I'm bored.

So who was Mary Magdalene.

Here's mine:

She was a female disciple; that's it. Perhaps she was most beloved but the relationship between her and Jesus was platonic.

Next...

SLUT.

She was a prostitute, no? That is, until she started with the following Christ.

I could be wrong but

Mormon theology teaches she was one of the wives of Jesus.

According the the gospels of thomas and mary she was Jesus most trusted disciple and they COULD have had some sort of sexual relationship, although its written he kisses her, it is missing WHERE exactly he did.

Its funny how basically ALL the story of jesus is stolen from a roman sun god or something....litterally right down to the last details.

One of the few real contributions 'feminist' theology has made to biblical studies is a re-evaluation of Mary.

The prostitution thing is almost certainly a slur.

However evidence suggests she was insane.

As Among-the-living says there is a great deal of evidence to suggest her relationship with jesus was sexual or she was infact his lawful wife.

Although if she was shagging him then it seems strange that she didn't recognise him...

She was a close friend of Jesus.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

According the the gospels of thomas and mary she was Jesus most trusted disciple and they COULD have had some sort of sexual relationship, although its written he kisses her, it is missing WHERE exactly he did.

Its funny how basically ALL the story of jesus is stolen from a roman sun god or something....litterally right down to the last details.

No, not all of it, and you're thinking the Egyptian sun god. Well, sort of. Egyptian religion is fucked up beyond belief. They couldn't make up their fucking minds about their gods.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

No, not all of it, and you're thinking the Egyptian sun god. Well, sort of. Egyptian religion is fucked up beyond belief. They couldn't make up their fucking minds about their gods.



Nope, he was probably thinking of Mithra who was also a Roman sun god .

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:



Nope, he was probably thinking of Mithra who was also a Roman sun god .

You sure? (http://tinyurl.com/y6jowz)

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

You sure? (http://tinyurl.com/y6jowz)

Yep.

Cos Mithras tends to be the 'proto-jesus' most have heard of! (Especially considering he said 'roman').

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 12-24-2006).]

The official line was that she was an adulteress before she turned away from sin and followed Our Lord. Some people have chosen to infer that that means she was a prostitute, but it's a bit inconclusive for me, really. I'm in a rush but will post a bit of info on St Mary Magdalene for you

later on.

I doubt she (along with Judas) ever really existed. I'm starting to have my doubts about the existence of Jesus as well, since (as someone said before) everything about him has been recycled from previous resurrection cults and there is no contemporary evidence of him. I'm not convinced either way, though.

And I thought this thread was going to fail!

Well, there's a Gospel of Mary book out. And it is Magdalene; it's a really scattered and shredded account of her days with Jesus.

Anyway, she's better described in the Gospel of Thomas. Or, rather, the events that surround her are.

Apparently Jesus wanted to make a man out of

her, I kid you not. That's what it said.

"Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

That's what Jesus said in the Gospel of Thomas.

Which could mean any or none of the following.

*Having a male spirit has nothing to do with gender.

*Jesus did have a relationship with her and was rather gay.

*Jesus did not have a relationship with her other than friendship and simply wanted her to be more accepted amongst his other friends.

Go on.

quote:Originally posted by Murloc:



*Jesus did have a relationship with her and was rather gay.



That would REALLY make my day.



[This message has been edited by ViVe CUERVO (edited 12-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:



Nope, he was probably thinking of Mithra who was also a Roman sun god .

Yeah, i was talking about Mithra, also there are parallels with Attis, Krishna and Apollonius of Tyana.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

Yeah, i was talking about Mithra, also there are parallels with Attis, Krishna and Apollonius of Tyana.

You can blame Constantine and the Rosicrucians for that stuff...

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

Yeah, i was talking about Mithra, also there are parallels with Attis, Krishna and Apollonius of Tyana.



I think you guys forgot Osiris, the Egyption god of life, also called the AllFather. A god who was murdered and then resurected by his wife, was the merciful judge of the dead, and whose soul or power was worshiped in the form of the Ram.

Indeed, wtf, how could you forget about me.

quote:Originally posted by -_-OsiriS-_-:

Indeed, wtf, how could you forget about me.

Lame3 http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

And also, Apollonius was attributed to doing everything Jesus did, but better. There were also temples devoted to him in Jerusalem, where the sick people cured themselves.

