Part of the New Testament Proven True?

[7starmantis]

Archaeologists have found a cave where they believe John the Baptist anointed many of his disciples, offering extraordinary proof of a central New Testament figure and his theology.

The Associated Press reports that the cave is located on the Kibbutz Tzuba, which is 2-1/2 miles from Ein Kerem, John the Baptist's hometown that is now part of Jerusalem. The cave includes a huge cistern with 28 steps that lead to an underground pool of water. Some 250,000 pottery shards were also found and are presumed to be remnants of small water jugs used in the Christian baptismal ritual performed by the fiery New Testament preacher. Wall carvings etched into the cave tell John's life story; they were likely made by monks in the fourth or fifth century. In addition, a stone was found in the cave that researchers believe was used for ceremonial foot washing.

Full Article

 

[bcbernam777]

Archaeologists have found a cave where they believe John the Baptist anointed many of his disciples, offering extraordinary proof of a central New Testament figure and his theology.

The Associated Press reports that the cave is located on the Kibbutz Tzuba, which is 2-1/2 miles from Ein Kerem, John the Baptist's hometown that is now part of Jerusalem. The cave includes a huge cistern with 28 steps that lead to an underground pool of water. Some 250,000 pottery shards were also found and are presumed to be remnants of small water jugs used in the Christian baptismal ritual performed by the fiery New Testament preacher. Wall carvings etched into the cave tell John's life story; they were likely made by monks in the fourth or fifth century. In addition, a stone was found in the cave that researchers believe was used for ceremonial foot washing.

Full Article

I am a Christian (well I try any way) and whilst I would rejoice if this where the case, all of the biblical evidence shows that JTB baptized in the jordan River by full immersion, there is no direct evidence of water jugs being used. In addition to this baptism was already a ritual in Israel at the time and many times utilised a pit filled with water (like a very deep bath) but there is no evidence that water jugs where used in baptism either BC or AD. It may simply be a nother site of the Qumran comunity of which it was sepculated that JTB was a part of.

 

[7starmantis]

While I agree with you, what biblical evidence are you refering to? There is evidence that he did baptise in the Jordan river with full immersion, but does that evidence prove that is the only way he baptised?

7sm

 

[bcbernam777]

While I agree with you, what biblical evidence are you refering to? There is evidence that he did baptise in the Jordan river with full immersion, but does that evidence prove that is the only way he baptised?

7sm

Direct scriptuall evidence, and whilst it does not make any direct statement that he did it all the time it is implied, in particular in the first chapter of John

 

[heretic888]

Also from the article:

But because there were no inscriptions found in the cave, some experts insist there is no proof that John the Baptist ever set foot in it. Instead, they think Byzantine-era monks commemorated John at this site linked to him by local tradition. Gibson heartily disagrees, insisting the carvings, foot washing stone, and other artifacts provide strong circumstantial evidence that the cave was actually used by John and is not just a memorial to him.​

Of course, John the Baptist was a historical figure. We already know this, as he is mentioned in non-Biblical historical records from the time period. I fail to grasp the significance of this find to Biblical scholarship.

Laterz.

 

[7starmantis]

Direct scriptuall evidence, and whilst it does not make any direct statement that he did it all the time it is implied, in particular in the first chapter of John

I dont see anything in the bible or especially the first chapter of John that states anything about how he baptized. I would be carefull accepting things as truth and basing a belief on them from implications you feel have been made by scripture. Get down into the context of the passage and the customs and tradiations of the time and what has gone on. There were several different kinds of baptism going on, aspersion, affusion, and immersion. While I agree with you that its a far reach for this discovery to be proven as JTB's site of baptisms, I dont see anything in the bible or in John chapter 1 that offers proof of either idea.

Of course, John the Baptist was a historical figure. We already know this, as he is mentioned in non-Biblical historical records from the time period. I fail to grasp the significance of this find to Biblical scholarship.

Laterz.

