The Mystery of Jesus Christ. (Page 90) ghostgeek: Teenagers giving Muscovites the shits? I suppose it's a possibility but I favour pesky aliens myself. I mean, it must get boring on those flying saucers of theirs as they circle the earth looking for cows to cut up. ghostgeek: Oh, oh, so there's something faster than Radio God, is there? Can't say I've seen it being sold in the shops, but doubtless that's because it's being hidden at the back somewhere. ghostgeek: Am I going to lose sleep over Paul's name? Not likely. I leave that sort of nonsense to translators.  Zanjan: Ghost, you're so whimsical! We all know Extraterrestrials wouldn't have to be anywhere close to the earth to control their drones. I'm sure they think it's cute how we steer the Mars Rover. Like Jesus, they'd have a policy of non-interference. Just the other day, a large panel of NASA scientists made an official announcement, saying they'd been searching for intelligent life for years and so far haven't found any. They've got a point.....Jesus came up with the same conclusion. Yet He did something about that.  GeraldtheGnome: It is still rude to repeat the words of others. Yes, I prefer to use spaces before question marks, exclamation marks, colons and semi-colons, I prefer to to that. Quotation marks are not always necessary. I am not one out of the three of us who has any message that is solely about anything other than the subject of this forum. Not all Ukrainians think the same way and some of them are traitorous. Some of them said it is not them who did any of the Russian attacks, that is really what it is all about. God is made up. That bit about the word 'manifest' does not make sense and it is silly. Some swear on here, others don't. Aliens may exist, no one knows for sure and maybe no one will ever know. Sometimes commas are not necessary as well. To Ghostgeek. The author or authors of everything claimed to be by a guy named Paul is really by at least one anonymous author, I go for multiple authors made what is claimed to be by him. Either way it was not made by anyone that anyone currently knows the name of and it's most likely that no one will ever know. Since the earliest known manuscripts of what became The New Testament are from the first and second century it makes the argument that any of the original authors wrote anything in the first century a flawed one. These documents lack a title, chapter numbers, verse numbers, a lot of words and names amongst other things such as the name of any author for any of it. Wondering if there was an author for each bit that you think wrote anything in the first century should be your concern instead of claiming that it was by someone named Paul in the first century who wrote it when in reality you have no evidence that proves that you are right. Have you ever even thought why most translators even came to the same conclusion that you have ? There is no Book of Ephesians, chapter five, verse 14 version from as far back as 250 AD. In fact there is only the fourth century Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus that has that verse and the rest of The Book of Ephesians. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209 The above is that of The Codex Vaticanus of the fourth century in some year of it and before The Codex Sinaiticus in the fourth century, both were written in Koine Greek, it is guessed actually that it includes The Book of Ephesians which by the way might not be true. No one knows exactly where it was written, it most likely was written in Egypt though. https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=41&chapter=5&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=41&chapter=6&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=42&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 The Koine Greek is shown with the above and the English translation of it. Codex Sinaiticus was written sometime in 326 AD at the earliest or 399 AD at the latest or in a year in between then. It was written in Sinai, Egypt. Also it is claimed that all of The Book of Ephesians, all of The Book of Philippians (not of Filipinos) and The Book of Colossians was written in Koine Greek somewhere (unknown to me) in 225 AD, most likely in Egypt. Just like The Codex Vaticanus it is in Koine Greek and it is not translated or at least not fully translated so there, unless shown otherwise, is no way that they can know what books, chapters, verses, words and names that it does have in it. Not even of one of them. So with them, like those I have mentioned on here so far, you have to look at the two codexes that I have mentioned on here. https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=42&chapter=2&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=42&chapter=3&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=42&chapter=4&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=43&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=43&chapter=2&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=43&chapter=3&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=43&chapter=4&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 http://www.earlynewtestament.com/PapyrusEphesians.htm http://www.earlynewtestament.com/papyrus46.htm Next time I will look to see if anything was around about The First Book of Thessalonians as far back as 250 AD.  