In relation to the Ankh, I wonder if it is significant that all the earliest NT papyri come for Egypt. For convenience's sake (more than annoying else, one sometimes gets the impression) it is commonly assumed that the early papyri from Egypt are representative of Christian belief and practice generally in the earliest period, but perhaps this is not so, and our view of early Christianity, including the text of the NT itself and its features, is distorted by all the earliest manuscript evidence coming from Egypt. God help the Egyptians at this time.
Even MORE evidence for "Jesus died on a Cross"?
by ILoveTTATT 56 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Narcissistic Supply
Who knows!! what a bunch of petty nonsense!!
-
slimboyfat
Let me try again, to fix a mixture of tiredness and autocorrect mistakes:
In relation to the Ankh, I wonder if it is significant that all the earliest NT papyri come from Egypt. For convenience's sake (more than anything else, one sometimes gets the impression) scholars commonly assume that the early papyri from Egypt are representative of Christian belief and practice generally in the earliest period, but perhaps this is not so, and our view of early Christianity, including the text of the NT itself and its features, is distorted by the fact that all the earliest manuscript evidence comes from Egypt.
-
mP
slimboy:
The ankh interestingly is a fertility symbol, being formed by a penis(shaft) and a vagina(the loop). given the jews copied circumcision from the egyptians along with other religious terminology its very intersting. Amen=atum=amon aka amon ra.
-
ILoveTTATT
Slimboyfat:
Interesting!! It may have influenced Christian belief and practice, but the interesting part, for me at least, is that these are three manuscripts that the WTS used to make up the NWT's NT... so if they used these manuscripts, then they must have come accross the Staurogram (or whatever this symbol is)... Stauros is abbreviated as a Nomina Sacra that looks like a pictogram that looks like a man on a cross.
ILTTATT
-
mP
Slimboy
Yes he does, on pages 191 to 197, and the idea that Nazareth did not exist in Jesus' time looks weak indeed.
mP;
just read 191-197.
p191:
Whether b Obama was born in the US or not... is irrelevant to the question of whether he was born...
If the gospels are supposed to be taken seriously, how can we trust them if they resort to downright fabircation which is basically lying.
Can anyone take an autobigrapher seriously if they are completely dishonest in this manner ? Why cant they simply be honest, unless they are trying to lie and lie some more. the problem is by lying and saying that jesus was prophecized in the OT, requires them to twist and misquote the OT constantly. in this case as bart mentions they try and work the idea of Nazarene and apply it to a place rather than a religious order.
...This flies in the face, where Jesus came from ("Jesus came from nazareth in galilee"), but zindler maintains that that verse was not originally part of mark...
So everytime theres a mistake its in authentic. If thers so much lies and edits what part is true ? isnt this just completely rediculous ?
p192
Why would Mark invent a town that didnt exist to explain how J could be a Nazarene, when the term originally meant was that he was a nazirite ?
mP:
If you read the rest of Salms work, you will notice its more than likely that Nazareth didnt exist. I think its fair to say that Bart hints at this and delibrately avoids going into further detail becaue its embarrassing that such a major foundation of the jesus story is most likely a lie.
We could speculate on Marks motivations but that doesnt change the fact he lied and twisted the bible to try and create the story of a just a preacher called jesus. lets not forget there is no ressurrection in the original mark. while mark did tell a grand story, jesus is not the god man of the other gospels.
p193...
bart discusses Salm but he doesnt tell the full account that most likely Nazareth didnt exist as a town with inhabitants at the time of J. Why not make a statement and simply say N prolly didnt exist and the entire thing is an invention ?
What can we trust from Mark if he lies so often ? perhaps jesus is based on some individual, but how can we know when so much is a lie ?
-
slimboyfat
The NWT used the critical text of Westcott and Hort which did not have access to the papyri as it was compiled in the nineteenth century before the papyri were discovered. Even if the NWT had used the later Nestle-Aland text they would not have been looking directly at the NT papyri themselves, but a text that draws partly on them. Critical texts do not generally preserve nomina sacra forms, so you would not be aware of them from looking at the critical text. All that having been said, I'm sure it's likely that various Watchtower writers have stumbled across the staurogram as nomina sacra in early papyri at various times while perusing the literature. One can only wonder what they thought about it, if they gave it any great thought.
-
mP
Slim
One can only wonder what they thought about it, if they gave it any great thought.
mP:
Im sure many realise the bible and WT theology is a lie and invention. They realise there is no good and everything is an invention.
-
slimboyfat
mP Ehrman is not making an argument for the NT being "trustworthy", he is making an argument that a preacher called Jesus lived in first century Palestine. Those are two different things.
Salm's argument seems to be that Nazareth existed before Jesus' time, and again after Jesus' time, but did not exist at the precise time when Jesus would have grown up there. This is in the face of what archaeologists at the site have said about evidence of habitation during the first century. His case sounds rather weak to say the least.
I can understand skepticism about the miracles of course, and most of the sayings attributed to Jesus, but the fact that he came from Nazareth in Gallilee? Why would they make that up? It's precisely those sorts of mundane details that people would be least likely to fabricate and that are most likely to relate to any real Jesus figure who actually lived.
-
mP
slim:
This is in the face of what archaeologists at the site have said about evidence of habitation during the first century.
mP:
Im sorry i disagree, your making a sweeping statement that is simply not true. this another presumption that the story including elements like N is true and basically a cycle. N existed because J did and vice versa. Bart never says N existed , but he is also weary of making a firm statement that the town presented in the gospels is a mostly a fabrication.
i suggest you read salms work for a different view point. the true story is, queen helena the mother of Constantine, came to galilee and couldnt find Jesus home town, so she picked a spot and that became nazareth. its all fabrication. The problem is Salm work is quite interesting and its a major problem that he can find and highlight so many problems.
slim:
Why would they make that up?
mP:
because they misunderstood the idea of nazirite and made it into a town. The same q can be made why make up the miracles. The only answer is they lied.
josephus lived less than 1 mile from the spot we call Nazareth for a few years and yet he never mentions it. he was quite a proficient writer and wrote a lot of mundane and interesting history but he never tells us of Nazareth. he writes about many prophets and groups and even less extraordinary people. The most we can find is two breif lines one (the Test flavianum is considered a fraud). Even if we rewrite the story and remove the miracles, we still never find the masses of followers, the trial or anything from J the gospel story.