I wasn't posting this as having some significance to biblical scholarship. Its interesting to anyone interested in archeology or biblical history. Dont be so quick so assume the intent of everyone posting somthing relating to religion.

7sm

 

[Ray]

I dont see anything in the bible or especially the first chapter of John that states anything about how he baptized. I would be carefull accepting things as truth and basing a belief on them from implications you feel have been made by scripture. Get down into the context of the passage and the customs and tradiations of the time and what has gone on. There were several different kinds of baptism going on, aspersion, affusion, and immersion. While I agree with you that its a far reach for this discovery to be proven as JTB's site of baptisms, I dont see anything in the bible or in John chapter 1 that offers proof of either idea.

The NT accounts of baptisms don't specifically state that they were full immersion. I believe that the accounts contain enough details to support full immersion - when I couple that with the historical accounts of how "sprinkling" came to be, then I conclude that full immersion was the mode used.

I also tend to believe that some things that are "common knowledge" in a culture (esp an ancient culture) are always as defined as we do now days.

I understand that ancient conversion to Judiasm rituals contained special prayers and a full immersion in water (and probably hymns). However, I don't know what the modern traditions are.

 

[heretic888]

I dont see anything in the bible or especially the first chapter of John that states anything about how he baptized. I would be carefull accepting things as truth and basing a belief on them from implications you feel have been made by scripture.

There's also the little wrinkle that most Biblical scholars date the authorship of the Gospel of John to around 100 CE or so. As such, it really can't be relied upon to tell us anything about John the Baptist.

I wasn't posting this as having some significance to biblical scholarship. Its interesting to anyone interested in archeology or biblical history. Dont be so quick so assume the intent of everyone posting somthing relating to religion.

I suppose I was misled by the title, "Part of the New Testament Proven True?". This finding not only doesn't conclusively "prove" anything (as the aforementioned excerpt indicates), but it also doesn't really tell us anything about John the Baptist that we didn't already know.

Although, to be fair, you were only importing the title from its source.

Laterz.

 

[The Kidd]

"Baptizmo" is the Greek word used in scripture and it means to fully immerse.

 

[7starmantis]

The NT accounts of baptisms don't specifically state that they were full immersion. I believe that the accounts contain enough details to support full immersion - when I couple that with the historical accounts of how "sprinkling" came to be, then I conclude that full immersion was the mode used.

What details support full immersion? I think I have missed them. Also, what is the historic accounts of how "sprinkling" came to be?

There's also the little wrinkle that most Biblical scholars date the authorship of the Gospel of John to around 100 CE or so. As such, it really can't be relied upon to tell us anything about John the Baptist.

That doesn't really have bearing on the cave discovery, but ok.

I suppose I was misled by the title, "Part of the New Testament Proven True?". This finding not only doesn't conclusively "prove" anything (as the aforementioned excerpt indicates), but it also doesn't really tell us anything about John the Baptist that we didn't already know.

Although, to be fair, you were only importing the title from its source.

Exactly

"Baptizmo" is the Greek word used in scripture and it means to fully immerse.

Not exactly. The word used can be literally translated as: to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to make clean with water, to wash one's self. If you take the translation of "immerse" this specific word means a permanent change as in cleaning one's self. It also means submersion as in submersion of a ship or vessel. The word "bapto" means to dip, dip in, immerse as in dying something with color. Therefore one could say that "baptizo" is being used as a spiritual immersion by the holy spirit bringing about a permenent change in the person.

Eh?

 

[bcbernam777]

There's also the little wrinkle that most Biblical scholars date the authorship of the Gospel of John to around 100 CE or so. As such, it really can't be relied upon to tell us anything about John the Baptist.

Laterz.

Actually most scholars more precisly set a date between 90-100 AD which would be no problem at all seeing as how the apostle John was the longest surving Apostle living reputedly into 110 ad, going into exile at Patmos between 90-95 AD. Its literay style and context make it a clear match with 1st John, which (even if you want to argue that John was not the Author) whoever the author of 1 John is is the same as the gospel of John, and whoever wrote the book 1 John wrote this

"1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete"

Whoever wrote 1 John, ws a direct eyewitness to Jesus therefore would have had first hand knowledge of the events that took place.



