[dcmacdaddy]

Story is here: BBC NEWS | Special Reports | Historic Bible pages put online.
Bible is here: Codex Sinaiticus.

Rule 8 Comment: I think it is amazing that a) we have a 1600 year old book let alone b) a book (the Bible) so influential in the history of Western society/culture. I have perused already the website and am fascinated to read/see the Bible in its earliest known formation. As for why I put this in the PWL, I have no doubt this topic will lead to flame wars. Don't let me down, people.

[richwig83]

Whos the story written by?

[lpkmckenna]

Well, it's the oldest New Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls include older copies of the Tanakh.

This codex is important because it clearly proves that the Bible isn't the immutable word of God. The most important difference is that Mark ends at 16:8, hence the oldest tradition of the life of Jesus doesn't have a physical resurrection of Jesus. Which makes sense since the writings of Paul, Peter, and James don't speak of a physical resurrection either. For all four, Jesus wasn't raised back to life, he was raised up to heaven.

Also, this codex includes the epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, clearly proving the "canon" was still in flux as late as the 4th century.

Sadly, this codex was stolen from the monastery of St Catherine. It was borrowed with the promise to return it, but they never will. Jerks.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I have no doubt this topic will lead to flame wars. Don't let me down, people.

You got it!

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

This codex is important because it clearly proves that the Bible isn't the immutable word of God. The most important difference is that Mark ends at 16:8, hence the oldest tradition of the life of Jesus doesn't have a physical resurrection of Jesus. Which makes sense since the writings of Paul, Peter, and James don't speak of a physical resurrection either. For all four, Jesus wasn't raised back to life, he was raised up to heaven.

I think that is totally irrelevant because;
A: It does not and will not change one single thing in people who believe the Bible.
B: Even if all four gospels were very clear about witnessing a resurrection, it wouldn't change the fact that the Bible is 100% bullshit. THOUSANDS (perhaps millions?) of people see UFO's, ghosts and miracles every year. You know what that means? Absolutely nothing. Bullshit is bullshit.

[ironknee]

paul was wrong... jesus didn't come back during his time... but he will come now, some 2,000 years after he died

i can see it now... hey jesus when will you come back and save us?

jesus: not until 2,000 years from now

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

Paul was wrong... Jesus didn't come back during his time... but he will come now, some 2,000 years after he died

I can see it now... hey Jesus when will you come back and save us?

Jesus: not until 2,000 years from now

Matthew 24:36

But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone

[Shaddim]

Such workmanship is truly awe-inspiring, it's simply beautiful.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Which makes sense since the writings of Paul, Peter, and James don't speak of a physical resurrection either. For all four, Jesus wasn't raised back to life, he was raised up to heaven.

With regards to Paul, Elaine Pagels has been saying this for years, but she still stumbles on the following verse:

I Cor 15:12 "But if Christ is preached that He has risen from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

To quote Craig Blomberg:

"At any rate, the position of some in the Corinthian church is specified in verse 12 (How can some of you say that there is no resurrection from the dead?"), and it is to this challenge that Paul responds. By denying the resurrection, the Corinthians were almost certainly not denying life after death, virtually everyone in the ancient world believed in that. Rather, they would have been disputing the Jewish and Christian doctrine of bodily resurrection and endorsing one of the more Greek forms of belief that limited the afterlife to disembodied immortality of the soul (cf. 2 Tim. 2:17-18)." 1 Corinthians, Craig Blomberg, 294-95.

Seems rather obvious to me.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

B: Even if all four gospels were very clear about witnessing a resurrection, it wouldn't change the fact that the Bible is 100% bullshit. THOUSANDS (perhaps millions?) of people see UFO's, ghosts and miracles every year. You know what that means? Absolutely nothing. Bullshit is bullshit.

That's nice. It's so refreshing to log in and see quality, open-minded discourse.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

With regards to Paul, Elaine Pagels has been saying this for years, but she still stumbles on the following verse:

I Cor 15:12 "But if Christ is preached that He has risen from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

I'm not a fan of Pagels. Regardless, there are many scholars who agree that the resurrection was a purely spiritual event (John Dominic Crossan comes to mind).

The expression "raised from the dead" doesn't imply physical existence. It meant raised from Sheol to Heaven. At least, that's how the early Christians and the Essenes saw it. It seems that the Pharisees believed in a physical resurrection, and Christianity moved closer to that view in the later stages of the writing of the New Testament, especially in Matthew, which struggles to unite Christianity and Phariseeism doctrines together.