Albert617: Gerald, you don't know the critical scholarship. Read books instead of articles on line. You are questioning data from Saint Paul that critical scholars accept. Your opinions are worthless, because you simply do not know the critical scholarship or historical method. That Paul didn't put chapters in his epistles is a totally worthless point, because critical scholars accept at least seven of his epistles. We know that the NT dates to the first century. Some of the passages date to the 30's AD. This is admitted by liberal scholars. Critically accepted Pre-Pauline creeds about Jesus with high christology are embedded in the Biblical text from 30 AD to 55 AD. This is admitted by the liberal theologian Rudolph Bultmann. (Pre-Pauline means before Paul put them to writing). The following creeds date to the AD 30's. The agnostic New Testament textual scholar Bart Ehrman says that these creeds may all come from Jerusalem. He also said that every creed Paul quoted may have been in existence before he took his walk to Damascus. Ehrman says virtually no critical theologian today doubts that this material was in circulation in the 30's, and that Paul knew about it. The critics allow that the sources for these creeds are the apostles. Ehrman says that probably many of these creeds that Paul got that were in existence before he was on the way to Damascus probably came from Peter and James, whom Paul met at plus 5 years after the crucifixion. The earliest emphasized teaching of the apostles is: Jesus' deity, death and resurrection (all three of which refute Islam), and the importance of receiving him. EARLY CREEDAL FORMULAS Luke 24:34: “saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” Romans 1:3-4: “ Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:” Romans 4:25: “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” Romans 10:9: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”(Bultmann said Rom. 10:9 is a baptismal creed. A confession that believers make). 1Corinthians 8:6: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” Philippians 2:6. “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:” (The Greek term for “form” is morphe, which means nature. Christ is the nature of God). 1Corinthians 11:23: “ For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:” (The non-conservative German New Testament scholar Ulrich Wilkens believed that this creed goes back to Jesus himself). 1Corinthians 15:3-5: “ For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:” (Earliest list of resurrection appearances. Six appearances, and three are to groups. The NT scholar James Dunn says that this creed was probably in existence months after the crucifixion. The non-Christian Jewish scholar Pinches Lapide thinks that this text is the strongest evidence for the resurrection. He gives about nine evidences that this is a very early report from possibly a year after the crucifixion. (see "The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective”). Pinches said that this creed is so strong, it may be used as evidence of eye-witnesses. Pinches admits he is Jewish, but he believes Jesus was raised from the dead. The German critical and non-conservative historian Hans von Campenhausen said 1Cor. 15:3 and following gives you everything you can possibly ask for from an ancient historical text. (Habermas lecture at Purdue). The agnostic biblical scholar Howard Clark Kee said that the material of 1Cor. 15:3-7 is so early and historical, you can take it into a court of law and get a positive verdict. (see What Can We Know About Jesus). These three NT scholars argue that the material of 1Cor. 15:3-7 goes back to 30 AD: Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham, James Dunn (Habermas lecture at Purdue). Dunn said that this material had to be credalized within six months of the crucifixion. (ibid). These same scholars also said that the earliest teaching about Jesus was deity and resurrection (ibid). Baucham says that the consensus of scholars today is that this material dates to 35 AD. (ibid). Albert617: BOOK OF ACTS SERMON SUMMARIES They are not the same as the creeds, but they're put in the same category. The Agnostic NT textual scholar Bart Ehrman dates many of these sermons to 1 to 2 years after Jesus' crucifixion: Acts 2:22-26. Acts 3:13-15. Acts 10:39-43. C.H. Dodd says that one of the things that makes these sermons early is the Aramaic wording. Dodd says Acts 10 is the clearest one with an Aramaic root. See also Acts 13:28-31. Most NT scholars date 1 Thessalonians twenty years after the crucifixion. It starts with lofty christology language. Albert617: Read these books on textual criticism. The Early Text of the New Testament" (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), by Hill and Kruger; "An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament”, 2nd ed (New York; Doubleday, 1928), by Robertson; "The Text of the New Testament" (London: Macmillan, 1961), by Taylor. GeraldtheGnome: There's nothing better and more ignorant than a Bible Basher. You keep telling yourself that everything you told me is true. You are a delusional bloke, you look vaguely like my cousin except that there are no flies on him, oh and if you are from Northern Ireland like he is then that's the only other similarity you have with him. In your favour, like him, you're not a bad looking bloke in a heterosexual way. I've seen and I have heard the 'critical scholarship', it's highly flawed where religious and confirmation bias, even by those who are not religious, is used by most of them. Read books ? I read a lot of books, religious books and ones that are not religious. I also look