Jesus was not a Jew

[Penelope]

Read Josephus.

Did. So what?

Apparently not good enough. If you did not note the similarities then you did not read it good enough.

similarities between what and what? Josephus write a book of HISTORY-----he did not claim
"divine inspiration" ------his book is not a scriptural work------like the Koran or Mein Kampf

Josephus tells it like it was, of course he does not claim divine inspiration, he is not writing a theology except for what he wrote in the NT. You can't dismiss the similarities, they are not a coincidence. Philo , the uncle of Tiberius Alexander, who was Titus right hand man, also was involved which is how we got the Logos , of which he combine Hellenistic Judaism with Platonism.

you are inventing history. Josephus had nothing to do with the writing of the NT----as to Philo---
the writers of the NT were undoubtedly familiar with his writings------after all he wrote in GREEK
and the people who wrote the NT ------were into Hellenistic stuff. Philo was CERTAINLY not
Hellenized------the romans all but worshipped the greeks. Philo may have liked feta cheese----
but that stuff has been made "kosher" for millennia. Olives are part and parcel of all of the
Mediterranean area.

Josephus wrote the war of the jews in Greek and Vespasian (who adopted him) and Titus used him as a interpreter. Apparently they didn't know Aramaic, which the maj spoke. Who was educated, Philo and Josephus both came from elite families and could read and write.

 

[irosie91]

Did. So what?

Apparently not good enough. If you did not note the similarities then you did not read it good enough.

similarities between what and what? Josephus write a book of HISTORY-----he did not claim
"divine inspiration" ------his book is not a scriptural work------like the Koran or Mein Kampf

Josephus tells it like it was, of course he does not claim divine inspiration, he is not writing a theology except for what he wrote in the NT. You can't dismiss the similarities, they are not a coincidence. Philo , the uncle of Tiberius Alexander, who was Titus right hand man, also was involved which is how we got the Logos , of which he combine Hellenistic Judaism with Platonism.

you are inventing history. Josephus had nothing to do with the writing of the NT----as to Philo---
the writers of the NT were undoubtedly familiar with his writings------after all he wrote in GREEK
and the people who wrote the NT ------were into Hellenistic stuff. Philo was CERTAINLY not
Hellenized------the romans all but worshipped the greeks. Philo may have liked feta cheese----
but that stuff has been made "kosher" for millennia. Olives are part and parcel of all of the
Mediterranean area.

Josephus wrote the war of the jews in Greek and Vespasian (who adopted him) and Titus used him as a interpreter. Apparently they didn't know Aramaic, which the maj spoke. Who was educated, Philo and Josephus both came from elite families and could read and write.

yes----both Philo and Josephus could read and write in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. What point
are you so DESPERATE to make? I do not understand your usage of the word "ELITE" ----you
use it LOTS. Lots of jews in the time of Josephus in Judea knew Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek and
lots of jews in the time of Philo knew Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek --------and wrote in those languages.
ELITE? The romans often needed interpreters------they kinda worshipped greek scholarship but
they did not KNOW GREEK unless they were SPECIAL. Does "elite" mean "SPECIAL"? Jews
back then did not have to be all that special to know those three languages. Today----lots of not
so special people know English, Hebrew and Aramaic-----in New York City----some not so special people
know Aramaic, Arabic and English and even French........in New York City. --------the only language
I know with any facility at all is English. I have no idea if Josephus knew Latin. It would seem logical
that he did. ----at least simple conversational stuff (???) anyone?

 

[Penelope]

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

and its false since they didn't have sola scriptura in the old days. Most of Europe and Asia were illiterate for centuries, let alone Latin which the bible was translated to. Even Hebrew in the first century was dying as a language, its like Latin use to be , just a church language.

 

[Penelope]

Apparently not good enough. If you did not note the similarities then you did not read it good enough.

similarities between what and what? Josephus write a book of HISTORY-----he did not claim
"divine inspiration" ------his book is not a scriptural work------like the Koran or Mein Kampf

Josephus tells it like it was, of course he does not claim divine inspiration, he is not writing a theology except for what he wrote in the NT. You can't dismiss the similarities, they are not a coincidence. Philo , the uncle of Tiberius Alexander, who was Titus right hand man, also was involved which is how we got the Logos , of which he combine Hellenistic Judaism with Platonism.

you are inventing history. Josephus had nothing to do with the writing of the NT----as to Philo---
the writers of the NT were undoubtedly familiar with his writings------after all he wrote in GREEK
and the people who wrote the NT ------were into Hellenistic stuff. Philo was CERTAINLY not
Hellenized------the romans all but worshipped the greeks. Philo may have liked feta cheese----
but that stuff has been made "kosher" for millennia. Olives are part and parcel of all of the
Mediterranean area.