Sorry 7star I actually meant Matthew

"1In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea 2and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." 3This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah:
"A voice of one calling in the desert,
'Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.' "[a]

4John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. 5People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. 6Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River."

(I have looke4d at the orignial Greek it means "in" )


"13Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John"

The Mere fact that Jesus traveled so long to reach that specific point would indicate that the region of the Jordan at least was a regular haunt for JB

16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water.

Out of the water indicating that he "went into" the water

 

[heretic888]

Sorry if this is off topic, but I feel this bears addressing...

Actually most scholars more precisly set a date between 90-100 AD which would be no problem at all seeing as how the apostle John was the longest surving Apostle living reputedly into 110 ad, going into exile at Patmos between 90-95 AD.

There is, of course, not a shred of evidence to back up this claim. It was one of those ex post facto legends invented by ecclesiastical authorities to "explain" how one man could have authored all the texts attributed to John.

Its literay style and context make it a clear match with 1st John, which (even if you want to argue that John was not the Author) whoever the author of 1 John is is the same as the gospel of John, and whoever wrote the book 1 John wrote this

All of the canonical gospels were originally anonymous. The names now attached to their titles were not there until around the time of Irenaeus, around 180 CE. The Gospel of John is a particularly interesting case, in that quite a few Church fathers believed it had been authored by the gnostic Cerinthus. There may be some validity to this, given that John is by far the most heavily redacted and edited of the four gospels.

Additionally, the claim that the author of 1 John was the author of the Gospel of John is not something generally supported by Biblical scholarship (mostly because of the dating anamolies).

[Whoever wrote 1 John, ws a direct eyewitness to Jesus therefore would have had first hand knowledge of the events that took place.

Not unless Jesus magically teleported to middle of the second century, which was when 1 John was written. Even the Church propagandist Eusebius regarded the pedigree of this epistle as questionable. That in itself speaks volumes.

It is evident from the language that 1 John uses that it was a reactionary anti-docetic document. The insistence that the Presbyter had "really really" met Jesus in the flesh and "really really" touched him physically was clearly intended to counter the docetic claims that Jesus was a purely spiritual being (made famous by Marcion, circa 140 CE). The author is simply hijacking the Presbyter's name to bolster his argument.

As many a scholar have pointed out, such language would be unnecessary unless there had been serious doubts as to whether Jesus had physically existed in the first place. This places the epistle at least around the time of Marcion, if not later.

Laterz.

 

[bcbernam777]

Sorry if this is off topic, but I feel this bears addressing...

[/b]

There is, of course, not a shred of evidence to back up this claim. It was one of those ex post facto legends invented by ecclesiastical authorities to "explain" how one man could have authored all the texts attributed to John.

Actually it is an accepted fact by both Christian and Non Christian Authoritys, it is the Minorities that believe otherwise

All of the canonical gospels were originally anonymous. The names now attached to their titles were not there until around the time of Irenaeus, around 180 CE. The Gospel of John is a particularly interesting case, in that quite a few Church fathers believed it had been authored by the gnostic Cerinthus. There may be some validity to this, given that John is by far the most heavily redacted and edited of the four gospels.

How could it be authored by a gnostic when it actually attacks many of the truths that gnostics believe in, that makes no sense, any historian or authority can "suggest" whatever they like that does not mean it is accepted as fact.

Additionally, the claim that the author of 1 John was the author of the Gospel of John is not something generally supported by Biblical scholarship (mostly because of the dating anamolies).

Actually by and large it is supported that John wrote the Gospel, I would suggest that the Biblical Scholarship you are talking about is again in a minority, the dating anamolies are not based on the content or the context of the book but rather based on the surviving manuscripts of the book

Not unless Jesus magically teleported to middle of the second century, which was when 1 John was written. Even the Church propagandist Eusebius regarded the pedigree of this epistle as questionable. That in itself speaks volumes.

