History Of The Bible, Accuracy Etc.

[ryle62]

I think of the Bible (actually, everything in a way) as what we need to know now. May be true, but that isn't the point. Like, somehow a false statement now might lead to some truth later that you couldn't have found otherwise. Did that make sense to anyone?

 

[faris]

my father told me many years ago that the sun does rise and set, and that IS a fact....8)

 

[JTNOLA5211]

There has been discussions about this in T&A so read up the threads. There is also new research being done and a doco released about the new testiment. Basically it stated there are 50+ gospels not included in the bible and not released to the pubic, and of the bible, there isnt a single page that is an exact copy of the original texts. Not only did they translate but the church also added its own theories, thoughts and ideas. It even changed the story in placed it didnt think it was good enough.

Read the Da Vinci Code this is explained very thorughly....

Basically the priest , bishops and church had a panel of what accounts they would include in the Bible.....

They chose only 4 out of the 80 accounts to fit what they thought should be included in the Bible.....

They also modified these....documents to make Jesus more of a Godly figure by taking out his humanly characteristic such as sexual feelings........

 

[killarava2day]

Personally, I still reckon David Allegro's theory was on the money, even though it has been seriously discredited to the point of ruining his career. Christianity was basically an acient Judaic fertility-cult dating back to sumerian times that worshipped the fly-agaric, during the Roman purge of 10 AD(?) and the destruction of Solomon's Temple the cult was forced underground and devised an encoded story of Jesus which, to the initiated, would reveal the secrets of the cult while preserving them from Roman persecution. This guy was no crackpot, he was a Professor in ancient linguistics (can't remember the proper term) at cambridge and was part of the team that deciphered the Dead Sea Scrolls. It wasn't something he approached trying to fit the mushroom in, he was an academic who came to the conclusion that this was the most feasible explaination to the problems he encountered. You can read his study in his book, 'The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross'

 

[wheelchair]

there was a jesus of nazarath who was crusified according to roman historical documents. whether he rose from the dead, i dont know.

 

[Turbo Monk]

there was a jesus of nazarath who was crusified according to roman historical documents. whether he rose from the dead, i dont know.

I find it sadly ironic there were zero witnesses to the Ron Goldman/Nicole Simpson murders, yet millions of people who watched the OJ trial believe OJ was guilty, even after he was found innocent. Our court system needs one credible witness to prove a case true. The New Testament accounts for over a dozen credible witnesses seeing Jesus walking around after raising himself from the dead, yet people refuse to believe.

is Christianity proven?

Both secular and non-secular history books note the movement of Christianity. Our years are numbered after the man's life. He walked the earth.

The whole basis of Christianity isn't meant be "proven" like it is on trial. Christianity is based on faith.

From scripture, when the Pharisees and Herod asked Jesus to perform a miracle, Jesus remained quiet. Yet when the sick and needy go to Jesus for help, they are healed (they go to him in faith they will be made better).

The world wants to 'see, then I'll believe'. How Christianity works is 'believe, then you'll see.'

 

[Acidfiend]

New Testament accounts for over a dozen credible witnesses

Credible? Are you being serious?

 

[Turbo Monk]

yeah I'm serious

why do you doubt their credibility?

 

[Acidfiend]

Because nothing they supposedly wrote has been verified as theirs (anybody could have written them) and nothing of their original works remain either, making the "accounts" in the dead sea scrolls even more questionable. Even all that aside, how can you *possibly* even think that the "testimony" of a dozen joe schmoes that died two thousand years ago even be considered REMOTELY credible? Besides, even in modern times witnesses do not guaruntee the truth. Just because a dozen nuns in ecuador think they saw the virgin mary in a gourd doesn't mean it happened.

 

[Turbo Monk]

Because nothing they supposedly wrote has been verified as theirs (anybody could have written them) and nothing of their original works remain either, making the "accounts" in the dead sea scrolls even more questionable.

How do you verify their testimonies? With an MD5 checksum? Or does it have to make it to the Smithsonian and housed in glass before you deem it credible?

