Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
fullywired

Chronological order of the bible

167 posts in this topic

I can't say on the reasoning it was first established. But the general idea these days is the support for the two-source and four-source hypothesis. By this reasoning, Matthew and Luke had possession of Mark's text in order to compose their narrative.

See my reply to fully-wired ^^^. I don't consider this a major problem as they were written at about the same time. Within the accuracy in dating that can be achieved, they might as well have been written at the same time.

Sorry, I overlooked a sentence I should have written in. 1 Corinthians was written in 50 AD, or thereabouts, possibly a few years earlier or later.

That would fit with Clement's reference in 96 AD. Clement referred to a "Blessed Paul," probably meaning St. Paul. But Clement also referred to a "Blessed Judith." Any idea who Judith might have been?

My reference to 35 AD was the particular quote from 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, which reads:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

What Paul delivered as of first importance is that Christ died/buried/raised to life/appeared to Cephas and the 12 is viewed by most historians to be a fixed narrative-summary of Jesus that was composed and circulated sometime before 35 AD (my source for this comment is John Dickson, who made this assertion in his book, The Christ Files). Does that clarify my point?

It helps. It gives me source where I might find more information. Thanks.

I am not an historian. I cannot provide my own research on this. I rely on the scholars who report the dating. For example, James Tabor whom FW has just linked, includes in that article on the "strange" ending of Mark, the dating of Mark to be around the 70 AD date, or to quote Tabor, "perhaps in the decade before" - Source. In similar fashion, This website gives an almost identical date. These are all from scholarly sources, and do not represent the extreme of Christian apologetics (This site, for example, attempts to date the entire New Testament, including the gospels, to well before 70 AD - obviously a non-scholarly apologetics approach).

I don't know what evidence these scholars use to date the gospels. I'm not a scholar. On the balance of things, I prefer to accept the consensus of the majority of historians, rather than the conjecture of the minority (and indeed a minority of scholars do seem to take a later dating). It just so happens that the majority of sources I read tend to take the view that I have presented.

Thanks. This is probably the most-constructive discussion we've had to date. I'll have to look those up.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Its amazing how many people claim to have been studying the Bible all their lives and still believe it. One wonders what they've been studying. The reason for my remark about Matthew is that the stories unique to him tend to be the really fanciful ones, like the Three Magi. I think he made them up. If he didn't, someone did. They don't hold together as actual stories but have earmarks of design.

The underlying assumptions here are. One, that miracles do not occur, because two, a god/entity who can produce them does not exist.

Basic belief/disbelief certainly structures ones interpetation of the bible.

I do not personally believe in the resurrection although neither do i say it is physically impossible. I have seen/known the powers of god, and it is not beyond god's ability to store and resurrect human consciousnesses.

Heck we will be doing this ourselves within 50 years.

In a way, the significance of the bible story is its entirety, from alpha to omega, the wisdoms found within it, and particularly the widoms and principles epoused in the gospels, by christ. A modern human being can live entirely by those principles, happily and productively, and if our social structure was based upon them it would be a far better place for most to live in.

The actual timeline of the gospels is irrelevant. They were formed/ created for various audiences and were placed in the modern bible, in an order, for a particular purpose, just as all the contents of the modern bible are placed and structured to tell a coherent story. Creation, separation, laws, covenant, the nature of humanity at its best and worst, messiah, new covenant, new codes and principles, the battle between good and evil, and the end times, with finally a new earth and a new beginning.

There was much left out of the bible from both jewish writings and early christian ones, but enough remains to give a modern reader an understanding of the basics and the important evolution of christianity. They can make an informed choice whether christianity is for them, or not, from these writings and nothing more, and that is the significance of the bible today. It frees people from having to accepet a particular religious teaching, and allows one to find god/christ independently.

I suspect less that less than 10 percent of christians have read the bible right through. My wife is an exception, she reads it completely once a year, ( a different version each time) along with a variety of study guides.

I have read it a few times right through and studied it for a decade or so, but now it is just a part of me. My relationship with god is the most important thing in my life, not the bible, although it continues to be the framework for my life, in how I treat people and what I eat and drink etc..