And of course Eusebius was infallable. Notwithstanding the great influence of his works on others, Eusebius was not himself a great historian. [2], and the value of his works has generally been sought instead in the copious quotations that they contain from other sources, often lost.

He has also been accused of dishonesty at various times, and in various connections.

* Gibbon[1] dismissed his testimony on the number of martyrs and impugned his honesty by referring to a passage in the Ecclesiastical History, book 8, chapter 2, in which Eusebius introduces his discussion of the Great Persecution under Diocletian with "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

* Gibbon also pointed out that the chapter heading in Eusebius' Praeparatio evangelica (xii, 31), says how fictions (pseudos) — which Gibbon rendered 'falsehoods' — may be a a "medicine", which may be "lawful and fitting" to use [3]. But the text is discussing parallels between the bible and the theories of Plato on education, and Eusebius is suggesting that the bible also contains such material. Unless it is supposed that Eusebius believes the bible to be deceptive, it is easy to see why Gibbon confined his remark to the chapter heading (which may not be authorial anyway), and why Gibbon was accused of dishonesty in his attacks on Eusebius.[2]

* Swiss Historian Jacob Burckhardt dismissed Eusebius as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity".

* Questions were long raised by scholars about whether all the documents in the Life of Constantine were authen

Quoting from Eusebius as the definitive actually proves very little.

It is evident from the language that 1 John uses that it was a reactionary anti-docetic document. The insistence that the Presbyter had "really really" met Jesus in the flesh and "really really" touched him physically was clearly intended to counter the docetic claims that Jesus was a purely spiritual being (made famous by Marcion, circa 140 CE). The author is simply hijacking the Presbyter's name to bolster his argument.

That is your interpretation, and a pretty bold one to make seing as there is nothing in the writings themselves to suggest that the name is being hijacked to bolster anyones argument. A lot of these facts that you are presenting are old arguments that have always stemed from the radical minority's, not the majority's as you seem to allude to.

As many a scholar have pointed out, such language would be unnecessary unless there had been serious doubts as to whether Jesus had physically existed in the first place. This places the epistle at least around the time of Marcion, if not later.

You have to understand that gnostic thought had pervaded into the church at this point, the gnostic thought included that Jesus was never actually a physical being but more akin to some higher spiritual being, the whole fact is Jesus was both fully man and he was fully divine, a fact that was being undermined by the gnostic thinking which is why the book was written in the first place to counter these thoughts.

 

[heretic888]

Actually it is an accepted fact by both Christian and Non Christian Authoritys, it is the Minorities that believe otherwise

Really?? You don't get much more "mainstream" than Burton Mack. I would highly suggest reading his Who Wrote the New Testament? to correct some of the apologetic assumptions you are operating under.

Also, the only "evidence" for any of this information about John is a letter attributed to Irenaeus circa 180 CE, who claimed to have met Eusebius late in the latter's life, who he claimed had met the Apostle John. Your "evidence" is essentially some guy who heard from a guy who might have knew a guy.

That such tertiary evidence with absolutely no external corroboration is taken uncritically speaks volumes about the state of New Testament scholarship.

How could it be authored by a gnostic when it actually attacks many of the truths that gnostics believe in, that makes no sense, any historian or authority can "suggest" whatever they like that does not mean it is accepted as fact.

I never stated it was fact, I merely stated it was widely held by Church fathers prior to Irenaeus. As to "how", as I said before John is by far the most heavily redacted and interpolated of the four gospels.

Actually by and large it is supported that John wrote the Gospel, I would suggest that the Biblical Scholarship you are talking about is again in a minority, the dating anamolies are not based on the content or the context of the book but rather based on the surviving manuscripts of the book

Once again, please reference Burton Mack.