Josephus wrote the war of the jews in Greek and Vespasian (who adopted him) and Titus used him as a interpreter. Apparently they didn't know Aramaic, which the maj spoke. Who was educated, Philo and Josephus both came from elite families and could read and write.

yes----both Philo and Josephus could read and write in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. What point
are you so DESPERATE to make? I do not understand your usage of the word "ELITE" ----you
use it LOTS. Lots of jews in the time of Josephus in Judea knew Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek and
lots of jews in the time of Philo knew Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek --------and wrote in those languages.
ELITE? The romans often needed interpreters------they kinda worshipped greek scholarship but
they did not KNOW GREEK unless they were SPECIAL. Does "elite" mean "SPECIAL"? Jews
back then did not have to be all that special to know those three languages. Today----lots of not
so special people know English, Hebrew and Aramaic-----in New York City----some not so special people
know Aramaic, Arabic and English and even French........in New York City. --------the only language
I know with any facility at all is English. I have no idea if Josephus knew Latin. It would seem logical
that he did. ----at least simple conversational stuff (???) anyone?

Simple , fishermen didn't write in those days. They could tell tales though. Most of the OT is from tales, and the scribes wrote the tales down when they came from Babylon. That is why the bible is known as the greatest story ever told.

 

[irosie91]

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

and its false since they didn't have sola scriptura in the old days. Most of Europe and Asia were illiterate for centuries, let alone Latin which the bible was translated to. Even Hebrew in the first century was dying as a language, its like Latin use to be , just a church language.

What does the phrase ".....since they didn't have sola scriptura in the old days....." mean? You also say
" Latin which the bible was translated to...." As far as I know---the NT was put together by the NICEAN
COUNCIL----was it written first in Greek and then TRANSLATED TO LATIN?------or did the Nicean
council do it in Latin? Obviously the NT EXISTED since about 300 AD-----what is the sense of saying
'" they didn't have sola scriptura in the old days" ????? Some people knew latin "in the old days"----
and could read and write and speak in that language with facility. Hebrew never died. People were reading
and writing in Hebrew ---since the "old days" Some day English might wake up in your brain

 

[irosie91]

similarities between what and what? Josephus write a book of HISTORY-----he did not claim
"divine inspiration" ------his book is not a scriptural work------like the Koran or Mein Kampf

Josephus tells it like it was, of course he does not claim divine inspiration, he is not writing a theology except for what he wrote in the NT. You can't dismiss the similarities, they are not a coincidence. Philo , the uncle of Tiberius Alexander, who was Titus right hand man, also was involved which is how we got the Logos , of which he combine Hellenistic Judaism with Platonism.

you are inventing history. Josephus had nothing to do with the writing of the NT----as to Philo---
the writers of the NT were undoubtedly familiar with his writings------after all he wrote in GREEK
and the people who wrote the NT ------were into Hellenistic stuff. Philo was CERTAINLY not
Hellenized------the romans all but worshipped the greeks. Philo may have liked feta cheese----
but that stuff has been made "kosher" for millennia. Olives are part and parcel of all of the
Mediterranean area.

Josephus wrote the war of the jews in Greek and Vespasian (who adopted him) and Titus used him as a interpreter. Apparently they didn't know Aramaic, which the maj spoke. Who was educated, Philo and Josephus both came from elite families and could read and write.

yes----both Philo and Josephus could read and write in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. What point
are you so DESPERATE to make? I do not understand your usage of the word "ELITE" ----you
use it LOTS. Lots of jews in the time of Josephus in Judea knew Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek and
lots of jews in the time of Philo knew Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek --------and wrote in those languages.
ELITE? The romans often needed interpreters------they kinda worshipped greek scholarship but
they did not KNOW GREEK unless they were SPECIAL. Does "elite" mean "SPECIAL"? Jews
back then did not have to be all that special to know those three languages. Today----lots of not
so special people know English, Hebrew and Aramaic-----in New York City----some not so special people
know Aramaic, Arabic and English and even French........in New York City. --------the only language
I know with any facility at all is English. I have no idea if Josephus knew Latin. It would seem logical
that he did. ----at least simple conversational stuff (???) anyone?

