Dumbledore's Gay

[M.Dancer]

I have no idea why what I said seems ridiculous at all. I am not sure where Dancer gets his dates from.

.

From the link you gave on authorship

For the Gospels they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65 and no later than 75. Matthew is dated between 70 and 85. Luke is usually placed within 80 to 95. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably in 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing.

Which means this statement is factually incorrect

It would be impossible for the gospels to have been written by their original apostles in many cases because some were not put to paper until well over a hundred years after Jesus's death.

If I do the math.....33 from 75 is 42.....So the author if it was an apostle he would only be around 65 to 85 years old.

[jawapunk]

That quote only discusses 3 gospels. There are many other gospels and books in the New Testament. Also I don't have exact ages for the apostles but I do know life expectancy was very low and that 65 to 85 was far from the norm. I did look into it and there are only a few whose deaths are known.

Regardless of that your quote also shows that the earliest time that one of those three gospels was written was 65 AD. That is about 32 years after the death of Christ if that death occured in 33 AD. Even if the same person wrote these gospels, that is an amazing amount of time to recall actual conversations, things said, events, timelines. It is not suprising then that Jesus's life is fantastical in many regards.

http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q6_apostles_die.html

One apostles death, that of John, is conjectured to be between 89 and 120 AD. That seems pretty far fetched to me as he would have been an adult by Christs' death. To live nearly 100 years after that is pretty well unheard of. However this is admitted as conjecture and no known date is there. That web site I gave is not very good however and doesn't seem to be of very concrete historical value.

If anyone can find this out please post as I am interested in this.

Edited November 19, 2007 by jawapunk

[M.Dancer]

One, John is conjectured to be between 89 and 120 AD. That seems pretty far fetched to me as he would have been an adult by Christs' death. To live nearly 100 years after that is pretty well unheard of. However this is admitted as conjecture and no known date is there. That web site I gave is not very good however and doesn't seem to be of very concrete historical value.

Gospel of john is widely believed not to be written by the apostle john. Never the less, the statement that it was all written 100 years after his death is wrong.

[jawapunk]

Gospel of john is widely believed not to be written by the apostle john. Never the less, the statement that it was all written 100 years after his death is wrong.

I never said the gospel was written over 100 years after his death. I said his death was conjectured as anywhere between 85 to 120AD. I was saying this would have made him crazy old at his death and unlikely. I then said that the site I got that info from didn't seem of historical value. Please read posts more closely as you have taken my words completely out of context.

[jawapunk]

Ahhhh, I see what happened. I had edited the post but you commented on it before my edit. Please read what I edited. Not your fault, was mine.

[jefferiah]

The above response suggests since something might be possible you can make assumptions it happened. Given that line of reasoning just who do you think might be said to be unreasonable? Before you engage in a Keng and hurl an accusation of ridiculous look at your own words.

You lose again Rue. I was not making any claim as to the date of the Gospels, he was. Since he does not possess an original copy he cannot claim any dates for them. So I am not in the position of having to supply proof. He is.

Glad to enlighten you.

[jawapunk]

You lose again Rue. I was not making any claim as to the date of the Gospels, he was. Since he does not possess an original copy he cannot claim any dates for them. So I am not in the position of having to supply proof. He is.

Glad to enlighten you.

Your right I don't an original copy if the new testament. I also don't have the millions it would cost to buy one, if they were ever up for auction, or if any actually exist now.

However, scholarly research has dated when these texts were written and I did provide sources for that. Now if you have contrary information, please provide it.

I don't think you have enlightened anyone as you are merely spouting opinion.

[Oleg Bach]

This is so sad and disturbing. So basically JKR creates a series of books that gets children hooked and then in then end slams them with a revelation that one of the characters is gay, thus forcing young--some very young--children to accept notions of sexual deviance that they shouldn't have to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7...000/7054074.stm

Most of the acts performed by hedonist who toss responsiblity to the wind - are created in the minds of unhappy and emotionally damaged people. A child would never naturally come up with such things - they have to hear the terminology - they have to have their curiousity stirred in a fashion that would never come to mind normally - yes that word that is dispised NORMAL that the overly active liberal mind and imagination percieves as some sort of cruel restriction and loss of some sort of freedom that is non-existant. You must ask yourself, what is the purpose of making this fictional character a man of aberancey? Clearly some debasing of humanity - an agenda generated by those that think they can create a better world than the one naturally granted to us in splendid glory.

I knew a young astronomer who as we gazed at the stars said to me.."What a mess up there, I could have designed it better. Years later this person who practiced the aggressive religion of atheism took a wife..they moved to a cabin in the north. He decided one day to become a woman...for in his power mongering he saw that perhaps he could gain superiourity as a human being as a woman. He took his hormone tablets - grew breasts - dressed in ragged skirts and high shoes.