When Paul discussed the nature of the raised person, he speaks of a spiritual body: "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." What is a spiritual body? No one knows exactly what Paul really meant here, but he juxtaposes it with "natural." He also juxtaposes natural body with "heavenly body," meaning forms like angels and demons and God. Do angels have physical bodies? Does God have a physical body?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's nice. It's so refreshing to log in and see quality, open-minded discourse.

If you want quality, open-minded discourse why the f*ck are you in the PWL? I'm as open-minded to the "truth" of the Bible as Christians are to the "truth" of atheism.

Besides, the OP specifically requested flaming, I'm just trying to contribute.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

If you want quality, open-minded discourse why the f*ck are you in the PWL? I'm as open-minded to the "truth" of the Bible as Christians are to the "truth" of atheism.

Besides, the OP specifically requested flaming, I'm just trying to contribute.

How someone can be so reasonable on other topics (politics included) but be such an ass regarding religion is beyond me. If you were hyteckit, or someone similar, I could understand. However, I know you are capable of being civil.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The expression "raised from the dead" doesn't imply physical existence. It meant raised from Sheol to Heaven. At least, that's how the early Christians and the Essenes saw it. It seems that the Pharisees believed in a physical resurrection, and Christianity moved closer to that view in the later stages of the writing of the New Testament, especially in Matthew, which struggles to unite Christianity and Phariseeism doctrines together.

When Paul discussed the nature of the raised person, he speaks of a spiritual body: "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." What is a spiritual body? No one knows exactly what Paul really meant here, but he juxtaposes it with "natural." He also juxtaposes natural body with "heavenly body," meaning forms like angels and demons and God. Do angels have physical bodies? Does God have a physical body?

"How the early Christians saw it"? No, not really. That was a strictly gnostic doctrine taught, and shunned, by the early church. The belief was abolished within the Church proper with the council of Nicea in 325.

However, to get to the point, Paul used the term "soma" in his discourse with the Greeks. This word is in reference to a physical body, as opposed to "psyche", the term for spirit (or soul) in those times.

Does "God" have a physical body? Yes, it's the body of Christ.

[torsoboy]

That dude had some good handwriting! But greek looks pretty difficult... no spaces or punctuation?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This codex is important because it clearly proves that the Bible isn't the immutable word of God. The most important difference is that Mark ends at 16:8, hence the oldest tradition of the life of Jesus doesn't have a physical resurrection of Jesus. Which makes sense since the writings of Paul, Peter, and James don't speak of a physical resurrection either. For all four, Jesus wasn't raised back to life, he was raised up to heaven.

Are you trying to imply that Mark is the only one that writes about Jesus' physical resurrection?
What happens in Matthew 28 or John 20? Who is on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24)? What about Acts 1?

Are you suggesting that since some scholars think Mark was written first, the rest of them just added these stories to flesh it out a bit? Surely, you can't be trying to extract some proof of this from this copy?

[Chuckit]

Shaddim, I think you and lpkmckenna are using different definitions of "early Christians," since he lists Matthew as coming later (and Matthew was around long before the Council of Nicea).

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

How someone can be so reasonable on other topics (politics included) but be such an ass regarding religion is beyond me. If you were hyteckit, or someone similar, I could understand. However, I know you are capable of being civil.

Whoa, a personally attack out of nowhere. That's gotta hurt. Nope. Not really.

Since it coming from a closed-minded hypocrite such as yourself.


Calling the Bible a bunch of BS is no different than calling the book of Scientology or the book of Mormon a bunch of BS.

Revering in all religious text a requirement for open-mindedness now?

By the way Shaddim, stop calling everyone an ass for thinking the Bible is a bunch of BS. It only shows that you are closed-minded.

I'm sure most Catholics think the Book of Mormon is a bunch of BS. I wouldn't call those Catholics assh@les for thinking that.

Closed-minded means you don't want to or refuse to hear/listen to other's beliefs. Being opened-minded doesn't mean you have to accept other's belief or revered it.


Anyway, the Bible is a bunch of BS. However, it's a good read. Actually, I prefer it being read to me.

I love Greek Mythology as well. Bunch of BS, but good stuff.

