For All Hallows Eve

ANY fragments from as early as 125 AD would not be the originals but copies.And those few we have are under serious attack for being the work of early heretics or even later forgeries. For any piece of even early copies to have survived means it managed to survive the sort of wear and tear that explains why we didn't have any early copies until they were "discovered" recently, which implies the ones that survived to the present are phonies. The main bulk of the Bible manuscripts, some 5000 IIRC, make up the Textus Receptus on which the KJV was based, and none of those date earlier than the tenth century, again for the reason that earlier copies of the the true ones would have been worn out beyond recovery.Bruce Metzger is the name of the major textual critic I couldn't remember earlier. He doesn't believe in the supernatural, such as the prophec of the book of Daniel,`so his readings of the bible suffer from his bias in a way that should not be given any authority whatever. He's a fraud. Nobody should pay any attention to him.It's a mark of an unbeliever to read such textual critics. Christians are believers who read the Bible as written.Jesus spoke Aramaic, but probably also Hebrew and maybe some Latin and certainly Greek. The disciples all wrote in Greek though they probably knew other languages to some extent as well. As I recall Aramaic would have been spoken in the region of Galilee, but Greek was the universal language and all had to know it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It's a mark of an unbeliever to read such textual critics. Christians are believers who read the Bible as written.

---

But you might want to consider the "Book of Enoch THE PROPHET", Right?Jude quoted it.Textual critic Julius Wellhausen used the scholarly knowledge of language he possessed (plus relying on other scholars) to determine that 9th century BC writers like Elijah and Elisha didn't write any prophecies or anything while 8th century BC prophets like Amos did in fact write books.BUT
LISTEN
UNDERSTANDActually, he determined from the Bible TODAY (or in the 19th century when he lived) that writing in ancient Israel would have been very rare until the 8th century B.C. due to prophetic books starting at that time.He reached his conclusion from the Bible itself.What do you think about Enoch (from before 2000 B.C.) writing a prophetic book anyway?Is your "Bible" the one Jude, the brother of Jesus used?Or the King James 17th century A.D. Englishman's Bible?What is wrong with scholars ("critics") attempting to date the Book of Enoch, and determining that the Aramaic and Ethiopian versions are late?What do you say about the Book of Enoch?Do you accept it as is?Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Bruce Metzger is the name of the major textual critic I couldn't remember earlier. He doesn't believe in the supernatural, such as the prophec of the book of Daniel,`so his readings of the bible suffer from his bias in a way that should not be given any authority whatever. He's a fraud. Nobody should pay any attention to him.

---

By which you mean that because he tells truths you don’t like you prefer to use lies and slander to suppress his views.In reality Bruce Metzger was a Christian, he rejected the prophecies of Daniel for reasons quite apart from a disbelief on the supernatural - as you would know if you actually bothered to find out what his reasons were.He was a major Biblical scholar, certainly not a fraud and you certainly should pay attention to his views just as you should pay attention to any major expert.You know if you are going to try to pretend to be a Christian maybe you shouldn’t put your evil on open display like this.

quote:

---

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.

---

The claim that the Synoptic Gospels do not allude to the destruction is one that can be reasonably disputed - and is disputed. For my own part I would argue that the major rewrite of the Olivet Discourse in Luke, at the least, indicates an awareness of the actual events.Also we may question the need to allude to events so well known.As an argument the claim is very weak.

quote:

---

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.

---

Since your own reading of the Bible has been proven to be deficient such boasting is rather silly.

Once again, that is simply your unsupported assertion. Where is the evidence? Again, more of you apologetic nonsense. Where is the evidence that supports any of that or that the various books attributed to some John were written by any John or one John? It seems your method of reading scripture is to not even know how to read anything as it is written.

You ask me for evidence but you've never supplied any of your own. It's all a declaration that you are the only honest person who knows how to read the Bible in the entire history of Christianity. I'm amazed that you get away with that since any "fundie" or creationist would be called on it and not only called on it but labeled with it forever after. So you produce your evidence please.Mine comes from the traditional dating I find in one of my Bibles though since I'm on someone else's computer these days I'm remembering it.