Simple , fishermen didn't write in those days. They could tell tales though. Most of the OT is from tales, and the scribes wrote the tales down when they came from Babylon. That is why the bible is known as the greatest story ever told.

you engage in the well known ego defense mechanism PROJECTION. If you really were a health
care worker you would understand. In fact---your personal life and heritage is not the NORM for
all of the world. Amongst jews----literacy amongst men has approached 100% for those of normal
brain function for more than 2500 years (less for girls ---but a lot more than most of your kith and
and kin) It is not surprising that Jesus----coming from the GALIL (which was "the sticks" of
Judea back then) knew how to read and write. Mary probably did also---maybe not. . Why did you
change the subject? You have a need to promote the notion that illiteracy is a NORM?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Note------BEFORE THE COCK CROWS-----reflects a commonly used device of jewish imagery---
the "crowing of the cock" refers to DAWN. --------Penny dear-----they did not have alarm clocks
back then------in fact the crowing of the cock was the signal used to indicate----TIME FOR
MORNING PRAYERS------and it is still mentioned in the SHACHRIT thingamajig in poetic
allusion

.

Note------BEFORE THE COCK CROWS-----reflects a commonly used device of jewish imagery---
the "crowing of the cock" refers to DAWN. --------Penny dear-----

.
i'm not penny, dear ...


"this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."


the quote is from the spoken religion, prelude to the final act ... the rooster was working the nite shift - on que.

On CUE ------breezie dear. Roosters CRUE at DAWN------those guys sat up late.

.

On CUE ------breezie dear. Roosters CRUE at DAWN------those guys sat up late.

"this very night, before the rooster crows ...


I guess J was giving himself plenty of leeway ... the point still remains they threw him under the buss when it was time to count their own blessings. maybe that is why they waited 400 years to write their book - hoping no one would remember their cowardliness and the forgeries would be less relevant to their own transgressions. and it obviously worked. from that time, the 4th century to the present their duplicitous manuscript prevails under the guise of authenticity. - so to for their flock.

The Dead Sea Scrolls shoot the shit out of the 400 year thing.[/QUOTE

I am LOST----what do the dead sea scrolls do?

"They" didn't wait 400 years "write the book".
The Dead Sea Scrolls were written within 70 years after Christ's death. So was "the book". "They" would have mentioned the destruction of the Temple if the book had not been written before the destruction.
Peter sat with eye witnesses and wrote his account of the return of Christ...

In order for "they" to wait 400 years to write the same thing as the dead sea scrolls, they would have had to FIND the scrolls, copy them, and then re- hide them for a few thousand years... The scrolls are proof that the Bible was a contemporary piece of work.

 

[Syriusly]

Jesus might have existed- despite almost no evidence of him doing so. Christ is a myth.

If you believe Christ is a myth, where do you believe Christians came from?

LOL- really? You want to make the argument that since there are Christians- that Christ as the risen son of God must have really existed?

Does that mean Zoroaster- the god must have existed? Since even today there are Zoroasterians?
Zoroastrianism - Wikipedia

And Mithra existed- because the Romans of that same era were also Mithraists?

Look- I recognize that Christians sincerely believe what they believe- as do Zoroasterians today, and Mithraists did in 200 AD.

But just because you exist- doesn't mean that the Jesus of the Bible actually existed- or that he was Christ- the risen son of God of the New Testament.

 

[Syriusly]

Jesus might have existed- despite almost no evidence of him doing so. Christ is a myth.

Roman historian Tacitus (55-117) wrote the following about Nero: "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace."

Tacitus continues, "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of on of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the word find their center and become popular.”

And where is Jesus mentioned?

When did Tacitus supposedly write this? 107 CE- some 60-100 years after the death of the Jesus of the NT.

Oddly enough Tacitus didn't mention this in his best known works- his "Histories- or mention Christianity or Christians.

 

[Syriusly]

A mythical figure is what created his mythology and what was being emulated.

There is more historic evidence concerning the life of Jesus than there is Julius Caesar. Christ was not a myth. At least you had better hope not. The world powers are gearing up for a nuke party. We are going to destroy all life on earth if Christ doesn't return to stop us.