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she would spend that amount of time reading great literature and its commentaries she would be well educated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this being said and no-one has yet addressed the basic problem of how we have Mark 16:9-20 quoted verbatim by at least three independent authors in the 2nd century long before the Alexandrian manuscripts (which are the basis of out modern bibles) were written in the 4th century, and whose lack of the said text in Mark is used as an argument to state that they are later insertions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See my reply to fully-wired ^^^. I don't consider this a major problem as they were written at about the same time. Within the accuracy in dating that can be achieved, they might as well have been written at the same time.

The evidence seems to fit that a Q document did exist. You are right that it is entirely hypothetical (hence why I refer to it as an hypothesis). But it serves to fit the evidence of Luke and Matthew (Luke is also alleged to have had another hypothetical text known as L).

That would fit with Clement's reference in 96 AD. Clement referred to a "Blessed Paul," probably meaning St. Paul. But Clement also referred to a "Blessed Judith." Any idea who Judith might have been?

No idea who Judith is. There is an apocryphal work known as the Book of Judith, but it's universally dismissed as an historical account.

It helps. It gives me source where I might find more information. Thanks.

Thanks. This is probably the most-constructive discussion we've had to date. I'll have to look those up.

Doug

No worries. Glad to be of help :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she would spend that amount of time reading great literature and its commentaries she would be well educated.

While my wife left school at 15 to begin work, she is as well read as I am. Probably like me, she has read at least a million words per week, from books magazines etc. for fifty years. Her vocabulary is as extensive (ie we know most of the words in the oxford dictionary for example) as mine, and her knolwedge of things is as good as mine inmany areas.

It is not one or the other you realise It only takes her about 15 minutes perday to read enough of the bible to complete it in a year and another 15 minutes or so to study what she has read, cross reference it and gain an understanding of any bits she doesn't understandread

Also, anyone who has NOT read the bible has not read the greatest example of human literature (By most measurements) It includes all forms of english writing, and devices, and in general its grammar syntax, construction, etc is far superior to most books.

We have both read all the "major great works of mankind" in english, from literature like cervantes, the brontes, swift, dumas melville, carrol, trollope, dickens, wordsworth, elliot, james, twain, dostoevsky, keats, tolstoy stevenson wilde jack london and "modern" writers; such as conrad, buchan,joyce, woolfe, forster, lawrence, fitzgerald kafka and hemingway; histories such as "the decline and fall of the roman empire" for example, plus a lot of other historical and autobiographical material.

We had a personal library of over 10000 books including some over 200 years old it would be difficult for you to name a writer writing in english which we ahve not read. We have both also read thousands of really modern novels and other literature. I have read 10 this week including 3 last week end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While my wife left school at 15 to begin work, she is as well read as I am. Probably like me, she has read at least a million words per week, from books magazines etc. for fifty years. Her vocabulary is as extensive (ie we know most of the words in the oxford dictionary for example) as mine, and her knolwedge of things is as good as mine inmany areas.

It is not one or the other you realise It only takes her about 15 minutes perday to read enough of the bible to complete it in a year and another 15 minutes or so to study what she has read, cross reference it and gain an understanding of any bits she doesn't understandread

Also, anyone who has NOT read the bible has not read the greatest example of human literature (By most measurements) It includes all forms of english writing, and devices, and in general its grammar syntax, construction, etc is far superior to most books.

We have both read all the "major great works of mankind" in english, from literature like cervantes, the brontes, swift, dumas melville, carrol, trollope, dickens, wordsworth, elliot, james, twain, dostoevsky, keats, tolstoy stevenson wilde jack london and "modern" writers; such as conrad, buchan,joyce, woolfe, forster, lawrence, fitzgerald kafka and hemingway; histories such as "the decline and fall of the roman empire" for example, plus a lot of other historical and autobiographical material.

We had a personal library of over 10000 books including some over 200 years old it would be difficult for you to name a writer writing in english which we ahve not read. We have both also read thousands of really modern novels and other literature. I have read 10 this week including 3 last week end.

WOW!!!!!!!

:w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

Words fail me

fullywired :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While my wife left school at 15 to begin work, she is as well read as I am. Probably like me, she has read at least a million words per week, from books magazines etc. for fifty years. Her vocabulary is as extensive (ie we know most of the words in the oxford dictionary for example) as mine, and her knolwedge of things is as good as mine inmany areas.

It is not one or the other you realise It only takes her about 15 minutes perday to read enough of the bible to complete it in a year and another 15 minutes or so to study what she has read, cross reference it and gain an understanding of any bits she doesn't understandread

Also, anyone who has NOT read the bible has not read the greatest example of human literature (By most measurements) It includes all forms of english writing, and devices, and in general its grammar syntax, construction, etc is far superior to most books.

