Thread: What happened to the disciples

I'm wondering if a theist can make clear the following:

Who are the 12 disciples? Mark, Paul, Matthew and Luke have different names on their lists.

When precisely were they named disciples? (Mark, Paul, Matthew and Luke have different accounts.

Considering that Mark tells us this:

Mark 3:13-19
13: And he went up on the mountain, and called to him those whom he desired; and they came to him. 14: And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach 15: and have authority to cast out demons: 16: Simon whom he surnamed Peter; 17: James the son of
Zeb'edee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Bo-aner'ges, that is, sons of thunder; 18: Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, 19: and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. Then he went home;

it would appear that the 12 had Jesus-like powers, and were sent out as preachers.

Why do we have no accounts of their lives? (Please don’t tell me, we DO have accounts of their lives. Acts of Andrew, etc. I mean Historical accounts? My point is if there were 12 disciples, there'd be no question today concerning the existence of Jesus.)
As they were not ordered to remain celibate, why do we not have people who identify themselves as descendents in history, or even today?

I would very much like to know.
It’s a question that just needs an answer.
Geezer.

1)Simon better known as Peter and nicknamed Cephas by the Lord
(Mark 3:16, Matthew 10:2, Luke 6:14, John 1:42, Acts 1:13)

2)Andrew, Simon Peter's brother
(Mark 3:18, Matthew 10:2, Luke 6:14, John 1:40, Acts 1:13)

3)James son of Zebedee
(Mark 3:17, Matthew 10:2, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13)

4) John the son of Zebedee
(Mark 3:17, Matthew 10:2, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13)

5) Phillip
(Mark 3:18, Matthew 10:3, Luke 6:14, John 1:43, Acts 1:13)

6) Bartholomew also know as Nathaniel
(John 1:49, Acts 1:13)

7) Thomas called the Twin
(Mark 3:18, Matthew 10:3, Luke 6:15, John 20:24, Acts 1:13)

8 Matthew the tax collector
(Mark 3:18, Matthew 10:3, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13)

9)James the son of Alphaeus
(Mark 3:18, Matthew 10:3, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13)

10) Simon the Zealot (the Cananite)
(Mark 3:18, Matthew 10:4, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13)

11) Judas the son of James also known as Lebbaeus whose surname was Thaddaeus
(Mark 3:18, Matthew 10:3, Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13)

12A) Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus
(Mark 3:19, Matthew 10:4, Luke 6:16)

12B) Matthias was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot after his death. Acts 1:26

The apostle Paul was not one of the original twelve but was chosen by the Lord Jesus after his resurrection to be an apostle to the Gentiles.

What happened to the disciples? Well all these men were killed by the hands of the haters of Jesus Christ, except John who was imprisoned on the Island of Patamos.
And we do have accurate historical texts of their lives, they are found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts.

Thank You Geezer for helping to show how the Gospel Accounts do not contradict one another.

John the Sinner

Originally Posted by AugJDog

1)
And we do have accurate historical texts of their lives, they are found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts.

Thank You Geezer for helping to show how the Gospel Accounts do not contradict one another.

John the Sinner

you obivously cant read, I ask for historical accounts not biblical, that is a common generic fallacy. (you cant use the same source to verify itself)

Originally Posted by me

Mark, Paul, Matthew and Luke have different names on their lists. ........

........Why do we have no accounts of their lives? (Please don’t tell me, we DO have accounts of their lives. Acts of Andrew, etc.I mean Historical accounts?

so please try again.
it is quite irrelevant whether the gospel contradict or dont, without extra biblical accounts they are just hearsay.

