A thread for discussing how religious texts of any kind (the Bible most likely I anticipate) hold up to what archaeologists, historians, etc., say.

I've found that the Vedas hold up well with quantum physics, astrophysics, archaeology, history, astronomy, and a lot more sciences.

Proofs/evidences coming soon...ish...

What exactly do the various bibles say about Mary Magdalene?

I remember being taught that she was a prostitute, is this actually how she is betrayed in the Bible?
Or was the teaching just a continuation of the error perpetrated by Pope Gregory in the 6th century?

Why are there so many different versions of the Bible that say different things. What makes one superior to the other one eg Greek Orthodox vs King James?

There are many versions of the Bible. Nearly every major branch of Christianity has its own set of scriptures.

Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute as far as I'm aware, as there were a few different Marys...Miriam being a common Jewish name etc.

Mary Magdaline didn't start out as a prostitiute, although you are right that Pope Gregory depicted her as one. PG's portrayal basically became cannon for the next 1300 years, and it is only fairly recently where MM has had the prostitute tag removed. So to answer your question, not initially, yes for a long time, and not currently.

Aldeth has it on Mary.

There are many versions of the Bible. Nearly every major branch of Christianity has its own set of scriptures.
There are many translations of the Bible into English, and many translations into other languages, because these languages change (just compare the original KJV to the modern NKJV), the cultures change, and many of the phrases and terms in the original language cannot be readily translated. Chair may have a 1-to-1 equivalent, but what about love? What about complex ideas like mercy, revenge, justification, etc. For example, there is no word that can accurately be translated as 'mercy' in the original versions of the Bible. Instead, the best translation for what is usually translated as mercy is actually loving kindness, which represents a somewhat different idea. Subtle, maybe, but significant.

Other languages, however, don't have as many problems. Ironically (and somewhat confusingly), there is only one translation of the Bible into German. The first language other than Latin to have the Bible, and the closest language to English (which has so many problems with it) never had to re-translate the Bible. The language hasn't changed significantly since Martin Luther, and apparently Luther did a good enough job that no-one has felt a need to improve on it.

Anyway, the original versions are still around in greek, arameic, and hebrew, and I strongly suggest that anyone who really wants to know what it says should think about learning these languages and reading it in the original.

No, NOG, there are actually many different Bibles. As in, they have different books included in them. There is no one set Bible.

Not only are books of the Bible sometimes in a different order, but Biblical canon is different too.

Commonly cited are the differences between the Protestant and Roman Catholic Bibles, with the latter including what is known as the Apocrypha and a few additions to OT books, and the former not including the Apocrypha.

However, even the Protestant and Roman Catholic Bibles differ from the Eastern Orthodox Bibles. The Greek Orthodox Bible has different books recognized as canon compared to the Western rite Bible, and if my memory is correct, a slightly different ordering of the books. Then the Coptic Orthodox church has its own set canon, and so too does the Assyrian Orthodox church, which differs from even the Eastern Catholic Bibles, which themselves may differ from Western Bibles (if my memory is right). Then there is the Ethiopian Orthodox church which has nearly 400 books recognized as canonical in their Bible, and their concept of the Bible is very broad in comparison to the Western belief.

Then on top of that there are at least 30 gospels that didn't make the cut, and even John was a bit iffy. There is a lot of pseudo books too that may or may not be reliable, and they weren't included in what you perceive to be the Bible. In fact, Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch, a notorious pseudopigripha (spelling??) book that is demed heretical by nearly every church besides the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox churches.

Then again on top of that, we have differing versions of texts used to translate modern English versions of the Bible, with the King James version using a non-majority Greek source for a lot of their books of the NT.

I have a couple of Greek NT's around and I am reasonably sufficient with Greek-English translations to show differences between Greek and English versions, slight word variations that change meanings quite significantly.

What does the bible have to say about dinosaurs?

Nothing. Not even how Noah managed to get all of them, along with all the other animals, into the Ark.

Were there any dinosaurs while Adam and Eve were alive?

According to Young Earth Creationism, yes, dinosaurs were around with Adam and Eve as God supposedly created them with the other animals etc.

What about woolly mammoths and sabre tooth tigers? Were they around at the same time as dinosaurs and Adam?

Surely this must count as a big difference of opinion between palaentologists and bible-ologists?

Of course. According to Young Earth Creationist, which take the Bible as being 100% literal when it comes to the Genesis creation stories (yes, there are 2 different narratives!), all animals were existing when God made Adam and Eve, and all animal species went into the Ark 2 by 2 if they were unclean, 7 by 7 if they were clean...male and female both. Which is quite impossible since there are species of lizard which exist only as female, and so on. God surely must have made these lesbian lizards into male and female pairs for this Ark voyage, and then made them lesbians again later eh?

What? Lesbian lizards? Now YOU'RE the one talking silly-talk!

Well, they're not real lesbians, just they lack males. They reproduce on their own, and so can female turkeys.

Here's some more silly talk...I used to be a hardcore fundie...that's right...I used to be ignorant. Then I went to university...so I've got the dirt on the fundie side of things. The more I learnt at university, the more I learnt that a lot of what I'd been taught as a fundie was just plain rubbish. And to think I was planning on being a Christian minister...