[macbear85]

Ahhh opinions. Here's mine, maybe religion is unnecessary? I mean, why tack on another label, why not just live? We don't need to be associated to something organized to be tied to people. It's good to read about religion, to learn new and interesting things. I love The Odyssey and the Rastafarian movement is pretty chill.

[colourfastt]

Religion is emotional masturbation.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Shaddim, I think you and lpkmckenna are using different definitions of "early Christians," since he lists Matthew as coming later (and Matthew was around long before the Council of Nicea).

I agree. He's confusing a 1st century sect of messianic Jews with "early Christians". However, my other point still stands.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by colourfastt 

Religion is emotional masturbation.

I agree with this too. Several religions do use some rather advanced masturbation techniques. However, it might be more prudent to discuss such things in a different thread.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

That dude had some good handwriting! But greek looks pretty difficult... no spaces or punctuation?

Latin was the same way. The saving grace was a very regular organization of words within a sentence (well in latin anyways).

[ebuddy]

While the Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest, most complete version of the New Testament, there is nothing to suggest it is complete. With regard to the OT of course, you'd have to disregard large chunks of Daniel and a wealth of other omissions. I find it interesting which extant versions (some 200 years after many other manuscripts of almost all the books of the Bible in their entirety including those that suggest bodily resurrection) non-believers regard as authoritative.

Perhaps now the Roman elite will produce the body so we can be done with this whole Jesus' resurrection nonsense.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

How someone can be so reasonable on other topics (politics included) but be such an ass regarding religion is beyond me. If you were hyteckit, or someone similar, I could understand. However, I know you are capable of being civil.

Religion is one of the few subjects that shake my "faith" (for lack of a better word) in mankind.

To turn your phrase back on you; How someone who is as seemingly intelligent and reasonable as yourself can believe such nonsense is beyond me.

When I look at the world I don't see disaster and grief caused by mankind. I don't see sin, or evil, or stupidity. I see all the wonderful things that we have done and how far we have come. Then, I see these people believing in talking snakes, myths of virgin births, Xenu the galactic overlord and a hatful of magic rocks and it makes me sick.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

"How the early Christians saw it"? No, not really. That was a strictly gnostic doctrine taught, and shunned, by the early church. The belief was abolished within the Church proper with the council of Nicea in 325.

Uh, no, the council of Nicea had nothing to do with gnosticism or the physical resurrection. The council censured Arius for his unusual doctrines (that Jesus and God were of separate "substance" and that Jesus was not an eternal being).

Also, the belief that the resurrection was spiritual, not physical, has nothing to do with gnosticism. While the term "gnostic" is sort of a catch-all term, it can be generally termed "physical world is evil, spiritual world is good." That's not what the early Christians believed, and certainly not what I'm saying.

You have a lot of opinions about things you clearly know little about.

However, to get to the point, Paul used the term "soma" in his discourse with the Greeks. This word is in reference to a physical body, as opposed to "psyche", the term for spirit (or soul) in those times.

Does "God" have a physical body? Yes, it's the body of Christ.

"Soma" really means "form," not body. And your "body of Christ" comment isn't really clear. Do you mean Jesus' physical body, or the Christian community?

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Are you trying to imply that Mark is the only one that writes about Jesus' physical resurrection?
What happens in Matthew 28 or John 20? Who is on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24)? What about Acts 1?

Are you suggesting that since some scholars think Mark was written first, the rest of them just added these stories to flesh it out a bit? Surely, you can't be trying to extract some proof of this from this copy?

Yes, the other gospel writers were trying to flesh out Mark. He never speaks of a physical resurrection of Jesus; in fact, he speaks against it, when Jesus debates the Sadduccees and he claims "we will be like the angels and will not marry."

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Shaddim, I think you and lpkmckenna are using different definitions of "early Christians," since he lists Matthew as coming later (and Matthew was around long before the Council of Nicea).

Yes, exactly.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I agree. He's confusing a 1st century sect of messianic Jews with "early Christians". However, my other point still stands.

No, I'm talking about the first Christians, like Peter, Paul, James, and Mark. The phrase "messianic Jews" has no useful meaning when discussing 1st century religion. Every Jewish group except the Sadduccees and Herodians were "messianic Jews" of some kind.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Yes, the other gospel writers were trying to flesh out Mark. He never speaks of a physical resurrection of Jesus; in fact, he speaks against it, when Jesus debates the Sadduccees and he claims "we will be like the angels and will not marry."