Well as someone said we can blame certain people for all of this, as we all know the texts picked for the new testament were picked solely on the idea of "unity" and such, to keep the Roman empire together as it were.

The gospel of mary is so destroyed now that we can only see up to "And he kissed her on...." shame really.

Half of the things posted here are from Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code



Which is in labelled in the FICTION section of the library. Not religious text.

quote:Originally posted by Murloc:

You can blame Constantine and the Rosicrucians for that stuff...



The Gospels as we know it were already assembled MUCH before Constantine.

quote:Originally posted by VolatileShiftInPersona:

Half of the things posted here are from Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code



Which is in labelled in the FICTION section of the library. Not religious text.



Never seen it.

Edit: or read it.



[This message has been edited by Seriously (edited 12-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Seriously:



Never seen it.

Edit: or read it.







Acutally all of among_the_living's claims are from the Da Vinci Code. Coincidence?

quote:Originally posted by VolatileShiftInPersona:



Acutally all of among_the_living's claims are from the Da Vinci Code. Coincidence?

Really? As much as I tried to block that pile of shit out of my mind, I'm pretty sure on the "jesus tapped that ass" thing was in the Davinci Code.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Really? As much as I tried to block that pile of shit out of my mind, I'm pretty sure on the "jesus tapped that ass" thing was in the Davinci Code.

I don't think I remember that part. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

[This message has been edited by VolatileShiftInPersona (edited 12-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by VolatileShiftInPersona:



Acutally all of among_the_living's claims are from the Da Vinci Code. Coincidence?

ALl of the things i said are also factual if you read about these other figures....Coincidence??! http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

Have you even read about these people? I highly doubt it seen as you labelled it as "fake" just cause you read it in a fictional book, there also IS a gospel of mary and a gospel of thomas, they were left out of the NT by top romans because they weren't deemed fit to keep it all in order, this is FACT as known by basically everyone who studied the gospels and roman history.

hey....it also says that people can !!!WALK AROUND!!! in harry potter...man, that shit is so fake! also, it says in god knows how many books that water can put out some fires http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif) oh GOD, theyre filling our heads with lies!



[This message has been edited by among_the_living (edited 12-28-2006).]

Among-the-living is absolutley correct. Anyone who accuses him/her of having pulled it out of the Da Vinci Code is too ignorant to hold a valid opinion about any biblical topic.

While the DVC may have shocked the general public there was nothing in it that hasn't been said a hundred times before.

Personally DVC shocked me by being absolute shite and having even less literary value and being even more inane than even Harry Potter.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

Among-the-living is absolutley correct. Anyone who accuses him/her of having pulled it out of the Da Vinci Code is too ignorant to hold a valid opinion about any biblical topic.

While the DVC may have shocked the general public there was nothing in it that hasn't been said a hundred times before.

Personally DVC shocked me by being absolute shite and having even less literary value and being even more inane than even Harry Potter.

I dont think i even got past the first murder scene actually, it was so boring.

It's possible that they could have had sex or a relationship. But there's absolutely no chance that she had a child.

quote:Originally posted by nicky69:

It's possible that they could have had sex or a relationship. But there's absolutely no chance that she had a child.

You're 100% sure that there is no way she possibly ever had a child?

And you think this why?....i'm not saying it did, but you cant say for 100% sure that she didn't.

quote:Originally posted by nicky69:

It's possible that they could have had sex or a relationship. But there's absolutely no chance that she had a child.

Why not? Woman + sperm = baby...

And does it really nullify all of Jesus' teachings if he had a child? NO. A rational person wouldn't give a damn whether Mary was impregnated or not.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

According the the gospels of thomas and mary she was Jesus most trusted disciple and they COULD have had some sort of sexual relationship, although its written he kisses her, it is missing WHERE exactly he did.

Its funny how basically ALL the story of jesus is stolen from a roman sun god or something....litterally right down to the last details.

And how can the Gospel of Thomas and Mary, dated 200-300 years after the death of Jesus, be accurately be used as an indication of whether Jesus had a relationship?

Think about it. The 4 main gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were written about 50 years at the earliest and a hundred years at the latest after Jesus' death. The Gospels of Thomas and Mary are written about 200-300 years after.

