Authenticity of the Bible

[Saint-Germain]

As the other thread has been closed (thanks Drom, this is exactly what I meant when I said "you're not helping"), I'd like to keep going. Civilly. That means you, Drom. I don't care what kind of point you're trying to make, don't be intentionally antagonistic.

Where we got to - H&G had just said "What you're forgetting is that Jesus didn't write the Bible", implying that Jesus' references to himself as 'Son of God' had been added in in the early fourth century.

At the same time, H&G believes, the bishops removed other Gospels referring to Muhammed and casting Jesus in a bad light etc.

I have a couple of queries:

1. If the bishops edited the Gospels, why did they only go halfway? Why are there still discrepancies between the four?

2. If they removed Gospels they didn't like, why did Iraneus, a bishop, say that four was the correct number of Gospels - like the four winds etc. in the second century AD? (see here http://www.bible-researcher.com/kenyon/sotb3.html)

3.

And how do any of the changes 'leaving Muhummed out of the Bible' help to forcibly convert the populace? Hmmm? And as for voluntary conversion, if the Church had been going for popularity points it would have 'left in' the 'Gospel' of Mary Magdelene, which is much more Pagan than the other four.

Thanks H&G.

[Darth Wong]

I have a couple of queries:

1. If the bishops edited the Gospels, why did they only go halfway? Why are there still discrepancies between the four?

Because people back then were not as obsessed about historical accuracy and precision as they are now. Even today, you have a lot of people who try in vain to remind people that the Bible was never meant to be used as a textbook. We are applying a 20th century mentality to a 2nd century book.

2. If they removed Gospels they didn't like, why did Iraneus, a bishop, say that four was the correct number of Gospels - like the four winds etc. in the second century AD? (see here http://www.bible-researcher.com/kenyon/sotb3.html)

Why does that quote in any way disprove the notion that they dumped gospels which they didn't like?

[Saint-Germain]

Why does that quote in any way disprove the notion that they dumped gospels which they didn't like?

Well the only chance to dump ones they didn't like was early in the fourth century, at that Council thing...

Anyway, if there were lots of true Gospels (some of which disproved Jesus' Son of God thing) floating around beforehand, why does a second century Bishop think there are only four true ones - centuries before the 'dumping'?

[Darth Wong]

Well the only chance to dump ones they didn't like was early in the fourth century, at that Council thing...

Anyway, if there were lots of true Gospels (some of which disproved Jesus' Son of God thing) floating around beforehand, why does a second century Bishop think there are only four true ones - centuries before the 'dumping'?

Because he and many like-minded people had already decided which ones they didn't like. Why do you find this so difficult to understand? Look at how many people out there have a monolithic interpretation of a particular Bible passage right now, even though alternate interpretations are quite possible.

[Dromikaites]

Since this thread starts with a message addressed to me, I will answer back that part then I will return to the topic.

I know that saying outloud what is the logical conclusion of the thesis "The New Testament is True" might be offensive to some followers of other religions. It's not only offensive for some of the Muslims: according to Darth Wong's stories some "good Christians" tried to sabotage his marriage by pushing the interpretation of certain passages of the New Testament to the limit. I am and atheist because of 2 reasons:
1) I see no need for God in understanding how the world works;
2) I strongly dislike what religion does to some people.

While being an atheist I believe that people have the right to follow whatever religion they see fit for their needs, as long as that doesn't push them to infringe the human rights of others (as defined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights). I would never tell somebody "you should abandon your religion" nor would I ridicule his/her religion unless that person starts to claim the supremacy of his/her religion. My first interventions on the thread which got closed were actually "Christian-bashing" but I've eventually turned my guns on Islam when the Muslims started to imply theirs is the true religion. I am anyway against a forum where religions are questioned.

Now the on-topic part:
1. I think the 4 gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John and the epistles who made it to the New Testament are genuine Christian documents. By genuine I mean that it is very likely they were preserved their original form and that they were written during the so-called eye-witnesses period. The fact they are genuine doesn't exclude they are as true to reality as the Book of Mormon is. There is no doubt about the Book of Mormon being a genuine piece of Mormon literature. What is questioned by people outside the Mormon church is the connection between the book and the reality.

