No they are not. Zoroastrianism and the polytheistic believers in Sumer, Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, etc. were on this earth well before a narrative of Yahweh was around.
It didn't start with Genesis because the Hebrews were not a tribe until later.
So we cannot automatically say that the Truth is in Genesis.
What the hell language is that? If Hunter S Thompson was still around he'd set us all straight
As just one example, Mark 7:31 says that Jesus left Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, despite the fact that Sidon is in the exact opposite direction of the Sea of Galilee when departing from Tyre.
I can do this with the other gospels if you’re interested.
Telford's entire argument assumes that the gospels were written in Greek originally. There is absolutely zero evidence that this is the case. Translation has always been tricky and even using the much more well known Greek as a source there are multiple variations of the translation. It could very well be that the originals story was spread by word of mouth and got written down by a Greek who didn't know the geography and got things wrong. Without an original source document it is impossible to know what the truth is.
If you gave this much scrutiny to Aristotle or Homer and any Roman author you would be forced to conclude that none of them existed.
If you’ve got evidence of an Aramaic original editions, you can have yourself in an academic journal tomorrow. Everything we have points to the original editions in Greek. There’s the conversation in John 3 where Nicodemus is confused about dual meanings of the word that means above “above” and “again,” an issue that exists with the Greek word but not the Aramaic. Which makes sense with John having been written by a Greek speaker in Anatolia. And that the whole exchange likely never occurred in reality.
It’s not a stretch to believe that people named Aristotle and Homer existed thousands of years ago and wrote a lot of interesting things. It’s a very different standard of proof to believe that the one god of all creation had himself born into a virgin (who was married at the time) in the middle east two thousand years ago and then dies and resurrected himself.
Telford's entire argument assumes that the gospels were written in Greek originally. There is absolutely zero evidence that this is the case. Translation has always been tricky and even using the much more well known Greek as a source there are multiple variations of the translation. It could very well be that the originals story was spread by word of mouth and got written down by a Greek who didn't know the geography and got things wrong. Without an original source document it is impossible to know what the truth is.
If you gave this much scrutiny to Aristotle or Homer and any Roman author you would be forced to conclude that none of them existed.
If you’ve got evidence of an Aramaic original editions, you can have yourself in an academic journal tomorrow. Everything we have points to the original editions in Greek. There’s the conversation in John 3 where Nicodemus is confused about dual meanings of the word that means above “above” and “again,” an issue that exists with the Greek word but not the Aramaic. Which makes sense with John having been written by a Greek speaker in Anatolia. And that the whole exchange likely never occurred in reality.
It’s not a stretch to believe that people named Aristotle and Homer existed thousands of years ago and wrote a lot of interesting things. It’s a very different standard of proof to believe that the one god of all creation had himself born into a virgin (who was married at the time) in the middle east two thousand years ago and then dies and resurrected himself.
There's plenty of evidence that it was an oral tradition culture. I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests all of the locals that JC was hanging out with were literate at all let alone literate in Greek.
History is limited to the evidence that survives. Papyrus not surviving 2000 years in a war torn region isn't very surprising.
The veracity of the gospels has absolutely nothing to do with when or what language they were written down in.
Something obviously happened because it changed the world and hundreds of millions of people converted without violence.
Whether the tomb was empty or not the people spreading the story believed it was true.
If you’ve got evidence of an Aramaic original editions, you can have yourself in an academic journal tomorrow. Everything we have points to the original editions in Greek. There’s the conversation in John 3 where Nicodemus is confused about dual meanings of the word that means above “above” and “again,” an issue that exists with the Greek word but not the Aramaic. Which makes sense with John having been written by a Greek speaker in Anatolia. And that the whole exchange likely never occurred in reality.
It’s not a stretch to believe that people named Aristotle and Homer existed thousands of years ago and wrote a lot of interesting things. It’s a very different standard of proof to believe that the one god of all creation had himself born into a virgin (who was married at the time) in the middle east two thousand years ago and then dies and resurrected himself.
There's plenty of evidence that it was an oral tradition culture. I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests all of the locals that JC was hanging out with were literate at all let alone literate in Greek.
History is limited to the evidence that survives. Papyrus not surviving 2000 years in a war torn region isn't very surprising.
The veracity of the gospels has absolutely nothing to do with when or what language they were written down in.
Something obviously happened because it changed the world and hundreds of millions of people converted without violence.
Whether the tomb was empty or not the people spreading the story believed it was true.
At least two of the disciples were highly educated and had a degree of wealth. Matthew was a tax collector who worked under the Romans before becoming a disciple was most likely fluent in Greek, Aramaic & Hebrew. Luke was a physician.
Also, we have evidence that the Shroud of Turin IS the cloth that wrapped Christ's body. He is risen and will return again as our King, Lord & Savior.
If you are not a Christian, there are no answers to be found in Genesis. it's that simple.
Sure there are. It doesn't matter who you are or how foolish you have been. The Answers are the Answers, and The Truth is The Truth. That's like a universal constant, like the speed of light or the Laplace Limit.
If you’ve got evidence of an Aramaic original editions, you can have yourself in an academic journal tomorrow. Everything we have points to the original editions in Greek. There’s the conversation in John 3 where Nicodemus is confused about dual meanings of the word that means above “above” and “again,” an issue that exists with the Greek word but not the Aramaic. Which makes sense with John having been written by a Greek speaker in Anatolia. And that the whole exchange likely never occurred in reality.
It’s not a stretch to believe that people named Aristotle and Homer existed thousands of years ago and wrote a lot of interesting things. It’s a very different standard of proof to believe that the one god of all creation had himself born into a virgin (who was married at the time) in the middle east two thousand years ago and then dies and resurrected himself.
There's plenty of evidence that it was an oral tradition culture. I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests all of the locals that JC was hanging out with were literate at all let alone literate in Greek.
History is limited to the evidence that survives. Papyrus not surviving 2000 years in a war torn region isn't very surprising.
The veracity of the gospels has absolutely nothing to do with when or what language they were written down in.
Something obviously happened because it changed the world and hundreds of millions of people converted without violence.
Whether the tomb was empty or not the people spreading the story believed it was true.
What happened was Theodosius I made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in 380. As recently as 80 years prior to that, only about 5% of the Empire was Christian. But once it had official status within the Empire, the early church began to take in a lot of money and grew in power. Quickly, it was the pagans who were getting persecuted for not being Christians and that led to most of the Empire converting to Christianity before too long. That’s how it became the dominant religion in Europe and when those European states colonized other parts of the world and stamped out local culture, they brought their religion with them. That’s how we ended up with 2 billion Christians today.
There's plenty of evidence that it was an oral tradition culture. I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests all of the locals that JC was hanging out with were literate at all let alone literate in Greek.
History is limited to the evidence that survives. Papyrus not surviving 2000 years in a war torn region isn't very surprising.
The veracity of the gospels has absolutely nothing to do with when or what language they were written down in.
Something obviously happened because it changed the world and hundreds of millions of people converted without violence.
Whether the tomb was empty or not the people spreading the story believed it was true.
At least two of the disciples were highly educated and had a degree of wealth. Matthew was a tax collector who worked under the Romans before becoming a disciple was most likely fluent in Greek, Aramaic & Hebrew. Luke was a physician.
Also, we have evidence that the Shroud of Turin IS the cloth that wrapped Christ's body. He is risen and will return again as our King, Lord & Savior.
The Shroud of Turin has been radio carbon dated to having been produced sometime around the 13th or 14th Century.
A surprisingly good thread. There is so much we don't know.
Everything we know of is linear in time. The question posed here is what was before the big bang. If the answer is God, then you could pose the question how did God get there?
It blows my mind away but acknowledging there is something much bigger than me, that I don't know, is part of my concept of god
Aren't a decent amount of like quantum physics people religious?
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
The Q theory is garbage.
As for the Q theory, I took a course in college I think on the Gospels. The teaching assistant was teaching us about "Q" and all sorts of stuff I had never heard in my irregular attendance of Sunday School. She did a great job.
At the time it was a bit jarring as I had never heard this stuff and as a Christian kid you just are taught "the Bible is the word of god". Sort of like when I tell my daughter there is a Santa Clause and she believes it. I see why some of the atheists on here make that analogy.
I was shocked on the final day of the class when the TA said she was hoping to be an Episcopal priest. She said she kept her personal beliefs out of everything and just wanted to study everything with a blank slate.
A surprisingly good thread. There is so much we don't know.
Everything we know of is linear in time. The question posed here is what was before the big bang. If the answer is God, then you could pose the question how did God get there?
It blows my mind away but acknowledging there is something much bigger than me, that I don't know, is part of my concept of god
Aren't a decent amount of like quantum physics people religious?
As for the Q theory, I took a course in college I think on the Gospels. The teaching assistant was teaching us about "Q" and all sorts of stuff I had never heard in my irregular attendance of Sunday School. She did a great job.
At the time it was a bit jarring as I had never heard this stuff and as a Christian kid you just are taught "the Bible is the word of god". Sort of like when I tell my daughter there is a Santa Clause and she believes it. I see why some of the atheists on here make that analogy.
I was shocked on the final day of the class when the TA said she was hoping to be an Episcopal priest. She said she kept her personal beliefs out of everything and just wanted to study everything with a blank slate.
I know lots of people working on quantum theory. There are two or three who are very (outspokenly) religious and another who is more low key although he actually taught Sunday school. The vast majority are not religious, but aren't aggressive atheists either.
Telford's entire argument assumes that the gospels were written in Greek originally. There is absolutely zero evidence that this is the case. Translation has always been tricky and even using the much more well known Greek as a source there are multiple variations of the translation. It could very well be that the originals story was spread by word of mouth and got written down by a Greek who didn't know the geography and got things wrong. Without an original source document it is impossible to know what the truth is.
If you gave this much scrutiny to Aristotle or Homer and any Roman author you would be forced to conclude that none of them existed.
If you’ve got evidence of an Aramaic original editions, you can have yourself in an academic journal tomorrow. Everything we have points to the original editions in Greek. There’s the conversation in John 3 where Nicodemus is confused about dual meanings of the word that means above “above” and “again,” an issue that exists with the Greek word but not the Aramaic. Which makes sense with John having been written by a Greek speaker in Anatolia. And that the whole exchange likely never occurred in reality.
It’s not a stretch to believe that people named Aristotle and Homer existed thousands of years ago and wrote a lot of interesting things. It’s a very different standard of proof to believe that the one god of all creation had himself born into a virgin (who was married at the time) in the middle east two thousand years ago and then dies and resurrected himself.
forgetting John for a second - which is clearly different, written later and for an audience (mainly greek?) that clearly had grounding in greek mysteries - the remainder of the synoptics certainly share a core narrative. Whether this core narrative was actually a no longer extant source itself, it probably did form the core of the original oral tradition. This certainly seems to have been originally in aramaic, given the snatches of words the narrator puts in Jesus' mouth in the original aramaic. Whether by the time these synoptics were written down they were done so in aramaic, greek or both, probably depends upon whether they were first written down prior to or after the siege of Jerusalem. After Jerusalem fell, the need for a written narrative in aramaic is no longer so important.
At least two of the disciples were highly educated and had a degree of wealth. Matthew was a tax collector who worked under the Romans before becoming a disciple was most likely fluent in Greek, Aramaic & Hebrew. Luke was a physician.
Also, we have evidence that the Shroud of Turin IS the cloth that wrapped Christ's body. He is risen and will return again as our King, Lord & Savior.
The Shroud of Turin has been radio carbon dated to having been produced sometime around the 13th or 14th Century.
That carbon date has been widely disputed and the method is flawed when you're dealing with an object that has mold spores and modern repairs all over it.
On a sample of the Turin Shroud (TS), we applied a new method for dating ancient linen threads by inspecting their structural degradation by means of Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS). The X-ray dating method was applied to...