Your claims are rather, um, "interesting". The earliest surviving fragment of the Gospel of John dates to around 125 CE. The earliest surviving copies of 1 John date to around the middle of the third century.

Quoting from Eusebius as the definitive actually proves very little.

Eesubius was a staunch Church propagandist. The "history" he was writing was essentially the history the early Church wanted him to write.

That such a person would hold canonical works to be dubious in and of itself speaks volumes.

That is your interpretation, and a pretty bold one to make seing as there is nothing in the writings themselves to suggest that the name is being hijacked to bolster anyones argument. A lot of these facts that you are presenting are old arguments that have always stemed from the radical minority's, not the majority's as you seem to allude to.

Apologetic assumptions are not the "majority's". Authors of antiquity hijacked famous person's names all the time to bolster their arguments. It is a genre of literature referred to as psuedipigraphica.

I should also point out that with the exception of six or seven letters attributed to Paul, all the books of the New Testament are pseudipigraphica. Some more obvious than others.

You have to understand that gnostic thought had pervaded into the church at this point...

"Gnostic thought" had pervaded into the church by the time of Paul. So, that really tells us nothing.

....the gnostic thought included that Jesus was never actually a physical being but more akin to some higher spiritual being, the whole fact is Jesus was both fully man and he was fully divine, a fact that was being undermined by the gnostic thinking which is why the book was written in the first place to counter these thoughts.

Which just demonstrates the text in question was authored to counter Marcion's docetism. This places it no earlier than 145 CE.

Also, for the record, the evidence as I see it indicated "Jesus Christ" was entirely mythical. Some mid-2nd century pseudipigraphica by proto-Catholic apologists isn't going to change that.

Laterz.

 

[bcbernam777]

[/b]

Really?? You don't get much more "mainstream" than Burton Mack. I would highly suggest reading his Who Wrote the New Testament? to correct some of the apologetic assumptions you are operating under.

actually you do, Stott, Wenham, Mcdowell, and just because someone claims to be mainstream means nothing, or someone claims that someone else is mainstream means nothing, I have been a Christian for 16 years, studied at 2 different bible colleges and I have never heard of Burton Mack.

Also, the only "evidence" for any of this information about John is a letter attributed to Irenaeus circa 180 CE, who claimed to have met Eusebius late in the latter's life, who he claimed had met the Apostle John. Your "evidence" is essentially some guy who heard from a guy who might have knew a guy.

Which evidence about John are you making reference too?

T

hat such tertiary evidence with absolutely no external corroboration is taken uncritically speaks volumes about the state of New Testament scholarship.

You mean like the tertiary evidence you refer to?

I never stated it was fact, I merely stated it was widely held by Church fathers prior to Irenaeus. As to "how", as I said before John is by far the most heavily redacted and interpolated of the four gospels.

You may not have stated it as fact, you did however present a proposition based on the idea

Once again, please reference Burton Mack.

Once again I have never heard of him or his work, and as I conceded before there are some scholars who do not see it the same, again I will maintain that these are in the minority, infact if you did some research into it with a impartial third party, you will find that that it is conceded that the ideas that you are postualting in regards to the the book of John are shared by the minority not the majority.

Your claims are rather, um, "interesting". The earliest surviving fragment of the Gospel of John dates to around 125 CE. The earliest surviving copies of 1 John date to around the middle of the third century.

Which was between 15-25 years after its supposed authorship. Well I guess plato is out of the picture then seeing as how he "supposedly" authored in 400BC but the earliest surving manuscript is dated from 900 AD. Caucers Canterbury tales (well its something a little more modern), the earliest know manuscript was written (so it is believed) at least 10 years after the Author died, so do we question its Authorship? Infact if you where to apply the very same principal you apply to John, to other maunscripts and bodies of literary work then you would have to rewrite the majority of classical as well as a siziable chunk of contemporary literary history. Infact lets look at the majority classic lieterary

Author Date Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy


Lucretius55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ----
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ----
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ----
Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ----
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ----
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ----
Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----
Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ----
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ----
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1400 yrs 193 ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%
New
Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%

You will notice that the majority of the writings are many of the Authors upon which our fundamental ideas of contemporary society stem from.