Originally Posted by AugJDog

1)
12A) Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus
(Mark 3:19, Matthew 10:4, Luke 6:16)

Judas did not betray Jesus, if you read the Judas gospel (which the Catholic church forbids anyone to) you will see he knew he had to betray Jesus as he saw it in a dream, that and being stoned to death by the rest of the disciples-which came true. He confronted Jesus as to what he'd seen and Jesus knew he had seen this vision. He said to Judas, look at that star. That is your star and they the other stars, your brothers stars. See how yours is brighter-your is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus meant by this that He knew Judas had to betray Him to save mankind of its sins (so Jesus could be crucifed). Just imagine how horrible Judas felt. Don't forget also that the main gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are going to put down Judas because they did not understand the truth behind it.

PS Don't call them the dirty dozen please, it is quite offensive.

Geezer,
I didn't use the same historical sources to verify themselves. I used 4 different sources. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All of which were written at various times by different individuals and eyewitnesses. The Bible is a compilation of such accounts and they do not contradict one another. I remember once having a discussion with you where you stated that second hand sources are not reliable. Now you don't want to except firsthand seperate eyewitness accounts written by people who were with Jesus either. You, not the Bible, seem to have the contradictory problem.
As to "svwillmer's" comments regarding the Judas Gospel, it ranks right up there with the Acts of Andrew, both of which are not found in the Bible and are not considered to be reliable as Geezer has stated. The Bible is clear that Judas did betray Christ, Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:19, Luke 9:44, John 18:2, 1Cor 11:23, regardless as to what the heretical "Gospel of Judas" has to say.
Calling the disciples the dirty dozen should not offend anyone if you understand that all men includiing yourself are dirty rotten sinners, the twelve disciples included. If they were not a bunch of dirty dozen sinners they would have no need for a Saviour.
John the Sinner

Are there any non-biblical records of the twelve disciples?

Originally Posted by AugJDog

Geezer,
I didn't use the same historical sources to verify themselves. I used 4 different sources. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All of which were written at various times by different individuals and eyewitnesses. The Bible is a compilation of such accounts and they do not contradict one another.

give me a break, your using the bible to verify the bible, there is no evidence to suggest the gospels were written, narrated, by the four named, they are just different stories in a book of stories, written by unknown authors.

No NT author met jesus.

It was not until about 185CE that the Gospels received their current names with Irenaeus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html


G.Mark
It is consensus among modern scholars that the first Gospel to be written was G.Mark - but it clearly was NOT by an eye-witness, for several reasons :
* G.Mark shows ignorance of Palestine geography,
* G.Mark shows dependance on oral tradition,
* G.Mark was most likely written for a Roman audience,
* Ireneus says G.Mark was written in Rome.
* G.Mark was largely crafted from the whole cloth of the OT.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

For more detail, I suggest Michael Turton's great work on G.Mark:
http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html

It is sometimes argued that Mark was the secretary of Peter, but this seems unlikely for several other reasons -
* there is no evidence in the NT stories to support Mark being Peter's secretary,
* G.Mark shows the structure of literature crafted from the Jewish scriptures, not recorded conversations,
* G.Mark includes many scenes in Peter was NOT present, which can only mean they are fiction.
* Peter is a cowardly dullard in G.Mark which ends with Peter un-redeemed after having betrayed Jesus (G.Mark ended 16:8 with the empty tomb - G.Mark 16:9-20 is merely the most popular of one of a number of later endings which were attached to the abrupt end 16:8.). A secretary recording the words of a hallowed elder would hardly portray him like that.

It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of G.Mark (and is the source of the Peter connection) - but Papias refers to G.Mark being the recollections of Peter but "adapted as needed" ... "but not in order". This just does not match at all well with G.Mark, which is in chronological order, and shows no sign of being the adapted words of Peter.

G.Matthew
It is the firm consensus of scholars that G.Matthew was NOT written by a disciple, because :
* it depends largely on G.Mark, copied word for word, while making changes based on theology, not history
* it conflicts with statements by Papias and Ireneus,
* it shows signs of being a 2nd or 3rd generation work
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of G.Matthew - but Papias refers to G.Mark being written in Hebrew - this just does not match at all well with G.Matthew, which was written in Greek.