I'm not religious, but I'm pretty certain such an individual existed and there is no fakery involved, the people writing the New Testament books were not inventing a fraud, having no incentives at all for doing so as they did.

I don't suspect any of the writers of the NT of 'fraud'- but they did have an incentive to provide a good story to promote their religion- recruitment of more persons to join the followers of Jesus.

Did a man named Jesus live during that time? Almost certainly so- the name was not uncommon. Was there a historical Jesus of the NT? Perhaps? Was he the son of God? Well that is absolutely just a matter of faith- not history or fact.

 

[Syriusly]

A mythical figure is what created his mythology and what was being emulated.

There is more historic evidence concerning the life of Jesus than there is Julius Caesar. Christ was not a myth. At least you had better hope not. The world powers are gearing up for a nuke party. We are going to destroy all life on earth if Christ doesn't return to stop us.

that requires the removal of religion in order to make mass murders and slavery more acceptable and tolerated by their target populations.

Wow....considering that for some 1,000 years Christianity was used to justify mass murders and slavery....you believe that anyone questioning the historical Jesus is trying to promote mass murder?

You are an idiot.

 

[irosie91]

.
.
i'm not penny, dear ...


"this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."


the quote is from the spoken religion, prelude to the final act ... the rooster was working the nite shift - on que.

On CUE ------breezie dear. Roosters CRUE at DAWN------those guys sat up late.

.

On CUE ------breezie dear. Roosters CRUE at DAWN------those guys sat up late.

"this very night, before the rooster crows ...


I guess J was giving himself plenty of leeway ... the point still remains they threw him under the buss when it was time to count their own blessings. maybe that is why they waited 400 years to write their book - hoping no one would remember their cowardliness and the forgeries would be less relevant to their own transgressions. and it obviously worked. from that time, the 4th century to the present their duplicitous manuscript prevails under the guise of authenticity. - so to for their flock.

The Dead Sea Scrolls shoot the shit out of the 400 year thing.[/QUOTE

I am LOST----what do the dead sea scrolls do?

"They" didn't wait 400 years "write the book".
The Dead Sea Scrolls were written within 70 years after Christ's death. So was "the book". "They" would have mentioned the destruction of the Temple if the book had not been written before the destruction.
Peter sat with eye witnesses and wrote his account of the return of Christ...

In order for "they" to wait 400 years to write the same thing as the dead sea scrolls, they would have had to FIND the scrolls, copy them, and then re- hide them for a few thousand years... The scrolls are proof that the Bible was a contemporary piece of work.

your post makes no sense ----I am rosie---I am not the person who wrote "they waited 400 years"
What does "the scrolls are proof that the bible was a contemporary piece of work" mean To what
"book" do you allude that you call "THE BOOK".

The dead sea scrolls do not constitute "THE BIBLE" they simply include copies of some of the
then known books of the bible that you call the "old testament" along with some other esoteric writings,
What are you calling "find the scrolls and then........ "RE HIDE THEM" ("re-hide them"???----you are
really confused)

if "the book" means the NT-----that one was compiled from older writings by a committee
circa 300 AD which is more than 70 years after Jesus died

 

[Meriweather]

LOL- really? You want to make the argument that since there are Christians- that Christ as the risen son of God must have really existed?

Does that mean Zoroaster- the god must have existed? Since even today there are Zoroasterians?
Zoroastrianism - Wikipedia

And Mithra existed- because the Romans of that same era were also Mithraists?

Look- I recognize that Christians sincerely believe what they believe- as do Zoroasterians today, and Mithraists did in 200 AD.

But just because you exist- doesn't mean that the Jesus of the Bible actually existed- or that he was Christ- the risen son of God of the New Testament.

I am not making an argument. I am asking you a question. Where did Christians come from? Non-Biblical sources tell us that they were there, that they had a deep affection for Christ, who was crucified, that they worshiped him as they would a God, and that they practiced despicable, superstitions.

Many Jews believe that Christians turned a normal man into a God--they don't argue the man never existed. Is this what you believe, or do you have another theory that a group of people, after a man's death, came up with fictional accounts of what a man did? "I believe Christ existed, but I don't believe he is God or the Jewish Messiah" is a perfectly reasonable belief. Given what we do know--both Biblical and non-Biblical--I don't think it is as reasonable to state, "The man never even existed."

