<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

Mondo, do you remember the link you posted?

April 14 2012 at 12:24 AM

Kate  (Login kateothelamp)
Sufi

Hoping you can help me out. Art has mentioned a couple of times that the resurrection of Christ was never in the earliest manuscripts, and was edited into the Bible 500 years after the fact. I have never heard this and asked him where he got this info, that I'd be interested in reading it, and he said it was from a link you posted.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/message/1334232548/Monday+laid+alink+down+for+the+bible+without+magical+Jesus

I would very much like to read it. I find it puzzling, since the resurrection is mentioned in several NT books by different authors, so I'm trying to figure out if the claim is that it was never in any of them, and added all at once to multiple passages, or that the earliest copies of the Bible didn't have those books containing the account at all, or what? If you have the link, it would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
Kate

 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
Tim
(no login)

Re: Mondo, do you remember the link you posted?

April 14 2012, 2:26 AM 

Kate Jesus was prophesied in the OT.
But for Art's sake its good to debate it with him.
He posted the same comment to me. FYI
He's on my BONEHEAD list wink.gif

But I have hopes for Mondo, just a feeling.

Bro Tim


 
 Respond to this message   


(Premier Login Oscar50)
Forum Owner

No idea ..

April 14 2012, 10:06 AM 

Doing some internet searches about all I can find is that early versions of the Gospel of Mark made no mention of the resurrection.

It is possible that JVH posted a link about the Codex Sinaiticus, and in that link it made mention of this fact.




http://www.hiscifi.com/2008/07/23/codex_sinaiticus_released/


One interesting fact about Codex Sinaiticus is that one of Christian cornerstone beliefs, the story of resurrection of Jesus is not mentioned. Instead, the story simply describes disciples finding an empty burial tomb, and leaving in fear. This implies that the "resurrection" was addended by later generations of followers.



 
 Respond to this message   

Kate
(Login kateothelamp)
Sufi

Thanks Mondo

April 16 2012, 2:40 AM 

I'll assume that's the article Art was referring to. I was aware of the ending of Mark, I thought this was maybe something new, a claim that the texts were changed sometime around 500 AD.

 
 Respond to this message   

(no login)

Whoops Sorry Kate.

April 16 2012, 9:29 PM 

Mondo's guessed right, it was in fact JVH (who has resubmitted the link).

The texts have in fact been changed throughout time, especially when it was so hard to copy them, or in fact even author them.

Sounds that you are skeptical about this possibility.

 
 Respond to this message   

Kate
(Login kateothelamp)
Sufi

not skeptical of changes

April 17 2012, 2:01 PM 

I just misunderstood and thought this was a new claim - that first century texts said nothing about Jesus' resurrection, and that all references were edited into the text about 500-600 AD.

If that was the claim, I was very interested to read how they came to that conclusion. The account of the resurrection isn't tacked on to the gospel accounts like an epilogue, it's part of the natural flow of the narrative. At several points earlier in the gospels, Jesus himself prophesied that he would die and then be resurrected, and the resurrection of Christ is referenced in numerous places throughout the rest of the New Testament, so if there had been no mention at all, this would have required many additions to the text of several books.

However, it appears the claim is about the addition at the end of Mark, which most denominations recognize as a later addition to the text, and inauthentic. Mark ends very abruptly at 16:8 and appears unfinished, but it's not that there is no mention of the resurrection - there is just no reference to the women seeing or speaking with Jesus. But when they arrived at the tomb, the stone was rolled away, the tomb was empty, and a young man in a white robe (no explanation who he was, it is assumed he was an angel), told them Jesus had risen. Because it does end so abruptly and appears unfinished, I lean toward the theory that the original ending was lost and someone added text that was oral tradition at a later date. But all of the gospels and Paul's writings were completed in the first century or shortly thereafter.

 
 Respond to this message   

JVH say
(Login JVH)
Sufi

- not skeptical of changes

April 21 2012, 1:38 PM 

 

And some familiar - very important - passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus.......

http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/message/1334080844/Oldest+known+Bible+went+online+2+and+a+half+years+ago

Juan Garces, the British Library project curator, said it should be no surprise that the ancient text is not quite the same as the modern one, since the Bible has developed and changed over the years.

"The Bible as an inspirational text has a history," he told CNN.