1,2 Peter
Scholars agree that the letters attributed to Peter were forged by 2 different people, neither of whom had ever met Jesus - 1 Peter probably writen in Rome c.90, 2 Peter in early-mid 2nd century.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

G.John
Scholars agree that the Gospel of John could NOT be by an eye-witness - because :
* the issue regarding expulsion from the synagogues - such a glaring anachronism could not be by an eye-witness,
* at one stage this Gospel was believed to be written by Cerinthus (and thus rejected),
* it tells such a different, and fantastic, story.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

False NT attributions
The same is true of all the NT documents (apart from Paul1) - NONE are by an eye-witness, all are later FORGED by unknown authors who never met Jesus -
* James (FORGED in c.80s)
* 1 John (FORGED in c.80s)
* 2 Thessalonians (FORGED in c.80s)
* Ephesians (FORGED in c.90s)
* 1 Peter (FORGED in c.90s)
* Jude (FORGED in c.100s)
* 1 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* Titus (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 John (FORGED in c.120s)
* 3 John (FORGED in 120s)
* 2 Peter (FORGED in c.130s)
The arguments for these can be all be found at Peter Kirby's or in Brown NT Commentary e.g.


No NT author met Jesus
So,
of the NT authors we find -
* Paul only met Jesus in a VISION,
* several of "Paul's" letters were forged by unknown authors,
* G.Mark was written in Rome by someone who never met Jesus,
* G.Matthew was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness,
* G.Luke was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness (A.Luke does NOT claim to be an eye-witness, A.Luke does NOT claim he spoke to eye-witnesses, he merely refers to eye-witnesses as distant sources),
* G.John was written long afterwards by someone who never met Jesus,
* Jude - forged by an unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2 Peter - forged by 2 unknown authors who never met Jesus,
* James - forged by unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2,3 John - forged by unknown authors in early-mid 2nd century who never met Jesus.

In other words - the general consensus of modern NT scholars is that NOT ONE SINGLE NT document was written by anyone who ever met Jesus. You can check this in any modern commentary - try Brown's or the New Jerome or see Peter Kirby's.

Originally Posted by AugJDog

I remember once having a discussion with you where you stated that second hand sources are not reliable. Now you don't want to except firsthand seperate eyewitness accounts written by people who were with Jesus either.

if I did, it was probably, similar to the above there are no firsthand accounts of a jesus, and the secondhand accounts are dubious at best. hence why I ask for info on the disciples, and I'm still left wanting.

Originally Posted by AugJDog

You, not the Bible, seem to have the contradictory problem.

I would like to see the statement you said I made, post it up if you dont mind thanks.

Originally Posted by free radical

Are there any non-biblical records of the twelve disciples?

I keep looking but have never found any, tis why I asked the original question. (OP)

And a fine point it is too. I was hoping that a simple question to AugJDog might prompt a yes or no answer.

AugJDog? Any non-biblical references for the 12 disciples?

Originally Posted by free radical

And a fine point it is too. I was hoping that a simple question to AugJDog might prompt a yes or no answer.

oops sorry!
I thought you were talking too me.

Originally Posted by free radical

Are there any non-biblical records of the twelve disciples?

Yes. The patron saint of Spain is St. James the greater.

St. John travelled to Rome to preach about Christianity, there is in old roman texts from when there was no Christianity in Rome, that's why it arose-thanks to John.

St. James Wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James%2C_son_of_Zebedee

Notice the similarity of what happened to St. James when he died and notice the coincidence with King Arthur :wink:.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Originally Posted by free radical

Are there any non-biblical records of the twelve disciples?

Yes. The patron saint of Spain is St. James the greater.

St. John travelled to Rome to preach about Christianity, there is in old roman texts from when there was no Christianity in Rome, that's why it arose-thanks to John.

St. James Wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James%2C_son_of_Zebedee

Notice the similarity of what happened to St. James when he died and notice the coincidence with King Arthur :wink:.

