is heavily annotated. For each verse, the source manuscripts and papyri are noted along with variant text from those sources.
What I remember is that while most of those sources were in Greek, there were some, though a rather small number, in Aramaic. What I do not remember is whether any of those Aramaic sources were to any verses in the Gospels. I have Metzger's book, "The Text of the New Testament", but I have better things to do than to read through that entire book in order to cast pearls before Faith (we all know her response to such efforts all too well).

---

There are a few verses (in the Greek Gospels) with Aramaic words of Jesus. There were sources (that the Gospels used) that were in Aramaic or were in a Greek translation that ultimately went back to Aramaic.But that is not what you remember in the Metzger book.He was looking at variants in the oldest manuscripts (or those among the oldest). That included Old Syriac.

quote:

---

As for the dates of the earliest manuscripts, we have New Testament Manuscripts in Wikipedia giving c. 125 CE as the date of the earliest manuscript, which was to a verse in John. That date agrees with what I've always heard and read. That date would also place the earliest written NT source at about one full century after the purported events.

---

The John text carbon dates from 125 to 175.A fragment of Mark (found in an Egyptian mummy mask that was made material that had a text of Mark repurposed for artwork) was recently found that carbon dates from 80 to 130 AD.

Of course it was written after Jesus died, but not LONG after, most of it was before 60 AD. Those that do not allude at all to the major event of 70 AD, the destruction of the temple, were earlier than that date at least. John wrote the Book of Revelation in his nineties but his other writings long before that. They were written after years of preaching the same content too, so the material was still fresh when it was written.The Old testament is all about Jesus, as He said. Too bad you don't know how to read scripture or you'd know that.