"There are certainly theological questions linked to this," he said. "Everybody should be encouraged to investigate for themselves".

That is part of the reason for putting the Bible online, said Garces, who is both a Biblical scholar and a computer scientist.

www.codexsinaiticus.org

www.codex-sinaiticus.net




rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
[linked image]

CD: short for inevitability

 
 Respond to this message   

Kate
(Login kateothelamp)
Sufi

what key passages?

April 26 2012, 3:54 PM 

My understanding is that it does not have anything after Mark 16:8. Most Bibles note that any verses after 16:8 are questionable, and are generally considered to be later additions to the text. The story ends so abruptly and appears unfinished, so the original ending may have been lost, and someone attempted to reconstruct the ending from oral tradition, or from their own theology .

So without those verses, Luke ends with the women arriving at the tomb, the stone was rolled away, the tomb was empty, and a young man in a white robe (no explanation who he was, it is assumed he was an angel), told them Jesus had risen. The resurrection is there, just no mention of the women seeing or speaking to Jesus.

Was there some other information from your article that I'm missing?

 
 Respond to this message   

JVH say
(Login JVH)
Sufi

- what key passages?

May 2 2012, 7:06 AM 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8135415.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/06/ancient.bible.online/index.html

Oldest known Bible goes online

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The world's oldest known Christian Bible, the Codex Sinaiticus, is thus online - but the 1,600-year-old text doesn't match the one you'll find in churches today.

Discovered in a monastery in the Sinai desert in Egypt more than 160 years ago, the handwritten Codex Sinaiticus includes two books that are not part of the official New Testament and at least seven books that are not in the Old Testament.

The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections - some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online. The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.

And some familiar - very important - passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, they said.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/message/1334080844/Oldest+known+Bible+went+online+2+and+a+half+years+ago




rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
[linked image]

CD: short for inevitability

 
 Respond to this message   
QUITTNER
(no login)

Christianities and their bibles

April 16 2012, 1:10 PM 

As I keep repeating, many so-called "Christianities" were invented after Jesus had been crucified, and their supporting literature was subject to changes, presumably in order to maximize their number of members.

 
 Respond to this message   
One!life
(no login)

One!life > katelife: not sure if this is helpful! or not!

April 14 2012, 10:32 AM 

Google'd: the resurrection of Christ was never in the earliest manuscripts
Found:
the Resurrection Hoax.
www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah.../the_resurrection_hoax.h...
The resurrection of Jesus is a hoax because Mark, the earliest gospel, never ... The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are Codex Sinaiticus and ... no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ who would eat fish, offer ...


http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/the_resurrection_hoax.htm

Back to Main Page:http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm


The Resurrection Hoax:
By Abdullah Kareem

The resurrection of Jesus is a hoax because Mark, the earliest gospel, never contained the story. The resurrection passages were later added to Mark, and his gospel was changed by Matthew and Luke, the Gospel writers are anonymous. It was necessary for Matthew and Luke to change Mark according to their own understanding, they also relied upon the Q source. Regarding the Gospel of John, its completely different and draws upon ambiguous sources. The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both of these Greek manuscripts have no ending for Mark!


Mark is the first gospel to be written:

A central working hypothesis of this book and one of the most widely held findings in modem New Testament study is that Mark was the first canonical Gospel to be composed and that the authors of Matthew and Luke (and possibly John) used Mark's Gospel as a written source. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 23)


Mark was the first writer to record the crucifixion, yet he was NOT an eye-witness!


The author of Mark, the earliest of the narrative gospels, was not an eyewitness: he is reporting information conveyed to him by a third person or persons, who themselves were quite possible not eye-witnesses (Robert Walter Funk, The Jesus Seminar: The Acts of Jesus, p. 4)

Here is what Christian scholar Mack Burton says:


There is no reference to Jesus death as a crucifixion in the pre-Markan Jesus material (Who Wrote the New Testament? p. 87)

This means the Gospel writers fabricated the resurrection story. The legend of Jesus resurrection developed over a period of time. This explains why Paul, the earliest Christian writer, never records the Gospel version. Paul only says Jesus was crucified for the sins of mankind and he rose from the dead, which does not explain anything.

Paul asserts that Jesus was crucified, yet he fails to mention any details which would later be recorded in the gospels.