We have two person who claim to know something about the disciples the first Hippolytus of Rome: who died around 236 AD claims even though it's written over 200 years later that James, Son of Zebedee the brother of John, when preaching in Judea, was cut off with the sword by Herod the tetrarch, and was buried there.
the second fellow nearly 300 years after the event, a person called Eusebius the Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine the father of biblical history wrote that James was beheaded at Jerusalem.
Your wiki article states this, his remains are said to be buried in Santiago de Compostela in Galicia (Spain)?
someones wrong. Other than these dubious, obviously made up stories,
both refuted and discounted.
we have Acts which I might point out is not extra biblical, there are no eyewitness firsthand accounts of any of the disciples and what happened to them.
we do not have any people who can identify themselves as descendents in history, or even today?

Hmmm.

Is there anything other than Egyptian literature to describe the feats of pre-Biblical Pharoahs?

I think it was very typical of those times that various groups compiled their own histories of their own people. Other than vague references from other social groups, most groups commented very little about other people.

That is, almost anything you read about Greek society and history was compiled by Greeks. Almost anything you read about Roman society and history was compiled by Romans. The same would be true of virtually all ancient social groups.

Ancient history has the amazing () quality that each social group held itself up to high praise while usually being critical of any other social group that might enter into their history.

I would not expect there to be a lot of extra-Biblical literature about Jews and Christians any more than I would expect a lot of non-Roman literature about Caesar or extra-Greek literature about Aristotle.

Why should anyone expect more of Christianity than is available from other social groups of the same time? The movement in that day was very small and considered insignificant and hardly worthy of comment by others.

Even today, if you had several people reporting on the same events, some eyewitnesses and some from interviews, you would have several accounts that were very similar on some aspects and different on other aspects. If all of them presented the same exact account, you would reasonably suspect collusion. If they were vastly different, you would suspect they were not reporting on the same events. The fact that the Gospels are not exact copies of each other but are similar attests to their authenticity, not fictional fabrication.

What you would do with those differing accounts is compile them to see how much is similar and deem those things as probably quite accurate accounts. The differing things you might consider as coming from different perspectives of the writers or perhaps emphasizing a different aspect of what happened. It would also occur that since no one could write a complete account, each would see something as important that other would not mention.

Why should the Bible be held to a higher standard of literary critique than any other literature?

Geezer is only nit-picking to avoid the real story of the Bible which is that God is the creator of the world and is worthy to be the authority over all that is there. We as men have chosen to ignore Him and follow our own paths. As a result we die and we must face God's justice where we will be found guilty and be subjected to His wrath. God provided Jesus as a person who would live a life in total submission to God and who would be killed in spite of being the one man who did not deserve to die. In that death, Jesus took on the sins of all mankind -- the just dying for the unjust. But Jesus conquered death in His resurrection. We have the choice of continuing in our own way which leads to judgment and God's wrath or in placing our faith in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus which leads to eternal life.

That is, basically, what the Bible is about. It is not really about 12 desciples any more than Caesar's Gallic Wars is about his generals. Some of the generals are mentioned, but the account is about Caesar.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Hmmm.
Is there anything other than Egyptian literature to describe the feats of pre-Biblical Pharaohs?

yes roman and Greek historical documents.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

I think it was very typical of those times that various groups compiled their own histories of their own people. Other than vague references from other social groups, most groups commented very little about other people.

the Romans and Greeks kept a sort of Guinness book of records, of facts to amuse their hierarchy, so yes they did have records about the feats of the Pharaohs/Egyptians.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

That is, almost anything you read about Greek society and history was compiled by Greeks. Almost anything you read about Roman society and history was compiled by Romans. The same would be true of virtually all ancient social groups.

yes and even today we do the same, however we share information with our allies, just as they did then.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Ancient history has the amazing quality that each social group held itself up to high praise while usually being critical of any other social group that might enter into their history.

