Proof that jesus walked the earth???

Schuhart wrote: »

I’m just making a passing reference to the way the birth of Jesus is depicted as being marked by the appearance of a star. That, to me, suggests that astrology is being invoked.

Correct me if I am wrong, but did not the 3 Magi actually say that his birth had been predicted and a star would guide them in their search. Sounds very like astrology to me!

Schuhart wrote: »

I’m just making a passing reference to the way the birth of Jesus is depicted as being marked by the appearance of a star. That, to me, suggests that astrology is being invoked.

More astronomy than astrology.

In response to both Robin and wicknight.

To scofflaws point, my immediate source for dating was my copy of the NIV. I went home and checked a couple of other sources, my NT textbook from Bible school aslo has earlier dates for the gospels than mentioned by wicknight.

Any other readings I have undertaken on the history of the Bible also concur with the dates I have given. Here is an article on the dating of Mark from a Christian History and Biography article written in January 1994.

The Final Four

And the Gospels? Again, more can be said today than a few years ago. Martin Hengel of Tübingen University, one of the world’s leading New Testament scholars, provided some new insights into the process of collecting the Gospels.

Look at a modern book on a library shelf—you glean the author’s name from the spine. In New Testament times, there were no spines, since books existed in scrolls. No matter how these scrolls were stored, you would merely see the “top end,” with a handle. In order to identify the contents, little parchment or leather strips (called sittiboi) were attached to the handle.

Since space was scarce, if there existed just one book on a given subject, only the title would be given. For the Gospels, as long as there was only one, the sittibos would have said, Euangelion, that is “Good News,” or “Good News of Jesus Christ.” But the very moment a second Gospel came into existence, differentiation became necessary; the first and the second Gospel would have carried the name of the authors—“according to Mark,” “according to Matthew,” and so on.

Thus, long before the end of the first century, there was—of necessity—a systematic approach to identifying the authors and cataloguing their works.

By the beginning of the second century, the number of the Gospels and the names of their authors were therefore well established. Our first literary source is Papias, writing at about A.D. 110. None of the later so-called gospels existed yet—neither the Gospel of Thomas, nor that of Nicodemus, of James, nor whomever. Papias knows and accepts the earliest Gospels, and he gives us some anecdotal information about their authors.

For instance, he calls Mark “stubble-fingered”—what on earth does that mean? What does he mean when he tells us that Mark was the hermeneutes of Peter? Interpreter? Translator? Editor? The word could mean all three.

Or what does it mean when Papias writes that Matthew compiled the logia (sayings) of Jesus en hebraidi dialecto (in Hebrew/Aramaic dialect)? In Hebrew/Aramaic style but in the Greek language? Could he have known about Levi-Matthew’s shorthand notes of Jesus’ public addresses (i.e., logia)?

The brief quotes from Papias’s works leave many a question unanswered. The gist of it, however, remains: Papias of Hierapolis knew about a collection of Gospels as early as the beginning of the second century—and this implies the existence of such a collection at an even earlier stage. In other words, he appears to corroborate what we now know about Paul’s letters from the redating of that papyrus codex p46.

Some seventy years later, about 180, Irenaeus offers one other item that has stimulated scholarly debate. He gives for the first time the order of the four Gospels as we have it today: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In addition, he tells us that Mark’s Gospel was written after the “exodus” of Peter and Paul.

This word has been used as a tool for dating the Gospel; for if exodus means “death,” as the majority of critics have assumed, then a.d. 67, the probable date of Paul’s and Peter’s martyrdoms, would be the earliest possible date for Mark.

Exodus, however, can also mean “departure”—as in the title of the second book of the Old Testament. Does Irenaeus imply a departure of Peter and Paul from Rome some time before their eventual return and martyrdom?

Only a couple of years ago, an American scholar, E. Earle Ellis, provided an important part of the answer. He analyzed every single work of Irenaeus, and he discovered that Irenaeus never uses exodus when he means “death.” For “death,” he always employs the unequivocal Greek word thanatos. Thus, Mark’s Gospel was probably written not after the deaths of Peter and Paul but after their departure from Rome—some time before.

It isn't really a self selecting group, as what I have read tend to give arguments for both later dates and earlier dates.

I think the article above on the dating of Mark sums it up well. The later date concludes that the departure of Peter and Paul actually mean their death. Which if true would give it a later date.

However when examining the words used, the departure shows that it would mean their departure from Jerusalem, which gives Mark an earlier date.

robindch wrote: »

Well, you mentioned the NIV and a "NT textbook from Bible school" and a "Christian History" book -- all of which I've assumed are christian-derived sources. Am I wrong in assuming this, and am I wrong in assuming that all of these give earlier dates?

It's in their interest to give earlier dates given that most Christians maintain that the Gospels in their original Greek were written by the first disciples (who were mostly illiterate fishermen and the like who spoke Aramaic.)

SubjectSean wrote: »

It's in their interest to give earlier dates given that most Christians maintain that the Gospels in their original Greek were written by the first disciples.)

Luke was a physician and very well educated. Matthew a tax collector and educated.

The only one of whom was a direct disciple of Christ was Matthew.

Mark was a companion of Peter. As for John's book, it could have been John the apostle, but there isn't certainty.

If Christians were doing this for self interest we'd be arguing in favour of John the apostle and not giving any alternative. But we are, because it is the truth that there is uncertainty as to which John was the autor of the Gospel of John.

SubjectSean wrote: »

(who were mostly illiterate fishermen and the like who spoke Aramaic.)

It is also noteworthy that young Jewish boys were educated by Rabbi's. They were taught to read and write. They were taught to memorize and to argue and debate points of theology and law.

So Peter who was a fisherman by trade would have spent a few of his childhood years at the feet of a Rabbi learning.

They would have spoken Aramaic in the synangogue and Greek in the marketplace.

So they were not illiterate.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It is also noteworthy that young Jewish boys were educated by Rabbi's. They were taught to read and write. They were taught to memorize and to argue and debate points of theology and law.

So Peter who was a fisherman by trade would have spent a few of his childhood years at the feet of a Rabbi learning.

They would have spoken Aramaic in the synangogue and Greek in the marketplace.

So they were not illiterate.

Brian I take what you are saying about authorship of the Gospels but I simply can't believe that they were written by the people they are purported to have been written by. I still think most Christians have a vested interest in earlier dating because of the fact that the closer to an event something is comitted to paper the more potentially accurate it is. I am still hopeful that something resembling the so called Q document will be found amongst the documents that are currently being reconstructed, having been excavated in Egypt, from early Christian period rubbish tips. It would be nice to get a look at a less adulterated version of what the man was all about.

There are dozens of Gospels form early Christian times and very few of them are in Hebrew. Speaking Greek and writing Greek are different things and whatever about Judean boys being tutored in the synagogues I don't think they'd have been able to write in Greek. I think that if any of the people who had actually known Yeshua had ever written about him it would have been in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Personally I think that in Acts where the "seven" are expelled from Jerusalem and the "twelve" are let stay this indicates that the "seven" were saying something bad. I think that this is where the Son of God claims comes from. I'm pretty sure from his words that concur in the synoptics and Thomas that he was saying we're all sons of God and that we should think of God as our true parent. I really don't think he was saying "I am God" apart from in the sense that mystics mean it. However the Greeks were very fond of the whole god-coming-to-Earth-as-his-son concept in their religions. Also there are quite a few references to "the Jews" in the NT, this also doesn't ring true had the writers themselves been Jewish.