Eesubius was a staunch Church propagandist. The "history" he was writing was essentially the history the early Church wanted him to write.

According to who, what evidence do you present to state that as fact

That such a person would hold canonical works to be dubious in and of itself speaks volumes.

It actually says very little, remember Eusibius was not the only show in town

Apologetic assumptions are not the "majority's". Authors of antiquity hijacked famous person's names all the time to bolster their arguments. It is a genre of literature referred to as psuedipigraphica.

Anad that proves it was done here how? Just because I grew up with peers that smoked drugs and ended up in Jail does that prove that I did the same?

I should also point out that with the exception of six or seven letters attributed to Paul, all the books of the New Testament are pseudipigraphica. Some more obvious than others.

How do you know this, how can you prove this, you are the one talking about evedence, so far out of the two of us I thnik I have provided at least some form of elementary evidence on the manuscripts, where is your evidence because so far it all comes down to opinion

"Gnostic thought" had pervaded into the church by the time of Paul. So, that really tells us nothing.

No it had not, the majority of historic text shows that whilst gnostic thought existed during Pauls lifetime it actually flouroushed after the deaths of the majority of the apostles, including Paul.

Which just demonstrates the text in question was authored to counter Marcion's docetism. This places it no earlier than 145 CE.

Docetism exsisted before Marcion, he simply refined and rebuilt what already exsisted in rudimentary form

Also, for the record, the evidence as I see it indicated "Jesus Christ" was entirely mythical. Some mid-2nd century pseudipigraphica by proto-Catholic apologists isn't going to change that.

Again opinion and supposition, nothing more, the fact that Jesus was an actual historical figure is attested to by both Christian and non Christian writers (please see Josephus as a start)

Laterz.[/quote]

 

[heretic888]

actually you do, Stott, Wenham, Mcdowell, and just because someone claims to be mainstream means nothing...

Wenham, Stott, and McDowell are conservative apologists. They are the furthest thing from "mainstream" as you can get, nor are their views shared by the majority of New Testament scholarship. Wenham in particular attempts to date the Synoptics to the middle of the first century, a position just as "radical" as the notion that thay date to the end of the second century.

Examples of "mainstream" Biblical scholarship would be John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Burton Mack, and Bart Ehrman.

....or someone claims that someone else is mainstream means nothing, I have been a Christian for 16 years, studied at 2 different bible colleges and I have never heard of Burton Mack.

That in itself speaks volumes.

Which evidence about John are you making reference too?

You mean like the tertiary evidence you refer to?

I shall reiterate.

The only "evidence" we have that John lived to the dates that Church tradition claims he does comes from Irenaeus' Against Heresies, dated sometime around 190 CE. In this work, Irenaeus claimed to have met Papias, who Irenaeus reports as claming to have met John the Presbyter. The only other external corroboration for Papias comes ironically from Eusebius, writing over one hundred years after Irenaeus.

A third-hand report that has to wait a century and a half for external corroboration is not a historically reliable report.

Once again I have never heard of him or his work, and as I conceded before there are some scholars who do not see it the same, again I will maintain that these are in the minority, infact if you did some research into it with a impartial third party, you will find that that it is conceded that the ideas that you are postualting in regards to the the book of John are shared by the minority not the majority.

You have evinced that your conception of "mainstream" and "majority" scholarship here are conservative apologists. In his definitive text, Crossan warns that New Testament scholarship is a slippery field where theology often masquerades as history. This is such a case.