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- really? You want to make the argument that since there are Christians- that Christ as the risen son of God must have really existed?

Does that mean Zoroaster- the god must have existed? Since even today there are Zoroasterians?
Zoroastrianism - Wikipedia

And Mithra existed- because the Romans of that same era were also Mithraists?

Look- I recognize that Christians sincerely believe what they believe- as do Zoroasterians today, and Mithraists did in 200 AD.

But just because you exist- doesn't mean that the Jesus of the Bible actually existed- or that he was Christ- the risen son of God of the New Testament.

I am not making an argument. I am asking you a question. Where did Christians come from? Non-Biblical sources tell us that they were there, that they had a deep affection for Christ, who was crucified, that they worshiped him as they would a God, and that they practiced despicable, superstitions.

Okay- where did Zorastrians come from?

Yes- at some point someone started the religion. It doesn't mean that there was an actual Zoraster or an actual Jesus- but there may have been one.

Just because there is a religion named after a person is not proof that the person existed.

Non-biblical sources today tell us that Christians exist- that still doesn't mean that Jesus existed- though frankly I think it more likely than not that there was someone named Jesus who was the inspiration of Christianity.

 

[irosie91]

JESUS WAS NOT A JEW------has been proven-------314 VOTES notify UNICEF ASAP

 

[Meriweather]

And where is Jesus mentioned?

When did Tacitus supposedly write this? 107 CE- some 60-100 years after the death of the Jesus of the NT.

Oddly enough Tacitus didn't mention this in his best known works- his "Histories- or mention Christianity or Christians.

I don't think it is odd at all. Tacitus was writing about Nero, and his comments about Jesus and Christians were peripheral in the story of Nero. Taken on their own, historians of the time didn't rate Christianity as of much importance.

 

[Meriweather]

Okay- where did Zorastrians come from?

Yes- at some point someone started the religion. It doesn't mean that there was an actual Zoraster or an actual Jesus- but there may have been one.

Just because there is a religion named after a person is not proof that the person existed.

Non-biblical sources today tell us that Christians exist- that still doesn't mean that Jesus existed- though frankly I think it more likely than not that there was someone named Jesus who was the inspiration of Christianity.

Zorastrians came from an ancient Iranian prophet, Ashu Zarathushtra. There appears to be information available on him as well.

 

[The Irish Ram]

On CUE ------breezie dear. Roosters CRUE at DAWN------those guys sat up late.

.

On CUE ------breezie dear. Roosters CRUE at DAWN------those guys sat up late.

"this very night, before the rooster crows ...


I guess J was giving himself plenty of leeway ... the point still remains they threw him under the buss when it was time to count their own blessings. maybe that is why they waited 400 years to write their book - hoping no one would remember their cowardliness and the forgeries would be less relevant to their own transgressions. and it obviously worked. from that time, the 4th century to the present their duplicitous manuscript prevails under the guise of authenticity. - so to for their flock.

The Dead Sea Scrolls shoot the shit out of the 400 year thing.[/QUOTE

I am LOST----what do the dead sea scrolls do?

"They" didn't wait 400 years "write the book".
The Dead Sea Scrolls were written within 70 years after Christ's death. So was "the book". "They" would have mentioned the destruction of the Temple if the book had not been written before the destruction.
Peter sat with eye witnesses and wrote his account of the return of Christ...

In order for "they" to wait 400 years to write the same thing as the dead sea scrolls, they would have had to FIND the scrolls, copy them, and then re- hide them for a few thousand years... The scrolls are proof that the Bible was a contemporary piece of work.

your post makes no sense ----I am rosie---I am not the person who wrote "they waited 400 years"
What does "the scrolls are proof that the bible was a contemporary piece of work" mean To what
"book" do you allude that you call "THE BOOK".

The dead sea scrolls do not constitute "THE BIBLE" they simply include copies of some of the
then known books of the bible that you call the "old testament" along with some other esoteric writings,
What are you calling "find the scrolls and then........ "RE HIDE THEM" ("re-hide them"???----you are
really confused)

if "the book" means the NT-----that one was compiled from older writings by a committee
circa 300 AD which is more than 70 years after Jesus died

Rosie I was addressing this comment:

maybe that is why they waited 400 years to write their book

You can read Matthew in the Bible or in the dead sea scrolls. All written before 70 AD.

