The First Jesus

,    »  -   98 Comments
458
6.88
12345678910
Ratings: 6.88/10 from 16 users.

Storyline

The First JesusHe was called the King of the Jews, believed to be a Messiah. Just before Passover, the Romans beheaded him and crucified many of his followers outside Jerusalem.

But his name was not Jesus... it was Simon, a self-proclaimed Messiah who died four years before Christ was born.

Now, new analysis of a three-foot-tall stone tablet from the first century B.C., being hailed by scholars as a "Dead Sea Scroll on stone," speaks of an early Messiah and his resurrection.

Was Simon of Peraea real? Did his life serve as the prototype of a Messiah for Jesus and his followers? And could this tablet shake up the basic premise of Christianity?

We'll go to Israel to assess this unique and mysterious artifact, including testing by a leading archaeological geologist and comprehensive review of the letters, script and content by a Dead Sea Scroll expert.

Then, from Jerusalem to Jericho, we'll investigate key archaeological ruins which could help prove Simon was indeed real.

More great documentaries

98 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Simple Simon says

    The whole jesus tale is a roman invention to control all aspects of life, it still goes on today.

  2. mg777

    If you desire the truth go to the Source, you do not need Man.

  3. marionhubbard

    How reconcile this with fact that Jesus did not die on the cross but lived to spend his days in India?

  4. Cosmogenes PANTA RHEI

    The gospels are composite stories about a fictional figure called Jesus of Nazareth. The record about Simon may well have been one of the pieces used by the writers. So was e.g. the record about Judas the Galilean, as well as OT figures such as Moses and Joshua (Jesus in the Greek Septuagint).
    AC

  5. Jack1952

    A comment made by someone who either has no knowledge of history or prefers to make up his own version. Christianity started as a Jewish cult and morphed into a belief that salvation was open to all of mankind. This was in the first century. Christianity did not become the religion of Rome until the fourth century under Constantine and was at odds with the Roman leadership many times till that point. Historical fact and it doesn't jibe with your comment at all.

  6. Jack1952

    Interesting film but kind of a let down at the end. Unfortunately, nothing was resolved. I feel as if the film ended right in the middle of the story. Oh well...no one said history was easy.

  7. Teddy Mcd

    Glad it was on the brief side. Ho-hum.

    Where is Sherlock Holmes when you need him?

  8. Daniel

    Why would they want to create a fictional person....?

  9. John Jacquard

    this will only be the beginning

  10. john Palermo

    Not gona watch it not gona say anything but hasn't enough killing and suffering been had in the name of religions. dogma............... Move on people and remember you once believed in Santa because others sold you that story it's just that story actually does involve reproducing a miracle every year so the truth has to be told to you eventually so that the "miracle" will continue......Well at least for the new bunch of deceived children it does.
    Man is the miracle, we are god, nothing is going to save us but ourselves....

  11. Pythus

    so basically this guy with glasses is trying to prove christianity wrong by the translation of a single word that can barely be seen.

  12. Irishkev

    Ooh ! Fairytales on TopDocs . Get the popcorn .

  13. Irishkev

    Hmm , stone tablet - bit hard to swallow :l

  14. ZarathustraSpeaks

    Correction, nothing is going to save you period. The End.("save ourselves" for what???) Thinking that you can somehow create meaning or value to life by picking "soft targets" to call "stupid" to inflate your ego just means you are "grasping at straws" as reasons for your own existence. Not really different from those you are attacking. Your basic premise may be correct but truth in itself is only truth, nothing more.

  15. Jack1952

    Your history lesson was a lot of interpretation and speculation. Not one piece of evidence that shows Titus planning and implementing this plan to pacify the Jews.

    Strange that this was only done with the Jews. Those pesky Germanic tribes were dealt with militarily. I guess the Jews were too tough to crack. Had to fool them with a new religion. Even had to fool the Roman citizens. Although they already worshipped Caesar, that wasn't good enough. Lets make them Christian too.