at everything for and against my own line of thought, you should try doing that about your own line of thought. Your 'Saint Paul' is made up, even the Santa Claus story is at least linked to real life people and real life stories. There is such a thing at times as not being critical enough. There is also that of those who are too critical as well, that's another story. This is not about my opinions or about yours, look at everything for and against your way of thinking before jumping to the conclusion that all I have provided is useless opinions. Some Christians are way too easily offended and way too defensive about what is nothing more than a myth. History can be and is misleading when a majority have way too quickly decided what is true and what is false. In this case that of most 'religious scholars', you want me to agree that there are first century stories that just simply no one has evidence to prove that they are around. A rather desperate move on your behalf. You have no evidence that proves that there even was that Saint Paul but you have concluded that there is. Why don't you also claim that there was a beginning to the Cosmos, that life was created thousands of years ago while you are at it ? You are really off aim right now. Paul never did anything because he didn't bloody exist. Look at actual photos of each thing that you think was written by the claimed Paul, there is no title for any of it, no verse numbers and no chapter numbers. There also is nothing to tell you who the author was for even one verse of it. Your 'It must be Paul, it has to be from Paul' is rather silly. We know that the NT dates to the first century. Some of the passages date to the 30's AD. This is admitted by liberal scholars. You should use some better suited words. You can go on about 'Pre-Pauline' this and that until the cows come home. The Jesus you claim existed didn't, no one knows that anything that you claim was written that long ago was written that long ago. Stop the 'we' crap. Christian propaganda does not work on me mate. Your beloved Paul did not exist. Please stop making me laugh by stressing what Bart Ehrman believes to be so. Added more made up characters such as Peter and James does not help either. There's no need for the all capitals bit without the full stop. A scientific formula is better than the fantasy story that you believe in. I see you brought up the imaginary Luke and Simon. Then you brought up The Book of Romans as if it really proves everything that is within it. I prefer to use a space before an exclamation mark. Here's The Book of Romans, chapter four, verse 23. [ ] that [ ] to him for his sake alone 24. but for our sake also to whom [ ] him [ ] Jesus, our Lord, from the [ ] 25. who [ ] for [ ] and was raised for [ ]. Have a look, there is even a pretty photo there of the actual Uncial. It's from Egypt, it's in Koine Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic and it is from 300 AD. It's the first known version of those verses. So when did that become a part of the first century ? All that we agree on is that whatever the original written version of it was was from what I refer to as The Iron Age. The Modern English Christian translation of it has Jesus in it, the first known version is in Koine Greek. The Koine Greek name (which is similar to the Modern English name are nothing like any Hebrew name or even like any Aramaic name. You then decided to continue on from the fantasy book by using a verse from a later chapter of the same 'book'. Wait though ! You had more, like it makes a difference. Whether it's from Corinthians just like you showed me or from any other book it still is not proof that there ever was a first century version of even the smallest part of what is now The New Testament. Then you went to crap from The Book of Philippians, you then went back to more rubbish from The Book of Corinthians. Sometimes there is no need for hyphens. Every scholar is an agnostic scholar. You then brought up The Book of Acts. Dating something to so many years after a crucifixion that never happened is still not evidence that things were written at the guessed time period and it is also not about a dreamt up Jesus, a Modern English name during the time of the imaginary crucifixion. I like to use words, NT here also mean Northern Territory after all. Sure, I could show you the first known version of each of the verses that you brought up, I will not do so though. Your religious bias and confirmation bias makes you extremely delusional. GeraldtheGnome: http://www.earlynewtestament.com/index.htm That's the site to where those verses are. Well I had to change what I was going to do due to a new Christian pest. The First Book of Thessalonians as far back as 250 AD did not have a version of it in regards to verse one of chapter one. The earliest I could find a version that I can could read and understand is The Wycliffe Bible of 1395 AD. It is in Middle English, it is a Castle Age Bible. https://www.studylight.org/study-desk.html? q1=1+Thessalonians+1&OLWordSearchRange=beg&q2=&ss=2&t1=eng_wyc&t2=eng_kjv&t3=eng_nas&ns=0&ot=bhs&nt=na26&b=chapter&d=3 The first two verses are not found in any manuscript from as far as 250 AD. Papyrus 65 is from as early as 225 AD or as late as 299 AD or it's from a year in between then, it's most likely was written in 250 AD and most likely in Egypt. It is written in Koine Greek. http://www.earlynewtestament.com/papyrus65.htm The above has Hebrew included and the Modern English translation