The event of 70AD so altered the way of life of the Jews there is no way it could simply have been forgotten. And of course there are no "major rewrites" of any part of the Bible because it's all inspired by God.I'm sorry, you will have to remind me of how my reading of the Bible is deficient. It's interesting however that while you find my reading deficient you let pass the utterly ridiculous claim of jar to be the only person who knows how to read the Bible even among all the best theologians since Christ.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The event of 70AD so altered the way of life of the Jews there is no way it could simply have been forgotten.

---

Thank you for agreeing with my point. Given that the event was so well-known, allusions would be unnecessary.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, you will have to remind me of how my reading of the Bible is deficient

---

Yes, you do quickly forget your errors. See the subthread starting with Message 284 - less than a month old.

quote:

---

It's interesting however that while you find my reading deficient you let pass the utterly ridiculous claim of jar to be the only person who knows how to read the Bible even among all the best theologians since Christ.

---

I haven’t seen jar making such a claim. Not that I would trust any reading from your preferred theologians without checking it.

There is a boundary beyond which a person is not a Christian for denying some tenets of the faith. I don't know if denial of the supernatural and prophecy is beyond that boundary or not though I would suspect it has to be since Christianity is nothing if it is not supernatural.I saw a quote by Metzger himself saying that he dated Daniel later than Daniel himself claims to have written, (making Daniel a liar of course), because he didn't believe in prophecy. That was the reason he gave in so many words. The book is quite consistent and coherent as Daniel wrote it but to date it later destroys its coherence and consistency. Perhaps I can find the quote for you later, I think it is in a particular book but I'm in the process of moving and haven't unpacked my books yet.

Sorry you have to quote me, not following a whole thread.

quote:

---

There is a boundary beyond which a person is not a Christian for denying some tenets of the faith. I don't know if denial of the supernatural and prophecy is beyond that boundary or not though I would suspect it has to be since Christianity is nothing if it is not supernatural

---

I don’t see how denying that particular prophecies are genuine predictions - based on evidence - would cross the boundary.

quote:

---

I saw a quote by Metzger himself saying that he dated Daniel later than Daniel himself claims to have written, (making Daniel a liar of course), because he didn't believe in prophecy.

---

I very much doubt that. It is more likely that you saw somebody else claim that was Metzger’s reason. Besides Daniel is a fiction anyway - he never existed - so how can Metzger be calling him a liar ?

quote:

---

The book is quite consistent and coherent as Daniel wrote it but to date it later destroys its coherence and consistency.

---

The book is a compilation of shorter works - in two different languages - and how you think the late date for the prophecies creates internal contradictions I have no idea.ABE: And for further reference here is a tribute to Metzger from Daniel T Wallace Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Sorry Faith but reality once again shows you are still just posting falsehoods. Sorry Faith but reality once again shows you are still just posting falsehoods. Please post a link to any thread where I have declaration that i Am the only honest person who knows how to read the Bible in the entire history of Christianity.You really need to stop lying.

In her defense, she perhaps feels that you disregard the apologetic message and defend your own. You do often ask your opponents whether they have actually read the Bible and Faith perhaps feels insulted by this and so infers that you believe yourself to be the only one who does so.Even the critical scholars with evidence cannot come to an agreement on whether Jesus existed or not. Ehrman contradicts Carrier and Dougherty.I do not believe that Faith willfully lies as you assert, though you could argue that denial of what you claim to be reality is tantamount to lying.I understand her frustration in that you give no respect to the apologists.

I have never claimed something is reality, I have shown what is really there. I present evidence, for example that all the Christian Holy Days are simply repurposed pagan holidays; that the God as described in Genesis 1 is different than the God that is described in Genesis 2&3.When she claims I do not present evidence I can and will; Message 38 in this very thread is filled with facts and Message 42. If necessary I can post linky to whole threads where ALL I present are facts and evidence. Respect needs to be earned, not given. If the crap marketed by the apologists cannot stand up to examination then that is their problem and they need to try to sell a better product. I don't disregard the apologetic message but rather actually consider it before laughing. Exactly; there is no real evidence that Jesus ever lived. When people make claims of something being in or related to the Bible that is refuted by what is actually written in the Bible is it not reasonable to ask if they have actually read the material?

quote:

---

Exactly; there is no real evidence that Jesus ever lived.