just as we do today, however we also hold our allies up to praise, but just slightly less than ourselves. it would not be good politics, to do it any other way.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

I would not expect there to be a lot of extra-Biblical literature about Jews and Christians any more than I would expect a lot of non-Roman literature about Caesar or extra-Greek literature about Aristotle.

why not, there is an abundance of extra ( insert nation here) information available.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Why should anyone expect more of Christianity than is available from other social groups of the same time? The movement in that day was very small and considered insignificant and hardly worthy of comment by others.

however Christianity has had such a profound effect on society, and yet there are no records. No eyewitness accounts, just stories handed down by word of mouth, Chinese whispers, plagiarized from other stories and other cultures. Whereas, the Greeks/Romans/Egyptians have much more information but don’t have a big effect on society. strange!

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Even today, if you had several people reporting on the same events, some eyewitnesses and some from interviews, you would have several accounts that were very similar on some aspects and different on other aspects. If all of them presented the same exact account, you would reasonably suspect collusion. If they were vastly different, you would suspect they were not reporting on the same events. The fact that the Gospels are not exact copies of each other but are similar attests to their authenticity, not fictional fabrication.

however the fact they were not written by the named author and so long after the event, make that authenticity farcical.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

What you would do with those differing accounts is compile them to see how much is similar and deem those things as probably quite accurate accounts. The differing things you might consider as coming from different perspectives of the writers or perhaps emphasizing a different aspect of what happened. It would also occur that since no one could write a complete account, each would see something as important that other would not mention.

which is exactly what has been done, tis why they have been thrown out as forgeries.
read the info I posted.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Why should the Bible be held to a higher standard of literary critique than any other literature?

because the Bible effects our lives everyday, and because the Bible makes such extraordinary claims, and with extraordinary claims, they must provide extraordinary evidence, but we are left wanting.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Geezer..................

..............which leads to eternal life.

preaching removed, all off topic and irrelevant, if you want to discuss those points post up a thread.

Simple answer to this. Someone needs to raid the Vatican and take back the Holy scripts (if they still exists) and carbon date them. There could be all sorts of documents that have been supressed that the don't want us to know about.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Simple answer to this. Someone needs to raid the Vatican and take back the Holy scripts (if they still exists) and carbon date them. There could be all sorts of documents that have been supressed that the don't want us to know about.

yes they could help your case, but then again, if there hidden now, they may have a good reason for it.

Geezer, Daytonturner has used the same argument ad nauseum. He never changes it, nor learns from what the responder says (in fact I doubt he really reads responses).

I've encountered (and debunked) this argument tactic of his before in relation to Caesar. He obviously doesn't get the fact that real historians don't make fallacious mistakes like biblical scholars.

As evidence of this, I've encountered numerous Roman stories where they concede the actual events are hard (or impossible) to discern. But they get quite close by comparing dozens of sources, and add up all the similar details. Naturally these sources do not prove themselves.

They do these kind of cross-checks for non religious texts. Yet I have _NEVER_ seen anyone cross-check religious text successfully! I wonder why that is.

It's obvious Caesar and the Bible are not on the same playing field, but Daytonturner wishes to believe they are.

previous post edited out

Dayton, don't be so absurd. There's simply a fine line between preaching and interpretation. Some, like Mitch, rarely cross that line. Others don't even know the difference.

i removed the previous post; i misunderstood the edit in geezer's post; thinking the orignal post had been edited

I know where I can find the names of the twelve apostles engraved on the walls of a city. And they were written there by Jesus Himself. It is found at the end of a straight and narrow path, and there are few who have found it, but it is there in Jerusalem. The apostle John spoke of the place. And He gives a description as to where it is. It is found in Revelation 21:7-14 NKJV):

"He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. “But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, "Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife." And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west. Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

I am on a journey there myself right now. I can’t wait to see the twelve apostles wall in the New Jerusalem. I bet you they are the same names listed in the Bible, imagine that. And I will probably even chuckle a little bit when I look at it and remember how the nay sayers on this forum said there is just not enough evidence for the twelve apostles. I guess that will be God's little joke on them for eternity.