    Another thing that puzzles me about this idea. Was this plan implemented by all the rulers of Rome...all the way to the time of Constantine? Titus's brother, Domitian, who replaced Titus after he died suddenly, was in turn murdered and succeeded by Nerva. Nerva had Domitian's name erased into oblivion. It would seem unlikely that he would keep up the policies that the Flavians had instituted. Many subsequent rulers came to power by military force. They, too, kept up the farce of the new Jewish Christianity?

    The idea that Joseph of Aremathea was Josephus and that he wrote the gospels may be a bit of a stretch also. Most scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was written in Syria by an unknown Christian, no earlier than 70 AD. Josephus is known and is not Syrian. Just one example.

    Enough history lesson for me for now. Feel free to direct me to other alternative histories.

  16. Matthew Mosley

    Where can/download I buy this?

  17. Simple Simon says

    So you want the whole history, Atwill delt with the creation of the new testament, rome used this as a universal religion so to stop all the violent ones emerging, but are we not doing the same now, are we now getting to the point were religions can't live side be side, so i assume it is time for a new universal religion.

    Roman catholic religion = Roman universal religion, literally

  18. Renevonn

    After mulling this film over for a day or so I find that at best, its an interesting piece of history but I can't see any new revelations coming from it.

    As to whether or not this stone disproves Christianity, I can't really say nor do I find that anyone else really can at this point. If anything, it shouldn't rock anyone's boat because as far as I could tell (when I was a good little Roman Catholic boy and up until I reached the age of reason) its not the belief in Jesus that matters, its the belief in God which ultimately counts.

    Besides, I'd really wish contemporary (as in the general version) of Christianity would focus more on what Jesus was trying to tell everyone and less on the cult of personality that sprung up around him.

    Take it to mean what you will, but faith is supposed to be something personal anyway. What one man says shouldn't bother anyone if they're truly secure in their faith. Insecure people are the ones who will attack anyone who questions their religion.

  19. Jack1952

    "are we now getting to the point were religions can't live side be side" The religions have been waging war against one another for two thousand years. They have always been at that point.

    I would have to read Atwill's book to make any real commentary. The interview from the link you gave is much too vague to make any real assessment of his ideas. Everything I have learned of Church history would dispute his theory but I suppose that holds very little appeal for those who believe all our mainstream knowledge is false and is in place to deflect our attention from the truth. The vague and mysterious world power at work.

  20. Simple Simon says

    I don't wish to upset your view of the world, if christ has made you understand humilty and care for all life not just your fellow man then it has had a good influence on you, if it tells you that you must remove all those that don't see the world as you do then it has had a bad affect on you, but once man saw himself as part of natures plan, religion has made us feel we are apart from it, in your terms then that is the work of the devil so makes both god and the devil the same person.

    but i know more about history than you give me credit for and i know that all the religions are based on enki, a very old vision of a person that was beyond what humans understood at the time, to show the importance of the words of enki, when the Israel controled USA entered iraq the first thing they took was the tablets of enki, they now claim they don't know what they are, so 6000 year old tablets explaining our begining have gone and the US claim they have lost them, the tablets showed that all religions are just means to control man.

  21. john Palermo

    So godlike you are... Please refrain from threats it so violent...You also use quotes and yet none of those awful things you quote came out of my post, stop misrepresenting....

  22. ZarathustraSpeaks

    No violence or threats of violence were in my post to anyone ??? However, if I replied to the wrong post my comments were directed in error.

  23. Liem Kamp

    realplayer has a downloader.free !!

  24. balding

    god and the devil are the same person
    BOTH FICTION

  25. Simple Simon says

    I agree.

  26. Paul Michaelson

    I have read the Bible several times and yes its very entertaining study in how the ancient people of this area lived and what the believed in and why. Very interesting. However you can pick up any ancient text that has has seemingly pure moral ideas and create your own holy church. To feel condemned to hell for how some dudes who lived thousands of years ago lived there lives. Its just silly. Rubbish

  27. Paul Michaelson

    I do appreciate the knowledge. I will add it to my collection.

  28. pezman_dan

    The concept of dying and rising vegetation gods goes back so much further than either of these accounts; both the Simon and Jesus stories are playing off very old and widespread motif concerning natural cycles (ie. Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, Zalmoxis, etc.).