---

I have encountered a lot of people who are very vocal atheists but they generally end up admitting that Jesus probably lived not too long after I tell them that Paul's letters were written by the "Apostle" himself according to most historians.Then I tell them that James was mentioned (briefly) by Josephus, a Jewish contemporary. I have to tell people who James was though.

quote:

---

Ramifications of the Death of James the Just
According to Hegesippus, Vespasian invaded Israel and besieged Jerusalem immediately after the Pharisees murdered James. The events were so closely related in time, he says, that "the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that [the death of James] was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem."

​

The problem with that idea is that the siege of Jerusalem happened in A.D. 66, and Josephus says that the death of James happened after Porcius Festus had died and before Albinus became procurator of Judea. While I don't know the history of Roman governors well enough for that to mean anything to me, historians tell us that means James the Lord's brother died in A.D. 62.

​

I may not have the Roman governors of Judea memorized, but I can do that math. That's a four year gap.

​

That is probably too long for Hegesippus' "immediately" statement to be true, but the events may still be related. Even Josephus testifies that the illegal murder of James offended the Jews so much that they met Albinus on his way to Jerusalem to get help on the matter. If the death of James stirred up Jerusalem that much, it could easily have had something to do with the First Jewish-Roman War just four years later.

​

Josephus' Account of the Death of James the Just
According to Josephus, Ananus became the high priest of Jerusalem after the procurator, Porcius Festus, died. While the new procurator, Albinus, was on the way, Ananus saw the opportunity to get rid of James.

​

Josephus does not say why Ananus wanted the death of James other than that he "was of an exceeding bold and reckless disposition."

​

Josephus makes it very simple. Ananus gathered the Sanhedrin, accused James of violating the Law along with some others and had them all stoned. As a consequence, Albinus removed Ananus from his position of high priest upon his arrival.

​

Death of James, Jesus' Brother

---

Galatians was written by Paul, and Paul pleads his case that he talked to James early on. And on and on.He also was in constant correspondence with Peter.There must be a recognition of these three (myth makers) if there is some "Jesus conspiracy" that invented a fiction brother of James.There must be an intense and scholarly undertaking that examines these figures.Take JamesGet to know him and one is closer (though nowhere near) to solving the mystery.From the same site.

quote:

---

What a strange character James is! There is no indication that he followed Jesus at all during Jesus' earthly lifetime. After the resurrection, however, he is one of the leading figures in the church.

​

I suppose this makes sense. After all, it would be hard for any of us to be convinced that our big brother is the creator of the world. On the other hand, if he rose from the dead it might spark a change in us!

​

owever, James is odd in other respects. Unlike the twelve, he never left Jerusalem. History says he was appointed as overseer there by the apostles. Acts, though, leaves us with the impression that he carried as much or more authority than the apostles who appointed him!

​

Not only did he not leave Jerusalem, but surely he was the most Jewish of the apostles. (James is called an apostle in Scripturee.g., Gal. 1:19but he was not one of the twelve.) While he acknowledged that the Gentiles did not need to keep the Law, he was always the one most on the side of the Law. Peter refused to eat with Gentiles out of fear of James (Gal. 2:11-12), and James asked Paul to buy the sacrifices for men about to take a Nazirite vow (and Paul complied — Acts 21:18-26!!!).

​

James remained the leader of the Jerusalem church until his death around A.D. 62. This is the account of his martyrdom according to Hegesippus (a 2nd century Christian about whom little is known), which is quoted in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, vol. II, ch. 23 (A.D. 323).

​

'm retelling the story in my own words, not quoting him. Eusebius gives three versions of the death of James: one from Clement of Alexandria, one from Hegesippus, and one from Josephus (yes, Josephus' Antiquities was being quoted way back then!). This is Hegesippus' version, which Eusebius judges the most accurate.

​

Historians, however, prefer Josephus' account of the death of James, which I'll cover in a paragraph or two at the end of the page.

---

My most recent mentioning of James was just a few days ago, when I got into an argument with somebody (a Christian) over whether Jews went around killing Christians in the 1st century (a common argument I get into btw). I was told that Christians have been killed and mocked and scoffed at, and it resulted in me saying that everybody likes Jesus. I've been through that argument 1 million times 1 trillion.I ended up saying the Romans killed Jesus while James was among the Jewish Temple community for over 3 decades after Jesus died.That is a different issue.But the atheists need to actually have some sort of theory and it should be based on some sort of conspiracy theory involving the actual players.Really.