Right now I'm looking out my window, writing down on a piece of paper what I'm observing outside: "by the stop sign 2 women talking, one is wearing a yellow hat, the other standing in front of her with her hands on her hips, nodding her head". 200 years from now I'm going to be long gone and so will this piece of paper, does that mean what I just observed never happened?

Even all that aside, how can you *possibly* even think that the "testimony" of a dozen joe schmoes that died two thousand years ago even be considered REMOTELY credible?

Human beings 2000 years ago had the same 5 senses we do today and were able to communicate and document (albeit different methods) what they observed.

 

[michael]

yet millions of people who watched the OJ trial believe OJ was guilty, even after he was found innocent.

ot: he was not found innocent. he was found not guilty. there's a big difference.

 

[HOE911:EMERGENCY]

Human beings 2000 years ago had the same 5 senses we do today and were able to communicate and document (albeit different methods) what they observed.

They also had agendas, as they do today.

 

[michael]

How do you verify their testimonies? With an MD5 checksum? Or does it have to make it to the Smithsonian and housed in glass before you deem it credible?

don't be obtuse; i'm sure it's easily verifiable that you exist (or did, at one point), we could find other eyewitnesses, we could establish the credibility of you and the other witnesses, as well as perhaps identify the people you saw and perhaps even get testimony/alibis from these people.

can you do this with the NT? nope.

 

[Turbo Monk]

don't be obtuse; i'm sure it's easily verifiable that you exist (or did, at one point), we could find other eyewitnesses, we could establish the credibility of you and the other witnesses, as well as perhaps identify the people you saw and perhaps even get testimony/alibis from these people.

can you do this with the NT? nope.

I'm curious as to what it would take to make you believe the validity of the NT.

Would you have to see for yourself the original manuscripts?

Originally posted by HOE911:EMERGENCY
They also had agendas, as they do today.

you throw around the term "agenda" like they had something to gain... fame, fortune, money? this "agenda" you infer brought about severe persecution and even death for some of the disciples; think there's the possibility they were simply telling others what they had seen?

 

[anonymousjoe]

my father told me many years ago that the sun does rise and set, and that IS a fact....8)

I'm not sure what your stance is by this statement. It sound as if you have faith, and use the fact that the sun rises and sets being a fact that there is a God who is a creator and created that sun and he's why you see it rise every day... I'm not sure???

Anyway. I'm agnostic. I was Christian, then Athiest, but now I'm agnostic. That's right... A-G-N-O-S-T-I-C, agnostic. http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm

Anyway. That link basically says everything about my views. Personally, I can't beleive a word in the bible, because I dont' know. I wasn't around when it was written. It's like chris rock said...

<Chris Rock Quote>
A long time ago, before refrigerators, season salt, saran wrap, a pork chop could have killed you. Now these guys were like... Wow, these pork chops are killing people. How can we make them stop eating them? I got it... Lets tell them that God said not to eat them. But now the times have changed.
We got refrigerators, season salt, saran wrap. A pork chop is your friend. If you starvin' a pork chop will save your life.
</Chris Rock Quote>

 

[michael]

I'm curious as to what it would take to make you believe the validity of the NT.

reliable, independantly corroborating evidence would be a start.

 

[killarava2day]

The New Testament accounts for over a dozen credible witnesses seeing Jesus walking around after raising himself from the dead, yet people refuse to believe.

Introduction:
These are books which describe the life of Jesus. Gospel is a translation of the Greek word "euangelion" which means "good news." About 50 gospels were written in the first and second century CE; each was believed to be accurate by various groups within the early Christian movement. Four of them (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) were accepted by the early Christian movement as inspired by God. They were approved for inclusion in the official canon during the 4th century CE, and are found today in every Bible. Why were there only four? St. Irenaeus explained: "There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four gospels."

All of the original copies of the gospels have been lost. We must rely upon hand-written copies which are an unknown number of replications removed from the originals. The oldest known surviving part of a gospel dates from about 125 CE. It consists of a few passages from an unknown gospel. Another ancient manuscript, a portion of the Gospel of John, is also dated to about 125 CE. Remaining gospel manuscripts date to the third century CE or later.