I'm pretty sure that Mary Magdeline was a prostitute. But she repented and was forgiven by Jesus Christ. Her prominent position in the New Testament and the Life of Jesus Christ speaks to the power of the Atonement of Christ, to cleanse us of our sins.

Assume that Genesis 1 is overly simplified. Can it thus stand up to questioning if I DON'T claim that each day was exactly 24 hours? This enables Geological evidence that the earth is much more than 6000 years old. It does not answer Dinosaurs, but Moses or any of the ancient prophets didn't know about them, and thus never asked God about them...

As for Noah and the Arc, I saw a site somewhere that did the math on the Arc. It was really huge, and did match the size to compare to a zoo.

The Female only Lizard race, that's a new one to me. I'm not a scientist, so I can't give you the detailed answers that some of you demand.

For those of us that aren't scientists, we have a simplified answer to creation so that we can get to the more important parts--like the wisdom God has shared with teh Prophets and the laws and ordinances required of us.

Yom means a day, as in a 24 hour day. That is the word used in Genesis for both creation accounts.

Also, a zoo could never have been large enough to have fit every animal species that has ever been on this earth. Eight people could not support all those animals.

And lastly, there is little evidence for a global flood of any sort. If you trace back the Mesopotamian flood myth to the Sumerians, the first civilization in lower Mesopotamia (if not the whole of Mesopotamia), you find where the flood story originated. As each successive peoples took over the area, they adopted the myths and religion of the previous people, and as the story evolved, so to did the reason for the original flood evolve with each successive civilization in the area. Then, take into account that Abram/Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldeans (a peoples who coincidentally hadn't arrived on the scene during the time in which he would have been in Ur), then it is easy to see how the myth came to be part of Hebrew mythology.

As to nataraja, several species of snails are either only one gender, or actually both genders.
regarding the lizard, while i havent heard of any race only containing females, several salamander and frog species are noted for being apple to reproduce, even if both animals are female. the same actually applies to some rabbits, but as far as i remember it only happened in an experiment.

as we have allready discussed the creation myth of the bible, where you have to stretch what the bible clearly call 7days, into creative period, or god days whatever. im not going to restart that.
As for dinosaurs, neanderthals, cro magnon men and so forth, if i was an all knowing god, i would have made sure such things where mentioned, so that people who found them, wouldn't start questioning my excistence.

as for the Arc. There is no scientific prove for any worldwide flod ever to have occured, the mass devastation such an event would have made, would leave traces. Secondly, an ark containing only two of each animal and 6 humans wouldn't be able to repopulate the earth, it would for the animals part end in incest in the second generation and would over time lead to degeneration and decline of any of the specieses. Same goes for us humans.
thirdly, the flood story, is a babylonian myth, most like stolen by the jews as they tried to convert people, which is normal practise for all religions.

So while religions might try to teach us some good, i think they are generaly outdated as to act like facts. that dosn't meen they aint good, its just fiction to me, like lord of the rings or somesuch.

Ha! Good timing Equester, and such a similar post too...

haha aye

Here is a useful link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood#Ancient_Near_East

and another...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

and another...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark#Hoaxes

That's all I can really be bothered with, as I want to do something else...

Doesn't the Mormon bible state that the Native Americans are one of the lost Israelie tribes?

Lebor Gabála Érenn or better known in the English speaking world as 'The Book of Invasions' states that the Irish are the descendants of Noah. Of course we know that Celtic Christian monks had changed Irish mythology to be more acceptible to Christians, so such nonsence should be taken with a grain of salt.

Also - isn't it specified in the Bible how large the ark is? As I remember it was nowhere near large enough to hold that many animals.

If the flood was worldwide - how did Noah get to - say - the kangaroos?

f course we know that Celtic Christian monks had changed Irish mythology to be more acceptible to Christians Lots of middle-age (or even earlier I suppose) Christian mythology is a distortion of Celtic and Pagan lore, most of it either changing some Pagan figures into Devil figures, or simply "converting" them into Christian figures. Just look at things like Christmas, Easter, and other Christian holidays: most have Pagan roots, and this still shows in some of the traditions (the dyed eggs, Santa Claus, Hogmanay, and so on)

On the subject of the Flood story in the old testament... it's lifted straight out of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which itself has several older Sumerian myths thrown in, and the Flood story is one of them. It's interesting to compare the 2 versions actually: the Old Testament god is nasty (well, he did kill almost everything on the planet), but the Sumerian gods were much worse: their reason for initiating the flood was really boredom and annoyance at the "noise" that humans made.

I remember being taught that she was a prostitute, is this actually how she is betrayed in the Bible?
Or was the teaching just a continuation of the error perpetrated by Pope Gregory in the 6th century?Former no, latter yes. She did have a lover at some point, but she wasn't a prostitute. Magdalene actually is place-derived, but it's based on her estates more than any supposed Roman military camp. And her family owned one third of Israel, anyway, so what point being a prostitute?

The Book of Mormon is a record of people that fled Jerusalem apporximately 600 years before Christ (about one of the times it was destroyed or carried into captivity or something for the sins of the people). They were decended from Jacob, who was the father of the sons, whose names are given unto the twelve tribes of Israel.