John the Sinner

Do you know what Jesus' signature looks like?

Originally Posted by AugJDog

I know where I can find the names of the twelve apostles engraved on the walls of a city. And they were written there by Jesus Himself. It is found at the end of a straight and narrow path, and there are few who have found it, but it is there in Jerusalem. The apostle John spoke of the place. And He gives a description as to where it is. It is found in Revelation 21:7-14 NKJV):

wow! firstly your using the same source to verify itself again, and if there is a place where jesus (hammer and chisled) wrote on a wall some links to where it is, and some verification as to it possible authenticity would not go amiss.

Question, it doesn't state that jesus wrote them, where did you get that info.
NKJV Rev 21:14 "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb"
if you believe it to be so, why do you think it was written by a jesus person and why is it the only thing a jesus person wrote down. Why hasn't it been shouted from the highest hill tops, why is it only now it comes to light. could it be just like the turin shroud, a eleventh century forgery, after all I would not put it past the church to do such a thing during the crusades, that assuming it's there in the first place.
lol, you people are so gullible.

These aledged names are carved on jasper, sapphire, chalcedony, emerald, sardonyx, sardius, chrysolite, beryl, topaz, chrysoprase, jacinth, amethyst. the gates are pearls and the city made of gold so thin it's see through, like glass..
are you sure you've got the right place.

Geezer responds:

daytonturner wrote:

Hmmm.
Is there anything other than Egyptian literature to describe the feats of pre-Biblical Pharaohs?

yes roman and Greek historical documents.

This is typical of the way both Geezer and Jeremy look at this stuff.

There were neither Greeks nor Romans around in ancient Egypt. They had no records of ancient Egypt other than what they may have heard or been told centuries later.

We did not know much at all about ancient Egypt until the Rosetta Stone was decoded in the early 1800s and we began to be able to read the hieroglyphic accounts found on ancient Egyptian artifacts. If the Greeks were there and making accounts of what was going on, why did they not have any knowledge of hieroglyphics.

The Rosetta Stone, by the by, is dated to have been created in about 196 BCE (before Christian era). Greeks were very prominent in the world at that time. Why were they unaware of the Egyptian written language?

Geezer further responds:

daytonturner wrote:
I think it was very typical of those times that various groups compiled their own histories of their own people. Other than vague references from other social groups, most groups commented very little about other people.

the Romans and Greeks kept a sort of Guinness book of records, of facts to amuse their hierarchy, so yes they did have records about the feats of the Pharaohs/Egyptians.

Again, this is just total crappola drivel. The Greeks and Romans were not there in ancient Egypt and had no way to personally collect such accounts other than second or third hand and by word of mouth. (This is as opposed to the eyewitness accounts and first hand reports contained the Bible.)

Neither Geezer nor Jeremy seem to be scholarly or knowledgeable on ancient history or literature and it consistently shows in their posts, as they futilely attempt to refute and debunk that which is accepted and agreed upon by the vast majority of historians and literary scholars.

The sad thing to me is that my responding to them on these matters is even more foolish than their posts. Back to the ignore list.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

This is typical of the way both Geezer and Jeremy look at this stuff.

There were neither Greeks nor Romans around in ancient Egypt. They had no records of ancient Egypt other than what they may have heard or been told centuries later.

What. The. FUCK! Your absolute IGNORANCE and ARROGANCE OF WHICH is beyond ASTOUNDING! To the point where I don't know whether to argue it or just point and laugh!

The Rosetta stone was FOUND in the late 1700's (last year, to be exact). It finally contributed immensely to Egyptian hieroglyphic translation around 1822. The comparative translation that linguists underwent aided greatly in their knowledge of Egyptian writing.