The "Synoptic Problem"
The similarities and differences among the first three gospels have given rise to much speculation: 2

There are passages among the three that are identical or almost exact. (Consider Matthew 8:1-4, Mark 1:40-44 and Luke 5:12-14.). Theologians have concluded that the gospels are linked in some way; most believe that the author of one gospel copied passages from another. 3
Many nearly identical passages are found in Matthew and Luke, but are absent from Mark. These total over 200 verses. Many Bible scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were unaware of each other's writing. Thus, they conclude that both based part of their gospel on another document, usually called the Gospel of Q. "Q" stands for the German word "Quelle" which means "source." An example is Matthew 10:26-33 and Luke 12:2-9
Matthew and Luke also contain unique material not present in the other gospel. This apparently came from two different traditions, of which each author had access to only one.
Analysis of passages that are similar but not identical is called "redaction criticism." It can give insight into the order in which the Gospels were probably written, their date of composition, and the development of theological beliefs in the early Christian movements.

Since the books themselves are undated, the order in which they were written is not absolutely clear. John McVay lists some theories: 1

Oral Theory: The three gospels were written independently and all based on "structured and durable oral traditions"
Augustinian Theory: The three gospels were written in the order: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; each author had access to the earlier gospels
Two Source Theory: Both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark and the lost Gospel of Q.
Four Source Theory: Both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark and the lost Gospel of Q. In addition, Matthew includes some material from a third source, often called "M". Luke similarly includes passages from another source, often called "L". Both L and M were probably oral traditions.
Two Gospel theory: Matthew was written first. Luke was written later and based on Matthew. Mark was written last, and based on Luke and Matthew.
Theory of Markan Priority without Q: Mark was written first. Matthew was written later and based on Mark. Luke was written last, and based on Mark and Matthew.

The Augustinian Theory was accepted by the Christian church for most of its history. The Four Source Theory is supported by most mainline and liberal theologians today. One source estimates that over 90% of contemporary Gospel scholars accept this theory and the existence of the Gospel of Q. 4 The Synoptic Problem is not particularly important to most conservative theologians. Since they regard all of the gospels as inerrant (free of error) and inspired by God, it matters little who wrote them, when they were written, and which author had access to which documents.

We will base the essays on this Web site on the assumption that the Four Source Theory is valid.



The Gospel of Q:
This is believed by many theologians to have been a very early "sayings" gospel, which included many the statements of Jesus, but little detail about his life. His birth, selection of 12 disciples, crucifixion, resurrection etc. are not mentioned. In a sense, it is a pre-Christian document. It represents those parts of Jesus' life that his followers remembered and recorded about 20 years after his death. "He is presented as "a charismatic teacher, a healer, a simple man filled with the spirit of God. Jesus is also a sage, the personification of Wisdom, cast in the tradition of King Solomon." 4 Q appears to be divided into three parts:

Q1 is the first and largest part of the gospel. It describes Jesus as a Philosopher - Teacher. It was written circa. 50 CE.
Q2 described Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet. It was probably written circa 60 CE during the time leading up to the Jewish uprising in Palestine against the occupying Roman army. This revolt eventually led to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
Q3 describes Jesus as a deity, who converses directly with God and Satan. It advocates retreating from the violence and civic unrest of society and patiently waiting for "their moment of glory in some future time at the end of human history." 6 This section was probably added in the mid-60s, about one decade before Mark was written.

Material from Q1 and Q2 was used by the author of the Gospel of Thomas, which is believed to have been written circa 92 CE, perhaps in northern Syria. The authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke appear to have copied many passages from Q1, Q2 and Q3.

After having been incorporated into at least three actively used gospels, Q appears to have become an obsolete document, and was discarded. No surviving copies exist. Theologians have had to reconstruct it by analyzing Matthew and Luke. More details on this Gospel are available.



The Gospel of Mark:
Author: Many Christian writers of the 2nd century CE identified the author as the John-Marcus who was mentioned in Acts 12:12. Mark was a helper who went with Paul and Barnabas on Paul's first missionary journey. Liberal theologians generally believe that the identity of the author is unknown. 6,7,10,19 Conservatives follow the church tradition that the author was Mark. 11,12,13,16 Fundamentalists within the Southern Baptist Convention felt quite strongly about this. When they obtained control of the denomination, they required their employees to subscribe to a loyalty oath in which they swore that they believe in Mark's authorship of this Gospel.