I don't think they are one of the lost tribes, but decended from one of the tribes that is not lost...

Ironically, despite the massive ammounts of time and money have been spent in the effort, absolutely no archaeological evidence backing up any of the events written about in the book of Mormon have turned up.

Very true, the Book of Mormon doesn't have any historical weight, the book is a religious text, not a literal history.

I have heard of an organization that has found some evidence, but don't know that much about it. It's only something I've heard of.

It's FARMS, I think...and it's shoddy in it's research methods.

So, the dinosaurs were around at the same time as Adam and Eve. Did they make it onto the Ark as well? Or were they extinct by then?

Doesn't the Mormon bible state that the Native Americans are one of the lost Israelie tribes?
Yes. Mormon missionaries have long used that as a way to get Indiginous Americans to join the church.

Recently, someone got around to actually checking the mitochondrial DNA of native Americans and -- surprise -- they don't have a drop of Jewish blood in them. Needless to say many who converted to Mormonism have since lost their faith.

HB, if you are really interested just look up Creationism web sites. There is much lunacy to be found.

Recently, someone got around to actually checking the mitochondrial DNA of native Americans and -- surprise -- they don't have a drop of Jewish blood in them. Hang on. Aren't we ALL descended from a Middle Eastern couple who lived in a garden a few thousand years ago? How can the native Americans possibly not have that same blood? Are you saying they are not descended from Adam and Eve?

Adam and Eve were Africans. :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

as for the Arc. There is no scientific prove for any worldwide flod ever to have occured, the mass devastation such an event would have made, would leave traces.Ah, but god is all-powerful; if he can flood the world, he can remove all traces of the world having flooded.

Oh, the joys of circular logic.

For me religion text are just entertaining fiction. I mean the Genesis and The Apocalypse is somewhat «fun» to read :p .

Also It is said in the (Catholic) Apocalypse (the only bible widely available in my family) that when the Big Bad Satan will come on earth to do evil stuff. Everyone who refuse to bear his mark will die. After in the text it says that Jesus, after seven years, will come and kick Satan's ass and purge the earth of evil. Then he says « Thos who refuse to bear the mark of the devil shall leave with me, those who bear it shall go to hell ». Doesn't that sounds awfully incoherent? I mean there won't be any freakin' human who'll be stupid enough to refuse Satan, he's a freakin' ex- Archangel for crying out loud!

incoherent, but entertaining nonetheless.

Recently I was told by one of the university therapists on the campus I attend that there are people who believe that God put the fossils in a contradictory order, one that defies all the hypothetical flood models, just so that God could test our faith. How many mental hurdles do you have to jump over to get your head around that lunacy?

And he also told me that one of the chaplains, a Salvation Army lady, commited suicide 2 years ago because she was studying philosophy at the university and couldn't handle the way it contradicted her strict Christian belief. It was too much for her, and she lost all her faith because it was shattered by deconstructionalists.

[ October 30, 2006, 12:42: Message edited by: Nataraja ]

Somehow a picture of a little snickering man, placing dinosaur skeletons and stuff, on a newly made earth spring to mind.

Once a hypothesis is accepted, everything can be interpreted to support it.

Recently, someone got around to actually checking the mitochondrial DNA of native Americans and -- surprise -- they don't have a drop of Jewish blood in them. Maybe God changed the native American's DNA to test their faith - like planting all the fossils :rolleyes:

Neaderthal mitochondrial DNA is significantly different to human DNA, which shows that they were a different species altogether. And since they were sentient, and they made tools and had cultural practices such as proper burials for their dead and also evidence that they performed basic surgery on injured individuals, this clearly shows that they weren't just animals, or even just smart animals.

So...did God create human Adam and Eve and neanderthal Adam and Eve?

http://www.isogg.org/neanderthaldna.htm

My opinion is that when it comes to religious texts and science...people interpret what they want to interpret...

I'm including the Quran in this btw...some of the supposedly scientific quotes from the Quran, Bible, Vedas etc are quite dodgy if you ask me...with quite a bit of creative licence taken when it comes to interpreting it...

I've found the Vedas to be quite scientific, but you're right...with a bit of creative licence...

@Faraaz: Recently a professor in Egypt compared the Koran with a supermarket. (http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=17686) I think he thinks similar to you. :shake:

@Nataraja:
However, even the Protestant and Roman Catholic Bibles differ from the Eastern Orthodox Bibles. The Greek Orthodox Bible has different books recognized as canon compared to the Western rite Bible, and if my memory is correct, a slightly different ordering of the books. Then the Coptic Orthodox church has its own set canon, and so too does the Assyrian Orthodox church, which differs from even the Eastern Catholic Bibles, which themselves may differ from Western Bibles (if my memory is right). Then there is the Ethiopian Orthodox church which has nearly 400 books recognized as canonical in their Bible, and their concept of the Bible is very broad in comparison to the Western belief.
I think the Eastern, Greek, and Coptic Orthodox use the same canon as the protestants. I'm not sure about the others. Anyway, there's an issue of historical credibility for individual books here, so judge the authenticity of each canon by itself.