  29. robertallen1

    And which source is this?

  30. robertallen1

    Source?

  31. robertallen1

    Just which form of Christianity are you referring to?

  32. robertallen1

    It might interest you that the earliest manuscripts of the Gospels were all anonymous and that the names by which they are known today were appended in about the 4th century.

  33. robertallen1

    And secure people will attack anyone who bases his views on faith.

  34. robertallen1

    Sort of parallels support for "alternative medicine," doesn't it.

    That's the thing about these nut cases. They read one book on a subject and if it appeals to them (and I don't mean intellectually), they regard it as the be all to end all.

  35. Epicurus

    can someone get me a link to this documentary?

  36. over the edge

    Epicurus
    do you have software to hide your location? if so it is available on youtube (blocked in our country). if not it is also available on the national geographic channel but i think that it is the same player and link here. hope this helps

  37. Lynley Ruth Butt

    Dear Marion- so you have read " Jesus lived in India" ?- well I think the research there also shows the hotbed of resistance- " Revelations" being the scribes coded story of the factions and the Qumran " heavenly adjudication" set up... that had both the Messianic figure AND a further expected " Comforter" to come within its' organization. The significance of " live" and " risen" and " immaculate conception" becomes extremely relevant in connection with how civilized sensitized ethics and moral spirituality can not only survive but prove itself victorious over brute enslavement, oppression, aggression and torture- even unto demonstrably defeating the imposition of the death sentence- with the help of Essene esoteric wisdom, courage and connivance of fellow helpers and companions in the cause. With respect to " the one to come"- unexpectedly of mixed Jewish-Egyptian ethnicity, he also survived persecution and preached that the greatest act any man can do is to release a slave and save a life- thereby as it were, saving all humanity.

  38. Epicurus

    do you have the link for youtube. it is the style of embedded player natgeo is using. it is being blocked by whatever crazy form of adblocking my hacker friend put on my computer.

  39. dewflirt

    All these practice messiahs, when are they going to invent one that works? ;)

  40. Epicurus

    thanks, dont worry i just use hotspot shield to get around that.

    thanks again.

  41. Jack1952

    I have never stated that I am a Christian quite simply because I am not a religious person.
    Not all religions are based on Enki. Religion has been a part of human history no matter where or when humans have lived and have existed long before the Sumerian culture.
    The three tablets have been translated and anyone can read them. It is religious myth and there is no historical evidence to show that it is historically accurate.
    Who is trying to control man through religion?

  42. Sieben Stern

    fascinating - between this and Philo's story of Carabbas it is getting easier and easier to see how the pieces of the christian god myth came together.

  43. Lynley Ruth Butt

    Yes, I felt the same slanty myopic perspective. But with Christianity and Islam- Buddhism and Hinduism- any religious sect, it's the same thing. Take me- I thought I saw this future prognostication about a future collective male/female brotherhood of Science , Conscience and Faith ( as a single objective outcome) maturing out of all this sequential diversity of true/false/hopeful/distrustful leadership preaching preferences for salvation.. admiring any sect that has ecumenical " outreach"... but am left with the feeling that exclusive selectivity/ security of habitual customs " causes " and " solutions" prevails- with far too few associating holiness with " holism"... or " success" with the tipping of the numbers balance that arrives from an enabling " coming to agreement". Comparative religion is a recital of differences, as is politics, ethnicity, identity , attitude- so this feeling of " the wheel"- going round and round in circles... music played out in variegated keys... with a far-distant conductor, which is maybe something to do with mostly brief life-spans and " the present ( dis)organizational system of things"... busy diversity of purpose and capability- often at odds with any larger pursuits- making a living for a brief survival- rather than any expectations of sustainable long term rightness or validity. So "the mansions in the sky" remain a pipe dream? What about the " greater things " we- the future generations are supposed to do to help and inspire. Too often of a negative destabilizing criminal nature- often 'soul-destroying'- as we see tendencies towards entropy.... at least for us, regardless of the grand scale of the universe.

  44. robertallen1

    Just what are you babbling on about, or do you know?