This the same wife who is creationist? Bet it doesn't stand up to a good science book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Are you implying that the exodus out of Egypt actually took place, or just some of the historical information in exodus is accurate?

"The Exodus" actually happened; though, it was a lot more complicated than the Bible story. It is, basically, the story of the Hyksos expulsion with events from 450 years and the reigns of 42 Pharaohs all rolled into one story. Moses prototypes include Pharaoh Ahmose I, a courtier of Queen Hatshepsut named Djehuty, the leader of a slave revolt named Osar-Seph and the Pharaoh Amenmeses. Each contributed part of the story.

"The Exodus" was at least three separate events. The death of Queen Hatshepsut precipitated a sudden change in administration which necessitated Djehuty's hasty departure for Canaan where he lived with some shepherds. Eventually he patched things up with Thutmose III and returned to Egypt. That's the "prince of Egypt" part of the story.

The Amarna Period roughly corresponds to the sojourn. The "Pharaoh who knew not Joseph" was Horemheb - the "Pharaoh of the Oppression." The "Pharaoh of the Exodus" was Ramses I. But he was only on the throne fourteen months. The confrontation between Osar-Seph and Seti (then heir apparent) occurred at about the end of Horemheb's reign and carried over into that of Ramses I. Part of the Exodus story occurred contemporaneously with Ramses' death.

At the end of the slave revolt, a group of "Shosu," apparently not wanting to hang around to meet Seti's three armies, escaped into the desert, probably heading southeast to Sinai. Evidently some of them escaped Seti's armies because we have their story in the Bible. Seti only refers to them as "troublesome Shosu" - a derogatory term for Semites, and uses the event as an excuse to invade Canaan.

Amenmeses was a grandson of Ramses II (the son of Seti I) and son of Merneptah. He was the general in charge of Thebes which he ruled as a separate kingdom; although, he still maintained allegiance to Merneptah. When Merneptah died, Amenmeses took advantage of being a general with an army and declared himself Pharoah. The "legitimate" Pharaoh (Seti II) got the other princes to back him and descended on Thebes with his own army. Amenmeses simply vanished, but under circumstances that make one wonder - there was a convenient escape route leading from Thebes through Wadi Hammamat to Quft. From Quft, one could sail directly across the Red Sea to the copper workings at Serabit al Khaddim. Twenty-one years after Amenmeses vanished, the Pelest invaded Egypt and threatened the copper mines in Sinai. Ramses III sent a military expedition to Sinai to work the mines and protect the workings from the Pelest. In the lead was a man with military experience who knew his way around Sinai and the copper mines.

The Egyptain navy, never noted for military prowess, managed to corner the Pelest fleet in a channel of the Nile where both ship-based and shore-based archers could rain arrows on them. The Egyptians then settled the Pelest in Palestine to serve Egyptian interests where they became the Palestinians. Peace returned to Sinai and for forty years (1187 to 1147 BC) the Egyptians worked the mines with help from both Egypt and Canaan. In 1147, Ramses VI withdrew financial support for both the garrison in Palestine and the mines in Sinai, leaving a lot of unemployed miners to fend for themselves. Most just went home to Canaan, but a few who were natives of Sinai and/or Egyptians with no place to go home to, became bandits (aka "habiru").

That's the story in a nutshell.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Slaughter of the Innocents, like Matthew's Zombies, the eclipse at the crucifiction, and the earthquakes, are all imaginary episodes inserted by the fourth century compilers of the new testament. Why would Satan post a star to lead Herod to stage a non-existent Slaughter of the Innocents? How would John the Baptist have escaped? There is so very little truth or accuracy in the New Testament. It was put together as a drastic attempt to reunite the Roman Empire under one manditory Religion. Thousands were slaughtered for not adhering to the new state-sponsored faith, and the Empire fell apart again after the death of Theodosius. Haven't any of you seen the movie "Agora"?

A solar eclipse actually occurred on March 22, 33 AD. You can look that up in an ephermis. In Jerusalem it was a partial eclipse with the upper limb of the sun visible throughout. That was on Friday, two weeks before Passover, so the story is a little garbled, but still recognizable. Obviously, not written by an eyewitness.

The Innocents and the Zombies: Josephus and Tacitus, who wrote about everything under the sun, never mentioned either. Nor is there confirmation from any other ancient writer who could possibly have seen the events. They didn't happen.