The same goes for the books that didn't make it in. These weren't cast out because people didn't like the message, but because they couldn't show who wrote it.

@HB:
What does the bible have to say about dinosaurs? Nothing directly. Presumably, they were among the creatures that lived on the land (created on the sixth day), though what exactly that means depends on what you believe.

@Nataraja:
Yom means a day, as in a 24 hour day. That is the word used in Genesis for both creation accounts.
Actually, the term used can mean several things (like most words in Hebrew). It can mean either a 24 hour period, or specifically sunset to sunset (24 hours, but with a specific beginning), or it can mean sunrise to sunset (just the daylight part), but all these meanings were specified much later than the origins of Genesis, so good luck figuring out what it meant then.

Also, a zoo could never have been large enough to have fit every animal species that has ever been on this earth. Eight people could not support all those animals.

And lastly, there is little evidence for a global flood of any sort. As for the ark and such, the calculations also match estimates of the volume of the Ararat Anomaly, assuming it is a man-made creation of similar shape (no assumptions on size) to the Ark. Of course, there's no guarantee that the
Ararat Anomaly isn't just a huge, oddly shaped rock, but there's no evidence that says it is.

Also, there is some evidence for a more wide-spread flood than that. Look at the Sphynx. There are three types of errosion marks on the entire body except for the head. The first is lateral errosion (sideways) and is consistent with the sand and wind errosion. The second type is vertical errosion, and matches patterns of errosion only caused by a rapid downpour of water (i.e. heavy rain over a comparatively short period of time (less than a year)). The third is under the first, and hard to match patterns to, but it is consistent with errision caused by the lateral flow of water. In other words, at some point there was a massive and (on our scale) prolonged downpour of rain onto the Sphynx, probably followed by a short (less than a year) period of it being totally submerged. Elsewhere, what kind of evidence would you expect to see that would survive to today? Additionally, mitochondrial DNA testing has shown that, about the right time, the world population of humans was less than 2000 people (more precise than that we can't get). Since we know there were more people than this beforehand, but we now have evidence there were only this many or less at this time, it follows to reason that SOMETHING wiped out the vast majority of humanity around this time.

@Equester:
thirdly, the flood story, is a babylonian myth, most like stolen by the jews as they tried to convert people, which is normal practise for all religions. Here your wrong, at least on the conversion part. Judaism does not and has never sought to convert others. They accept converts, but they do not seek to convert and, as such, would not absorb the mythos of another culture to gain favor with it.

@Aikanaro:
Also - isn't it specified in the Bible how large the ark is? As I remember it was nowhere near large enough to hold that many animals.
Yes, it is specified how big it is, though exactly how large a cubit is is unclear, but we have some idea. On the second, no, it is not too small, not when you consider that most of the large animals on Earth live in the ocean and thus wouldn't need to be preserved in an ark. Also remember that this isn't permanent habitation, not even prolonged habitation.

@HB:
So, the dinosaurs were around at the same time as Adam and Eve. Did they make it onto the Ark as well? Or were they extinct by then? The first is only true if you take the Shrot Day theory, and the second is probably out of the question either way.

@Nataraja
Neaderthal mitochondrial DNA is significantly different to human DNA, which shows that they were a different species altogether. And since they were sentient, and they made tools and had cultural practices such as proper burials for their dead and also evidence that they performed basic surgery on injured individuals, this clearly shows that they weren't just animals, or even just smart animals.

So...did God create human Adam and Eve and neanderthal Adam and Eve? First off, mitochondrial DNA doesn't determine species, secondly, Neandertal man came AFTER anatomically modern man, meaning he was a dead end.

Actually, Neanderthal came before anatomically modern man, meaning he was a dead end.

Actually, Neaderthal came before anatomically modern man and got genocided.
Also It is said in the (Catholic) Apocalypse (the only bible widely available in my family) that when the Big Bad Satan will come on earth to do evil stuff. Everyone who refuse to bear his mark will die. After in the text it says that Jesus, after seven years, will come and kick Satan's ass and purge the earth of evil. Then he says « Thos who refuse to bear the mark of the devil shall leave with me, those who bear it shall go to hell ». Doesn't that sounds awfully incoherent? I mean there won't be any freakin' human who'll be stupid enough to refuse Satan, he's a freakin' ex- Archangel for crying out loud!
So, basically, if you bear the devil's mark, you're screwed. If you don't, you're screwed. I thought Jesus forgave people?
Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

Perhaps genocided, perhaps interbred with early human populations. I know that for a long time, especially in western europe and the middle east that neanderthal and human populations lived side by side for a long time, and there are similarities in tools and other things amongst neanderthal finds and tools and other things amongst early human finds, showing perhaps that the neanderthal copied, albeit rather poorly, human tools and things. They just could not compete, and despite having a larger brain cavity, who knows if they had a layer of fat in there to keep their heads warm in the cold cold climates of europe, the middle east and north africa during the times they lived there. There are a few skeletons that show a mixture of features, and are found in areas that show a long period of side by side co-habitation. Perhaps they were absorbed into early human populations. This wouldn't be too unplausible since domestic dogs and wolves/foxes/coyotes etc can interbreed, yet they have been seperate species for at least a million years, and the neanderthal split off from our lineage about 100, 000 years before we left africa, as seen in their adaptedness to the harsh cold climates of north africa, the middle east and europe.