2. I believe the few inconsistencies in the 4 gospels and the fact the apocryphe documents were rejected entirely instead of being "doctored" is a solid argument against the thesis of editing the New Testament.

[Darth Wong]

What definition of "editing" are we using here? In the movie business, "editing" has traditionally been the step where you choose which parts to cut out and which parts to leave in.

[Dromikaites]

What definition of "editing" are we using here? In the movie business, "editing" has traditionally been the step where you choose which parts to cut out and which parts to leave in.

I was thinking more in terms of editing a newspaper article or a book. Changing words or sentences. After all, the New Testament is a book, not a movie.

[Saint-Germain]

Drom's saying he believes that the choosing of the Gospels was done with no malicious intent, and that the right coice (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) was the right one. He is also saying that those left in were unchanged.

I'm looking into these Apocryphical Gospels more at the moment, and I just have to say - wow. There are lots and they are unthreatening.

[Richard the Lionheart]

I really find this topic interesting, but please don't start calling Muhammed and Islam and other religions Satanic. Keep it clean and respectful.

[Saint-Germain]

No problem here. Drom? Be nice to the nice man.

Question: How old is the oldest known copy of the Koran?

[Richard the Lionheart]

Question: How old is the oldest known copy of the Koran?

The oldest existing copy is from the 9th century.

[Dromikaites]

Then why is it more reliable than the gospels, which can be dated back to the "eywitness period"?

[Richard the Lionheart]

Then why is it more reliable than the gospels, which can be dated back to the "eywitness period"?

The Koran has remained unchanged. The Koran dates back to Muhammed himself. It is the direct word of God as spoken through Muhammed. Muhammed's words were written down right when he spoke. This is more reliable than any eyewitness accounts.

The Bible has been changed extensively. It is not the direct word of God, nor is it the direct word of Jesus. The eyewitness accounts you speak of are not first hand, the eyewitnesses are not the authors of the Gospels. The Gospels are about the eyewitness accounts of other people.

And as I said before, an eyewitness account recalled 50 years after the event, is no longer credible or accurate.

[Dromikaites]

The gospels also have remained unchanged. They are not only the direct words of God wrote down, they are also the story of the deeds of God (in His forms Holy Ghost and Son) as seen by the apostles who wrote the gospels. And since the gospels preceed the Quran by at least 550 years (850 years for the oldest written copy of it) and they contradict the Quran the Quran can't be the direct word of God.

[Richard the Lionheart]

The gospels also have remained unchanged.

Most religious historians would disagree with that. :wink:

And since the gospels preceed the Quran by at least 550 years (850 years for the oldest written copy of it) and they contradict the Quran the Quran can't be the direct word of God.

Only if you believe that Muhammed is not a true prophet. The Koran says that Muhammed is the seal of the prophets and that Islam is the last, most completere, and true religion.

The Koran says Islam is the last religion and Muhammed is the last prophet. The Bible says that Christianity is the last religion and Jesus is the last messenger.

We can't really prove whether Christianity is telling the truth or Islam is telling the truth. Therefore we can't jump to conclusions.

[Dromikaites]

We can take sides and then jump to conclusions. And opting for one religion or another is taking sides.

[Richard the Lionheart]

We can take sides and then jump to conclusions. And opting for one religion or another is taking sides.

Yep. And yet I haven't seen any Christian call Islam Satanic.

But hey, if you side with Islam you can't call Christianity Satanic or false. :wink:

[Dromikaites]

Oh but the Quran does say the Christians are wrong believing Jesus is the Son of God.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Oh but the Quran does say the Christians are wrong believing Jesus is the Son of God.

Indeed. But the Koran also says that Christians are believers. That they still believe in Allah. That they can go to heaven.

A Muslim cannot call Christianity and Jesus "Satanic". A Muslim must respect Christianity and Judaism.

[Dromikaites]

Indeed. But the Koran also says that Christians are believers. That they still believe in Allah. That they can go to heaven.

A Muslim cannot call Christianity and Jesus "Satanic". A Muslim must respect Christianity and Judaism.

Of course he cannot because he/she would undermine the Quran by saying so. However through a simple logical process, anybody can prove that according to the New Testament the Quran is Satanic.