One of the main bumfucked points you make is that Rome nor Greek were around ancient Egypt...you apparently didn't know that both Greek and Rome were some of the wealthiest trading partners with countries like Egypt for a very long amount of years. That is why they have documents detailing Egyptian events, that's why Greek is on the Rosetta stone, and that's why you are STUPID!

Furthermore, who do you think WROTE the Rosetta stone...? It was obviously the work of BOTH COUNTRIES!

We did not know much at all about ancient Egypt until the Rosetta Stone was decoded in the early 1800s and we began to be able to read the hieroglyphic accounts found on ancient Egyptian artifacts. If the Greeks were there and making accounts of what was going on, why did they not have any knowledge of hieroglyphics.

And...? It's not like Hieroglyphics were useful in their country. I fail to see what point you are just struggling to make.

The mere fact the Rosetta Stone exists is proof the Greeks knew full well of Egyptian hieroglyphs. Otherwise it wouldn't exist.

The Rosetta Stone, by the by, is dated to have been created in about 196 BCE (before Christian era). Greeks were very prominent in the world at that time. Why were they unaware of the Egyptian written language?

The mere presence of the Rosetta Stone proves you're correlation is false. What, exactly, are you trying to say? Because one country didn't have a massive amount of language from another country that country didn't know the other one? What the fuck?

Again, this is just total crappola drivel. The Greeks and Romans were not there in ancient Egypt and had no way to personally collect such accounts other than second or third hand and by word of mouth. (This is as opposed to the eyewitness accounts and first hand reports contained the Bible.)

Um. You just said yourself Greece was very powerful during the time. This includes trade with other wealthy nations like...uh...EGYPT? Greece probably had their own intellectuals IN EGYPT for many centuries. The greek people were LEARNERS. Of _COURSE_ there were eye witness accounts, not to mention FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS FROM THEIR ENEMIES. Did you forget that both countries involved in a war generally record it (although some lie about the outcome)?

Neither Geezer nor Jeremy seem to be scholarly or knowledgeable on ancient history or literature and it consistently shows in their posts, as they futilely attempt to refute and debunk that which is accepted and agreed upon by the vast majority of historians and literary scholars.

Right. You don't seem to be knowledgeable on simple...uh...logic.

The sad thing to me is that my responding to them on these matters is even more foolish than their posts. Back to the ignore list.

WHAT THE FUCK! SEE! It's like you're disparately clinging to a forever shrinking amount of stupidity in order to protect your own feeble mind from the truth!

jeremey's opinions and information on this matter have the same credibility and force as do Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's opininions and information on The Halocaust. Only those within his own sphere of belief pay this insanity any homage.

Everyone - could we try to moderate the language (implicit and explicit) on both sides.

Dayton, could you define what date you assign to Ancient Egypt. I think that might (or might not) help to clear some of the ambiguity.

Edited to correct some bizarre typographical omissions. (I must have been tired.)

Just about everything that is known about the Disciples comes from the biblical texts, such as the Gospels.

There really isn't much else from that time, historically. Reading those texts will tell (with as much accuracy as there can be) where they came from, how they got to be Disciples, what they did, where they went, etc.

Ophiolite, you are so perceptive.

I have been thinking of the Egypt of the days of Moses and before. Actually, I do think there may have been a group of Greek people who had migrated to Egypt in that same time period. But I don't think they went home and compiled a first-hand account of the history of Egypt. I think jeremy is talking about Egypt of the late Ptolomean period.

But what we knew about the Pharaohs of the Moses and pre-Moses days was limited until the discovery and translation of the Rosetta stone. I would say we have considerable more extra-Egyptian history near the end of the reigns of the Ptolomies when Romans were so active in Mediterranean commerce. However, even their accounts of what was going on in Egypt was focused not on the Egyptians but rather on their own activities there.

My point is only that Roman literature and history focuses on Roma; Greek literature and history focuses on Greeks; Judo-Christian literature and history focuses on Jews and Christians. One does not glean a great deal of substance from one social group's literature about the other social groups.