That doesn't hold much water, and any citation you can provide can be refuted with citations otherwise. The text of the codex does little to substantiate your claim beyond saying that Mark didn't write of a bodily resurrection. Even if that were a later addition, it does not refute the words of the other writers.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Uh, no, the council of Nicea had nothing to do with gnosticism or the physical resurrection. The council censured Arius for his unusual doctrines (that Jesus and God were of separate "substance" and that Jesus was not an eternal being).

Also, the belief that the resurrection was spiritual, not physical, has nothing to do with gnosticism. While the term "gnostic" is sort of a catch-all term, it can be generally termed "physical world is evil, spiritual world is good." That's not what the early Christians believed, and certainly not what I'm saying.

You have a lot of opinions about things you clearly know little about.

Where did that come from? Stop being defensive and let's discuss this like rational people.

At any rate, you've forgotten about the Nicene Creed:

... he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered, died, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father

which ties into...

(directly from the Codex Sinaiticus) Mark 16:5,6

5 And they entered the sepulcher and saw a young man, sitting at the right side, clothed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.

According to Mark 16, the physical body was gone, and the angel of the Lord tells them that Jesus had risen with his body.

Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of the apostle John, writes:

"But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise up us also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments..."

"I bless you for because you have considered me worthy of this day and hour, that I might receive a place among the number of martyrs in the cup of your Christ, to the resurrection to eternal life, both of soul and of body"

I'd say you can't get much closer to the source than that.

"Soma" really means "form," not body. And your "body of Christ" comment isn't really clear. Do you mean Jesus' physical body, or the Christian community?

Soma, within the context of Paul's usage, is very obviously referring to Jesus' physical body. The literal translation is body, as in the physical body. There is nothing there to infer that he means anything other than flesh and bone. More often than not, Paul's writings are direct and to the point, because he was hoping to guide those whom he felt had gone astray. I don't believe that he was couching his words with metaphysical rhetoric.

No, I'm talking about the first Christians, like Peter, Paul, James, and Mark. The phrase "messianic Jews" has no useful meaning when discussing 1st century religion. Every Jewish group except the Sadduccees and Herodians were "messianic Jews" of some kind.

The apostles weren't "Christians" at all, not yet, it would be more accurate to call them Jewish heretics. The Christian religion, as we would recognize in some orthodox jurisdictions, wasn't firmly established until quite some time after their deaths. Aside from Paul, I would say that early Theologians, are most responsible for it's formation.

Now, has Christianity become what the early apostles had hoped? Probably not. However, it's very obvious that very early in the tradition it was established that Jesus physically resurrected and rose from the tomb. Perhaps this doctrine started with Paul? Though I doubt it, since it seems that the apostle John taught it as well. Who can say? However, it's obvious that such thinking was around in the 1st century.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

... he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered, died, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father

which ties into...

(directly from the Codex Sinaiticus) Mark 16:5,6

5 And they entered the sepulcher and saw a young man, sitting at the right side, clothed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.

According to Mark 16, the physical body was gone, and the angel of the Lord tells them that Jesus had risen with his body.

Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of the apostle John, writes:

"But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise up us also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments..."

"I bless you for because you have considered me worthy of this day and hour, that I might receive a place among the number of martyrs in the cup of your Christ, to the resurrection to eternal life, both of soul and of body"

I'd say you can't get much closer to the source than that.

The apostles weren't "Christians" at all, not yet, it would be more accurate to call them Jewish heretics. The Christian religion, as we would recognize in some orthodox jurisdictions, wasn't firmly established until quite some time after their deaths. Aside from Paul, I would say that early Theologians, are most responsible for it's formation.

While Pentecost itself is essentially the beginning of the "Church Age", it was generally understood that the earliest of those we would regard Christian would be those who fled persecution with eventual settlements in Antioch; 40 AD-ish. This, shortly after St. Stephen's death. (often depicted with what many view a church building in his arms)

Now, has Christianity become what the early apostles had hoped? Probably not. However, it's very obvious that very early in the tradition it was established that Jesus physically resurrected and rose from the tomb. Perhaps this doctrine started with Paul? Though I doubt it, since it seems that the apostle John taught it as well. Who can say? However, it's obvious that such thinking was around in the 1st century.