If 4 gospels, dated 50 years at the earliest and a hundred at the latested, said one thing. (Keep in mind that all 4 of them say it) would you rather believe another gospel written 200-300 years later?

http://en .wikipedia .org/wiki/ Gospel_of_Thomas (http: //en.wikip edia.org/w iki/Gospel _of_Thomas )

Conservative Dating

Paul's Letters A.D. 50-66

Matthew A.D. 70-80

Mark A.D. 50-60

Luke A.D. Early 60's

John A.D. 80-100

This chart is taken from Werner Georg Kimmel's Introduction to the New Testament, translated by Howard Clark Kee, Abingdon Press, 1973; Everett Harrison's INtroduction to the New Testament, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co

Historians also know that the apostles of Jesus wrote most of those books, with the exception of Paul I think, which is written by Paul. (Saul) Historians also knew Paul was in Rome preaching in about 80 A.D.

William Foxwell Albright, one of the world's foremost biblical archaeologists said "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80"

Source: W.F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in BIbles Lands (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1955), page 136.



Everything from Christianity is stolen?

Are you talking about Mithraisim?

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

But Mithras is not called "Son of God" nor is it called "The Light of the World" as Jesus is. The Mithraic scholar Richard GOrdon says "there is no death, burial and resurrection of Mithras. None."

Source: Richard Gordon, Image and Value in the Greco-Roman World (Aldershot, UK:Variorum, 1996) page 112



[This message has been edited by VolatileShiftInPersona (edited 12-30-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

ALl of the things i said are also factual if you read about these other figures....Coincidence??! http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

Have you even read about these people? I highly doubt it seen as you labelled it as "fake" just cause you read it in a fictional book, there also IS a gospel of mary and a gospel of thomas, they were left out of the NT by top romans because they weren't deemed fit to keep it all in order, this is FACT as known by basically everyone who studied the gospels and roman history.

hey....it also says that people can !!!WALK AROUND!!! in harry potter...man, that shit is so fake! also, it says in god knows how many books that water can put out some fires http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif) oh GOD, theyre filling our heads with lies!





No. The Gospels were NOT collated by the Roman government.

Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons and the most important theologian of the second century mentioned in his book "Against Heresies" which was written a century AND A HALF before Constantine, that those 4 gospels were so so universally recognized that he referred to them as 4 pillars, and saying "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are."

Source: Irenaeusm, Against Heresies, 3.11.8

A few lines later he says "the Gospel is quadriform, meaning, of course, 4 in number."

Also, Origen, a prominent Christian scholar and theologian who died more than fifty years before Constantine became Emperor, wrote:

"I know a certain gospel which is called "The Gospel according to Thomas" and a "Gospel according to Matthais," and many others have we read-lest we should in any way be considred ignorant because of those who imagine they possess some knowledge if they are acquainted with htese. Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the church has recognized, which is that only the four gospels should be accepted."

Source: Darrell L. BOck, Breaking the Da Vinci Code (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004) page 119-120

From this we know that the scriptures were assembled by the church themselves and not the Romans.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

One of the few real contributions 'feminist' theology has made to biblical studies is a re-evaluation of Mary.

The prostitution thing is almost certainly a slur.

However evidence suggests she was insane.

As Among-the-living says there is a great deal of evidence to suggest her relationship with jesus was sexual or she was infact his lawful wife.

Although if she was shagging him then it seems strange that she didn't recognise him...

Are you talking about the 1983 book called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, and Richard Leigh?

Bona fide scholars and historians regard that book as basically "pulp fiction."

Source: http://anzwers.org/free/posmis

www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoterichistory/richardson1.html (http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoterichistory/richardson1.html)

and http://anzwers.org/free/posdebunking

Or are you talking about the Gospel of Thomas/Mary/Philip?

Like this excerpt from the Gospel of Philip.

"And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, 'Why do you love her more than all of us?"

Now you claim that there is a "great deal of evidence". I just have to ask one question.

Why did the disciples ask Jesus why he loved Mary more than all of them? Jesus was "married" wasn't he? Would I ask your girlfriend/wife why they loved you more than they loved me?

That's why I sincerely doubt the credibility of Gospel of Philip.

quote:Originally posted by VolatileShiftInPersona:

Are you talking about the 1983 book called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, and Richard Leigh?