BUT: the slaughter of the innocents gives the Jesus story a poetic symmetry with the story of Moses. There may actually have been such a slaughter during the Second Intermediate Period - a Hyksos Pharaoh slaughtering his own people for we know not what reason. But the slaughter associated with Jesus is just a story-telling device, invented for the sake of the story and not for the sake of history.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, it seems that Irenaeus in 150 A.D., and also Hypolytus in the 2nd century, each quote from these disputed verses, so the documentary evidence is that they were deleted later in the Alexandrian texts, not added subsequently.

If memory serves: the first historical evidence of Irenaeus is from 177 when he was selected for a trip to Rome to consult with church authorities there on the subject of heresies. When he returned in 178, the bishop and several others had been executed. He succeeded to the bishop's office. When Marcus Aurelius died, his successor, Commodus, discontinued the persecutions, giving Irenaeus time to write "Against Heresies." Most authorities list "c. 180 AD" as the date for Irenaeus.

With all due respect to your sources, a lot of what is claimed as quotes from the gospels, is distinctly NOT from the gospels.

Cassels argues that Tatian's Diatessaron may have been taken from the Gospel of the Hebrews. Whether he proves his point or not is a matter of opinion, but it does throw doubt on the traditional gospels as sources.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If memory serves: the first historical evidence of Irenaeus is from 177 when he was selected for a trip to Rome to consult with church authorities there on the subject of heresies. When he returned in 178, the bishop and several others had been executed. He succeeded to the bishop's office. When Marcus Aurelius died, his successor, Commodus, discontinued the persecutions, giving Irenaeus time to write "Against Heresies." Most authorities list "c. 180 AD" as the date for Irenaeus.

With all due respect to your sources, a lot of what is claimed as quotes from the gospels, is distinctly NOT from the gospels.

Cassels argues that Tatian's Diatessaron may have been taken from the Gospel of the Hebrews. Whether he proves his point or not is a matter of opinion, but it does throw doubt on the traditional gospels as sources.

Doug

I must indeed disagree since the quote is verbatim and exists long before the Alexandrian manuscripts redacted the book of Mark to fit their beliefs which do not hold the resurrection of the body of Jesus.

It is a nice excuse for a few people to try and discredit the book of Mark, but it is founded on a principle of misdirection.

Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 10 - PROOFS OF THE FOREGOING, DRAWN FROM THE GOSPELS OF MARK AND LUKE.

1. Luke also, the follower and disciple of the apostles, referring to Zacharias and Elisabeth, from whom, according to promise, John was born, says: "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."(13) And again, speaking of Zacharias: "And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, according to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense; "(14) and he came to sacrifice, "entering into the temple of the Lord."(15) Whose angel Gabriel, also, who stands prominently in the presence of the Lord, simply, absolutely, and decidedly confessed in his own person as God and Lord, Him who had chosen Jerusalem, and had instituted the sacerdotal office. For he knew of none other above Him; since, if he had been in possession of the knowledge of any other more perfect God and Lord besides Him, he surely would never -- as I have already shown -- have confessed Him, whom he knew to be the fruit of a defect, as absolutely and altogether God and Lord. And then, speaking of John, he thus says: "For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."(16) For whom, then, did he prepare the people, and in the sight of what Lord was he made great? Truly of Him who said that John had something even "more than a prophet,"(17) and that "among those born of women none is greater than John the Baptist;" who did also make the people ready for the Lord's advent, warning his fellow-servants, and preaching to them repentance, that they might receive remission from the Lord when He should be present, having been convened to Him, from whom they had been alienated because of sins and transgressions. As also David says, "The alienated are sinners from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born."(1) And it was on account of this that he, turning them to their Lord, prepared, in the spirit and power of Elias, a perfect people for the Lord.