is there as well. Next time I will see if there is a Book one of Thessalonians, chapter two, verse one version from as far back as 299 AD. Zanjan: Albert wrote: “The earliest emphasized teaching of the apostles is: Jesus' deity, death and resurrection (all three of which refute Islam), and the importance of receiving him.” It’s not possible for the NT to refute Islam since Islam didn’t appear until the year 610, following the first revelation to the prophet Muhammad at the age of 40. While later Christians can manipulate their scriptures any way they choose to discredit Islam, that has nothing to do with the actual biblical text , which addresses Jesus. The text of the Quran doesn’t refute Jesus at all. The Quran emphasis the importance of accepting Jesus Christ as the previous true Messenger of God, that He was martyred via crucifixion as told, and that the resurrection occurred. He also clarified the meaning of the resurrection. However an individual interprets scripture is between themselves and God but it doesn’t necessarily reflect the reality. Zanjan: Albert cited: “Philippians 2:6. “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:” (The Greek term for “form” is morphe, which means nature. Christ is the nature of God).” Yes, “Christ” is the nature of God in that it reveals the self of God, not God’s essence. This revelation is a measure, in accordance with the capacity of the people of that Age. Christ couldn’t reveal the “Face of God” because, like Moses, that was beyond Him. However, there are indications that would occur in the future, at the time of the end. Albert, I appreciate and thank you for your careful research. Meanwhile, the NT doesn’t indicate anywhere that “the dead” means ‘dead physical bodies’. The first Christians understood their own terminology; there was no need for extra words among them. The “dead” refers to spiritually dead souls, including the ‘sleeping’ souls. When Jesus said to a new believer “Let the dead bury their dead”, what other thing can one sensibly think? The purpose of the the Divine Saviour is to resuscitate them by imbuing them with a new life of faith. God bestows new understanding on whomever He chooses. Jesus was never spiritually dead – He was always the Christ, which had nothing to do with the physical body. The resurrection applies to the return of the Holy Spirit. Jesus’s soul never died. However, later, the Holy Spirit disappeared because Christians fell away from trusting in God. If not for Muhammad’s appearance, no Christian would have remained faithful to Christianity. Furthermore, if not for Baha'u'llah, no Muslim would have remained faithful to Islam. We are all recipients of God's abundant grace through these perfect divine luminaries. (Edited by Zanjan) ghostgeek: Zanjan, yes I've noticed the paucity of intelligent life on planet earth as well. Quite frankly I blame dog biscuits. People aren't eating enough of them to keep their brains ticking over. ghostgeek: I see dear Gerald has consigned Peter and James to the status of being made-up characters now. Interesting, seeing as Josephus goes into some little detail about James' death. ghostgeek: Anyway, now Gerald has eliminated all the major characters of the Christian mythos, perhaps he'll tell us, in his opinion, how Christianity got started. Zanjan: Omg, I actually dreamt of eating small dog biscuits the other night! Seriously, I swear that's true. Some dreams just don't make any sense. Now I know. GeraldtheGnome: No one should repeat the words of others on here. I still prefer to use spaces before exclamation marks, question marks and colons. We don't know if there is life on other worlds, it is possible. We do not not steer the Mars Rover anywhere, we who are on here on not even a part of any space program. Jesus does not exist and Jesus never existed. It is hard to find intelligent life when too many believe in superstitious nonsense. There is no reason for more that one full stop in a sentence. Better suited words than what words are sometimes used on here are needed. When Islam started up is not important, it's just another myth after all and some Christians think that their religion is far superior to that of other religions. As I put it, it's really one thinking that their myth is better than another myth without even knowing that they are into myths as much as the religious person that they oppose. I'm not big on using NT at times, I mean I get what it means, it's just that NT also means Northern Territory. Muhammad never existed. Whether it's the altered scriptures of the past and present or the original scriptures does not matter because it is all made up nonsense. A comma instead of a full stop after the made up name Jesus should have been used and the word the should have been in lowercase after that. No one is a messenger of a god named God, some of us, including me, have a tendency to use too many capitals. It's scriptures, not scripture. God is made up. Sometimes quotation marks are not necessary. Moses did not exist. Souls is just made up. I also at least do not try to convince myself that I know what the first Christians thought. No one will ever bloody well know that. There is no saviour that is 'divine' and the word is he not He. There is also no need for hyphens at times. There also is no Holy Spirit so we can get off the 'Casper the friendly bloody ghost' stories and think that they are true. Imagined beliefs that due to this and that no one would have remained faithful to a certain religion is