  45. MENA:s problemas

    Try doing a similar documentary about Mohammed and Islam...

  46. Tom

    Meaning what? Moslems are not reacting to Religious assault as much as they are reacting to the imperial arrogance they perceive from the west. We "lord" over them with technology (drone attacks, capricious invasions etc . . .) and they respond with suicide bombings and terrorism. It is not religion, as much as I would like it to be, it is a culture superiority that the West makes no bones about. Put simply: We think we are better than them and we don't miss any opportunity to say so.

  47. DahinkBowitzel

    Well said Tom. Maybe the USA could just leave the middle east. The middle east will sort out the problems far sooner than the USA will sort out the middle east.

  48. MENA:s problemas

    So it's "imperial colonialism and drone attacks" by the:

    1) Copts,
    2) Buddhists,
    3) Hindus,
    4) Ahmadis,
    5) Bahai's,
    6) Ateists
    7) Girl schools
    8) and everybody else

    - that make muslims slaughter them and each other?

    ... Let me guess, you are a white guilt burdened, anti-white racist, who votes left?

  49. Teddy Mcd

    Couldn't said it better myself, in the by-and-by.

  50. Heather Hitt

    Can this not be seen on a tablet thing?

  51. rufusclyde

    Let me guess, you could not accurately outline the Thirty Years War, the Spanish Inquisition, nor the countless other historical events in which Christians killed tens of millions of Christians and non-Christians? Clearly, you a free of the burden of understanding.

  52. MENA:s problemas

    And that had what exactly, with mine and Toms discussion to do?

  53. Harry Dowdeswell

    i personally disagree with your point that it is the cultural arrogance of the west, its far more about money. the religious and cultural aspects though true to the muslems (big generalisation i know), mean absolutely nothing to those in the west where lets face it are in the middle east because saddam hussein was set to control half the worlds oil reserves.

  54. leteci

    about the movie: in my opinion, it's shallow. It is known that through Israel's history many people claimed for themself's they are messiah's and they were fighting Rome. Jesus from Nazareth didn't fight Rome. His change is inner. His Kingdom isn't Kingdom of this world. You either believe Him or you don't. Or you are at least trying to understand Him...The archaeological evidence is not important - it is how you relate to yourself and to others...

  55. Shervin Maddah

    Can no one comment on how this documentary was instead of talking trash and trying to convince the world that only you are right and everyone is wrong? FFS Comment ABOUT the movie not your unimportant, minuscule and insignificant ideologies! IF you are happy with your beliefs then you should be 100% content and happy shouldn't you? Anyone (including 99% of the commenter's here) are soooo insecure and unsure of their own beliefs that they feel the need to constant bash it on other people and defend their so called truth against the truths of others!

    **** your truth! It is YOURS not mine and I don't need it!

    They need to filter these comments and allow comments to be RELATED to the show and discusses the show NOT your personal beliefs!

  56. Mario

    Canol is anti christ.he is shallow,and trying to spread that Jesus lie as well as the bible,If Simon was the Messisah well he wasnt coz his corpse rot like Muhammed of Islam

  57. Mario

    History says Josiah was the one who made the walls of Jericho came tumbling down with the help of God and the trumpet souns.dudh!!!

  58. robertallen1

    How about first cleaning up your English and then trying to give some coherence to your thoughts?