However, all of this is contra to the Bible/Tanakh/Koran, because humans are supposed to be the only sentient species, yet neanderthal were clearly sentient - they had all the hallmarks of a primitive culture in nearly all of their findings. They certainly weren't human, yet they certainly weren't animals.

Then, there is the Turkana boy. A nearly complete skeleton of a pre-human hominid, either erectus or ergaster.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html

Ape, human, neither?

First off, mitochondrial DNA doesn't determine species, secondly, Neandertal man came AFTER anatomically modern man, meaning he was a dead end.Actually, mitochondrial DNA is used for species determination.

what kind of evidence would you expect to see that would survive to today? Additionally, mitochondrial DNA testing has shown that, about the right time, the world population of humans was less than 2000 people (more precise than that we can't get). I would like to see a link to where you got this uther bullocks from. the human population has never been down to 2000 worldwide. it would considering that times hardship not even be enough to repopulate the earth.

Secondly, a worldwide flod would leave some surweare changed geological marks around the world, the flooding of earth would knock down all treas, erode hills and so forth, leaving a geological mark of a complete layer of rotten plants and animals (remember only 2 of each survive). such a geological layer has not been found anywhere.

Thirdly, we know the flothing myth was taken up by the babylons, we know the jews at a point lived in babylon. funnely enough when analysing the scriptures and writting form, the story of noah seems to written in the periode when the jews lived in babylon. that prety much point towards the jews incoporating another peoples myth.

The Sumerian myth of Ziusudra tells how the god Enki warns Ziusudra (meaning "he saw life," in reference to the gift of immortality given him by the gods), king of Shuruppak, of the gods' decision to destroy mankind in a flood - the passage describing why the gods have decided this is lost. Enki instructs Ziusudra to build a large boat - the text describing the instructions is also lost. After a flood of seven days, Ziusudra makes appropriate sacrifices and prostrations to An (sky-god) and Enlil (chief of the gods), and is given eternal life in Dilmun (the Sumerian Eden) by An and Enlil.

The Sumerian king list, a genealogy of traditional Sumerian kings also mentions a great flood. The list explains that "kingship first descended to Eridu", and then passed successively to Bad-Tibira, Larak, Sippar and Shuruppak.

Excavations in Iraq have shown evidence of a flood at Shuruppak about 2,900-2,750 BCE, which extended nearly as far as the city of Kish, whose king Etana, supposedly founded the first Sumerian dynasty after the flood.

The myth of Ziusudra exists in a single copy, the fragmentary Eridu Genesis, datable by its script to the 17th century BC.

http://mcclungmuseum.utk.edu/specex/ur/ur-flood.htm

Where does the Bible say that humans are the only sentient species? It says we are given dominion over all the Earth, and that God made us in His own image (speaking of a soul here), but not that we were the only creatures in all creation to be sentient.

As for the evidence of a world-wide flood, the evidence would be less than you think. There would be a layer of dead plants and animals, yes, but guess what, that's what would happen anyway. The fact that they all died in a month instead of within 10 years of eachother wouldn't be discernable from the geologic layer. The errosion on most of the environment of one such event over such a short period of time would not be significant. There would be landslides here and there, but there is evidence of landslides all throughout the geologic layer, that isn't telling at all. The errosion would only have a significant effect on certain types of stone, like limestone, which is more sesceptable to prolonged exposure to water anyway. Think of the impact of a single category 5 hurricane on Mt Everest compared to hundreds of thousands of years of gradual wind errosion. The hurricane isn't even a footnote in the geologic record.

mate, if you kill all animals at once, you get a lot more skeletons in one layer, then in any other, no such layer has been found. Secondly the biblic version of survivers wouldn't be enough to support a repopulation.

the whole flooding of earth is nothing but a myth.

Here your wrong, at least on the conversion part. Judaism does not and has never sought to convert others. They accept converts, but they do not seek to convert and, as such, would not absorb the mythos of another culture to gain favor with it.Wrong. Jews used to proselytize actively and accept converts. This changed when Christianity became the state religion and people were put to death for not accepting it. Jews were often exempt from forced conversions, but were not exempt from being punished for soliciting conversions. Changes adopted due to historical circumstance have become a widely accepted folktale, as your statement shows.

The same goes for the books that didn't make it in. These weren't cast out because people didn't like the message, but because they couldn't show who wrote it.My understanding is that, at the time the New Testament was being codified, they DID know who wrote what. Either the author or the message wasn't acceptable, so out those writings went.

Why should the editors of the eraly Bible be any different from those today?

agreed with Rally on this. When they made the bible some 300 years after Jesus death, they delibarately choose which book fitted in, the fun part is, the four evangelions depicting jesus life, was written long after his death by people who never met him or his followers. the closest being the marcus evangelion. Marcus by the way was quite a poor writter and linguist has proven he on several cases qoutes other sources ,for does parts his linguistic skill goes quite up, while the rest is in very plain greek.
Secondly marcus does not deal with Jesus birth, it was not importent on his time or an unknown evangelion has dealt with it.
thirdly all the following evangelions, seems to qoute the same evangelion that marcus qoutes, again change of style and direct qoutes show this.
So all four evangelions seems to be build on studie of a 5th evangelion that didn't made it to the bible.