.His young wife the daughter of a very bright lawyer said of her husband.."This is the greatest man that this civilization has ever produced" That was while he was a man..Great distress came apoun this mother of his children. She walked out back and killed herself. A beautiful creature lay wasted with a small blue hole.

Left behind were small children. Damaged children, who had no one left not even a real father but just a thing. Strangely a few years later I saw this man who in a drunken rage would leap across the dinner table and grab you by the throat if you professed a belief in God. Funny - he was dressed in a masculine manner and had no breasts and sported a small beard..He was not gay or anything else. He was just the sucker of life - out of woman - out of children and out of the world.

He walks unpunished and in total arrogance to this day - and yes - he adores the stength that is the gay lobby. Oddly enough that was the second woman that met a horrible end knowing this "gay". I really have no faith in all this gay rhetoric and propoganda - this man made a choice..and last year debating the very bright gays based in San Francisco...One avitar read GAY BY CHOICE...go figure.

[kengs333]

Regardless of that your quote also shows that the earliest time that one of those three gospels was written was 65 AD. That is about 32 years after the death of Christ if that death occured in 33 AD. Even if the same person wrote these gospels, that is an amazing amount of time to recall actual conversations, things said, events, timelines. It is not suprising then that Jesus's life is fantastical in many regards.

I don't think that 30+ years is all that long ago; I can clearly remember things that were said to me thirty years ago, and I was only a kid then; the people who wrote these gospels would have been adults and witness to something/someone quite extraordinary--Jesus, the son of God, performing miracles, teaching, being persecuted, dying on the cross, and being resurrected. These are things that one would not easily forget.

The fact that the Bible is divinely inspired is significant. It may seem absurd to you, but the fact of the matter is that it is devinely inspired and its truthfulness beyond dispute.

[jawapunk]

I don't think that 30+ years is all that long ago; I can clearly remember things that were said to me thirty years ago, and I was only a kid then; the people who wrote these gospels would have been adults and witness to something/someone quite extraordinary--Jesus, the son of God, performing miracles, teaching, being persecuted, dying on the cross, and being resurrected. These are things that one would not easily forget.

The fact that the Bible is divinely inspired is significant. It may seem absurd to you, but the fact of the matter is that it is devinely inspired and its truthfulness beyond dispute.

Yes I agree with you to some extent. However, we do not have proof that all the gospels were written by the apostles themselves and I'm sorry but if you can remeber thousands of conversations exactly after 30+ then you might be an idiot savante. I am sure events may be hard to forget but timelines, which people said what, what was actually said, and the fact that Christians were actively trying to spread their religion, creating a movement. Creating the divinity of Christ would be an inspiring story.

Proof of divine inspiration please?

Edited November 20, 2007 by jawapunk

[Oleg Bach]

I don't think that 30+ years is all that long ago; I can clearly remember things that were said to me thirty years ago, and I was only a kid then; the people who wrote these gospels would have been adults and witness to something/someone quite extraordinary--Jesus, the son of God, performing miracles, teaching, being persecuted, dying on the cross, and being resurrected. These are things that one would not easily forget.

The fact that the Bible is divinely inspired is significant. It may seem absurd to you, but the fact of the matter is that it is devinely inspired and its truthfulness beyond dispute.

The core of the original movement we call Christianity was TRUTH - the adherance to reality. It was not based on virgin birth. Nor on magic or trickery. It was not even based on the resurrection that is perfectly posssible. It was based on what came from the mouth of the Christ, not from Paul - and certainly not from Peter - but from him..the only one that was truely devinely inspired and generated..It is a simple religion..actually it was never meant to be a religion..for church and state are one. Religion and politics function through the same mechanism.

It was based on goodness - on life and there was no fixation on death as the state of Rome insisted upon to generate fear. It was a movement of revolution and fearlessness. It was the holding of life and the total rejection of fear and death and oblivion. It was "it is either real or it is not" It is either alive or it is not. There are no grey areas. It was utter boldness and the first true form of democracy and equality where all men were dirt under God - and all men were equal in value - where if the rights of the individual (the single sheep) were lost - the collective became tainted and it was also lost. It is great and pure physics.

[jawapunk]

The core of the original movement we call Christianity was TRUTH - the adherance to reality. It was not based on virgin birth. Nor on magic or trickery. It was not even based on the resurrection that is perfectly posssible. It was based on what came from the mouth of the Christ, not from Paul - and certainly not from Peter - but from him..the only one that was truely devinely inspired and generated..It is a simple religion..actually it was never meant to be a religion..for church and state are one. Religion and politics function through the same mechanism.

It was based on goodness - on life and there was no fixation on death as the state of Rome insisted upon to generate fear. It was a movement of revolution and fearlessness. It was the holding of life and the total rejection of fear and death and oblivion. It was "it is either real or it is not" It is either alive or it is not. There are no grey areas. It was utter boldness and the first true form of democracy and equality where all men were dirt under God - and all men were equal in value - where if the rights of the individual (the single sheep) were lost - the collective became tainted and it was also lost. It is great and pure physics.

Well said. I may not agree with you, but I enjoyed reading it none the less.

[jefferiah]

Your right I don't an original copy if the new testament. I also don't have the millions it would cost to buy one, if they were ever up for auction, or if any actually exist now.

However, scholarly research has dated when these texts were written and I did provide sources for that. Now if you have contrary information, please provide it.

I don't think you have enlightened anyone as you are merely spouting opinion.

Ah but you understand that in the absence of original texts (indeed how would one even be aware if one was the original because parchments usually do not have First Edition written on them) that scholarly opinion 2000 years later is subject to some considerable margin of error. Given that, it is you who is spouting opinion--since I have made no claim as to the date of the Gospels and you have. Also you are making the claim that Jesus was gay which is essentially based on nothing. That is another opinion you have spouted. The ability to say which people from two millenia ago were gay is quite a talent. Why are you here posting with us? You could be making millions.

[jawapunk]

Ah but you understand that in the absence of original texts (indeed how would one even be aware if one was the original because parchments usually do not have First Edition written on them) that scholarly opinion 2000 years later is subject to some considerable margin of error. Given that, it is you who is spouting opinion--since I have made no claim as to the date of the Gospels and you have. Also you are making the claim that Jesus was gay which is essentially based on nothing. That is another opinion you have spouted. The ability to say which people from two millenia ago were gay is quite a talent. Why are you here posting with us? You could be making millions.

I know that is opinion, I admitted as much when I stated it. As in "it is my contention". Wish I could do that, have a historical gaydar.

You are right, there are no parchments that say first edition. The earliest found are the dates I have given earlier in the post. The earliest found are actually written in a form of Greek which was kind of like the English of that area of the mediterreanean at the time, in that it was widely spoken and written in. I believe the dead sea scrolls are written in aramaic, so there may have been earlier texts written but as of yet none exist or have been found. However, there are more than a few copies of the later texts written in Greek which suggests they were the first that was put to paper. This is because if there were earlier editions, they would have been found along with the earliest greek ones.

I actually don't make "claims" of the date of the gospels, but many peopel with phd's in history and theology do. Those are the people I am basing my information from. Those who have worked their whole lives basing their work on people who work their whole lives etc etc. researching this very topic.

Edited November 20, 2007 by jawapunk

[Oleg Bach]

Well said. I may not agree with you, but I enjoyed reading it none the less.

You may just be a little more mystic than I. Took me years to simplify it. Always placed myself back in time and observed - avoided indoctrination. For instance when Peter scared the guy to death who held back part of the money he got from his property that was to go into the communal purse..They dragged the body out back and buried it. Then his wife arrives and also lies to Peter..she is threatened with being stricken dead also....I wonder what message this occurance sent out into the village..kind of a mafia shake down if you ask me - fear and compliance followed I am sure..and I suspect that Christ was not around to supervise Peter at that time. Also - I have my doubts about the overly ambitious and manipulative Paul.

He writes a letter in the late fall..full of this and that and tons of instruction - at the end...he asks that someone send his coat because winter is coming...made me wonder if this particular letter was written primarly for a coat delivery and the rest was filler...you have to look at the early writings without a sence of awh..but with God given common sense - that's where I come from...also being raised by what was left of an old Russian Christian cult..there was no big importance attatched to virgin birth and it was common knowledge that Christ had brothers and sisters...so it was the humanizing of Jesus that I enjoyed and the promise that every man can be a Christ - that it was not an exclusionary movement. Hope you don't find my approach offensive - if so please forgive me.

[jefferiah]

Those who have worked their whole lives basing their work on people who work their whole lives etc etc. researching this very topic.

Yes, and no matter what degree of effort and intellect they exert in this pursuit there is going to be some considerable margin of error. It is not an exact science.

[M.Dancer]

I never said the gospel was written over 100 years after his death. I said his death was conjectured as anywhere between 85 to 120AD. I was saying this would have made him crazy old at his death and unlikely. I then said that the site I got that info from didn't seem of historical value. Please read posts more closely as you have taken my words completely out of context.

Pay attention to what you wrote.

It would be impossible for the gospels to have been written by their original apostles in many cases because some were not put to paper until well over a hundred years after Jesus's death.

and

Umm actually the New Testament was not written within the lifetimes of the apostles. That is why so many people have come to doubt. Not only that over the centuries because of canonization and various translations from one language to another the Bible has changed.

You claimed that the gospels were written

[M.Dancer]

Ahhhh, I see what happened. I had edited the post but you commented on it before my edit. Please read what I edited. Not your fault, was mine.

Okay

[Oleg Bach]

Okay

Still going on about the gay thing? Perhaps to much interest in defining a person by their sexual activity - but as I understand sex - it is by definition male and female. To approach any scandalism and attach sex to it - is a misnomer - gays do not have sex - hetrosexuals have sex..gays have something else...seems that there is to much interest in the activity of non-sexual creatures..some my anger at that statement - but it is similar to my feelings on no-sex marriage...although the government now bases family and spouse completely on the idea of gential contact - and nothing else. I repeat - this topic is not sexy.

[M.Dancer]

The fact that the Bible is divinely inspired is significant. It may seem absurd to you, but the fact of the matter is that it is devinely inspired and its truthfulness beyond dispute.

The bible is inspired....how divinely is a matter of debate...why for instance would God divinely inspire someone to write things that didn't happen?

For instance, the OT has several passages that are clearly anachronistic. For instance it is believed a historical Abraham lived around 1900 - 1750 BC. The writer(s) of genises has Abraham owning camels. This is impossible, camels were not introduced to the region till near 1000 BC.

This clearly shows that the oral tradition places the formation of the stories of Abraham after 1000 BC....so why did God inspire someone to enlarge Abraham livestock with animals that weren't available?

[Rue]

You lose again Rue. I was not making any claim as to the date of the Gospels, he was. Since he does not possess an original copy he cannot claim any dates for them. So I am not in the position of having to supply proof. He is.

Glad to enlighten you.

"You lose.?

Oy gevalt.

That is it?

Youdeliberately misrepresented what he said to suggest he was defining exactly

the dates of the gospel when at no time has he ever stated the dates he referrred to were absolute.

Given the fact you are probably well aware that not one story in the Bible can be proven to be written by anyone its claimed to be written by let alone even remotely close to what may have originally been written before it was edited, you think you can engage in passive aggressive name calling and then defend your behaviour with a "you lose" and " I dun havtuh" response I guess I am dealing with a young man. I hope Mama knows you are on the inter-net.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Rue

[cybercoma]

The core of the original movement we call Christianity was TRUTH - the adherance to reality. It was not based on virgin birth. Nor on magic or trickery. It was not even based on the resurrection that is perfectly posssible. It was based on what came from the mouth of the Christ, not from Paul - and certainly not from Peter - but from him..the only one that was truely devinely inspired and generated..It is a simple religion..actually it was never meant to be a religion..for church and state are one. Religion and politics function through the same mechanism.

It was based on goodness - on life and there was no fixation on death as the state of Rome insisted upon to generate fear. It was a movement of revolution and fearlessness. It was the holding of life and the total rejection of fear and death and oblivion. It was "it is either real or it is not" It is either alive or it is not. There are no grey areas. It was utter boldness and the first true form of democracy and equality where all men were dirt under God - and all men were equal in value - where if the rights of the individual (the single sheep) were lost - the collective became tainted and it was also lost. It is great and pure physics.

This is one of my favourite posts of all time. Makes me want to be a Christian Atheist.

[cybercoma]

The divinely inspired message of God:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Lev.20:13

"And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, ... he took away the sodomites out of the land." 1 Kings 15:11-12

Should homosexuals be slaughtered or exiled? I'm not sure which one God wants... He made his message very confusing.

[jefferiah]

"You lose.?

Oy gevalt.

That is it?

Youdeliberately misrepresented what he said to suggest he was defining exactly

the dates of the gospel when at no time has he ever stated the dates he referrred to were absolute.

I did not misrepresent what he said. Read M. Dancer's post above where he addresses this fact quite plainly. Jawapunk maintained that it is impossible for any of the Gospels to have been written within 100 years of his death. Read his posts Rue. I made no claim as to when. I simply pointed out to him that there is no absolute proof of that claim. And that providing the date of some known early editions means very little.

[jawapunk]

I did not misrepresent what he said. Read M. Dancer's post above where he addresses this fact quite plainly. Jawapunk maintained that it is impossible for any of the Gospels to have been written within 100 years of his death. Read his posts Rue. I made no claim as to when. I simply pointed out to him that there is no absolute proof of that claim. And that providing the date of some known early editions means very little.

Wrong, I said it would be impossible for the gospels to have been written by the apostles after 100 years as some of them have been dated. I did not say all but the gospels have been dated to have been first written anywhere from 20 to a hundred years after Jesus' death. This I have stated because it would have made the gospels over a hundre years old at the time of writing. Not sure if you know this but life expectancy's that average over fifty years is a modern trend, certainly not the norm from a historical perspective.

I actually provided dates of the first editions known to have been written, if you can provide earlier dates then you prove something so I guess I have proven more than a little.