  59. Shiraz Anwar

    Yes i agree completely and couldn't have said it better myself. Well i am just downloading the movie just now but to let you know Jesus the Christ came many a times to a lot of different people before the actual birth of Yahoshowa (Isa) Peace be upon him. He is the Biblical Jesus. He was a Semite i.e not blonde or white with blue eyes and a narrow nose.. if u wanna look at a Semite than look at the Arab Muslims or Christians or Arab Jews.
    The others were distractions from Azazel/Iblis. Horus had one, the Mayans had a blonde, blue eyed Jesus apparently born of a virgin on 25th December... This is all the pagan beliefs which got mixed up or paganised original Christianity. Just like Islam is being westernized (nation of Islam and other lame sects) or easternised (extremism) instead of the other way around. Islam did not come to cancel the message of Isa/Jesus PBUH but just like Jesus came to strengthen the message of Abraham and of Moses PBUH SIMILARLY Muhammad came to strengthen the message of Jesus!
    Taurat = OLD TESTAMENT
    Zaboor = PSALMS
    Injeel = NEW TESTAMENT
    Qur'an = LATEST TESTAMENT!!!
    The actual Jesus or Iso in Hebrew, Isa in Arabic. He PBUH was born of Mary in mid summer (and the Bible testifies to it as well as the Qur'an) (There is a chapter called Mary PBUH in the Qur'an... read it bud)
    Isa/''Jesus'' was a historical figure. And was from the bloodline of Abraham's son Isacc PBUH. Muhammad PBUH was also a decendant of Abraham PBUH called Ismail PBUH.
    If anyone does find that hard to believe just think about it... Isa/Jesus was from Al-Quds/Palestine, Abraham was from Iraq!.., Issac was born in Misr/Syria, Ismail was born in Misr too but was left in Arabia by Abraham and was visited quite often...and Muhammad as we said also born in Arab. They were all men but messengers of God. I beseech anyone and everyone to read up on other people and their culture before spewing crap... and try to deny the authenticity once you have read the Qur'an. If indeed you do look you shall find not even ONE mistake this is an open challenge.

  60. robertallen1

    Where are sources for all of this rot, especially the bits about these men being messengers of god, the gibberish about the name Jesus in Hebrew which is actually transliterated as Joshue and the nonsense about tracing him from the bloodline of Abraham's son? Your word is simply not good enough.

  61. Shiraz Anwar

    where is the humanity? Not all eastern Muslims are without the use of technology but they do not attack us.. the western governments i mean... not the people. I quite like the people myself.
    Suscide bomings are Anti Islamic anyways. but what they are doing in Afghanistan, Cossovo are fighting so that the west colonialism stops.
    IF the west got out we wouldnt have any problems...
    America gives 4 billion a year to Afghanistan in foreign aid.... thanks a lot USA but they take away 3 trillion of Lithium and other metals.... Where are the people who arent asleep in america? There is a God watching.... this is plain theivery..Pakistan gets foreign aid so that NATO can get a pass.... Africa... dont get me started... American goverment is pure Evil.. so is this EU thing... People is Europe dont even like these thigs.. wait a few years when people in Europe and America will be hurddled into camps... Fema and what not..

  62. Shiraz Anwar

    Comparative religion to smart people shows how people can get together on common terms. Not the other way around. People who talk like you make me laugh. One who dismisses a book or a belief without actually doing research on it makes me laugh. Have you any idea about the science in the Qur'an or the Bible (although some contradictions to science in the Bible not ONE CAN BE FOUND in the Qur'an)?
    if indeed my prayers and fasts are useless amd there is no god than ok I dont loose anything.. but AND here is a big BUT if there is a God and there is a GOD... i win and you lot loose...

  63. robertallen1

    There's no science in the Koran or the Bible other than what was known at the time aof writing and claiming that there is betrays an ignorance of both works and science itself.

    And employing Pascal's wager to justify your idiotic beliefs makes you look even more ridiculous

  64. MIA786

    Your Knowledge about Islam as well as other religions is very impressive. I totally agree with your view point, may God bless you for sharing this knowledge with the rest of us!

  65. MIA786

    And who are you? Albert Einstein? why don't you do some research on the religion before making such baseless comments!

  66. robertallen1

    No, it's you're the one who hasn't done the research--and that's evident from the way your post begins.

  67. MIA786

    Ok Einstein, I agree on whatever you may say :o)

  68. stupad

    Its like winning the lottery. You can't win if you don't play.
    Check out Religulous. lol
    Also people need to come up with better reasons for believing in that garbage.

  69. Hector Velez

    I personally don't believe in any of the things that any religions teach and really do think that man will be better off when he starts to think more rational and intelligently. Never-the-less, if one wants to believe in those things that's their prerogative; they have their reasons. Problem with their thinking is that they are so sure that their God, or Gods, is the only real one and everyone else is wrong.