According to who, what evidence do you present to state that as fact

From the Wikipedia article:

Professor Michael J. Hollerich thinks such criticisms go too far. Writing in "Church History" (Vol. 59, 1990), he says that ever since Burckhardt, "Eusebius has been an inviting target for students of the Constantinian era. At one time or another they have characterized him as a political propagandist, a good courtier, the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine, the great publicist of the first Christian emperor, the first in a long succession of ecclesiastical politicians, the herald of Byzantinism, a political theologian, a political metaphysician, and a caesaropapist. It is obvious that these are not, in the main, neutral descriptions. Much traditional scholarship, sometimes with barely suppressed disdain, has regarded Eusebius as one who risked his orthodoxy and perhaps his character because of his zeal for the Constantinian establishment." He concludes that "the standard assessment has exaggerated the importance of political themes and political motives in Eusebius's life and writings and has failed to do justice to him as a churchman and a scholar".​

In summation, Eusebius has traditionally been regarded as a mouthpiece for the Constantinian establishment (although Hollerich himself argues otherwise).

Anad that proves it was done here how? Just because I grew up with peers that smoked drugs and ended up in Jail does that prove that I did the same?

A discussion of the scholarship concerning 1 John can be found here. Normann Perrin suggests an early redactor of the Gospel of John may have authored 1 John. That seems plausible.

How do you know this, how can you prove this, you are the one talking about evedence, so far out of the two of us I thnik I have provided at least some form of elementary evidence on the manuscripts, where is your evidence because so far it all comes down to opinion

What you ask is beyond the scope of this thread. A discussion of all early Christian writings can be found here.

No it had not, the majority of historic text shows that whilst gnostic thought existed during Pauls lifetime it actually flouroushed after the deaths of the majority of the apostles, including Paul.

Paul's authentic letters evince what has been called "proto-gnostic" thought, such as his treatment of Jesus Christ as a spiritual being, his reference to the "god of this world" as the "mediator", and his proclamation that Jesus was crucified by dark spiritual forces (archontes).

It is probably no coincidence that the first Christian to definitively refer to the Pauline corpus is Marcion.

Again opinion and supposition, nothing more, the fact that Jesus was an actual historical figure is attested to by both Christian and non Christian writers (please see Josephus as a start)

My position on the historical Jesus is evidential, not suppositional. The two Josephan references to Jesus are both suspect of Christian interpolation (for a number of reasons) and therefore cannot be relied upon.

However, this is not the appropriate place to begin a discussion of Jesus' historicity.

Laterz.

 

[CanuckMA]

I understand that ancient conversion to Judiasm rituals contained special prayers and a full immersion in water (and probably hymns). However, I don't know what the modern traditions are.

We are actually not sue what the ancient conversion rituals were. Immersion in a mikveh was, and still is a common ritual to cleanse onself from a state of ritual impurity. It it used in today's conversion rituals, amongst other things.

 

[Tez3]

Is thus the modern equivalant of the medieval argument of how many angels can stand on a pinhead?

 

[bcbernam777]

Is thus the modern equivalant of the medieval argument of how many angels can stand on a pinhead?

Ten

 

[bcbernam777]

What you ask is beyond the scope of this thread. A discussion of all early Christian writings can be found here.



Laterz.

Sorry wrong answer, If I have been forward enough to post the most elementary of evidence on both the dates of the manuscripts and what that means in context with classical litriture as a whole, then you can certainly be kind enough to offer your own evidence for your own behalf, for your own suppositions. Infact what I have pupplied are dates of actuall writings, I see that you have avoided the question raised about if we are to follow your propasition and take it to its logical conclusion i.e. the writing of John being invalidated because the earliest known manuscript is dated at 125 AD a mere 35-25 years after the original is suppossed to actually have been written, where does that leave such classics written by plato, socretes, Aristotle, etc, etc, if you admit that that proposition applys to all writings then you have just stated that the rudimentary foundations of our contemparary society are built on a pile of smoking dung, but if you simply claim that it only applies in the case of John or on scriptural writings, then you show yourself to have a one eyed pre-concreted view, which is not in search of truth, but only seeks to tear down anything remotly conected to Christianity. Reply to this first WITH EVIDENCE On this thread then I will deal with the other issues that you have raised.