We must keep in mind that Paul knew nothing of an event called the ascension that was separate or different from Jesus' resurrection. Paul's writings contain no hint of the two-stage process that would develop later, where resurrection brought Jesus from the grave back to life and ascension then took Jesus from earth to heaven. Paul's proclamation was that God had raised Jesus into God's very life. That was Easter for Paul. For Paul there were no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body, no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ who would eat fish, offer his wounds for inspection, or rise physically into the sky after an appropriate length of time. None of these ideas can be found in reading Paul. For Paul the body of Jesus who died was perishable, weak, physical. The Jesus who was raised was clothed by the raising God with a body fit for God's kingdom. It was imperishable, glorified, and spiritual. (John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality, p. 241)

The most striking feature of the early documents is that they do not set Jesus life in a specific historical situation. There is no Galilean ministry, and there are no parables, no miracles, no Passion in Jerusalem, no indication of time, place of attendant circumstances at all. The words Calvary, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Galilee never appear in the early epistles, and the word Jerusalem is never used there in connection with Jesus (Doherty, pp. 68, 73). Instead, Jesus figures as a basically supernatural personage who took the likeness of man, emptied then of his supernatural powers Phil 2:7. (G.A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament? p. 3)

Pauls account of Jesus resurrection contradicts the Gospels:

The first thing we need to force into our minds is that when Paul wrote these words, there were no such things as written Gospels. This means that the accounts of Jesus resurrection so familiar to us, as told by these Gospel writers, were by and large unknown to Paul and to Pauls readers (Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, p. 48)

For Paul there were no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body, no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ who would eat fish, offer his wounds for inspection, or rise physically into the sky after an appropriate length of time. None of these ideas can be found in reading Paul. For Paul the body of Jesus who died was perishable, weak, physical. The Jesus who was raised was clothed by the raising God with a body fit for God's kingdom. It was imperishable, glorified, and spiritual. (ibid, p. 241)

What does this mean? The resurrection accounts in the four Gospels contradict the testimony of Paul. Hence, Paul contradicts the Gospels on a simple event which is supposed to be the foundation of Christian religion.

If Paul is the first writer, then he must be relaying the earliest tradition, yet the Gospels, written many decades later, record an entirely different story. This certainly proves that the resurrection was fabricated in the oral tradition, because theres not a single reference to the resurrection by historians like Philo Judaeus, and the testimony of Josephus is wholly agreed to be a forgery.

Paul contradicts the Gospels:

'For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to 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. Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.' 1 Corinthians 15:3-9

There are several problems with this passage.

(1). There was no third day prophecy in the Old Testament. [1]

(2). There is no evidence that five-hundred people saw Jesus [2]

(3). Paul says Jesus first appeared to Peter, yet the Gospels say Jesus first appeared to women! (Matt 28:1)

(4). Peter disbelieved that Jesus was alive (resurrected).

(5). Paul implies that Judas did not hang himself, he was still alive (contradicts Matt. 27:5).

(6). Paul describes the body of Jesus to be spiritual (1Cor 15:42). Yet the Gospels say Jesus was physical.

Mark does not have the resurrection:

All things considered, then, Mark does not begin his story of Jesus very satisfactorily. Indeed, within two or three decades of Mark's completion, there were at least two, and perhaps three, different writers (or Christian groups) who felt the need to produce an expanded and corrected version. Viewed from their perspective, the Gospel of Mark has some major shortcomings: It contains no birth narrative; it implies that Jesus, a repentant sinner, became the Son of God only at his baptism; it recounts no resurrection appearances; and it ends with the very unsatisfactory notion that the women who found the Empty Tomb were too afraid to speak to anyone about it. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 34)

Almost all contemporary New Testament textual critics have concluded that neither the longer or shorter endings were originally part of Marks Gospel, though the evidence of the early church fathers above shows that the longer ending had become accepted tradition. The United Bible Societies' 4th edition of the Greek New Testament (1993) rates the omission of verses 9-20 from the original Markan manuscript as "certain." For this reason, many modern Bibles decline to print the longer ending of Mark together with the rest of the gospel, but, because of its historical importance and prominence, it is often included as a footnote or an appendix alongside the shorter ending. [1]

The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not record the resurrection:

Matthew 16:2 f. is omitted, Mark ends at 16:8, Luke 22:43 f., John 5:4 and the Pericope de adultera are omitted. The doxology of Romans comes after 16:23. Hebrews follow immediately after II Thessalonians. [2]

The Longer Ending of Mark is preserved in the Byzantine texts, which are interpolated. The Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort discredited the Byzantine (KJV) text. Yet, the oldest Greek manuscripts do not have the longer ending. The Alexandrian (NIV) omits the longer ending (Aleph and B). The Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort attest the Byzantine text was conflated in the 4th century.