absolute silliness. Baha'u'llah, is just the extremely arrogant nickname of Mírzá Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼu'lláh No one should eat Dog biscuits, I laughed once that my Dad said not to eat the sausage in the fridge because it was awful. Well it made me laugh that he ate Dog food. Peter and James did not exist, apparently I must fool myself into believing that because it is claimed that someone wrote about someone then it means that the claim is true and that it's of course about real life people. Back in the land of reality you find out if the author is who is claimed to have written something and even if you know who that was then you find out if everyone or the one person that that one mentioned did exist. Of course Ghostgeek doesn't want me to use that way of thinking. It is James's, not James' anyway. Also Mythos was the name of the Ouzo that I was drinking at the time a very hot chick was flirting with me at the Greek Festival a few years ago.   I have a tendency to think that way about Greek Females anyway, that one at the time was not Greek though, she was an Aussie. Myth, there is no need for the word mythos. What is shown to be true is important, so none of this in my opinion bit. Use damn words people, we are not text messaging people with mobile phones when we get onto this sight. Oh my god for example, not Omg. Zanjan should not take a mere coincidence down to being a fulfilled prophecy. A dream about something that does happen later is not a prophecy. No one is able to say anything on here, this is a text based forum. Sometimes hyphens aren't necessary also. I looked to see if there is a Book one of Thessalonians, chapter two, verse one version from as far back as 299 AD. Well there is not a version of it from as far back as 299 AD, there is a claim however that in 225 AD there is a Koine Greek version of it, well of all of the entire first book of Thessalonians. I can't work out how anyone has come to that conclusion when it's claimed that Papyrus 46 has not been translated. It possibly is from that far back, it's most unlikely that that is true though, it is however most likely that it was written in Egypt. I buggered it up last time due to confusion and because of forgot about a fourth century codex. Well it at least brings it to The Iron Age. All of book one of Thessalonians, chapters one, two, three and four were written in 326 AD or as late as 399 AD or to some year in between then. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=44&chapter=3&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=44&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 The above has the Koine Greek and English translation of it. It was written in Egypt. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209 The above does have the untranslated Koine Greek of it apparently. Is there even any translation of it ? How does anyone know that it includes book one of Thessalonians chapters one, two, three and four if there is no proper translation of Codex Vaticanus ? Anyway it was written before Codex Sinaiticus was and it was written in 300 AD or 399 AD or in some year in between those years. Next time I will look to see what the earliest known version of book one of Thessalonians, chapter four, verse one is. ghostgeek: James turns up in a history book by a bloke named Josephus, so until proof positive is provided to the contrary I'm taking it that James existed. And because additional material concerning James appears in Paul's epistles, I'm sticking to the majority line that Paul was a real historical figure. That leads me on to Jesus, who Paul also mentions. Seeing as Paul joined an existing community that had James as its leader, and James was called the brother of Jesus, it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus was also a real historical figure. If anyone disputes any of the above will they kindly say why they do so, or will they be so good as to stick their head where it can't annoy anyone else. ghostgeek: I believe the Chinese will eat just about anything. So if any aliens land on planet earth, it might be a wise move of theirs not to park their flying saucer anywhere in China. Of course, if they're stocked up on bird's nests, those aliens could make a tidy sum in Wuhan. GeraldtheGnome: A lot of people turned up in history books by historians, ones that the historians made up, so no, you haven't found anything that proves that someone named James was mentioned by Josephus was indeed someone who once existed. Your own confirmation bias and religious bias was used again. Τζέιμς with the Greek text, better known as Tzéims is at least similar to the Koine Greek that is the first known name that was used, it is nothing like the Modern English name James. Remember even with the version of the Josephus story that you base too much of it still is a Modern English version of everything that was written. Well is there a Hebrew or Aramaic name that is similar to James ? No there isn't. James did not exist and Jesus never existed, nor did Paul. There is no Hebrew or Aramaic record of any of those names from any part of The Iron Age. Epistles just means letters so just use the word letters. Yes, even with science what the majority thinks is not always right, so just stick with the flawed thinking that the majority must be right over something that you wish to be right. https://my-hebrew-name.com/james-yaakov-11365.html If I told someone that I am sure that someone existed and because someone