Bona fide scholars and historians regard that book as basically "pulp fiction."

Source: http://anzwers.org/free/posmis

www.a lpheus.org/html/articles/esoterichistory/richardson1.html (http: //www.alph eus.org/ht ml/article s/esoteric history/ri chardson1. html)

and http://anzwers.org/free/posdebunking

Or are you talking about the Gospel of Thomas/Mary/Philip?

Like this excerpt from the Gospel of Philip.

"And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, 'Why do you love her more than all of us?"

Now you claim that there is a "great deal of evidence". I just have to ask one question.

Why did the disciples ask Jesus why he loved Mary more than all of them? Jesus was "married" wasn't he? Would I ask your girlfriend/wife why they loved you more than they loved me?

That's why I sincerely doubt the credibility of Gospel of Philip.

Youre taking this WAY too far man.

Youre pulling us apart based ont he fact that theyre books written ages after Jesus' death, yet....ALL of the gospels were written ages after he died, i mean, we have books now about WWII that are as conflicting as these things and THAT was only 60 odd years ago.

No one knows for sure, you can only go off of what these things tell you, IF theyre real which is another thing.

Actually....the gospels were seen as a way to "unite" the breaking apart Roman empire, they saw it that if they had so many different versions floating about then it could become as fragmented as these texts, which is why the ones that were chosen WERE chosen, with INCREDIBLE influence from top Roman officials http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

There is a great body of evidence that infact the (logion) Gospel of Thomas predates (at least in parts) the Synpotics.

Once again I can do no better than recommend Robinson's seminal work on this.

quote:Originally posted by VolatileShiftInPersona:

And how can the Gospel of Thomas and Mary, dated 200-300 years after the death of Jesus, be accurately be used as an indication of whether Jesus had a relationship?

Think about it. The 4 main gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were written about 50 years at the earliest and a hundred years at the latest after Jesus' death. The Gospels of Thomas and Mary are written about 200-300 years after.

If 4 gospels, dated 50 years at the earliest and a hundred at the latested, said one thing. (Keep in mind that all 4 of them say it) would you rather believe another gospel written 200-300 years later?

http://en .wikipedia .org/wiki/ Gospel_of_Thomas (http: //en.wikip edia.org/w iki/Gospel _of_Thomas )

Conservative Dating

Paul's Letters A.D. 50-66

Matthew A.D. 70-80

Mark A.D. 50-60

Luke A.D. Early 60's

John A.D. 80-100

This chart is taken from Werner Georg Kimmel's Introduction to the New Testament, translated by Howard Clark Kee, Abingdon Press, 1973; Everett Harrison's INtroduction to the New Testament, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co

Historians also know that the apostles of Jesus wrote most of those books, with the exception of Paul I think, which is written by Paul. (Saul) Historians also knew Paul was in Rome preaching in about 80 A.D.

William Foxwell Albright, one of the world's foremost biblical archaeologists said "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80"

Source: W.F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in BIbles Lands (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1955), page 136.



Everything from Christianity is stolen?

Are you talking about Mithraisim?

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

But Mithras is not called "Son of God" nor is it called "The Light of the World" as Jesus is. The Mithraic scholar Richard GOrdon says "there is no death, burial and resurrection of Mithras. None."

Source: Richard Gordon, Image and Value in the Greco-Roman World (Aldershot, UK:Variorum, 1996) page 112



Sorry buddy, those numbers are wrong. Earliest one is over a century after Chist, latest is almost 4.

Edit: Bad phrasing on my part. I mean earliest physical copies. Those dates you gave are determined by the texts themselves, except Mark. For Mark, that supposed date comes from a scrap of manuscript 5 fucking square inches, with a towering 9 characters on it, found in a cave sealed in 68AD. Hardly a solid basis for dating.

[This message has been edited by SurahAhriman (edited 12-31-2006).]

Right, so...

St Mary Magdalene. Feast Day July 22. Often misconceived as being three separate persons - the Greek Church and some others hold to this belief quite firmly. She is mentioned several times in the Bible - the sinner who anointed the feet of Christ in the house of Simon the Pharisee; the sister of Martha and Lazarus in Bethany; and of course, the devout disciple who knelt beneath the Cross of dying Christ, and was the first recorded witness of His Resurrection. For the singular grace of being the first to see the Risen Christ, the Church orders the Creed to be said on her feast day, as on that of the Apostles.

