Were there any disciples at Ishua's trial?

[1dell]

On the other hand, it is possible that there were special conditions in Judea which necessitated this return to the ancestral home. The biblical pattern of property inheritance would have produced rather complicated patterns of land ownership which might have required personal depositions on lineage, inheritance and such. Quite possibly Joseph had property rights (probably undivided) in some small plots of land around Bethlehem.

We do have one historical parallel, found in a papyrus copy of an edict of C. Vibius Maximus (c AD 104), eparch of Egypt. This order (see Appendix) was issued to prepare the people for an upcoming census and reminded them that everyone who was away from "his own place" was required to return home for purposes of the census. Although we cannot say that the Egyptian procedure necessarily held for Palestine, it is clear that it was at least a permissible option for the praefect to use in taking a census.

Mary Accompanying Joseph

Our passage moves from the decrees of the Emperor, to the actions of a provincial administrator, to the travels of a carpenter, to the fact that his betrothed was with him and gave birth. At each point the narrative moves from the verifiable and obvious to the specific and human and, unexpectedly, to that which is truly significant. As we move away from the Roman world and into the life of common people in Judea we leave behind our written records and other sources of verification. This was already apparent in the last point and is even more so here. The objections raised against these last two points of the narrative are little more than the conjectures of skepticism.

The critics doubt that Mary would also have been required to appear with Joseph in any census. Here let us note that it is possible to read verses four and five in two distinct ways: (1) Mary with Joseph was to be enrolled; (2) only Joseph was to be enrolled, but Mary went with him. Since either translation is possible, we are making an assumption whichever choice we make. If the former is correct, then we have an official requirement for Mary to be present. In that case, we have no historical parallels though we have seen that a great deal of latitude existed in census arrangements. If the latter choice is correct, then there could be any number of reasons for Mary being with Joseph which we cannot now know. Some possibilities which the text allows are: (1) Mary had other relatives in Judea (Luke 1:39) whom she may have wished to be with at the end of her term; (2) Joseph wanted to be with her at the time of her delivery but he had to be in Bethlehem for the census; (3) there may have been bad feelings toward Mary in Nazareth due to the circumstances of her pregnancy. Any of these might explain the point at issue, but we have insufficient information to choose among them We certainly do riot know enough to give any substantial reason for doubting Scripture at this point.

A Roman Census in Herod's Kingdom?

Critics have raised the question: Would the Romans carry out a census in an independent kingdom? Herod was king in Judea with the support of Rome, as were rulers in other lands around Palestine at this time. The Roman means of controlling newly annexed territories was to leave the basic structure intact but to use and control it by directing the more important matters while leaving the lesser matters to the client rulers. Although independent in some matters, Herod was completely dependent on Roman wishes in whatever affairs they considered important enough to control directly. If they decided to take a census as part of their overall plans, then Herod could only comply.

While it is true that Herod was a personal friend of the Emperor and was given the titles "Friend of Caesar" and "Ally of the Roman People"16 during the earlier part of his reign, we also know that in 8 BC he was demoted by Augustus and became a subject, losing his former privileges. In the Roman system privilege was usually expressed in terms of immunity from taxation. When Herod incurred the displeasure of the Emperor it is reasonable to think that he thereby lost whatever immunity from taxation he or his kingdom had previously possessed. This change of relationship may have triggered the Roman decision to assess the property of Herod's subjects. In addition, the uncertainty over Herod's successor, made more pressing by his advancing age and proclivity to kill his own sons, would make such a census a wise move in the event the Romans should choose to impose direct rule over his kingdom. Eventually the Romans did exercise such power when they deposed Herod's successor Archelaus and sent Coponius to be the first praefect of Judea in AD 6.17

Finally, we should bear in mind the evidence of the inscription "Lapis Venetus" mentioned above (see also Appendix). This shows that Quirinius imposed a census on the powerful city-state of Apamea, an independent city with 117,000 citizens and the privilege of minting its own coins bearing the title "Autonomos."

When the position of Herod in the eyes of the Emperor is combined with this instance of Quirinius' census taking in the nearby state of Apamea from the same period, it becomes highly likely that there would have been an Imperial census in Herod's kingdom and unlikely that his "independent" status would have posed any obstacle to a Roman determination to assess his subjects.