additional was found out about that one then it would make more sense for me to tell someone that and use the word and in the same sentence rather than make the word and as the word to start off with in a sentence directly after that. You should try it sometime. If someone ever says this or that to you then it will be by some way to communicate with you by sound. That however is not available by text based means. Yes, I get that it is named Covid, I prefer to use the name Coronavirus and since I found out that it is just the latest form of Coronavirus so I sometimes refer to it as Coronavirus 19. No one knows how it started up, some have that it was from Bats, which is possible, there are many theories. It wasn't brought about by an imaginary god named God or brought to here by any Alien. I prefer to have a space before a question mark. Next time I will look to see what the earliest known version of book one of Thessalonians, chapter four, verse one is. It is claimed that Papyrus 46 of 225 AD includes all of the first book of Thessalonians, it might, I can't be sure though since the Koine Greek manuscript is also claimed to not be translated. How if it is not translated do they know what any part of the papyrus is about ? How would they know what verses, chapters, books and words are included in it ? That also applies to Codex Vaticanus if there is no translation of it, all that I have found is that parts of it has been translated if not all of it. Codex Vaticanus was written in Koine Greek in 300 AD or as late as 399 AD or some year in between those years, whenever it was written it was written before Codex Sinaiticus. It is most likely that Codex Vaticanus and Papyrus 46 were written in Egypt, no one knows and maybe no one will ever know. If everything in Papyrus 46 is truly what it is claimed to be about then it includes the entire books of Hebrews, book one and two of Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Phillipians, Colossians and book one of Thessalonians, if not then the first known one of each 'missing' verse of each bit of The New Testament includes the Letters of 'Paul' and so on up to and Including parts of Hebrews. It does not include the books of 'Timothy, Titus, Philemon and The Book of Revelations in The Codex Vaticanus. If that and the other are both not translations of what is claimed to be true then the entire New Testament's books are included in The Codex Sinaiticus. Codex Sinaiticus was written in Koine Greek in 326 AD or 399 AD or in some year in between then. It was written in Egypt. Each missing verse will be covered by that book since I can't find a full translation of Codex Vaticanus. http://www.earlynewtestament.com/papyrus46.htm https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=44&chapter=4&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 The above has the Koine Greek and that of the English translation of it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus For everything about book one of Thessalonians, chapter four, verses one to and including 11, 14, 15 and for every verse after 17 see the above manuscripts. The same for chapter five, verses one, two, 11, 19 to and including 24. It is also the same for the second book of Thessalonians, chapter one, verses three, six, seven, eight, nine and 10 except that Papyrus 46 does not include anything of the second book of Thessalonians. The Book of Thessalonians, chapter four, verse 12 is included with Papyrus 30 that was written in Oxyrhynchus in Egypt, it was written in 200 AD or 250 AD or some year in between those years. It most likely was written in 215 AD which is when many think that it was written. http://www.earlynewtestament.com/papyrus30.htm The above includes the Koine Greek and the English translation of it. The earliest known version of the second book of Thessalonians, chapter one, verses one and two are from Papyrus 30 that I last mentioned. Papyrus 92 was written in Narmuthis in Egypt, it is in Koine Greek. It was most likely written in 300 AD as is suggested or as early as 275 AD or as late as 325 AD. It includes verses four, five, 11 and 12 of the second book of Thessalonians, chapter one. http://www.earlynewtestament.com/papyrus92.htm The above includes the Koine Greek text and the English translation of it as does what is below this. https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=45&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 The above includes Koine Greek and the English translation of the second book of the second book of Thessalonians, chapter two. The earliest known version of the second book of Thessalonians, chapter two is from Papyrus 30 that I have mentioned before, it includes verses one, nine, 10 and 11 of that chapter. The missing verses are chapters two to and including eight and the remainder of that chapter after verse 11 are apparently featured in Codex Vaticanus and it certainly is in Codex Sinaiticus. The same with the two books of Timothy, The Book of Titus and The Book of Philemon in relation to Codex Sinaiticus. The first two chapters of the first book of Timothy is only first known to be in Codex Sinaiticus, so to is the case with the first 12 verses of the third chapter. The earliest known version of the second book of Timothy that I can find is The Codex Sinaiticus, Papyrus 133 starts off with the first book of Timothy, chapter three, verse 13 is from 150 AD or 250 AD is what is claimed yet so too is 300 AD. That is contradictory. Well going off all of them whenever it