Ancient unreadable writings decoded!

[StormRider]

Wow, very interesting. Thanks for letting us know about this.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Well, it'd be nice to get another source for this, but uncovering ancient writings is definately exciting!

But I think that people really should take a class in Anthropology of Religion or something, or at least a lof of people need to, before they start with the newly popular voodoo theology. It's simply amazing how many people treat Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the Da Vinci Code like they are anything but novels or works of fiction with few historical facts.

Seriously, my Anthropology of Religion teacher ripped apart any of the arguements for the speculations that Jesus had a wife, and things like that found in the Da Vinca Code. I think it's funny to embrace something so blindy just because it supports your views, and then turn around and critcize (often times unjustly) other people for doing the same thing. I've had this happen to me several times and it can be very frustrating to talk to people like that.

I'm taking a class on Jesus right now and the teacher didn't outright say to discount the idea that Jesus might have had a wife.

Then again, it was just in the initial introduction to the class and we didn't really discuss it. He was just mentioning a bunch of different views on Jesus. I'll have to ask him about it sometime after class if we don't get around to talking about it in class.

Well, I don't know who your professor is but I wouldn't exactly call my professor a conservative one. He taught at UMass for 8 years 😛 Not that that matters or anything, but basically the guy has a pretty impressive resume and I trust his judgement on things like this.

Check out his activites here: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/murray/

And also, just looking at all the evidence for the theory... I just find it rather weak. I don't think it would've mattered if Mary was married to Jesus, but I just find no reason to accept that conclusion because the evidence simply doesn't justify it. To me, it's on the same level as those "we didn't go to the moon" fox specials. Sure, a lot of people will buy into it for some time, but ultimately it's just a fad. No sensible people believe that anymore, althought I would wager you'd find a few here in ATOT 😉

My professor

He didn't say what he thought one way or another, just said it was a theory out there and that we'd discuss it at some point. We haven't yet.

Ah, he's a member of the Jesus Seminar, I see 😉

I read a little bit about the Jesus Seminar, a little about the claims they make regarding the historical Jesus. And the good majority of the scholars in the Jesus Seminar are liberal... its not a very representative sample of the bibical scholar field, unfortunately, so there's a lot of sensationalism attached to it.

For instance, the goal of the Jesus Seminar was to find a "naturalistic historical Jesus", which means at the onset they rule out the supernatural as being possible.

That's the same level of broken logic as a scientist trying to prove the existence of the supernatural with physical instruments. By definition the supernatural is outside the realm of natural explanation, so the biased presuppositions make the conclusions inaccurate.

Of course, I'm merely speculating, I don't know your teacher personally but from what I've read I'd say he's left-leaning. Regardless, I seriously doubt he accepts that Jesus had a wife, at least he should acknowledge any evidence for it is merely speculative at best. Like wikipedia said about this, most scholars don't even take this issue seriously: the experts in the field think its a joke, what does that tell us about it?

 

[MidasKnight]

And what if they find a text that contradicts or disproves the Bible

And what if they find text that " confirms " and " proves " the Bible to be true ?


Ya scientist are going to tell the truth on what the " find " ...lol...

 

[rh71]

Sister Eucharist: I need to talk with you, Dr. House. Sister Augustine believes in things that aren't real.

Dr. House: I thought that was a job requirement for you people.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Deslok

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Well, it'd be nice to get another source for this, but uncovering ancient writings is definately exciting!

But I think that people really should take a class in Anthropology of Religion or something, or at least a lof of people need to, before they start with the newly popular voodoo theology. It's simply amazing how many people treat Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the Da Vinci Code like they are anything but novels or works of fiction with few historical facts.

Seriously, my Anthropology of Religion teacher ripped apart any of the arguements for the speculations that Jesus had a wife, and things like that found in the Da Vinca Code. I think it's funny to embrace something so blindy just because it supports your views, and then turn around and critcize (often times unjustly) other people for doing the same thing. I've had this happen to me several times and it can be very frustrating to talk to people like that.

You can start by reading Joseph Campbell
Text

I'll have to pick up some of his books. I will admit I have a bias that I'm more interested in Western religions than some of the more localized, tribal ones. The few books in my class are pretty good. Josh McDowell's The New Evidence is a great book that covers a lot of Christian apologetic work. It's real thick though so I'm only 1/5 of the way through it, but it's a great resource to have.

Christianity is a Middle Eastern religion. Western religions would be the celts one.

 

[Calin]

Cliff Notes: old writings that were blackened by age and weather and so on are now readable thanks to photographing them in infrared (other methods might apply)

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: rh71
how the hell are we supposed to know greek mythology from the real thing anyway ? Something I've always wondered...

who knows . . . nobody can tell the difference between Jewish mythology and the Bible. 😛
:roll:

 

[DaWhim]

gospel of thomas was readable when it was found.
aschylusous
would be great if we can get more sophocles and euripides.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MidasKnight

And what if they find a text that contradicts or disproves the Bible

And what if they find text that " confirms " and " proves " the Bible to be true ?

Confirms what about the Bible to be true?

 

[MidasKnight]

:roll:

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Calin

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Deslok

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Well, it'd be nice to get another source for this, but uncovering ancient writings is definately exciting!

But I think that people really should take a class in Anthropology of Religion or something, or at least a lof of people need to, before they start with the newly popular voodoo theology. It's simply amazing how many people treat Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the Da Vinci Code like they are anything but novels or works of fiction with few historical facts.

Seriously, my Anthropology of Religion teacher ripped apart any of the arguements for the speculations that Jesus had a wife, and things like that found in the Da Vinca Code. I think it's funny to embrace something so blindy just because it supports your views, and then turn around and critcize (often times unjustly) other people for doing the same thing. I've had this happen to me several times and it can be very frustrating to talk to people like that.

You can start by reading Joseph Campbell
Text

I'll have to pick up some of his books. I will admit I have a bias that I'm more interested in Western religions than some of the more localized, tribal ones. The few books in my class are pretty good. Josh McDowell's The New Evidence is a great book that covers a lot of Christian apologetic work. It's real thick though so I'm only 1/5 of the way through it, but it's a great resource to have.

Christianity is a Middle Eastern religion. Western religions would be the celts one.

Middle Eastern in origin yes but definately a significant factor in Christianity if its Western influence prevalent toady.

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: MidasKnight

And what if they find a text that contradicts or disproves the Bible

And what if they find text that " confirms " and " proves " the Bible to be true ?

Confirms what about the Bible to be true?

That the facts/events/occurences discussed in the Bible are or might be true. It can go either way but until you provide more proof for your side of the argument, please don't let this erupt into a flamewar.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: MidasKnight

And what if they find a text that contradicts or disproves the Bible

And what if they find text that " confirms " and " proves " the Bible to be true ?

Confirms what about the Bible to be true?

Archeological findings, confirmation of historical accuracy, and most likely confirmation of accuracy in our manuscripts. This was why the dead sea scrolls were so exciting--they offered confirmation of the incredible accuracy of the manuscript copying efforts. We found manuscripts that were hundreds of years earlier than waht we had, and they were something like 99.9% the same, which is outstanding in terms of ancient writings. Definately went a long way in supporting the accuracy of the New Testament... its a shame a lot of people miss this important point about the Dead Sea Scrolls and try to talk about "lost gospels" as if that was even the most interesting thing about the dead sea scrolls.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: datalink7
I thought it was from the early second century? That is nearly as ancient as the 4 gospels in the bible currently (late first century).

What would be more interesting, though, would be if they found Q.

Not to mention that the first gospel written was put to paper by a Roman Christian who had never met Jesus himself, but also failed to mention Jesus as being the Messiah even once. The Messiah story was introduced by a Jew living in Turkey, when he read the first gospel, thought it was not Jewish enough, and therefor rewrote it adding the Messiah story to it. Later gospels were happy to copy that.

 

[meltdown75]

well, hopefully they find some cool sh!t in those writings. how long until we know?

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: datalink7
I thought it was from the early second century? That is nearly as ancient as the 4 gospels in the bible currently (late first century).

What would be more interesting, though, would be if they found Q.

Not to mention that the first gospel written was put to paper by a Roman Christian who had never met Jesus himself, but also failed to mention Jesus as being the Messiah even once. The Messiah story was introduced by a Jew living in Turkey, when he read the first gospel, thought it was not Jewish enough, and therefor rewrote it adding the Messiah story to it. Later gospels were happy to copy that.

Care to provide evidence, some sort of source, or even a single name to support what you are saying?

Our knowledge of the gospel authors are in many ways very limited. The common practice is to err on the side of the source, rather than our interpreation. After all, they are first hand accounts, primary sources, and the rule of analysis with ancient documents is to give them the benefit of the doubt. You have to offer evidence to displace the claims the documents make, not the other way around.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: datalink7
I thought it was from the early second century? That is nearly as ancient as the 4 gospels in the bible currently (late first century).

What would be more interesting, though, would be if they found Q.

Not to mention that the first gospel written was put to paper by a Roman Christian who had never met Jesus himself, but also failed to mention Jesus as being the Messiah even once. The Messiah story was introduced by a Jew living in Turkey, when he read the first gospel, thought it was not Jewish enough, and therefor rewrote it adding the Messiah story to it. Later gospels were happy to copy that.

Care to provide evidence, some sort of source, or even a single name to support what you are saying?

Our knowledge of the gospel authors are in many ways very limited. The common practice is to err on the side of the source, rather than our interpreation. After all, they are first hand accounts, primary sources, and the rule of analysis with ancient documents is to give them the benefit of the doubt. You have to offer evidence to displace the claims the documents make, not the other way around.

Still haven't gotten to mailing the BBC (thought it was them, might be ITV or Channel4) about it, but they had a nice documentary about it last Christmas where a Catholic went 'in search for the truth' and was quite shocked to learn this. He spoke to several high placed people at the Vatican library and other places, so he didn't just make up this stuff.

Can't remember what it was called which makes finding it on Google a bit hard too 🙁

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: datalink7
I thought it was from the early second century? That is nearly as ancient as the 4 gospels in the bible currently (late first century).

What would be more interesting, though, would be if they found Q.

Not to mention that the first gospel written was put to paper by a Roman Christian who had never met Jesus himself, but also failed to mention Jesus as being the Messiah even once. The Messiah story was introduced by a Jew living in Turkey, when he read the first gospel, thought it was not Jewish enough, and therefor rewrote it adding the Messiah story to it. Later gospels were happy to copy that.

Care to provide evidence, some sort of source, or even a single name to support what you are saying?

Our knowledge of the gospel authors are in many ways very limited. The common practice is to err on the side of the source, rather than our interpreation. After all, they are first hand accounts, primary sources, and the rule of analysis with ancient documents is to give them the benefit of the doubt. You have to offer evidence to displace the claims the documents make, not the other way around.

Still haven't gotten to mailing the BBC (thought it was them, might be ITV or Channel4) about it, but they had a nice documentary about it last Christmas where a Catholic went 'in search for the truth' and was quite shocked to learn this. He spoke to several high placed people at the Vatican library and other places, so he didn't just make up this stuff.

Can't remember what it was called which makes finding it on Google a bit hard too 🙁

The writing of the gospels is a very interesting thing to study indeed. I would be cautious to base your whole view on a documentary like that however, but yes you are correct in saying that not all of the gospel writers knew Jesus personally. But, there is a lot of evidence that the basis was interviews with people who did know Jesus, and saw and heard him teach.

It's a tough thing to talk about too, because we really do not know as much as people get the impression that we do. A lot of theories can draw on a small pool of evidence to create an ocean of speculation. In any case, I agree with most people I think in that I am all for uncovering new documents to learn more about the early Christian community.

As a side not, I often wonder what people will think about us 1,000 years from now... will they be able to separate our fiction from non-fiction like we do? Or will they have some ultra-distorted view of what our world was like?

 

[djheater]

marked

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: MidasKnight

And what if they find a text that contradicts or disproves the Bible

And what if they find text that " confirms " and " proves " the Bible to be true ?

Confirms what about the Bible to be true?

Archeological findings, confirmation of historical accuracy, and most likely confirmation of accuracy in our manuscripts. This was why the dead sea scrolls were so exciting--they offered confirmation of the incredible accuracy of the manuscript copying efforts. We found manuscripts that were hundreds of years earlier than waht we had, and they were something like 99.9% the same, which is outstanding in terms of ancient writings. Definately went a long way in supporting the accuracy of the New Testament... its a shame a lot of people miss this important point about the Dead Sea Scrolls and try to talk about "lost gospels" as if that was even the most interesting thing about the dead sea scrolls.

Why should the "accuracy" in copying be doubted? It was their JOB to copy accurately - they would even count the individual characters to make sure there was no error.

The problem is with the [lack of] "truthfulness" of the writers themselves - and the keepers of the jewish "sacred writings".

Why do christians accept the jewish world view? Do they really think god "chose" the jews as "special"?
. . . .it's what the [OT] bible is "all about"
:roll:
:thumbsdown:

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: MidasKnight

And what if they find a text that contradicts or disproves the Bible

And what if they find text that " confirms " and " proves " the Bible to be true ?

Confirms what about the Bible to be true?

Archeological findings, confirmation of historical accuracy, and most likely confirmation of accuracy in our manuscripts. This was why the dead sea scrolls were so exciting--they offered confirmation of the incredible accuracy of the manuscript copying efforts. We found manuscripts that were hundreds of years earlier than waht we had, and they were something like 99.9% the same, which is outstanding in terms of ancient writings. Definately went a long way in supporting the accuracy of the New Testament... its a shame a lot of people miss this important point about the Dead Sea Scrolls and try to talk about "lost gospels" as if that was even the most interesting thing about the dead sea scrolls.

Why should the "accuracy" in copying be doubted? It was their JOB to copy accurately - they would even count the individual characters to make sure there was no error.

The problem is with the [lack of] "truthfulness" of the writers themselves - and the keepers of the jewish "sacred writings".

Why do christians accept the jewish world view? Do they really think god "chose" the jews as "special"?
. . . .it's what the [OT] bible is "all about"
:roll:
:thumbsdown:

The accuracy was somewhat doubted because what we know as the Bible is not the Bible itself. Is the translation of a translation of the original. They doubted the multiple translation, not the copying process

 

[mercanucaribe]

"Guys, I was just kidding!" - God

 

[So]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: MidasKnight
snip
. . . .it's what the [OT] bible is "all about"
:roll:
:thumbsdown:

The off topic bible? :Q

"Now that's one bible that doesn't diappoint on every page"

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: MidasKnight
snip
. . . .it's what the [OT] bible is "all about"
:roll:
:thumbsdown:

The off topic bible? :Q

"Now that's one bible that doesn't diappoint on every page"

"Off -Topic" Bible?

:roll:

OT usually = 'old testament'
------------------------

Originally posted by: Calin


The accuracy was somewhat doubted because what we know as the Bible is not the Bible itself. Is the translation of a translation of the original. They doubted the multiple translation, not the copying process

A Jewish Official Group of priests and scholars "decided" the Bible. It is their "official document" of [their "history" version] of Yahweh's dealing with the jews.

The "copying" of their bible is not to be doubted . . . OTOH the truthfullness of the jews is [doubted] in seing the "divine" in everything they do (including genociding their neighbors). 😛
:shocked:

:thumbsdown:

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
The writing of the gospels is a very interesting thing to study indeed. I would be cautious to base your whole view on a documentary like that however, but yes you are correct in saying that not all of the gospel writers knew Jesus personally. But, there is a lot of evidence that the basis was interviews with people who did know Jesus, and saw and heard him teach.

It's a tough thing to talk about too, because we really do not know as much as people get the impression that we do. A lot of theories can draw on a small pool of evidence to create an ocean of speculation. In any case, I agree with most people I think in that I am all for uncovering new documents to learn more about the early Christian community.

As a side not, I often wonder what people will think about us 1,000 years from now... will they be able to separate our fiction from non-fiction like we do? Or will they have some ultra-distorted view of what our world was like?

I don't just base it on that documentary though, the old versions of the Catholic Encyclopedia discussed how the choices were made on which gospels to include, and what changes have been made to them.

The documentary was not made by someone who wanted to attack the church btw, but someone who was looking to prove his own faith to himself and to the world. He even ended with the words that his findings were a great shock to him, that it meant a lot of what was in the Bible was doubtful, but that he believed that you shouldn't take it too literal, and that Christianity was based on love and that it therefor was still good (... Great way to say you don't want to acknowledge your own finds and want to continue to believe blindly what you believed before)