Date: Various sources estimate that this gospel was written sometime from 57 to 75 CE. Conservative theologians tend to estimate a much earlier date than do liberals:

Rev. C.I. Scofield, editor of the Scofield Reference Bible gives a range of 57 to 63 CE. 11
H.H. Halley, author of Halley's Bible Handbook estimates 60 to 70 CE. 12
H.L. Wilmington, author of Wilmington's Bible Handbook estimates 57-59 CE. 13
J.D. Douglas, general editor of the New Commentary on the Whole Bible estimates the late 50's. 14
L.P. Pherigo, author of an article about the gospel in the The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, estimates 64 to 75 CE. 15
P.N. Benware, author of "Survey of the New Testament" estimates 64 to 68 CE. 16
R. Shorto, author of "Gospel Truth" states that "Scholars believe that Mark was written about 70 CE." 17

Content: It is surprising that the gospel survived long enough to be included in the official canon. It is somewhat superfluous, as over 90% of its contents appear elsewhere in the New Testament. Only about 30 of its verses are not paralleled in Matthew or Luke. Also, it was recognized in the 2nd century that the author was not a disciple of Jesus. That weakened its importance.

The gospel lacks the polished literary style of other New Testament authors; it was written in the language of the common people. The gospel was apparently written during a time of great tension between the conservative Jewish Christians, centered in Jerusalem and the more liberal Gentile Christians, spread throughout the Roman Empire. "Since the 12 disciples of Jesus became the leaders of the conservatives, Mark shared Paul's coolness and reserve towards their authority, He makes it plain to the reader that the 12 never understood Jesus properly and therefore are not the best guides...[The author of] Mark is helping the reader to understand why the view of Jesus among the conservative Jewish Christian is so unsatisfactory to the gentile Christian church." 15

Mark appears to have been quickly accepted by the Christian communities. Within a few years of its completion, the authors of both Matthew and Luke are generally believed to have used this gospel as a source of quotations for their own gospels.

The gospel "reflects the early Christian view that God was about to bring history to an end in an apocalyptic conflagration." 18 This was in response to Jesus' statements that the Kingdom of God would arrive circa 30 CE, and Paul's writings during the 50's or 60's, that Jesus' return was imminent. As the decades passed and Jesus did not return, the Christian movements gave progressively less importance to the second coming.

Versions of Mark: There appears to have been three versions of Mark:

"Secret Mark", "for those who had attained a higher degree of initiation in to the church than the common crowd." It has been lost, except for two fragments which appeared in a copy of a letter from Clement, a second century CE theologian.
An edited, smaller version of Secret Mark that has been preserved to the present time. It was the freely distributed, public version, that became part of the Bible.
A heretical version of Secret Mark, written to justify the beliefs and practices of a small Christian sect in the second century CE. It did not survive to the present day. 8

Ending of Mark: The most ancient manuscripts of Mark all end suddenly at Mark 16:8. They appear to end in mid-sentence with some of Jesus' female followers in a state of confusion and fear. A young man in a white robe has told the women to "...tell [Jesus] disciples and Peter. 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' " Missing are the descriptions, after Jesus' resurrection, of his:

appearance to his followers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13)
meeting with to the 11 disciples in Jerusalem (Luke 24:36)
opening the minds of the disciples so they could understand the Hebrew Scriptures (Luke 24:44)
Ascension into heaven (Luke 24:50)
Great Commission (Matthew 28:18)