WHO WAS MARY MAGDALENE?

At the southern end of the plain of Genesareth was a small town called Magdala. It lay halfway between Capharnaum and Tiberias. The town had a rather bad name, as it was filled with commoners, and fishing folk. Mary Magdalen, so called because she came from Magdala, was the daughter of an important Sadducean family. Martha was her sister, and Lazarus her brother. St Luke first introduces her to us as "a woman that was in the city, a sinner," (7,37) in the house of Simon the Pharisee. Later she is mentioned as one of a band of holy women that travelled around with Christ and His Apostles. Some of these had been cured by Christ, and others exorcised. Chief among the latter was Mary, "called Magdalene, out of whom seven devils were gone forth," (St Luke 8,2). People possessed by demons were not neccessarily sinners, but there can be no doubt that the Magdalen was a notorious sinner.

THE DINNER OF SIMON THE PHARISEE:

St Luke alone gives us this account of the dinner at Simon the Pharisee's home.

A Pharisee, named Simon, invited OUr Lord to a meal. A woman, known as a bad character, came into the room. She carried an alabaster box of ointment. She came behind Jesus, who was resting on a couch, and began to bathe His feet with her tears, and she wiped them by using her flowing hair as a towel. She kept kissing the sacred feet and she anointed them with oil.

Simon looked on in horrified amazement, saying to himself that if Jesus was really a prophet He would know that the woman was a public sinner. Jesus read Simon's thoughts, and answered him by speaking directly to him.

Having invited Him to his home, Simon had shown scant respect, omitting all courtesies given to a guest by Eastern hospitality - water for the feet, the kiss of welcome, oil for the hair. Evidently Simon thought Jesus unworthy of such a welcome. But the woman had made up for the bad manners of the host, by bathing His feet with tears and using her tresses as a towel; she had kissed and anointed His feet with expensive perfumed ointment. Evidently she had thought of her great debt for sin and she was confident that He would forgive that debt because of her great love.

THE SECOND ANOINTING BY MARY MAGDALENE:

This second anointing took place at a later date, in the house of Simon the Leper.

"Mary therefore when He was at meat, took an alabaster box of precious ointment, a pound of right spikenard, of great price. And breaking the alabaster box, she poured it out upon His Head as He was at table, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the odour of the ointment."

Judas Iscariot was outraged at such an extravagance, and said

"Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor?"

The Evangelist significantly adds: "Now he said this, not because he cared for the porr, but because he was a thief and having the purse carried the things that were put therein."

Jesus, knowing well what Judas would do within a few days, dealt very gently with him, saying "Let her alone. Why do you trouble this woman? For she hath wrought a good work upon Me. For the poor you have always with you and whensoever you will you may do them good. But Me you have not always. She hath done what she could. For in pouring this ointment upon My Body she is come beforehand to anoint My Body for the burial."

Jesus concluded with a loving tribute to this gratitude:

"Amen, I say to you. Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she hath done shall be told for a memorial of her."

HER RICH REWARDS:

How richly the Lord rewarded Mary Magdalene even in this life! Her public act of reparation in the house of Simon the Pharisee, her sincere repentance and her great love won for her the companionship and friendship of Christ. Her home at Bethany became His home. Because of her He raises Lazarus from the dead. She sits at His feet, her heart filled with love and gratitude, and He will not heed Martha's complaint that she is idle. No, she has chosen the better part.

Mary the spotless opens Her Immaculate Heart to her cand cherishes her as one of her closest friends. It is at Mary's invitation that the Magdalen accompanies her to Calvary and remains with Her to the bitter end.

The first recorded appearance of Christ after the Resurrection is to Mary Magdalen. He calls her by name, and comands her to announce His Ressurection to the Apostles.

HER LAST DAYS IN FRANCE:

Mary Magdalen and her family were especially hated by the Pharisees because their home always had an open door for OUr Lord and His diciples. After the miracle of Lazarus their lives were in danger, but were saved because of the familiy position and influence among the top Jewish aristocracy.