There are no Byzantine manuscripts before the fourth century when Lucian of Syria conflated the various readings and produced what became the Byzantine or Traditional Text. We know this is true because we have no Byzantine readings before the middle of the fourth century, but we do have Alexandrian and Western readings. Therefore, any second century reading which supports the third or fourth century readings of the Alexandrian line are considered important and are offered as proof that these textual lines are more original than the Byzantine line. However, if a reading is found in these very same manuscripts which agrees with the fourth century Byzantine reading, it is considered unimportant and unconsequential. [1]

In Antioch the early form was polished stylistically, edited ecclesiastically, and expanded devotionally. This was the origin of what is called the Koine text, later to become the Byzantine Imperial text. Forth century tradition called it the text of Lucian. [2]

Hort characterized the Byzantine text as 'late, conflated, heavily edited and revised', whereas Hort extolled the Alexandrian text as 'pure, primitive, carefully corrected, and neutral.

The Gospels are clear that no one witnessed Jesus resurrection. It was seen by NO ONE.

Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. (Mark 16:14)

It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. (Luke 24:10-11)

The Greek and Roman historians

Very few Christians know that Gentile historians NEVER mentioned the resurrection of Jesus. The Jewish philosopher Philo (50 CE) absolutely makes no reference to Jesus crucifixion. The Christians are embarrassed that Philo lived during Jesus lifetime and never mentioned his resurrection.

After the departure of Jesus, his teachings spread to North Africa and Egypt, but he was not popular or widely known.

The following writers do not mention Jesus resurrection:

Philo-Judaeus

Martial

Arrian

Appian

Theon of Smyrna

Lucanus

Aulus Gellius

Seneca

Plutarch

Apollonius

Epictetus

Silius Italicus

Ptolemy

We challenge Christians to prove his resurrection. None of these writers mentioned Jesus resurrection.

Back to Contradictions and Errors in the Bible.

The Disciples' original writings declare that Jesus never got crucified.

Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) section.

Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) in Islam.

Articles by Abdullah Smith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.



 
 Respond to this message   


(Premier Login Oscar50)
Forum Owner

Google is evil

April 14 2012, 10:39 AM 

happy.gif

Bing isn't much better. Google wants me to log in.

I've read good things about StartPage.

https://startpage.com/

 
 Respond to this message   
One!life
(no login)

One!life > mondolife: Wonder Y that is!

April 14 2012, 1:02 PM 

Google is evil
April 14 2012 at 10:39 AM
Mondo (Premier Login Oscar50)
Forum Owner

Response to One!life > katelife: not sure if this is helpful! or not!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bing isn't much better.
Google wants me to log in.

One!life > I have never been ask to login!
http://www.google.com/

Love Ya, mondolife!

Love All As ONE!
One!life>

mondolife share' d > I've read good things about StartPage.

https://startpage.com/

Respond to this message

 
 Respond to this message   

Kate
(Login kateothelamp)
Sufi

Thanks One!life

April 16 2012, 2:31 AM 

If this is what Art was referring to, I was aware of the ending of Mark, and the belief that Matthew and Luke were based on it. But all of the Gospels and Paul's writings were completed in the first century, nothing was changed 500 years later.

The NIV Bible stops at 16:8 and specifies: The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 920. The vast majority of churches know that those closing verses are inauthentic - that's the scripture the snake handling churches in Appalachia base their bizarre doctrines on.

But it's clear that Mark appears unfinished - it stops abruptly after the women discover the empty tomb. I lean toward the explanation that the original ending was lost, and that someone added an ending later based on oral tradition.

Thanks for finding that article, I appreciate it.


 
 Respond to this message   

JVH say
(Login JVH)
Sufi

Oldest Known Bible

April 15 2012, 4:29 AM 

 

http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/message/1334080844/




rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
[linked image]

CD: short for inevitability

 
 Respond to this message   
Current Topic - Mondo, do you remember the link you posted?
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index