THE PROBLEM IN PERSPECTIVE

In this brief investigation of the facts which surround the census narrative of Luke 2 we have gleaned sufficient information to warrant several conclusions.

There is no actual historical confirmation of the incident which Luke recounts. Luke is our only extant source of information on this subject. This should not be particularly surprising as historians must often rely on information provided by only one source when they would know about details in ancient history.

None of the assertions made by Luke is in any way contradicted by any known historical fact. There is no evidence from any historical source that indicates any statement of fact in our passage is incorrect.

The "problem" which this passage has posed is the result of our lack of historical information outside Luke and of several assumptions which have been made about the relation of these events to similar ones in secular sources. The foundation of the critics' attacks on Luke is a false correlation of his account with Josephus' account of the later census in AD 6. The correlation rests on two facts: (1) a census in Judea, and (2) the mention of the name of Quirinius. It ignores Luke's words "this is the first census made while Quirinius was ruling Syria."

Since we do not have any other historical data about the circumstances of the census during Herod's reign, we are forced to seek analogies to similar events from the same period and area if we are to confirm or dispute this account. In doing so we have found that every statement in the passage, properly understood, can be substantiated by similarity to other documented occurrences.

Although such verification of the accuracy of Scriptural statements is heartening, we must realize that our convictions about the authority of the Bible do not and cannot rest solely on historical or archeological research. We must base our belief in the complete truthfulness of Scripture on its own statements and claims about itself, and such evidence as the Bible supplies that it is what it claims to be.18 The conclusions of historical study do indeed strengthen the case for the reliability of the Bible and should be used insofar as they are helpful, but the demand by the Word of God for our obedience and trust is total and immediate, thus far beyond the ability of scholarship to supply

APPENDIX

1. Inscription "Lapis Tiburtinus":

(BELLUM GESSIT CUM GENTE HOMONADENSIM QUAE INTERFECERAT AMYNTAM R)EGUM QUA REDACTA IN POT(ESTATEM IMP. CAESARIS) AUGUSTI POPULIQUE ROMANI SENATU(S DIS IMMORTALIBUS) SUPPLICATIONES BINAS OB RES PROSP(ERE AB EO GESTAS ET) IPSI ORNAMENTA TRIUMPH(ALIA DECRUIT) PRO CONSUL ASIAM PROVINCIAM OP(TINUIT PR. PR.) DIVI AUGUSTI (I)TERUM SYRIAM ET PH(OENICEN OPTINUIT).

Source: Corpus Inscriptorum Latinum 14:3613. See Schurer, History of the Jewish People I;1, p. 354. Text restored by Mommsen with conjectures in parentheses.
2. Inscription " Lapis Venetus":
IUSSU QUIRINI CENSUM EGI APAMENAE CIVITATUS MILLIUM HOMINUM CIVIUM CXVII. IDEM MISSU QUIRINI ADVERSUS ITRURAEOS IN LIBANO MONTE CASTELLUM EORUM CEPI.

Translation: On command of Quirinius I have carried out the census in Apamea, a city-state of one hundred and seventeen thousand citizens. Likewise I was sent by Quirinius to march against the Itrureans, and conquered their citadel on Lebanon mountain.
Source: Corpus Inscriptorum Latinum, 3rd Supplement 6687. English translation from Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, p. 28

[1dell]

3. Inscription from base of statue at Pisidian Antioch:
C. CARISTA(NIO) C.F. SER. FRONT(ONI) CAESIANO IULI(O) PRAEF(ECTO) FAB(RUM) PONT(IFICI) SACERDOTI PRAEFECTO P. SULPICI QUIRINI DUUMV(IRI) PRAERECTA M. SERVILI HUIC PRIMO OMNIUM PUBLICE D(ECURIONUM) D(ECRETO) STATUA POSITA EST.

Source: Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 235.
4. Papyrus Edict of C. Vibius Maximus, AD 104: (transliterated Greek)
G(AIOS YI)BIO(S MAXIMOS EPA)RC(OS) AIGYPT(OY LEGEI) THS KAT' OI(KIAN APOGRAFHS E)NESTW(SHS) ANAGKAION (ESTIN PASIN TOI)S KATH' H(NTINA) DHPOTE AIT(IAN EKSTASI TWN HEAUTWN) NOMON PROSA(GGELLE)STHAI EPA(NEL)THEIN EIS TA HEAU(TWN E)FESTIA HIN(A) KAI THN SUNHTHH (OI)KONOMIAN TH(S APO)GRAFES PLHRWSWSIN KAI TH PROS(HKOU)SH AUTOIS GEWRGIAI PROSKARTERHSO(SIN).