 

[irosie91]

.

"this very night, before the rooster crows ...


I guess J was giving himself plenty of leeway ... the point still remains they threw him under the buss when it was time to count their own blessings. maybe that is why they waited 400 years to write their book - hoping no one would remember their cowardliness and the forgeries would be less relevant to their own transgressions. and it obviously worked. from that time, the 4th century to the present their duplicitous manuscript prevails under the guise of authenticity. - so to for their flock.

The Dead Sea Scrolls shoot the shit out of the 400 year thing.[/QUOTE

I am LOST----what do the dead sea scrolls do?

"They" didn't wait 400 years "write the book".
The Dead Sea Scrolls were written within 70 years after Christ's death. So was "the book". "They" would have mentioned the destruction of the Temple if the book had not been written before the destruction.
Peter sat with eye witnesses and wrote his account of the return of Christ...

In order for "they" to wait 400 years to write the same thing as the dead sea scrolls, they would have had to FIND the scrolls, copy them, and then re- hide them for a few thousand years... The scrolls are proof that the Bible was a contemporary piece of work.

your post makes no sense ----I am rosie---I am not the person who wrote "they waited 400 years"
What does "the scrolls are proof that the bible was a contemporary piece of work" mean To what
"book" do you allude that you call "THE BOOK".

The dead sea scrolls do not constitute "THE BIBLE" they simply include copies of some of the
then known books of the bible that you call the "old testament" along with some other esoteric writings,
What are you calling "find the scrolls and then........ "RE HIDE THEM" ("re-hide them"???----you are
really confused)

if "the book" means the NT-----that one was compiled from older writings by a committee
circa 300 AD which is more than 70 years after Jesus died

Rosie I was addressing this comment:

maybe that is why they waited 400 years to write their book

You can read Matthew in the Bible or in the dead sea scrolls. All written before 70 AD.

Oh----I did not write the "they waited 400 years" As to the book of matthew's inclusion in the
dead sea scrolls-------news to me. I did read the scrolls If parts of the scrolls were written by
the same guy that is thought to have been "MATTHEW"------so? His stuff is not the NT book
of matthew as far as I recall--------ARE YOU SURE that the book of Matthew shows up in the collection
of writings known as THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS?

 

[Syriusly]

.

"this very night, before the rooster crows ...


I guess J was giving himself plenty of leeway ... the point still remains they threw him under the buss when it was time to count their own blessings. maybe that is why they waited 400 years to write their book - hoping no one would remember their cowardliness and the forgeries would be less relevant to their own transgressions. and it obviously worked. from that time, the 4th century to the present their duplicitous manuscript prevails under the guise of authenticity. - so to for their flock.

The Dead Sea Scrolls shoot the shit out of the 400 year thing.[/QUOTE

I am LOST----what do the dead sea scrolls do?

"They" didn't wait 400 years "write the book".
The Dead Sea Scrolls were written within 70 years after Christ's death. So was "the book". "They" would have mentioned the destruction of the Temple if the book had not been written before the destruction.
Peter sat with eye witnesses and wrote his account of the return of Christ...

In order for "they" to wait 400 years to write the same thing as the dead sea scrolls, they would have had to FIND the scrolls, copy them, and then re- hide them for a few thousand years... The scrolls are proof that the Bible was a contemporary piece of work.

your post makes no sense ----I am rosie---I am not the person who wrote "they waited 400 years"
What does "the scrolls are proof that the bible was a contemporary piece of work" mean To what
"book" do you allude that you call "THE BOOK".

The dead sea scrolls do not constitute "THE BIBLE" they simply include copies of some of the
then known books of the bible that you call the "old testament" along with some other esoteric writings,
What are you calling "find the scrolls and then........ "RE HIDE THEM" ("re-hide them"???----you are
really confused)

if "the book" means the NT-----that one was compiled from older writings by a committee
circa 300 AD which is more than 70 years after Jesus died

Rosie I was addressing this comment:

maybe that is why they waited 400 years to write their book

You can read Matthew in the Bible or in the dead sea scrolls. All written before 70 AD.

Matthew in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

No.

https://palabre.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/matt18.pdf

One area of parallel between the sectarian writings of the Dead Sea and
the New Testament is community correction. In particular, the DSS exhibit some remarkable
parallels with Matthew 18.15-20 which merit consideration