@Rally:
Wrong. Jews used to proselytize actively and accept converts. This changed when Christianity became the state religion and people were put to death for not accepting it. Jews were often exempt from forced conversions, but were not exempt from being punished for soliciting conversions. Changes adopted due to historical circumstance have become a widely accepted folktale, as your statement shows. Interesting. Seeing as you're Jewish, I'll take you as a far better authority on it than me.

My understanding is that, at the time the New Testament was being codified, they DID know who wrote what. Either the author or the message wasn't acceptable, so out those writings went. Mmm, yes and no, depending on what books we're talking about. The NT time books that are coming up now were mostly known to the editors, but either the authors were flat out heretical, or there were too many questions about them to accredit the word of God to them. More than a few of these, however, were by unknown or questionable authors, and they were kept out from the start. The OT time books that form the difference between the protestant Bible and the Catholic Bible are different. Many of them we're still unclear about the author today, and the messages are historically questionable as well.

@Equester:
When they made the bible some 300 years after Jesus death, they delibarately choose which book fitted in, the fun part is, the four evangelions depicting jesus life, was written long after his death by people who never met him or his followers. the closest being the marcus evangelion. Wrong. Of the four gospels, two were either written or dictated by actual apostles: John and Matthew. All four were likely written before AD 70 (40 years after Jesus's death) and some may have been written as early as AD 50.

No, NOG, again you're wrong. John was written about 90-100 CE. The earliest being Mark, then Matthew, then Luke.

Reason for having 4 gospels was that they felt they needed 4...theres 4 winds, 4 corners to the earth, 4 elements etc...and they felt that the word of God should reflect nature, so they included 4 gospels. Matthew, Mark and Luke were easy enough for them to all agree upon, however, John was the best of a bad bunch - ie the last 30 or so that didn't make it into the Western and Eastern Bibles. John is heavily gnostic, and has strong dualism going on, lots of dark vs light. It's Zoroastrianism in Christian form.

This is all really basic knowledge, the kind you'll find in religious studies/christian studies at any major university.

indeed Nataraja. This is what we are thought in religion study in gymnasium (college). and its quite easely proven by linguist, by studieing thier language to see they qoute other texts.

Want to cite some sources anyone? I'd love to hear where you're getting these ideas. I'll admit that Matthew, Mark, and Luke share many common elements, and it is commonly thought that they draw from eachother (which one came first is heavily argued), and that John is noticably different, but gnosticism? I don't think so.

Unlike the Synoptic Gospels, elements of Gnosticism have been recognized by some readers in the Gospel of John though it is not generally regarded as a "Gnostic gospel". In order to find passages that refute Gnosticism—by stating that Christ is approachable even as Spirit—readers only need to turn to the First Epistle of John, in passages such as 1 Jn 2:1-2; 3:8, 3:16 and 4:2-3. The earliest copies of the Gospel of John are also from sources that include overtly Gnostic writings, implying that John was read by Gnostic groups. One school of interpretation distinguishes between "Johannine Christianity" and "Pauline Christianity". The gnosis in Gnosticism is secret information that is available only to initiates. In the Gnostic view, salvation comes through special "knowledge" or "wisdom" -- those who attain this are saved, those who don't "stand condemned already."

Though John is not a "secret" gospel—as other surviving apocryphal ("secret") gospels and fragments claim to be—the narrative is interrupted at an important turn of events just before the Crucifixion, for nearly five chapters (John 13, 18) of private discourse and teachings that Jesus shares only with the disciples, the "farewell discourses", which are without parallel in the synoptic gospels, in their present version (but compare the Secret Gospel of Mark).

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john#Characteristics_of_the_Gospel_of_Jo hn

haha nice Nataraja, i spend like half an hour searching wiki for your second link. which basically says the same as my old schoolbook did.

I learnt all this both at university and also at a Christian highschool. Funny thing was was that at school they said it was an act of God that everything was the way it is...

Once a hypothesis is accepted, everything can be interpreted to support it. That works both ways, you know.

Well, those were wonderful sources, but they didn't tell me where you got your dating ideas for the Gospels, or where you got the idea that John included gnostic elements.

One thing you are forgetting (or maybe don't know) is that the gnostics believed that all flesh was inherrantly evil and all thought (or spirit) was inherrantly good. This meant that God could not come in the flesh as God could not be evil and all flesh was evil. This was by far the biggest problem the early christians had with gnosticism. Even those sects that addopted the teachings of Christ refused to admit that He had come in the flesh and instead insisted that He had been a spirit the whole time. By making claims about Jesus eating, drinking, sleeping, and touching things and people, John clearly says that He was here in the flesh. By claiming that Jesus was God, he clearly claims that God came in the flesh, thus this is not gnosticism by any means.

Well, those were wonderful sources, but they didn't tell me where you got your dating ideas for the Gospels third link, scroll a bit up to dating. while it isn't where i got it from, it prety much says the same as my schoolbook in college.

As I posted above...

Unlike the Synoptic Gospels, elements of Gnosticism have been recognized by some readers in the Gospel of John though it is not generally regarded as a "Gnostic gospel". In order to find passages that refute Gnosticism—by stating that Christ is approachable even as Spirit—readers only need to turn to the First Epistle of John, in passages such as 1 Jn 2:1-2; 3:8, 3:16 and 4:2-3. The earliest copies of the Gospel of John are also from sources that include overtly Gnostic writings, implying that John was read by Gnostic groups. One school of interpretation distinguishes between "Johannine Christianity" and "Pauline Christianity". The gnosis in Gnosticism is secret information that is available only to initiates. In the Gnostic view, salvation comes through special "knowledge" or "wisdom" -- those who attain this are saved, those who don't "stand condemned already."

For those of you with selective reading skills *cough-christians-cough*

For those of you with selective reading skills *cough-christians-cough* Nice to see that you can be just as non-biased as we are...

@Equester:
The dating mentioned on your link listed a number of differing theories, none of which seemed to present the Gospels as quite as young as you do. Several of these opinions agree with what I've been taught.

@Nataraja:
I was writing to show that the vast majority of the gnostic belief system is directly opposed to John, and the 'elements of Gnosticism' do not really represent anything at all. It isn't even useful in dating, as the 'Gnostic elements' mentioned are phrases and concpets that could have been used to appeal to pre-christian Gnostics (a sizable portion of the Greeks at the time) and convert them to Christianity.

Has anyone read the last few verses of 2nd Choronicles and noticed that it finishes mid-sentence? Read Ezra to see how the sentence really ends.

One thing you are forgetting (or maybe don't know) is that the gnostics believed that all flesh was inherrantly evil and all thought (or spirit) was inherrantly good. This meant that God could not come in the flesh as God could not be evil and all flesh was evil. This was by far the biggest problem the early christians had with gnosticism. Even those sects that addopted the teachings of Christ refused to admit that He had come in the flesh and instead insisted that He had been a spirit the whole time. By making claims about Jesus eating, drinking, sleeping, and touching things and people, John clearly says that He was here in the flesh. By claiming that Jesus was God, he clearly claims that God came in the flesh, thus this is not gnosticism by any means. this is only partly true, while the gnostic did believe the flesh was "evil" they did believe jesus was god/divine but unlike the protestant and chatolic christians they believed that it was jesus "fate" to be crucified and that he wanted to. this is shown thier specific evangelions (the Juda, The maria and the evangelion of truth). particular in the Juda evangelion, where Juda is presented as the only diciple who truely undestand Jesus and is plans, here Juda is not the betrayer we know from modern bibles, but a devout the diciple who does what jesus wants him too.

this picture of Juda has gotten some credibility with non-christian readers of thefour classic evangelions, the reason being, that the word for what Juda does, dosn't translate to betrail at any place, in fact the word is used in medium and meens something like "an unavoideble trade that is ment to happend". i will try to dig up the word and articel where i read this ( i read that part in illustrated science, a danish magazin and watched a discovery program about it a year ago).
Juda's actions being directly translated to treachery owes much to Luther, who directly translated the word to treachery and to reneasance art, where Juda is often pictured as a greedy traitor.
another thing that makes you wonder is that jesus knows what Juda will do, he even says so.

as regarding to what this wierd derailing has to do with the topic? very little except it goes to show how translations can blur up the meaning :)

Another fun thing I learned recently is a fun thing regarding Jesus birth (as a fun christmass asignment we are translating Luke's evangelion about jesus birth) is the fact that shepherds sleeps outside during the birth, the birth is supposed to happend during the winter in bethlehem, since bethlehem is located quit high above the sea it gets quite cold during the winter and shepherds simply dont sleep outside during the winter. so either jesus birth didn't happend in the winter or the shepherds are made up.

seeing as jesus birth is a later invention chrnologicaly, i think the whole winterthing is put in do to two things. the mithras birth and romes annual Saturnarius feast. both took place around the 25. december (wintertime at this point in roman history)

this is only partly true, while the gnostic did believe the flesh was "evil" they did believe jesus was god/divine but unlike the protestant and chatolic christians they believed that it was jesus "fate" to be crucified and that he wanted to. This is actually a much later version of gnosticism. At the time the Gospels were written, the gnostic Christains were claiming that Jesus had never come in the flesh to begin with, since flesh is evil and God could not become something evil. Many of them even have portraits or tales of a random criminal dying on the cross where Jesus was supposed to be and Jesus (a spirit) standing next to the cross laughing. Pretty wierd, huh?

the word for what Juda does, dosn't translate to betrail at any place, in fact the word is used in medium and meens something like "an unavoideble trade that is ment to happend". The word litteraly means 'to turn over' as in 'to turn over to authorities'. In these times, any turning in of a wanted person required the authorities to pay the person turning them in. This is what has lead many non-christians to believe Judas was acting on Christ's behalf. The problem with this is that Judas later kills himself, not an act of a man who was doing the work of God and understood the master plan. This, along with his later attempt to return the money, are why most scholars still accept the translation of 'betray'.