  70. jovicevic goran

    There is much more to this story, but one thing standing apart all others - Simon enters the NT, but as a "Magician" defeated by "real believers" around new teacher rabbi Joshua, son of Mary, one from ancient blood line of OT kings. Contrary to popular believe there were no hanging on the cross (T-shaped structure) on the daily basis. Some criminals, offenders and those judged for blasphemy of the worst kind, against Imperial cult goes down in some of votive based arena show, but not in public. but since Spartacus rebellion, insurgents could count on death in procession of crosses - just maybe. If so, one day archeologist will find even Simon rebels.Other war lord rebellious messiah, who's personality NT joined in Christ person is Simon bar Kokhba, who come closest to win ancient Jews battle against Imperium Romanum. Tale of the John decapitated, man who promoted Jesus as a warrior king- new Messiah told us how really dangerous Simon was - this act of identification with defeated rebel, by profit living on the wild honey and grasshopper diet, has been enough to seal Joshua's destiny..

  71. robertallen1

    And your point is?

  72. pmolignano

    Sitchinite all the way. Edgar Cayce about 80 years ago said Jesus Christ was a reincarnation of the God Thoth (Tuhutti in Egypt). I don't know if it matters one way or the other, but I really dig the story and the meaning behind it, that Christ came to show us the way, techniques to keep us on the road to enlightenment, and also that he took upon himself the sins of the world which saved us from the wrath of God.

    I chose to believe Jesus existed, though I have read also that there were many Jesus figures before Jesus Christ.
    But there is a "greatest story ever told" but it's not that Jesus existed, it's about the true story of God of the Bible, the one we call Jehovah or Yahweh. There is a ton of genuine information regarding the God Jehovah that has been discovered in the Mesopotamian area between 1850-1925 all on clay and stone tablets, well before papyrus and leather writings. All the stories of the Old Testament are there: the garden of edin story, the flood and noah story, etc, but all the stories have a slight twist but more believable than the Bible stories. I believe the Bible is a plagiarization of true stories that occurred several thousand years earlier, were discovered then spin doctors and govts put their own "edits" to these documents just as they do today. History is written by whoever is in power, in other words, most people only know bulls*it because they never investigated the source, which may take many years to find it, but truth does not always come easy.

  73. gerard maher

    There were hundreds of so called messiah killed by the Romans Jews, leaders who had hundreds of followers,cruafied,beheaded,and brought to rome as John in 70ad athought of messiah ended in chains before the emporer

  74. David Cole

    National Geographic is notorious for anti-Christian bias and fiction like this. We have the writings of Jesus' disciples. There is no doubt he is a historical figure. Fragments of Matthew and John have been found dating to pre-AD 70.

  75. robertallen1

    David Cole

    Where is your evidence of this being fiction?

    If you're referring to the Gospels, the attributions are serotinous. The Gospels of "Matthew" and "John" were written near the end of the first century, So let's see your evidence of these pre-AD 70 fragments.

    Why don't you read up on the history of your beloved set of books before keyboarding such ignorance?

  76. Matthew

    Actually the book of Mark was first penned around AD 40. John Mark was the author, and he received much of his information directly from Simon Peter. Get your facts straight before keyboarding such ignorance.

  77. over the edge

    could you show me the proof that "John Mark was the author" as the majority of scholars disagree with you. also "Mark was first penned around AD 40" is not what the majority of recent scholars state either.

  78. robertallen1

    Wrong. The Gospel of mark dates to around 70 A.D. and is of unknown authorship. The attribution to Mark (sometimes known as John Mark) dates to around 200 A.D. See Bart Ehrman, "The New Testament."

    You clearly don't know what you're talking about and don't pretend you do. You're not fooling anyone.