2. And again, speaking in reference to the angel, he says: "But at that time the angel Gabriel was sent from God, who did also say to the virgin, Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found favour with God."(2) And he says concerning the Lord: "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David: and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end."(3) For who else is there who can reign uninterruptedly over the house of Jacob for ever, except Jesus Christ our Lord, the Son of the Most High God, who promised by the law and the prophets that He would make His salvation visible to all flesh; so that He would become the Son of man for this purpose, that man also might become the son of God? And Mary, exulting because of this, cried out, prophesying on behalf of the Church, "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For He hath taken up His child Israel, in remembrance of His mercy, as He spake to our fathers, Abraham, and his seed for ever."(4) By these and such like [passages] the Gospel points out that it was God who spake to the fathers; that it was He who, by Moses, instituted the legal dispensation, by which giving of the law we know that He spake to the fathers. This same God,. after His great goodness, poured His compassion upon us, through which compassion "the Day-spring from on high hath looked upon us, and appeared to those who sat in darkness and the shadow of death, and has guided our feet into the way of peace;"(5) as Zacharias also, recovering from the state of dumbness which he had suffered on account of unbelief, having been filled with a new spirit, did bless God in a new manner. For all things had entered upon a new phase, the Word arranging after a new manner the advent in the flesh, that He might win back(6) to God that human nature (hominem) which had departed from God; and therefore men were taught to worship God after a new fashion, but not another god, because in truth there is but "one God, who justifieth the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith."(7) But Zacharias prophesying, exclaimed, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for He hath visited and redeemed His people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David; as He spake by the mouth of His holy prophets, which have been since the world begun; salvation from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; to perform the mercy [promised] to our fathers, and to remember His holy covenant, the oath which He sware to our father Abraham, that He would grant unto us, that we, being delivered out of the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all our days."(8) Then he says to John: "And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare HiS ways; to give knowledge of salvation to His people, for the remission of their sins."(9) For this is the knowledge of salvation which was wanting to them, that of the Son of God, which John made known, saying, "Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world. This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a man who was made before me;(10) because He was prior to me: and of His fulness have all we received."(11) This, therefore, was the knowledge of salvation; but [it did not consist in] another God, nor another Father, nor Bythus, nor the Pleroma of thirty Aeons, nor the Mother of the (lower) Ogdoad: but the knowledge of salvation was the knowledge of the Son of God, who is both called and actually is, salvation, and Saviour, and salutary. Salvation, indeed, as follows: "I have waited for Thy salvation, O Lord."(12) And then again, Saviour: "Behold my God, my Saviour, I will put my trust in Him."(13) But as bringing salvation, thus: "God hath made known His salvation (salutare) in the sight of the heathen."(14) For He is indeed Saviour, as being the Son and Word of God; but salutary, since [He is] Spirit; for he says: "The Spirit of our countenance, Christ the Lord."(15) But salvation, as being flesh: for "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."(16) This knowledge of salvation, therefore, John did impart to those repenting, and believing in the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world.

3. And the angel of the Lord, he says, appeared to the shepherds, proclaiming joy to them: "For(1) there is born in the house of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. Then [appeared] a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, Glory in the highest to God, and on earth peace, to men of good will." (2) The falsely-called Gnostics say that these angels came from the Ogdoad, and made manifest the descent of the superior Christ. But they are again in error, when saying that the Christ and Saviour from above was not born, but that also, after the baptism of the dispensational Jesus, he, [the Christ of the Pleroma,] descended upon him as a dove. Therefore, according to these men, the angels of the Ogdoad lied, when they said, "For unto you is born this day a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David." For neither was Christ nor the Saviour born at that time, by their account; but it was he, the dispensational Jesus, who is of the framer of the world, the [Demiurge], and upon whom, after his baptism, that is, after [the lapse of] thirty years, they maintain the Saviour from above descended. But why did [the angels] add, "in the city of David," if they did not proclaim the glad tidings of the fulfilment of God's promise made to David, that from the fruit of his body there should be an eternal King? For the Framer [Demiurge] of the entire universe made promise to David, as David himself declares: "My help is from God, who made heaven and earth;"(3) and again: "In His hand are the ends of the earth, and the heights of the mountains are His. For the sea is His, and He did Himself make it; and His hands founded the dry land. Come ye, let us worship and fall down before Him, and weep in the presence of the Lord who made us; for He is the Lord our God."(4) The Holy Spirit evidently thus declares by David to those hearing him, that there shall be those who despise Him who formed us, and who is God alone. Wherefore he also uttered the foregoing words, meaning to say: See that ye do not err; besides or above Him there is no other God, to whom ye should rather stretch out [your hands], thus rendering us pious and grateful towards Him who made, established, and [still] nourishes us. What, then, shall happen to those who have been the authors of so much blasphemy against their Creator ? This identical truth was also what the angels [proclaimed]. For when they exclaim, "Glory to God in the highest, and in earth peace," they have glorified with these. words Him who is the Creator of the highest, that is, of super-celestial things, and the Founder of everything on earth: who has sent to His own handiwork, that is, to men, the blessing of His salvation from heaven. Wherefore he adds: "The shepherds returned, glorifying God for all which they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them."(5) For the Israelitish shepherds did not glorify another god, but Him who had been announced by the law and the prophets, the Maker of all things, whom also the angels glorified. But if the angels who were from the Ogdoad were accustomed to glorify any other, different from Him whom the shepherds [adored], these angels from the Ogdoad brought to them error and not truth.

4. And still further does Luke say in reference to the Lord: "When the days of purification were accomplished, they brought Him up to Jerusalem, to present Him before the Lord, as it is written in the law of the Lord, That every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord; and that they should offer a sacrifice, as it is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons:"(6) in his own person most clearly calling Him Lord, who appointed the legal dispensation. But "Simeon," he also says, "blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace; for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people; a light for the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel."(7) And "Anna"(8) also, "the prophetess," he says, in like manner glorified God when she saw Christ, "and spake of Him to all them who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem."(9) Now by all these one God is shown forth, revealing to men the new dispensation of liberty, the covenant, through the new advent of His Son.

5. Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way.(10) The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God." Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, in "the spirit and power of Elias,"(1)"Prepare ye the way of me Lord, make straight paths before our God." For the prophets did not announce one and mother God, but one and the same; under rations aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding(2) this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; "(3) confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool."(4) Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.

This testimony from Irenaeus should not be ignored. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who, in turn, was a disciple of the apostle John,

Irenaeus, who had moved out from Asia Minor to Lyons, France, by 177 C.E., was a bold defender of the Christian gospel as taught by the apostle John. He was also a bold defender of the Holy Scriptures.

Irenaeus records that a disputed reading of Revelation 13:18 had been settled by examining "all the most approved and ancient copies" and by consulting men who had personally spoken about the disputed reading with the apostle John in Ephesus.

Irenaeus, wrote: "Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic which they themselves have shortened." ( Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XII.-Doctrine of the Rest of the Apostles. Section 12)

Likewise Tertullian (about AD 208) is on record challenging Alexandrian Gnostic heretics to examine the original writings of the apostles and specifically states that they were still available for examination in such places as Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus, etc.

So what we have is some people who are gnostics, who came up with a way to discredit the last chapter of Mark, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Exodus" actually happened; though, it was a lot more complicated than the Bible story. It is, basically, the story of the Hyksos expulsion with events from 450 years and the reigns of 42 Pharaohs all rolled into one story. Moses prototypes include Pharaoh Ahmose I, a courtier of Queen Hatshepsut named Djehuty, the leader of a slave revolt named Osar-Seph and the Pharaoh Amenmeses. Each contributed part of the story.

"The Exodus" was at least three separate events. The death of Queen Hatshepsut precipitated a sudden change in administration which necessitated Djehuty's hasty departure for Canaan where he lived with some shepherds. Eventually he patched things up with Thutmose III and returned to Egypt. That's the "prince of Egypt" part of the story.

The Amarna Period roughly corresponds to the sojourn. The "Pharaoh who knew not Joseph" was Horemheb - the "Pharaoh of the Oppression." The "Pharaoh of the Exodus" was Ramses I. But he was only on the throne fourteen months. The confrontation between Osar-Seph and Seti (then heir apparent) occurred at about the end of Horemheb's reign and carried over into that of Ramses I. Part of the Exodus story occurred contemporaneously with Ramses' death.

At the end of the slave revolt, a group of "Shosu," apparently not wanting to hang around to meet Seti's three armies, escaped into the desert, probably heading southeast to Sinai. Evidently some of them escaped Seti's armies because we have their story in the Bible. Seti only refers to them as "troublesome Shosu" - a derogatory term for Semites, and uses the event as an excuse to invade Canaan.

Amenmeses was a grandson of Ramses II (the son of Seti I) and son of Merneptah. He was the general in charge of Thebes which he ruled as a separate kingdom; although, he still maintained allegiance to Merneptah. When Merneptah died, Amenmeses took advantage of being a general with an army and declared himself Pharoah. The "legitimate" Pharaoh (Seti II) got the other princes to back him and descended on Thebes with his own army. Amenmeses simply vanished, but under circumstances that make one wonder - there was a convenient escape route leading from Thebes through Wadi Hammamat to Quft. From Quft, one could sail directly across the Red Sea to the copper workings at Serabit al Khaddim. Twenty-one years after Amenmeses vanished, the Pelest invaded Egypt and threatened the copper mines in Sinai. Ramses III sent a military expedition to Sinai to work the mines and protect the workings from the Pelest. In the lead was a man with military experience who knew his way around Sinai and the copper mines.

The Egyptain navy, never noted for military prowess, managed to corner the Pelest fleet in a channel of the Nile where both ship-based and shore-based archers could rain arrows on them. The Egyptians then settled the Pelest in Palestine to serve Egyptian interests where they became the Palestinians. Peace returned to Sinai and for forty years (1187 to 1147 BC) the Egyptians worked the mines with help from both Egypt and Canaan. In 1147, Ramses VI withdrew financial support for both the garrison in Palestine and the mines in Sinai, leaving a lot of unemployed miners to fend for themselves. Most just went home to Canaan, but a few who were natives of Sinai and/or Egyptians with no place to go home to, became bandits (aka "habiru").

That's the story in a nutshell.

Doug

Yeah, so exodus of the bible, never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yeah, so exodus of the bible, never happened.

OK. It didn't happen exactly as written, but the story is founded on real events, even if they're arranged to make a story that didn't actually happen. There are a few kernels of truth in the legend.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must indeed disagree since the quote is verbatim and exists long before the Alexandrian manuscripts redacted the book of Mark to fit their beliefs which do not hold the resurrection of the body of Jesus.

This is going to take some reading. I'll post what I find.

I get the impression that a lot of gospel writers had just one version of a gospel in their possession when they wrote and were unaware of, or not familiar with, other versions that existed at the same time. The existence of these often very similar documents creates the impression that a writer is quoting from one when he is actually quoting from another, or writing from memory.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. It didn't happen exactly as written, but the story is founded on real events, even if they're arranged to make a story that didn't actually happen. There are a few kernels of truth in the legend.

Doug

That I can agree on. Though I did find the brief history lesson informative. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW!!!!!!!

:w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

Words fail me

fullywired :cry:

Well thats a first. :innocent:

i got a little bit annoyed at the presumption that just because a person reads the bible they are not otherwise well read My wife and i as with all my family are readers and have been from a couple of years of age We do a lot of other things as well but we would both read for an average of five or six hours a day. For me that is long enough to read a long novel or an autobibography and my wife reads about the same pace. So, a book a day is normal . it took me an hour to read "the english patient" for example. Sometimes if i stay up reading for a couple hours, of it could be two books a day and 3 or 4 on a week end.

I also read a couple of newspapers and a magazine every day and do the three crosswords in the state newspaper within an hour.

We dont have kids or the comitments which go with them, we dont go out to the pub or clubs, and we dont play organised sport although we do a lot of walking and shell collecting, so we ahve plenty of time. Most of the "Classic"books I mentioned I read while at school, because back in the 1960s they were a part of the English reading lists for students.

But my main point was that reading the bible is not an indicator of a failure to read or to be intelligent or knowledgeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This the same wife who is creationist? Bet it doesn't stand up to a good science book.

My wife is a creatinist by faith. This has no connection to her intelligence or knowledge She watches david attenborough documentaries and knows their content but feels the poor man is deluded. I disagree. As an evolutionist I read creationist literarture and see the flaws in it.

Again the tendency is to see religionists as stupid ignorant, or uneducated. In australia the reverse is statistically true.

My wife, for logical reasons of her own, including her own well being and contentment, chooses faith in a creator god over knowledge of science and fact. That doesn't mean she doesnt KNOW the science or the historical facts They are just less relevant /important to her than her relationship with god. It doesnt matter to her if she is wrong about science, but it matters a lot if she would be wrong with god.

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between creationism and evolution there is no comparison. One is a creation myth, the other is the science that describes the living world and how it came to be as it is. They each have their use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between creationism and evolution there is no comparison. One is a creation myth, the other is the science that describes the living world and how it came to be as it is. They each have their use.

This is very true. It depends, I guess to an individual, which is more critical, significant or important in their own world view and heart/mind. For my wife science is basically irrelevant (what she believes about it cant hurt her) and so can be dismissed. Her life revolves around god and her hope and expectation is for eternal life. This life is, in a way, irrelevant compared with eternity in a palce of peace learning and joy.