We would not search Greek literature and history with the expectation that we are going to actually learn a great deal about Rome. Nor would we search Roman literature to find definitive information about either the Greeks or the Egyptians. We would expect to learn the most about Greeks from Greek literature and histories and we would expect to learn more about Rome from Roman literature and history. In the same way, we should expect to learn the most about Judo-Christian history from Judo-Christian literature. I just would not expect Greek or Roman literature and histories to have a great deal to say about groups of people (Jews and Christians) who were pretty much considered insignificant to both the Greeks and Romans.

You do not find much in Greek or Roman literature about any of the other social groups who existed in the pre-Christian world other than whatever relationship may have developed with the other societies. Even Caesar's Gallic Wars is not a history of Gallic people but of his military campaign there. While the Bible mentions Egypt, Rome and Greece as well as Persia, Media, Syria and several other civilizations, the Bible does not make an in-depth study of any of them. Similarly, the literature of those civilizations does not provide in-depth information about Jews and Christians.

The point in my original post was merely to suggest that the fact that other literature does not make a big to-do about either Jews or Christians is not a valid reason to question the authenticity or veracity of Bibical literature. If so, we must question what Greeks wrote about Greeks and what Romans wrote about Rome.

What would cast doubt upon Biblical literature would be credible extra-Biblical accounts from that era from extra-Judo/Christian sources which contradict the Biblical accounts. If one found some credible source from that time which says there were no disciples or that there were only 10 disciples or that their names were Frederick, Edward and the like, then one would have some basis to question. But to stand up some 2,000 years later and, based on your own disbelief, cast doubt upon some ancient piece of literature is not really a valid technique of literary criticism.

But this seems to be a typical criticism of Bible detractors today -- to raise questions about things which were not contradicted by people of the time who would have been in a position to do so.

My previous outburst was from a built up fire. Lets just say that particular day was much like most theistic debates on here. Fruitless and aggravating like Hades itself.

But I don't think they went home and compiled a first-hand account of the history of Egypt. I think jeremy is talking about Egypt of the late Ptolomean period.

Relations with greece and other countries were formed long before the Ptolemaic period. After all, during that period Egypt was conquered by Alexander.

There are a few problems with your hypothesis. A large amount of countries surrounding Egypt (as well as major ones such as Rome and Greece) make references to Egypt through a large portion of its history. And many countries play warring roles. Those that are blotted out usually have empirical evidence to back up any written records.

Many mythological events, however, are generally classed as mythological because they LACK any and all evidence used to verify events. You may dispute that point at your leisure.

What would cast doubt upon Biblical literature would be credible extra-Biblical accounts from that era from extra-Judo/Christian sources which contradict the Biblical accounts. If one found some credible source from that time which says there were no disciples or that there were only 10 disciples or that their names were Frederick, Edward and the like, then one would have some basis to question.

You assume they took place. The fact it lacks these contradictions is evidence it didn't take place. Before you put forth such an argument you MUST prove those involved (like Jesus) existed. Then, proving that the metaphysical events happened (such as those involving God) requires further proof and reasoning.

But to stand up some 2,000 years later and, based on your own disbelief, cast doubt upon some ancient piece of literature is not really a valid technique of literary criticism.

Explain to me, then. What constitutes as valid criticism?

To stand up some 2,000 years later and, based on your own belief, claim existence of a mythical person is not a valid technique of literary analysis.

But this seems to be a typical criticism of Bible detractors today -- to raise questions about things which were not contradicted by people of the time who would have been in a position to do so.

Your own statement proves that nothing histocal can be proven wrong unless specifically contradicted by someone else. Nobody contradicted most of the mythological tales told! Do you not understand what you are saying? Just because something isn't contradicted does not prove it is valid!

Your argument assumes the event took place. You haven't proven it has. The simple fact contradictions are absent gives a large amount of evidence that they never took place.