  79. Matthew

    Actually, robertallen1, I do know what I'm talking about. It is rather you who are incompetent and a disgrace. First off, Bart Erhman's liberal bias is well known. His explanations are grave stretches of the truth, as can be seen in his book, "Misquoting Jesus". The attribution of Mark (John Mark) is not from around 200, but the first century. For evidence of this look up Eusibius and Papias. The former quoting the latter

  80. Matthew

    First, over the edge, please inform me of the "majority of scholars" who disagree with either of those statements. Second, I would point you to the same people as I did robert. Eusebius and Papias. More to the point is Eusibius citation of Papias. I believe Iraneaus also said something about it.
    As an aside, most scholars do in fact agree that Mark wrote the gospel bearing his name. There is internal evidence (in Mark and the Scriptures in general) relating to a "naked man running", the link with Barnabas, and later on Paul on his missionary journeys.
    It is widely believed that the other three gospels were written after Mark, the reason being the fact that all but a select few verses of Mark appear in the other three. They seemingly borrowed some information. If you then take the believed date of the writing of the Gospel of Matthew to be between 55 and 65 AD, things become clearer.

  81. robertallen1

    From Wikipedia "A tradition evident in the 2nd century ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), the companion of Peter . . . ." See Raymond E. Brown, "Introduction to the New Testament" (1997), William Lane, "The Gospel According to Mark," Keith F. Nickle, "The Synoptic Gospels." (1980)

    Dr. Ehrman is a mainstream biblical scholar who basically restates what has been known for the last several hundred years--and discounting his scholarship for what you perceive as liberal tendencies as opposed to its accuracy and intrinsic worth is the mark of a pathetic Christian apologist. Now, just which parts of "Misquoting Jesus" are "grave stretches of the truth.".

    One way or the other, your statement "Actually the book of Mark was first penned around AD 40. JOHN MARK WAS THE AUTHOR,, and he received much of his information directly from Simon Peter" is a complete falsehood which even you have refuted in your sentence beginning, "The ATTRIBUTION of Mark . . . " .(emphasis added)

    Going out of your way to tell the reader that you know what you're talking about is a sign that you clearly don't.

  82. robertallen1

    So Eusebius (260-340) wrote that Papias said that Mark (John Mark) wrote Mark--unconvincing.

    "There is internal evidence (in Mark and the Scriptures in general) relating to a "naked man running", the link with Barnabas, and later on Paul on his missionary journeys." Unconvincing. Anyone could have written this.

    " . . . most scholars do in fact agree that Mark wrote the gospel bearing his name." Unconvincing without a basis for this statement?
    Does the recently discovered manuscript, ostensibly from the first century, contain the name of the author?
    What's pathetic about you is that rather thatn citing a few of the things to which you take issue in "Misquoting Jesus," you simply dismiss Dr. Ehrman as a "liberal." This is no more than a Christian apologist's attempt at scholarship.

  83. robertallen1

    Isn't biblical scholarship fascinating? It's amazing how many Christians know nothing about the set of books they so tout.
    By the way, I've finished Hodges' biography of Alan Turing (offer still on) and have started on Jerry Coyne's book.

  84. over the edge

    again thanks for the offer. you will enjoy Coyne's book i am sure.

  85. Matthew

    First off, Wikipedia? Seriously? There's no professor or peer review group that would ever accept Wikipedia as a reliable source. However, even your citation proves my point more than yours. "A TRADITION evident in the 2nd century..." Calling something a tradition usually implies that it is less than recent in origin. Bart Ehrman you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Making a claim to authority is only valid if what they say is correct. You believe this yourself, as would be proven if I made that same claim. More to the point about Dr. Ehrman is his adhered to belief that none of the manuscripts, of which we have thousands, are accurate or trustworthy. So let's put his beliefs up against Dr. Norman Geisler and they both cancel each other out. Now what? My "attribution" sentence in no way validated any of your claims, quite the contrary. Also....out of my way to tell the reader that I know what I'm talking about? That's laughable. It was one sentence that was a direct response to your idiocy. Which, by the way, is an example of what you're "condemning". By your stating that someone else does not know what they are talking about, and that they are not fooling anyone, you are making the claim that you do know what you are talking about. Have the lights come on now Einstein? I guess logic isn't important to you.

    Finally, if you wish to read of the "Misquoting" errors, just Google it. I'm sure you can figure out how to do that.