I am different. For me this life is all i have, and god helps me make the most of it, of myself, and my ability to serve others. That brings peace, empowerment and joy in this life, which very few humans seem to attain, and that is enough for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am different. For me this life is all i have, and god helps me make the most of it, of myself, and my ability to serve others. That brings peace, empowerment and joy in this life, which very few humans seem to attain, and that is enough for me.

Odd that you think very few humans have these things. You should get out and meet more of us. You'll find there's nothing special about it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Between creationism and evolution there is no comparison. One is a creation myth, the other is the science that describes the living world and how it came to be as it is. They each have their use.

I asked this question once but never received an answer.... you are a UM member correct, as such I assume you visit the other forums on our esteemed page, especially the Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History forum.

It is on record that we have found tools in rock millions of years old, we have found pieces of nano tech as old as humanity is supposed to be in silt layers that have been undisturbed for millennia and you come up with evolution.... explain please how you reconcile these conflicting "facts"?

And don't give me the hoola that there is no evidence of what I have said...

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Odd that you think very few humans have these things. You should get out and meet more of us. You'll find there's nothing special about it.

I meet thousands of people in my job and life. Admittedly many of them are young people who have aprticualr problems in life But I do not meet many like me'

Never get angry.

Never get depressed.

Are never lonely.

Are never afraid.

Never have to grieve the loss of loved ones beyond a gentle form of loss.

Love all those around them.

Know that they can do anything they can imagine doing in life, and have done most of these things.

Are loved by those around them.

Understand them selves and their relationship to others and their environment.

Have complete self discipline of mind and body

Apprecite tha tthey are not responsible for others reations only for their own treatment of others

Love their work and would go to it every day even if they were not well paid to do so.

Live by the laws of the land and has never been in any trouble with the law. (ok booked for speeding slightly above the limit twice in 45 years but never had a parking ticket)

Are completely fullfilled and happy in their life and can justify this by their works in life.

Dont need any artificial stimulants to deal with life or to create artificial "moods".

Knows they are not perfect but a work in continual progress.

Has maintained a close and loving relationship with everyone of their family.

Has maintained a close, monogamous, and totally loving relationship with the same partner for over 40 years.

Are not envious of others but rather see all humans as one and give away all that they do not need to others who are in desparate need

Are empowered and protected by a real physical and powerful god who continually tutors mentors and saves their life when it is endangered, as well as gives abilities beyond those of mortal men :innocent:

And as a consequence, whose mind is always at peace (apart from an intense curiousity) and filled with power love joy and wonder.

No; looking around I do not see many people so "lucky" as me.

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is on record that we have found tools in rock millions of years old, we have found pieces of nano tech as old as humanity is supposed to be in silt layers that have been undisturbed for millennia and you come up with evolution.... explain please how you reconcile these conflicting "facts"?

And don't give me the hoola that there is no evidence of what I have said...

Unless you can cite peer-reviewed articles that support these contentions, you have no evidence.

Who found something? Where did he find it? When did he find it? What strata was it in? How were dates determined? For that matter, how do we know that the item was actually a tool? And exactly what nano-tech evidence do you have? How did it get there? You haven't even begun to answer the questions needed to support your contention. Let's get specific. Post your references so we can have a discussion based on what was actually said. And no, I don't mean who posted what on UM.

Doug

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The underlying assumptions here are. One, that miracles do not occur, because two, a god/entity who can produce them does not exist.

The underlying assumption here is that miracles do not occur because they have never been observed elsewhere. If miracles are rather common events, then it is easy to believe in them and hence, biblical miracles. But if nobody else has ever observed one, then claims of biblical miracles get harder to swallow.

Before one can claim a biblical miracle, one must be able to claim ANY miracle.

There is also a problem with the definition of "miracle." What is usually meant is a violation of what is physically possible. But what if the "miracle" is physically possible, but highly improbable? It's not a miracle when somebody wins the lottery - that is built into the system. The miracle would be if I won the lottery - that is possible, but highly improbable. Exactly, what is a miracle?

In a way, the significance of the bible story is its entirety, from alpha to omega, the wisdoms found within it, and particularly the widoms and principles epoused in the gospels, by christ. A modern human being can live entirely by those principles, happily and productively, and if our social structure was based upon them it would be a far better place for most to live in.

Amen. And one doesn't even have to believe in Jesus to live by those teachings.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.