another thing that makes you wonder is that jesus knows what Juda will do, he even says so. In the original greek, it is much less clear exactly what Jesus is talking about when Judas asks 'Is it me?' Again, chalk it up to translation, but there is a reason for why it is commonly portrayed the way it is.

so either jesus birth didn't happend in the winter or the shepherds are made up. Not really. Again, there's more going on that a jewish reader of the time would have known. While ordinary shepherds would have taken their flocks to warmer climates during the winter, and thus not be watching them in the fields, these shepherds were not ordinary. They were a special selection of priests looking over the Temple Flock, and, actually, the place that Mary and Joseph stay is a room inside the tower that the flock was kept in at other times. Anyway, by jewish law, this flock had to be pastured here at all times, as they had to be ready to be sacrificed at a moment's notice. This also makes much more sense as to why God would tell a bunch of random shepherds about Jesus's birth: they aren't actually a bunch of random shepherds, but rather priests.

i think the whole winterthing is put in do to two things. the mithras birth and romes annual Saturnarius feast. both took place around the 25. december (wintertime at this point in roman history) While the exact date probably was placed to try and turn pagan festivals into Christain ones, the winter birth is supported by both the Bible and history.

The sheperds would have froze, it snows in the mountains, and Bethlehem is in the mountains.

I find it interesting how the gospels written earliest have very little information, yet the latter ones have a lot more information, as though the myth is being built as they write more gospels. And also they give two different ways that Judas dies.

Speaking of two different versions of one event, how about the two different creation narratives in Genesis?

Speaking of two different versions of one event, how about the two different creation narratives in Genesis? [\quote]

The Book of Mormon's Moses adds another for your reading delight :D

[quote] so either jesus birth didn't happend in the winter or the shepherds are made up. I was always tought that it started to be celebrated at our current Christmastime because that was the only time they could. Christianity was forbidden (or just majorly frowned upon) at the time this occured, and the only chance they Christians had to celebrate was during the birthdays (I think) of the Pagan God's when the other people were intoxicated, and or just not thinking straight.

That being said I think Jesus was born about April 6...

December 25th is not Jesus Birthday. The day was choosen by a greek ruler or something......

Did you know he was also black?

we have no idea how jesus looks, all pictures made of him is made much later. even the crucifixtion is wrong, we know now that romans didn't crucify people the way Jesus is pictured hanging, even the chatolichs ave accepted that, not that its importent, because it is a fact that Jesus was crucified. we have roman annals from that time saying a person named Jesus was indeed punished in such a way. (Nails through the hand and feets wont hold you op on a cross, secondly if your feat ain't probably

recent teories, has the idea that Jesus was infact nailed to a tree, not a cross. this lies in a fact that the jews had a dead tree where criminals was nailed.

Regarding the shepherd theory, that would in my mind make sence, except for the fact, its freezing outside. Secondly the only place i have heard of part-time shepherds/priests is in egypt a rather warmer land. I will try and see if i can find a source to that. But as to the shepherds going to warmer climates, that is wrong, shepherds and sheep floks stay one place, but in the winter they are either in stables (like the place where jesus is born ;) ) or huddled together. in bethlehem and the area around thier is no warmer climate, so you have to move quite a lot, which people didn't do, do to dangers.

December 25th is not Jesus Birthday. The day was choosen by a greek ruler or something...... Try Roman rather than Greek and I think you go the gist of it.

It was Mr Lucius Domitius Aurelianus who decreed that Sol Invictus (the undefeated Sun), or Deus Sol Invictus (the undefeated Sun god) had his "dies natalis Solis Invicti" (birthday of the undefeated sun) on the 25th of December, the supposed equinox.

The Roman gens Aurelia was associated with the cult of Sol. After his victories in the East, the emperor Aurelian introduced an official cult of Sol Invictus, making the sun-god the premier divinity of the empire, and wearing his radiated crown himself. He founded a college of pontifices, and dedicated a temple to Sol Invictus in 274.

Emperors up to Constantine portrayed Sol Invictus on their official coinage, with the legend SOLI INVICTO COMITI, thus claiming the Unconquered Sun as a companion to the Emperor. During the reign of Constantine the coinage ceases to be pagan in 325, and Sol Invictus disappears with the rest at that date.

Constantine decreed (March 7, 321) dies Solis — day of the sun, from which "sunday" — as the Roman day of rest:

"On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for grain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."

Ok, yes, Bethlehem is in the mountains, which means the ordinary shepherds, instead of locking their flock away for several months, just led them out of the mountains for the winter. This may not be common practice world wide (since most places don't have the option), but it was here.

As for the shepherd/priests freezing, it's called coats. Anyway, this wasn't a special sect of priests that were also shepherds, it was one of the duities of the priesthood, one that got rotated around the priests just like most everything else.

sure nog, guess what bethlehem gets freezing rain, that kills anybody staying out in over a night in a mather of hours our body tempureture is lowerd to under 30 degrees Celsius which is lethal, staying out longer and it goes even lower.
Sorry but i cant find anyhting that backs up your priest claim, neither the bible or external links seems to mention them.

http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/jesusbirth.html

try reading this link, this is a textbook example of what we are thought in school

Are the shepherds priests now?

Its like everyone is in the priesthood according to LDS doctrine...