  86. Matthew

    I did not ask you for proof of my claims, but of yours that most scholars disagree with my statements regarding the Gospel of Marks authorship and date of initial writing. As I mentioned to your friend, Wikipedia is not exactly a good source to cite. It wouldn't pass muster in even the most lenient colleges, let alone professional discourse. However, it does seem to diminish your claims. "Some modern scholars believe that the gospel was written in Syria by an unknown Christian no earlier than AD 70..." Some. Not most. The second Wiki link you posted doesn't seem to offer much in this regard either way. Perhaps the link didn't change and I'm looking at the wrong one.

  87. over the edge

    i understand what you were asking. i just find it irritating that you made the original claims in this discussion. when i ask questions concerning your claims you answer my questions with questions. all the while not backing up your original claims. even after i address some of your questions you still refuse to answer. both wiki articles are fully sourced and instead of dismissing them for existing why not actually refute them. as for what a college will accept. you are wrong. if you provide a fully sourced article (as i did) and the facts check out then wiki is a fine starting point for information. as for the quote you pulled from the article. it in no way diminishes my claim. it points out some believe that but it doesn't say all others support your claim. many believe in multiple authors from multiple places. some believe scribes changed it over and over. some believe the author and location is unknown. and so on . in no way does this support your original claim or refute mine but i have recently had multiple discussions that went nowhere and have a new rule for myself. here it is. give someone two chances to back up their claims then move on. you have had both your chances and i will donate no more of my time to someone who makes claims they cannot back up.

  88. robertallen1

    Not only did I quote from Wikipedia, but I also provided other sources. So don't try that crap.
    "We begin our study of the gospels with Mark, the shortest of the four in the New Testament. We do not know who the author was, only that he was a Gree-speaking Christian, presumably living outside of Palestine, who had heard a number of Stories of Jesus." "The New Testament," Bart D. Ehrman, 3rd ed. 2004. How, let's see you refute it other than on the grounds that Dr. Ehrman, one of the top New Testament specialists in the nation, is a "liberal" scholar. Quite frankly, I very much doubt if you're half the biblical scholar Dr. Ehrman is.

  89. robertallen1

    You're right. The support for his statement " . . . most scholars do in fact agree that Mark wrote the gospel bearing his name" lies solely in his denigration of Wikipedia.

    It gets my dander when some pissant Christian apologist like Matthew attempts to derogate Dr. Ehrman, a highly respected mainstream biblical scholar, merely on the basis of Dr. Ehrman's allegedly being a "liberal" scholar.

    This type of criticism is valid when leveled at someone like David Barton who garners no respect among mainstream American historians, but not with respect to someone like Dr. Ehrman.

  90. robertallen1

    Dr. Geisler is simply a Christian apologist with a Ph.D., not in biblical studies, but in philosophy. So he and Dr. Ehrman do not cancel each other out. If anything, Dr. Ehrman clearly trumps him.

    Tradition does not equal proof or come anywhere near it. As Over the Edge has also noted, you haven't presented one piece of evidence to support your claims

    "More to the point about Dr. Ehrman is his adhered to belief that none of the manuscripts, of which we have thousands, are accurate or trustworthy." More to the point, this is not at all what Dr. Ehrman states in "Misquoting Jesus." From this and "if you wish to read of the "Misquoting" errors, just Google it. I'm sure you can figure out how to do that" it's apparent that you've never even read the book. Not only are you a cheap Christian apologist, but a liar as well.

  91. Matthew

    "It points out some..." Some is not most, as you implied the page would state. As for your rule, it applies to yourself as well. Just because you are eager to dismiss an early historians statements of fact regarding the authorship of Mark does not make them invalid. That's to say nothing about your claim that I did not provide said information directly after your false claim that most historians disagree with my statements.

  92. Matthew

    Just one more thing, you are wrong in stating that Wikipedia is acceptable as a source for anything beyond trivial discussions. Due to the nature of the entity a lot of misinformation is going to be present. While some of the sources may be cited, the validity of the claims made by the cited source is in no way set. I could find a source or two that states all we experience as reality is an illusion, or that socialism works. Neither of those assertions have much going for them either.

  93. Principe Negrô

    Simon of Parea= Simon Peter.
    Rock which Christianity was built on.

Leave a comment / review: