Interesting Find

[RaceBookJoe]

http://www.examiner.com/multi-faith-...y-christianity

I would thing that Boxcar will find this interesting..i know I do. rbj

[woodtoo]

Very interesting find,can't wait for the translation.

[TJDave]

Any time antiquities and Israelis, not part of the official scientific community are mentioned I get suspicious.

[Native Texan III]

The BBC have included this in their series:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/2011/0...ets.shtml#more

which may be available to some on iPlayer to view.

It discusses also the real evidence of the Kingdom of David and the Garden of Eden.

The Jordanian finds may be the equivalent of the Director's cut and the editing out of a lot of early Christian beliefs from today's cut down Bible version may reappear.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by RaceBookJoe

http://www.examiner.com/multi-faith-...y-christianity

I would thing that Boxcar will find this interesting..i know I do. rbj

I don't jump out of my skin with these archeological finds. Yes, many of them make for a nice addition to an apologist's arsenal, but in the final analysis the apologetic arguments will have very little spiritual influence upon hearers' hearts. The bible makes it crystal clear that the extent of man's depravity is "total", and scripture contains countless examples of how fallen man has continually snubbed his nose at the Truth even when he has witnessed first hand remarkable miraculous events. If someone were to find the Ark of the Covenant of the OT, most would yawn at that discovery. If Noah's Ark was discovered perched atop some mountain, it would barely raise an eyebrow. If Pharaoh's personal war chariot were to be found in the middle of the Red Sea depths, that would probably elicit a shrug of the shoulders.

This latest find will have very little impact on my personal faith, if any. For my faith is in divine revelation, not in man's antiquities.

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by RaceBookJoe

http://www.examiner.com/multi-faith-...y-christianity

I would thing that Boxcar will find this interesting..i know I do. rbj

Very interesting stuff and if the date is correct and this is authentic, it will actually pre date pretty much the entirety of the New Testament. Given where this was found, I would suspect that they are writings of the early "Christians" (they would not have called themselves that) who would have been in favor of remaining essentially Jewish. I'm curious as to what language these were written in as it doesn't say though perhaps Aramaic?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Very interesting stuff and if the date is correct and this is authentic, it will actually pre date pretty much the entirety of the New Testament.

What makes you think that "pretty much the entirety of the New Testament" was written so late?

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What makes you think that "pretty much the entirety of the New Testament" was written so late?

Boxcar

So late? It's not late at all if you think of it. Let's look at it:

Clearly the Epistles of Paul (the ones he actually wrote) had to be written before 70 as he died. The Gospel of Mark is considered the oldest of the Gospels and is believed to have appeared right around this time, perhaps as early as 50 or as late as 80. Then along came Luke and Acts, by the same author and Matthew. The Gospel of John likely didn't show until the turn of the century and the Apocalypse of John (likely different John) around then as well.

How are these things known? In many ways. References in the texts themselves help place them in relation to known events. Word usage and style can also help date. Further, there are many other writings citing these works that further help date them. Debates were already happening in the 2nd century as to authorship and origin of several books of the NT.

There are clearly other works that the early church members used that no longer survive, the most famous is what is referred to as the "Q" Gospel, considered source material for Mark, Matthew and Luke.

Finally, the Gospels and Acts only needed to be written down when the eye witnesses and perhaps even the second hand tellers who knew them had died to perserve their testamony.

I find this stuff fascinating for the insight into the early church. By 70 AD they were still not unified in position on such questions as should they be restricted only to Jews or should Gentiles be allowed to join. Was Jesus man or divine wasn't even a question they had settled. There was a distinct break between those that followed the teachings of Peter and those who followed Paul and in every major city each group of these followers of Jesus were just a little different and used different texts in their teachings.

[HUSKER55]

did anyone watch discovery channel the other night about the archives in the vatican and the tombs and bascillicas underneath.

awesome stuff.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by HUSKER55

did anyone watch discovery channel the other night about the archives in the vatican and the tombs and bascillicas underneath.

awesome stuff.

I meant to watch that, but forgot til it was almost over.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

So late? It's not late at all if you think of it. Let's look at it:

Clearly the Epistles of Paul (the ones he actually wrote) had to be written before 70 as he died. The Gospel of Mark is considered the oldest of the Gospels and is believed to have appeared right around this time, perhaps as early as 50 or as late as 80. Then along came Luke and Acts, by the same author and Matthew. The Gospel of John likely didn't show until the turn of the century and the Apocalypse of John (likely different John) around then as well.

How are these things known? In many ways. References in the texts themselves help place them in relation to known events. Word usage and style can also help date. Further, there are many other writings citing these works that further help date them. Debates were already happening in the 2nd century as to authorship and origin of several books of the NT.

There are clearly other works that the early church members used that no longer survive, the most famous is what is referred to as the "Q" Gospel, considered source material for Mark, Matthew and Luke.

Finally, the Gospels and Acts only needed to be written down when the eye witnesses and perhaps even the second hand tellers who knew them had died to perserve their testamony.

I find this stuff fascinating for the insight into the early church. By 70 AD they were still not unified in position on such questions as should they be restricted only to Jews or should Gentiles be allowed to join. Was Jesus man or divine wasn't even a question they had settled. There was a distinct break between those that followed the teachings of Peter and those who followed Paul and in every major city each group of these followers of Jesus were just a little different and used different texts in their teachings.

Then how did you arrive at the conclusion that if the Metal Books were authentic that they would pre-date "much the entirety of the New Testament"? I, apparently like you, believe that "much of the entirety of the New Testament" was written prior to 70 A.D.

And, yes, there was confusion in the early church about the place of Judaism, Gentiles, etc. after Christ has ushered in a new dispensation -- called the New Covenant -- the covenant that was predicted in the OT prophecies -- but the "mystery" thereof not fully revealed until the close of the NT canon. In fact, Al, to this very day, the "confusion" and arguments still persist within the Church over this Covenant, and what it means to Christians in terms of the other covenants (especially the Old Covenant), what it means to Christians' relationship to the Law, what it means in relation to corporate Israel and the Land Promises, etc., etc.. The debates go on. They have never stopped. To the contrary! They intensified in the 19th Century when an extreme form of Premillennialism was introduced into the Church known today as Dispensationalism.

As far as other issues you raise, apostasy and heresies started seeping into the Church very early. Paul constantly warned the churches to guard themselves against such things. Even most of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor in Revelation, which typify the types of churches today, had serious spiritual problems and received stern warnings from Christ, etc.

In short, nothing has really changed from the early church until this day. As Paul even said, the Great Apostasy must take place before the Lord returns.

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Then how did you arrive at the conclusion that if the Metal Books were authentic that they would pre-date "much the entirety of the New Testament"? I, apparently like you, believe that "much of the entirety of the New Testament" was written prior to 70 A.D.

And, yes, there was confusion in the early church about the place of Judaism, Gentiles, etc. after Christ has ushered in a new dispensation -- called the New Covenant -- the covenant that was predicted in the OT prophecies -- but the "mystery" thereof not fully revealed until the close of the NT canon. In fact, Al, to this very day, the "confusion" and arguments still persist within the Church over this Covenant, and what it means to Christians in terms of the other covenants (especially the Old Covenant), what it means to Christians' relationship to the Law, what it means in relation to corporate Israel and the Land Promises, etc., etc.. The debates go on. They have never stopped. To the contrary! They intensified in the 19th Century when an extreme form of Premillennialism was introduced into the Church known today as Dispensationalism.

As far as other issues you raise, apostasy and heresies started seeping into the Church very early. Paul constantly warned the churches to guard themselves against such things. Even most of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor in Revelation, which typify the types of churches today, had serious spiritual problems and received stern warnings from Christ, etc.

In short, nothing has really changed from the early church until this day. As Paul even said, the Great Apostasy must take place before the Lord returns.

Boxcar

Because it would predate at least 3 of the 4 Gospels and possibly all 4, plus Acts, plus the Apocalypse of John, plus a good number of the Epistles that are not the 7 that actually are attributed to Paul. I believe you have a typo as I do not believe these books were written before 70. To me that's the better part of what we call the NT. Further, say it does have one of the NT books (or more) actually recorded in it in some form. It would be the oldest existant NT writting we have. I find that exciting.

I find it humorous though you would refer to the beliefs of the different groups as heresy or apostacy. Especially when they hadn't even figured out where all this was going yet amongst themselves. Peter and Paul for some time were in bitter opposition on many of these issues. Would you call one or both of them a heretic?

Remember too, the books to be included in the NT were not decided on until the early Christians came to a decision on these things. Thus the books that conformed to these decsions were kept and others were removed that did not. I know you'll claim divine guidence on this as that's what you did before and that's fine if that's what you want to believe. I know better than trying to discuss this with you because you've made up your mind on this subject. However, I find the possiblility that this thing is real (though there is a good chance it is not) intriguing as it would have been written by someone who actually could have seen Jesus or at the least from the direct recollections of someone who did.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I don't jump out of my skin with these archeological finds. ...
If Noah's Ark was discovered perched atop some mountain, it would barely raise an eyebrow.
Boxcar

So true. (Try Mt Ararat (?))....but if Osama bin laden was in it.
That would be a story.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If someone were to find the Ark of the Covenant of the OT, most would yawn at that discovery. If Noah's Ark was discovered perched atop some mountain, it would barely raise an eyebrow. If Pharaoh's personal war chariot were to be found in the middle of the Red Sea depths, that would probably elicit a shrug of the shoulders.

Somehow, I doubt it. In the first instance a fictional movie made of its discovery became one of the largest grossing films ever. Also, religious icons play an important role in the largest of Christian sects, Catholicism. Folks, religious and non-religious alike, LOVE this stuff.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Because it would predate at least 3 of the 4 Gospels and possibly all 4, plus Acts, plus the Apocalypse of John, plus a good number of the Epistles that are not the 7 that actually are attributed to Paul. I believe you have a typo as I do not believe these books were written before 70. To me that's the better part of what we call the NT. Further, say it does have one of the NT books (or more) actually recorded in it in some form. It would be the oldest existant NT writting we have. I find that exciting.

Ahh...but on what basis do you say this? How do you know it would? And just when do you think the Gospels and Acts were written, and why?

I find it humorous though you would refer to the beliefs of the different groups as heresy or apostacy. Especially when they hadn't even figured out where all this was going yet amongst themselves. Peter and Paul for some time were in bitter opposition on many of these issues. Would you call one or both of them a heretic?

Neither because Paul was correct and Peter was wrong and Peter saw the error of his ways. But nonetheless, heresies started seeping into the church very early. There is indeed a difference between between a heretic teaching or preaching against a fundamental Christian doctrine (which Peter wasn't doing) and a sinful, hypocritical Christian (which was what Peter was at that time).

Also, you grossly exaggerate Paul and Peter's differences. Paul confronted Peter on a very specific matter -- because of his hypocritical actions -- actions that were not consistent with Peter's gospel message, which didn't differ one iota from Paul's! Paul was very concerned over Peter's confusion about how to treat believing Gentiles. And even more importantly because Peter was spreading his hypocrisy to other Jewish believers. So, Paul, rightly confronted Peter on this matter for the sake of unity, harmony and consistency within the church. (This confrontation between the two is clearly laid out in Gal 2:11ff.)

All this refers back to what I said earlier -- the misunderstanding of the "mystery" of the New Covenant. What Peter was confused about, apparently, is that the New Covenant completely replaced and made obsolete the Old Covenant. Peter was confused about the role Gentiles would play in the Church. What Peter didn't understand is that Gentile believers were who were branches of a "natural olive tree" are now being grafted into the the "cultivated olive tree" (Old Covenant believers), and that this "cultivated olive tree" itself had branches removed (Unbelieving Jews), so that the New Covenant Church would now consist of just ONE Tree -- that "tree" consisting of believing Jews and Gentiles alike. (For NOW, there is no longer a distinction between Jew and Gentile believers -- both are ONE (Rom 10:12; 12:5). The great significance to this is that Corporate Israel, that is to say Israel as a Nation, no longer has a covenant relationship with God because they broke the Old Covenant through their constant disobedience (and these disobedient Jews were the branches broken off the "cultivated olive tree"). All this is spelled out by Paul in Romans 11, but to be thoroughly understood and to see the thread of Unconditional Election running through his formal argument, this chapter should be understood in the larger context of Romans 9 and 10.

Remember too, the books to be included in the NT were not decided on until the early Christians came to a decision on these things. Thus the books that conformed to these decsions were kept and others were removed that did not. I know you'll claim divine guidence on this as that's what you did before and that's fine if that's what you want to believe. I know better than trying to discuss this with you because you've made up your mind on this subject. However, I find the possiblility that this thing is real (though there is a good chance it is not) intriguing as it would have been written by someone who actually could have seen Jesus or at the least from the direct recollections of someone who did.

Of course, I've made up my mind. Scripture, throughout, tells us that all the apostles were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ (LK 1:2, Acts 1:3-5; 2:32; 3:15; 10:41; 13:31). Why couldn't the apostles have seen Christ? Why couldn't Luke have written his Gospel from the very recollections of eyewitnesses, as he claims? I find it remarkable how quickly and easily you dismiss NT testimony, yet you're so eager to have this latest archaeological find prove Jesus -- prove that he existed!? Or prove what, exactly? What is it that you're looking to have proved?

And what if this book talks about the prophetically-fulfilled destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple that took place in 70 A.D? Would you still think that it pre-dated the NT, which talks about neither? (One website claims that the books were found in a place that is known to have been a refuge for believing Jews after the the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., as they claim other documents from that period had been found in the cave previously.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...=feeds-newsxml

Or worse yet (for you and other skeptics), what if this metal book took talks about witnessing a resurrected Christ? O horrors of all horrors! If this happened to be written in the book, the entire world would be crying out for the hills and mountains to fall upon it, so that its ears would not hear or eyes see this revelation. The last thing the world would want is for some extra-biblical find to give that kind of supporting testimony to Scripture! But even then the world would say these were delusional and extremely overzealous religious fanantics -- they merely saw some apparition, or they were hallucinating or something. They saw what they wanted to see -- pretty much the way the world believes what it wants to believe.

This is why I don't get overly excited over these kinds of discoveries. As stated previously, they will do very little to convert unbelievers...and skeptics. Jesus clearly said the truth would set us free and that believers would be sanctified by the truth, etc. -- not by Man's antiquities. I guess this is why Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach the gospel and not go out and become archaeologists so that they could dig up the truth.

Boxcar