Source: Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 271. Text restored by Ulrich Wilcken.
REFERENCES
Luke's use of dogma "decree" exactly corresponds to the technical meaning of the term as used for Imperial decrees.
Michael Rostovzeff, Rome (New York: Oxford, 1960), p. 202.
Ibid., p. 173.
Ethelbert Stauffer, Jesus and His Story (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1960) p. 23.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.1.
A. Higgins, "Sidelights on Christian Beginnings in the Graeco-Roman World," Evangelical Quarterly 16 (1944), 200.
William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), p. 238.
There is a possibility that "twice" refers to the appointment rather than to the same province twice. See A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), p. 164.
Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 281.
Sherwin-White, Roman Society, p. 164.
Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, p. 29.
Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p 279.
Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, p. 18.
C. F. Evans, "Tertullian's References to Sentius Saturninus and the Lukan Census," Journal of Theological Studies 24 (1973), 24.
Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, p. 24.
Ibid., p. 28.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.1.
See, for instance, John W. Montgomery, ed., Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question (Dallas: Probe/Word, 1991).

[SatiyaH]

1dell said:

Summarizing so far, we have seen that the verb used in Luke 2:2 means "to rule" (including "to command") and that Luke distinguishes this census from one or more later ones by calling it the "first census." We have not yet seen how we can best understand this verse in its historical background.

The political control of Syria and the East was a major objective of Roman policy. Even prior to the Empire the Romans deemed it wise to have a supreme commander in the East. Pompey and later Mark Antony were two such. In 23 BC Augustus named M. Agrippa the vice-emperor of the Orient.11 His extraordinary authority is noted by Josephus (Antiquities 15.10.2): "Now Agrippa was about this time sent to succeed Caesar in the government of the countries beyond the lonian Sea." Agrippa held this post for ten years, even though he ruled in absentia through messengers part of this time. Agrippa died in March of 12 BC. Curiously enough, in August of that year Quirinius was released by Augustus from his duties as consul even though he still had four months to serve. We have no further information from antiquity as to Quirinius' next assignment, but we do know that sometime between 12 and 6 BC he successfully commanded the Roman army in a campaign against the Homonadensian tribe in the Taurus Mountains of Cilicia. Since the only Roman legion based in the whole of Asia belonged to Syria,12 and since the area to be conquered was contiguous to Syria, it is reasonable to think that Quirinius was placed in command of this Syrian legion and was given responsibility for overseeing the entire region in the effort to pacify the Homonadensians. If this is the path which Quirinius followed, it is possible to see his whole career in the East not simply as a series of isolated events, but as different functions of his overall command of the whole area. (See inscriptions in Appendix.)

How, then, do we understand the succession of the regular governors of Syria? Normally we would expect the governor to be the supreme commander in the area, the direct representative of the Emperor, the head of both civil and military affairs. This would leave no room for either an extraordinary commander over the whole region on the one hand, or else for a governor of Syria on the other, providing we understand the office of governor in its usual sense. The solution, it appears, lies in realizing that the office of governor of Syria was much less strictly defined than we might expect. If we can rely on Josephus' account (Antiquities 16.9.1) regarding the Roman government of Syria, he reports that during Herod's reign there was a hearing before Saturninus and Volumnius, the "officers of Caesar" (Greek Kaisaros hegemosi). Apparently the responsibilities of the office were very great and required an assistant to help with everyday affairs. Whether Voulmnius was co-equal with Saturninus or only his chief assistant, the passage still indicates that more than one person could be "governors" or "leaders of Syria" (twn Surias epistatountwn). The implication of these facts is that, at least during the period with which we are concerned, we cannot confine our conclusions about who was "ruling Syria" to the list of provincial governors which scholars have compiled. The objection that Quirinius was not governor (or legatus) of Syria until AD 6, and that therefore Luke is in error, thus falls to the ground.

Furthermore, based on our understanding of the irregular nature of Roman administration of the province, it appears highly likely that Quirinius was exercising an important command in the area of Syria from about 12 BC until 6 BC at least and possibly until AD 9 or even later. Like Agrippa before him, this may not have required his constant presence but would have made it imperative from him personally to oversee the more sensitive matters like the Homonadensian war, the census after Archelaus' banishment in AD 6, and very possibly the census mentioned in Luke 2.

We have some interesting epigraphic evidence which confirms our ideas about Quirinius' work and influence in the area. Two inscriptions have been found in the Roman garrison colony at Pisidian Antioch which record the fact that Quirinius was elected duumvir by the citizens. This was really an honorary appointment which Quirinius accepted and then assigned a local citizen to act as his praefect. There is also another inscription (found in Italy) which corroborates Quirinius' work of census-taking in the area north of Palestine. The "Lapis Venetus" is a tombstone inscription which summarizes the career of an army officer who served under Ouirinius. The relevant part reads: "On command of Quirinius I have carried out the census of Apamea, a city-state of one hundred and seventeen thousand citizens ..."13

As a final consideration on the question of the governorship of Quirinius, let us take note of a tradition which is preserved by Tertullian. In Against Marcion 4.19 he states that the census of Luke 2 was "taken in Judea by Sentius Saturninus." Luke, however, says that the census occurred "while Quirinius was ruling Syria." Neither passage requires that the man named was personally in charge of the census-taking. Each uses his rulership as a reference point for dating the event. It may well be that Saturninus was legatus of Syria and was responsible for the earlier census in Herod's kingdom (his dates as governor are 9-6 BC) as part or his jurisdiction over civil and administrative affairs. If Quirinius was in charge of the military affairs of Syria at the time, then he would be called in if there were any need for enforcement, as was necessary in the Apamean census and the Judean census of AD 6. This may indeed be the correct view of the actual census procedure, but we cannot be sure that Tertullian's information is accurate.14

To sum up this lengthy section: (1) The meaning of the text is best taken as "while Quirinius was ruling Syria." (2) This was the "first census" which took place during Quirinius' rule. (3) Roman policy in the East at this period was usually in the hands of a single supreme commander; the facts of Quirinius' career are consistent with the suggestion that he held this position near the end of Herod's kingship in Judea. (4) The text allows for the possibility that Quirinius was not directly in charge of the census, but that it was carried out by one of the Syrian governors, possibly Sentius Saturninus. (5) There is still a possibility that Quirinus twice held the office of governor of Syria and carried out a Judean census in each tenure.

The Return to Bethlehem

Unlike the question of the 'governorship" of Syria, there is no potential conflict with secular information on this point. The objection of critics here usually takes the form of a doubt that the Romans would require provincials to return home for a census.

The text twice asserts that it was necessary to return home: (1) everyone went to his own city (v. 3) (2) Joseph returned to Bethlehem because his family was from there (v, 4). This feature of the census seems to be central to the whole story Luke is relating.

There is, however, no necessity to assume that the procedure was the same in every Roman census. In verse one the official administrative policy of the Emperor is set forth. Then the second verse notes that this "first" Judean census occurred while Quirinius was ruling. With this we have moved to the particulars of this census, not necessarily the requirements for all censuses. The third verse may then reflect the circumstances of this particular census. Recall that the Roman administration often made use of existing forms of government in conquered lands. The East had long acquaintance with census procedures, as confirmed in the Mari texts, the finds at Tell el-Amarna and Ras Shamra, Herodotus' accounts of the Persian empire, and many documents from the Hellenistic period.15 This return may have been a feature of these earlier cesuses

Why didn't you just post the link?
www.ibri.org/04census.htm

[1dell]

Yeah, I never give up. So we might be here a while. Notice how once one of his heresies is knocked down, he reaches for another? One minute we are talking about Ishua never claiming to be the Messiah, then we show him where he is wrong, he then says we need to end this conversation. But in 3 or 4 moor days he finds something else evading an entire onslaught of questions from me just to bring up an entirely new issue. Now we are talking about the inconsistencies of Matt and Lukas' recordings and times and dates. Da hell that gotta do with Ishua claiming to be the Messiah, the original intent of this post. excuse me. the ORIGINAL purpose of this post was to show how there was a disciple at the trial. Derek then caught feelings and started taking things person, hurled a bunch of insults my way and now here we are.

I aint never gonna stop fighting. My fox holes are dug and I am emcamped. I KNOW I am right on this stuff so let his fire his best shot

kAH said:

i give up

[1dell]

Cuz derek doesn't what for? anyway? everything on that page is right here. I left nothing out. Hell that saved me about 3 hours worth of explaining.

At least I can say I learned one thing from derek, and thats how to cut and paste.

Ok Ok, I'll try to not insult your husband again Sati. Sorry, but the mofo came at me first with that ish. I am sorry I am an Aries first before anything else, and I just don't believe in letting NO BODY punk me!!!

SatiyaH said:

Why didn't you just post the link?
www.ibri.org/04census.htm

[SatiyaH]

Let's go here for a while, if you don't mind:
What about the FACT that the "Gospels" as they are compiled in the format that you read weren't fully pieced together until over 100 years after "Jesus' death".? Who compiled them? Who made them official in terms of the Christian religion?

[1dell]

When you say compiled what do you mean? I am thinking you mean written but I don't want to take that for granted.

What is this the Hodgen Dosh tandem tag team? lol Just when I hope this bull jank ends so I can move on to moor important things to talk about, here another one of yall come. lawd lawd lawd.

So break it down to me shawdy, whatchu talkin' bout 100 years later? lol and where do you get that idea from? just hit me with some background info so I can know where thou cometh frometh.

SatiyaH said:

Let's go here for a while, if you don't mind:
What about the FACT that the "Gospels" as they are compiled in the format that you read weren't fully pieced together until over 100 years after "Jesus' death".? Who compiled them? Who made them official in terms of the Christian religion?

[SatiyaH]

I AM

clawww.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/John/Themes-IAM.htm

[SatiyaH]

The Bible was not written in English -- not even "King James English"! Most of the books of the Old Testament were originally composed in Hebrew (with a few portions in Aramaic), while the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek (although some books may also incorporate Aramaic sources). Thus, what most people today read is not the original text, but other people's translations of the Bible.

clawww.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/Bible/English_Translations.htm

[SatiyaH]

SatiyaH said:

Let's go here for a while, if you don't mind:
What about the FACT that the "Gospels" as they are compiled in the format that you read weren't fully pieced together until over 100 years after "Jesus' death".? Who compiled them? Who made them official in terms of the Christian religion?

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmindex.html

Also, as I asked earlier--how could Matthew, Mark, Luke and John truly give detail of the birth of Jesus? They weren't there themselves.

[SatiyaH]

SatiyaH said:

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmindex.html

Also, as I asked earlier--how could Matthew, Mark, Luke and John truly give detail of the birth of Jesus? They weren't there themselves.

A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing of the first gospel. History offers us little direct evidence about the events of this period, but it does suggest that the early Christians were engaged in one of the most basic of human activities: story-telling. In the words of Mike White, "It appears that between the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospel, Mark, that they clearly are telling stories. They're passing on the tradition of what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by telling it and retelling it. And in the process they are defining Jesus for themselves."

These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as "oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and healings, his parables and teachings, and his death. Eventually some stories were written down. The first written documents probably included an account of the death of Jesus and a collection of sayings attributed to him.

Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus. We will never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark, since it was common practice in the ancient world to attribute written works to famous people. But we do know that it was Mark's genius to first to commit the story of Jesus to writing, and thereby inaugurated the gospel tradition.

"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies," says Prof. Paula Fredriksen, "they are a kind of religious advertisement. What they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelists' position."

About 15 years after Mark, in about the year 85 CE, the author known as Matthew composed his work, drawing on a variety of sources, including Mark and from a collection of sayings that scholars later called "Q", for Quelle, meaning source. The Gospel of Luke was written about fifteen years later, between 85 and 95. Scholars refer to these three gospels as the "synoptic gospels", because they "see" things in the same way. The Gospel of John, sometimes called "the spiritual gospel," was probably composed between 90 and 100 CE. Its style and presentation clearly set it apart from the other three.

Each of the four gospels depicts Jesus in a different way. These characterizations reflect the past experiences and the particular circumstances of their authors' communities. The historical evidence suggests that Mark wrote for a community deeply affected by the failure of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome. Matthew wrote for a Jewish community in conflict with the Pharisaic Judaism that dominated Jewish life in the postwar period. Luke wrote for a predominately Gentile audience eager to demonstrate that Christian beliefs in no way conflicted with their ability to serve as a good citizen of the Empire.

Despite these differences, all four gospels contain the "passion narrative," the central story of Jesus' suffering and death. That story is directly connected to the Christian ritual of the Eucharist. As Helmut Koester has observed, the ritual cannot "live" without the story.

While the gospels tell a story about Jesus, they also reflect the growing tensions between Christians and Jews. By the time Luke composed his work, tension was breaking into open hostility. By the time John was written, the conflict had become an open rift, reflected in the vituperative invective of the evangelist's language. In the words of Prof. Eric Meyers, "Most of the gospels reflect a period of disagreement, of theological disagreement. And the New Testament tells a story of a broken relationship, and that's part of the sad story that evolves between Jews and Christians, because it is a story that has such awful repercussions in later times."

[1dell]

heeeeyyy!!! wHERE Did your post go?

too late!! I seent it!!! lolol

Here lets look at some stuff:

Most of the books of the Old Testament were originally composed in Hebrew (with a few portions in Aramaic), while the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek (although some books may also incorporate Aramaic sources). Thus, what most people today read is not the original text, but other people's translations of the Bible.

Dag, I don't have to go far to find error in his writings. The new testament WASSSS written in Ibri with maybe an epistle or 2 of Paul's written in greek when he was speaking to greeks. So he starts off wrong.

I think this is funny:

No original manuscript of any biblical book has survived! All of the texts written by the biblical authors themselves have been lost or destroyed over the centuries. All we have are copies of copies of copies, most of them copied hundreds of years after the original texts were written.

Then he says"

Thus, no translation is "perfect" (none of them can be completely "literal" or 100% identical to the original texts) and there is no "best" translation (all of them have some advantages and some drawbacks).

I don't know if he knows it or not but he just contradicted himself. lol. If there are supposedly no originals, then how can he know if the translation is not perfect or 100% identical to the original text if "there is no original texts" as he claims?

Every "translation" is already inevitably an "interpretation"! Anyone who knows more than one modern language realizes that "translations" often have meanings that are slightly different from the original, and that different people inevitably translate the same texts in slightly different ways.

dude is on point with this, thats why I learned the language. But see this aint a biblical issue. This is an ISSUE FOR ALL HOLY BOOKS!!!! EVEN Those beloved Egyptian documents that yall love so much. I love double edged swords, they cut both ways

Thus, no translation is "perfect" (none of them can be completely "literal" or 100% identical to the original texts) and there is no "best" translation (all of them have some advantages and some drawbacks). In general, however, the most recent translations (1980's or 1990's) are better than the older ones (esp. the KJV or the Douay-Rheims, both about 400 years old), not only since the English language has changed significantly over the centuries, but more importantly because of the ancient biblical manuscripts that have been discovered in the last 50 to 150 years which are much older (and thus closer to the originals) than the manuscripts that were available to the translators of previous centuries.

He is on point with this too. Tis why I say learn hebrew and aramaic for one's self. I applaud the muslims for learning arabic

I really don't have much of a problem with ole dude, I agree with some of the things he is saying but nothing he says discredits the bible.

But as far as thangs being compiled. to ME compiled means when all the writings where gathered together. But heck that means nothing to me as to when the writings were put together in a collection.

I am one that goes outside the bible anyway, you can easily catch me rockin the pseudiagrapha, or jamming the apographypha.

[1dell]

Wow it's been a minute since you been in the bible huh sweety? lol Mark and John didn't write about his birth.
Come on Sati!!! Mary was still living. In fact Mary adopted the disciple John at the cross per Ishua's instructions.

Thats the same way the hebrews got the correct creation account. All you have to do is ask the ancestors. lol Noah's sons were still alive when Abraham walked the earth, Heck he got the knowledge from Shem and passed it along to his offspring.

Oh lawd, did I just open up anuva can of worms? woe is me

SatiyaH said:

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmindex.html

Also, as I asked earlier--how could Matthew, Mark, Luke and John truly give detail of the birth of Jesus? They weren't there themselves.

[1dell]

Wow, I have entirely different information, the first gospel being written about 50 years later, My sources say that Mattityahu was the first to write down his gospel. And see these men didn't write their gospels hoping to get them included in the "scriptures" They wrote them down so that they would be able to send to other nations and goups of individuals miles from their location. Just like the epistles were LETTERS. And the council of Nicea took it upon themselves to include them in the cannon. I am sorry, I don't see anything wrong with that. And since my sources vary from your sources and there are even sources that vary from our sources, does that mean I should drop mine and go with yours? I can tell you now that won't happen.

So we can sit here and Strain at gnats and swallow camels. Or we can crack open the book and learn the divine principles and universal laws within the book.

And really Sati, the longest gospel is about 28 chapters long. Do you know how LOOONNGGG it would be to say that? lolol. Sure they would go around preaching, that was the method of their ministeries. That is no secret. But do you really think they went around PREACHING the same gospels that we are reading? lol Do you know how LOOONNGG it would take to preach a 28 chapter gospel, it would take over 20 hours to SAY that thang.

i am like 32 years old now I can write about my first trip to florida when I was 6 with incredible detail. I mean, that don't count but hey compared to what he have bombarding our minds here and now compared to them back then, they were able to remember things with incredible accuracy and PLEASE don't convict ONLY the hebrews of oral traditions as if it's a crime. Hell most of your secret socieities are the same way. Especially the ancient ones. They woudl trust nothing to be written down for fear that it would be learned. So oral tradition aint nothing new. But it's convinient for the enemies of the hebrews to bring that up when every civilization on the planet has done the same thing. Thats why the accounts of the Enuma Elisha sound so ridiculous. lol

SatiyaH said:

A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing of the first gospel. History offers us little direct evidence about the events of this period, but it does suggest that the early Christians were engaged in one of the most basic of human activities: story-telling. In the words of Mike White, "It appears that between the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospel, Mark, that they clearly are telling stories. They're passing on the tradition of what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by telling it and retelling it. And in the process they are defining Jesus for themselves."

These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as "oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and healings, his parables and teachings, and his death. Eventually some stories were written down. The first written documents probably included an account of the death of Jesus and a collection of sayings attributed to him.

Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus. We will never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark, since it was common practice in the ancient world to attribute written works to famous people. But we do know that it was Mark's genius to first to commit the story of Jesus to writing, and thereby inaugurated the gospel tradition.

"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies," says Prof. Paula Fredriksen, "they are a kind of religious advertisement. What they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelists' position."

About 15 years after Mark, in about the year 85 CE, the author known as Matthew composed his work, drawing on a variety of sources, including Mark and from a collection of sayings that scholars later called "Q", for Quelle, meaning source. The Gospel of Luke was written about fifteen years later, between 85 and 95. Scholars refer to these three gospels as the "synoptic gospels", because they "see" things in the same way. The Gospel of John, sometimes called "the spiritual gospel," was probably composed between 90 and 100 CE. Its style and presentation clearly set it apart from the other three.

Each of the four gospels depicts Jesus in a different way. These characterizations reflect the past experiences and the particular circumstances of their authors' communities. The historical evidence suggests that Mark wrote for a community deeply affected by the failure of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome. Matthew wrote for a Jewish community in conflict with the Pharisaic Judaism that dominated Jewish life in the postwar period. Luke wrote for a predominately Gentile audience eager to demonstrate that Christian beliefs in no way conflicted with their ability to serve as a good citizen of the Empire.

Despite these differences, all four gospels contain the "passion narrative," the central story of Jesus' suffering and death. That story is directly connected to the Christian ritual of the Eucharist. As Helmut Koester has observed, the ritual cannot "live" without the story.

While the gospels tell a story about Jesus, they also reflect the growing tensions between Christians and Jews. By the time Luke composed his work, tension was breaking into open hostility. By the time John was written, the conflict had become an open rift, reflected in the vituperative invective of the evangelist's language. In the words of Prof. Eric Meyers, "Most of the gospels reflect a period of disagreement, of theological disagreement. And the New Testament tells a story of a broken relationship, and that's part of the sad story that evolves between Jews and Christians, because it is a story that has such awful repercussions in later times."

[1dell]

But hey at least we got this christian section jumpin. I swear this emoticon needs some bling bling. Imma hafta add a gold toophus