One day, sometime after the Ascension, the Jews laid hand upon the whole family of Bethania and loaded it onto a ship without sail or rudder, and launched it at the mercy of wind and waves. The hand of God brought this ship to the shore of Provence in Gaul. Lazarus founded the Church of Marseilles, Maximin, his brother, founded the Church at Aix, Martha lived on the shores of the River Rhone, and MAry Magdalen ended her days in the solitude of La Sainte Baume.

Mary spent her days in a cavern on the side of the mountain, where she hung a Cross, praying fervently for all sinners, feeding her soul on the memory of her Lord, Whose feet she never leaves, still faithful and constant in penitent love.

There is a tradition that seven times daily the angels who were her dear companions carried her to the summit fo the mountain to pray. On the last day of her earthly life she went down towards the plain. Maximin went to meet her, and gave her Christ's Body in the Eucharist. She is relaesed from the prison of her body and admitted at last to embrace His feet in everlasting glory. Her body awaits its glorious resurrection in the cryot of the Church which today bears the name of St Maximin.

sources of information: Holy Bible (Douay-Rheims Version), Saint Mary Magdalen by Mgr John T McMahon, M.A., Ph.D.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

Youre taking this WAY too far man.

Youre pulling us apart based ont he fact that theyre books written ages after Jesus' death, yet....ALL of the gospels were written ages after he died, i mean, we have books now about WWII that are as conflicting as these things and THAT was only 60 odd years ago.

No one knows for sure, you can only go off of what these things tell you, IF theyre real which is another thing.

Actually....the gospels were seen as a way to "unite" the breaking apart Roman empire, they saw it that if they had so many different versions floating about then it could become as fragmented as these texts, which is why the ones that were chosen WERE chosen, with INCREDIBLE influence from top Roman officials http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



I fail to see how Rome could be mended by choosing texts that directly say the Jews kill Jesus.

EDIT: If you mean the continuing disagreement between Christians and Jews wrecking Rome, I don't see how IF the Roman empire supported the Christian texts that say Jesus was killed by the Pharisees.

[This message has been edited by VolatileShiftInPersona (edited 12-31-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Sorry buddy, those numbers are wrong. Earliest one is over a century after Chist, latest is almost 4.

Edit: Bad phrasing on my part. I mean earliest physical copies. Those dates you gave are determined by the texts themselves, except Mark. For Mark, that supposed date comes from a scrap of manuscript 5 fucking square inches, with a towering 9 characters on it, found in a cave sealed in 68AD. Hardly a solid basis for dating.



Source?

Another source for me.

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

quote:Wikipedia

Date of gospel

There is little in the gospel itself to indicate with clarity the date of its composition. The majority of scholars date the gospel between the years 70 and 100.

quote:Wikipedia

There is wide scholarly agreement that Mark was written sometime between the late 60s or the early 70's.[11] There are vocal minority groups that argue for earlier or later dates. However, as most scholars believe that either Matthew or Luke was written around the year 80 and used Mark as a source, they find a date past 75 unlikely.

quote:Date

Estimates range from c. 50 to c. 100.

[edit] Traditional views of the date

Traditionally, Christians believe that Luke wrote under the direction, if not at the dictation, of Paul. Conservative scholars suggest this would place it as having been written before Acts, with Acts being composed around 63 or 64. Consequently, the tradition is that this Gospel was written about 60 or 63, when Luke may have been at Caesarea in attendance on Paul, who was then a prisoner. If the alternate conjecture is correct, that it was written at Rome during Paul's imprisonment there, then it would date earlier, 50–60. Additionally, Acts does not contain the martyrdom of Paul (c. 62), so conservative scholars suggest Luke-Acts were written before this.

quote:Date

It is typically accepted that John's Gospel was written in or about 100, though dates as early as the 60s or as late as the 140s have been advanced by a small minority. Christian and non-Christian scholars are divided in opinion, with the former accepting a range of c. 90-100 and the latter accepting a range of c. 90-120.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

There is a great body of evidence that infact the (logion) Gospel of Thomas predates (at least in parts) the Synpotics.

Once again I can do no better than recommend Robinson's seminal work on this.



Can you give me the book title and the author's name?

[This message has been edited by VolatileShiftInPersona (edited 12-31-2006).]