The letters of Paul all collectively dated to between 49-67 AD, pretty much affirm the notion of oral tradition (hymns, creeds, etc) espousing the bodily resurrection view within his lifetime. Regardless, we know for certain the physical, bodily resurrection notion existed and was well-documented by Irenaeus; 188 AD. On topic; all predating Codex Sinaiticus. I might add that the only significance of Codex Sinaiticus is its compilation (codex-with spine) and not the practice of the Biblical authors themselves.

*As an aside, Irenaeus was instrumental not only in establishing doctrinal integrity through apostolic succession, but in illustrating how conflicted Gnostics were and in (indirectly) forming the very talking points used in the Council of Nicea. While Arius' notions are generally regarded as unique from those of the gnostics, their ideologies crossed in compelling enough ways at least culturally (Origen/Arius; both Greek philosophers) to suggest they were related. i.e. to say the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with combating gnosticism is mistaken IMO.

Again, I find it interesting which manuscripts non-believers regard as "authoritative", but also that we would use this to indicate how conflicted the early Church was, how disconnected early Christians were, or how rocky the foundation for the Christian faith. Let the debates that rage in the PWL attest to the fact that we can see the very same thing, including figures certainly more recent than Jesus, and yet arrive at entirely different conclusions. I don't see why conflicting accounts of Jesus' death and Resurrection would be more compelling evidence to the non-believer than the death of the first believers; those most intimately connected to the life and time of Jesus, the foundation of Christianity, to those of faith today. In this, smacintush is likely correct.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Matthew 24:36

don't cha think that is a patch? jist like suicide is called a sin because the logic is the sooner i die, the sooner i can be with god

i jist herd that jesus will be back in 2,000 from now.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

According to Mark 16, the physical body was gone, and the angel of the Lord tells them that Jesus had risen with his body.

Yes, Jesus' body is definitely gone. But did it walk out of the tomb? Paul compared the resurrection to a planted seed: the seed "dies" and is transforming into a plant. The seed is gone. The idea here is that the physical body is completely replaced by the new spiritual body, a thing utterly unlike what preceded it. You wouldn't bother looking for the seed of a tree, would you?

The story of the women at the tomb was written with deliberate ambiguity: yes Jesus is raised, no we don't know anything beyond that. The story neither confirms bodily resurrection nor spiritual resurrection. Mark definitely believed in the later, but also believed in keeping Christians of differing viewpoints on a friendly basis. (The story of the exorcist not of their group using Jesus' name was written to affirm non-confrontation with competing groups.)

In reality, Jesus couldn't have been buried anyway. The purpose of crucifixion was a dishonorable death. The body of the crucified was left for the dogs and crows, or more likely dumped in a pit at the execution site filled with other crucified corpses. Allowing a crucified criminal to have an honorable burial makes the entire procedure pointless. The strange tale of Joseph of Arimathea being given special permission to bury Jesus was devised to explain away the curious case of a dishonorable death with an honorable burial.

Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of the apostle John, writes:

"But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise up us also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments..."

"I bless you for because you have considered me worthy of this day and hour, that I might receive a place among the number of martyrs in the cup of your Christ, to the resurrection to eternal life, both of soul and of body"

I'd say you can't get much closer to the source than that.

We don't actually know that Polycarp knew John the Apostle. It's a traditional belief, but there were several Johns in early Christianity, and it was always a lazy assumption that they were all the same guy.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I find it interesting which extant versions (some 200 years after many other manuscripts of almost all the books of the Bible in their entirety including those that suggest bodily resurrection) non-believers regard as authoritative.

I'm not sure what texts you're talking about here.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I'm not sure what texts you're talking about here.

manuscripts that predate Codex Sinaiticus.

[lpkmckenna]

I'm still not sure.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I'm still not sure.

Bodmer P75 for Luke 24:38-39 which IMO is pretty clear; for starters.

We're likely going to disagree on spiritual ascension to heaven or bodily resurrection as you've engaged with Shaddim above, but none of us are going to solve that problem. Of course, the OT is often referred to by Christians as the New Testament concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. My references to prophesy in the OT regarding Jesus' resurrection would probably not be very convincing to you, but suffice it to say (somewhat in line with what smacintush said prior albeit less hostile) the major tenets of Christianity could not possibly fall from a Codex missing specific aspects of the NT.