was written it was written in some year between 150 AD and 300 AD or in one of the years that I mentioned. IT was written in Egypt in Koine Greek. http://www.earlynewtestament.com/papyrus133.htm https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=47&chapter=3&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 The remainder of chapter four that is not included in the first book of Timothy, all of the second book of Timothy and the first 10 verses of the first chapter of The Book of Titus have the first known versions in the Codex Sinaiticus so far as I can tell. https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=47&chapter=4&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 Papyrus 32 was written in Koine Greek in Egypt in 150 AD or 199 AD or some year in between those years, most likely in 175 AD since that is when most have suggested when it was written. The remaining verse of The Book of Titus, chapter one has the first known written version in The Codex Sinaiticus, the same with the first two verses of chapter two, then verse nine onwards and all of chapter three. Also all of The Book of Philemon has the first known version of it up to and included verse 12 written in The Codex Sinaiticus. Also that of verses 16 up to and including 23. http://www.earlynewtestament.com/papyrus32.htm https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=49&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=49&chapter=2&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 Papyrus 87 was written in Koine Greek most likely in Egypt, no one knows where and no one might ever know. It was written in 140 AD. Here though is a contradiction since Papyrus 46, which is thought to be linked to it is what is written down as 225 AD. Both claims can not be right. https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=50&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 Next time I will look to see what is the first known version of The Book of Hebrews that was written. Timothy did not exist and Paul did not exist. Titus did exist though. (Edited by GeraldtheGnome) GeraldtheGnome: The earliest known version of The Book of Hebrews, chapter one, verse one only, is from Papyrus 12. It was written in Koine Greek in Egypt. The first claimed version of the first six verses of chapter one is from Papyrus 46, I mentioned in the last message when it was claimed to be written. The earliest known version of verses two to and including six is claimed to be Codex Vaticanus and certainly the earliest one that I have a full interpretation of them of is that of Codex Sinaiticus. http://www.earlynewtestament.com/papyrus12.htm http://www.earlynewtestament.com/papyrus46.htm https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209 https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=46&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 Once again Papyrus 46 is claimed to be the first version of the first chapter of The Book of Hebrews. The first known version of The Book of Hebrews, chapter one, verses seven through to and including verse 12 is Papyrus 114 that was written in Oxyrhychus, Egypt. It is believed to have been written in 250 AD or in 299 AD or in some year in between then. It was most likely written in 250 AD, it was written in Koine Greek. It is claimed that the remainder of that chapter and every chapter up to and including chapter eight are contained in Papyrus 46. The first known version of the remaining verses of chapter one are in The Codex Sinaiticus but it is also claimed to be in The Codex Vaticanus. That is also so with the first 13 verses of The Book of Hebrews, chapter two. https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209 https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=46&chapter=2&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 Papyrus 13 is from Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, it was in Koine Greek and written in 225 AD or 250 AD or in some year in between then, it's most likely from 225 AD as suggested. It starts off from The Book of Hebrews, verse 14 to and including chapter five, verse five. The remainder of that chapter and each chapter after that to and including chapter nine, verse 14 is claimed to be in The Codex Vaticanus, all of that is knowingly included in The Codex Sinaiticus. http://www.earlynewtestament.com/papyrus13.htm https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=46&chapter=5&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=46&chapter=6&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=46&chapter=7&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=46&chapter=8&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=46&chapter=9&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0 Papyrus 17 was written in 250 AD or 299 AD or in a year in between then, most likely in 285 AD as has been suggested. It's in Koine Greek and it is from Oxyrhynchus in Egypt. It starts off with The Book of Hebrews, chapter nine, verse 12 and ended at verse 19. Next time I will see if what is the earliest known version of The Book of Hebrews, chapter nine, verse 20 that I can find. Jesus did not exist and he doesn't exist. http://www.earlynewtestament.com/papyrus17.htm ghostgeek: At least you're predictable, Gerald. Well, you go your way and I'll go mine. As far as I'm concerned James the brother of Jesus existed and I'm sticking to the party line until something changes my mind. | Religion Chat Room 37 People Chatting Similar Conversations |