Various reasons have been suggested for the sudden ending: 15

Mark simply ended the gospel at this point, for an unknown reason.
Mark was interrupted in mid-sentence, and was never able to return to finish the gospel. Perhaps his death intervened.
The original scroll was damaged, and the ending was lost.
The original ending was intentionally destroyed by unknown Christians, perhaps because it included details of later meetings between Jesus and the disciples that directly contradicted the accounts in the other gospels. The ending might have been deleted to maintain an apparent harmony among the gospels.
The original ending was intentionally destroyed because it contained an account of the disciples' doubt that the resurrection really happened. One would expect the author of Mark to have emphasized the disciples' doubt; it would be consistent with many other negative comments that he made about them. Both Matthew and Luke appear to have incorporated this lost ending in their gospels. Matthew describes how some of the disciples doubted the resurrection at their meeting in Galilee (Matthew 28:24). Luke explains how they did not believe because of their emotional state (Luke 24:41). Most Biblical scholars believe that large portions of the text of the gospels of Matthew and Luke were copied from Mark. It would be reasonable to assume that these two instances are simply another indication of this use of material from Mark.

Various forged endings were added them to the original text, by unknown authors pretending that they were Mark.

Demotion of Peter? The instructions to the women in Mark 16:7 is unexpected:

The 21KJ, Amplified, KJV, NAB, NAS, NIV, NWT, NRSV, REB, and Rheims NT versions of the Bible all translate the phrase as informing the "disciples and Peter"
The New Century Version reads: "followers and Peter"
The New Living Translation reads: "disciples, including Peter"

The vast majority of Bible translations imply that that Peter was no longer considered a disciple, or perhaps even a follower of Christ, by the young man who was inside the tomb. (Matthew upgrades the man to an angel; Luke describes two men; John mentions two angels). One interpretation is that Peter has been demoted to a status lower than the remaining disciples. This was perhaps related to Jesus' earlier reference to Peter as Satan (Mark 8:33) and/or because of Peter's threefold denial of Jesus (Mark 14:27 & 14:66) after his arrest.



The Gospel of Matthew:
An early church father, Papias (circa 130 CE), named Matthew as the author of this gospel. He is identified as a tax collector in a list of the twelve disciples in Matthew 10:3. He is probably the Levi, son of Alphaeus, referred to in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27. Papias also believed that the gospel was originally written in Hebrew. This belief has little support today.

Conservative Christians generally assert that the gospel was written by the disciple Matthew, perhaps 45 CE or earlier. The Scofield Bible states that the traditionally accepted date is 37 CE, to 4 to 7 years after Jesus' execution. 11,12,13,16
Liberals believe that the name of the author is unknown. It was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 CE, because it describes the event in Matthew 24. Various authorities date Matthew about 85 CE. 6,7,10,19

Matthew, along with the other synoptic gospels, stresses the humanity of Jesus. It the only gospel that contains the word "church" (Matthew 16:18 and 18:17). Judgment, Hell are major themes. The author wrote from a Jewish perspective, with about 50 quotations and over 75 references to Old Testament passages. It incorporates many passages from the gospel of Mark and the gospel of Q.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm

 

[Turbo Monk]

killarava those are assumptions and theories

"The Word became flesh--and then through theologians it became words again." - Karl Barth

michael, evidence?

next time you're tempted or your soul is stirred so you can't sleep at night say aloud, "Satan you were beaten by the cross"

 

[HOE911:EMERGENCY]

you throw around the term "agenda" like they had something to gain... fame, fortune, money? this "agenda" you infer brought about severe persecution and even death for some of the disciples; think there's the possibility they were simply telling others what they had seen?

I don't throw around thee term "agenda"; in fact, that was thee first time I've used thee term in my life.

"Agendas" are not always about material or social gains. People have thee natural inclinations to attempt to persuade others that their beliefs are justified. An increased number ov people sharing a belief increases thee connection ov that belief to a person's subjektive reality. Thee writers ov thee bible, who recounted thee events ov their worlds with a very biased viewpoint--tha Jesus was thee son ov thee Jewish god--, may very well have been initiating a process that would spread their views onto other people for thee benefit ov a conceptual reality, as opposed to immediate personal gain.

Ov course, there is thee possibility that thee writers were restating events that they had witnessed. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they had seen what had truly happened. A witness is never objektive. Thee conscious and subconscious minds will always fill in thee blanks that do not meet with our beliefs.

Take for example you see a man running up to another, quickly thrusting a small objekt at thee stomach ov thee other man, and then running off into an alleyway as thee other man falls to his knees. When recounting this event, you would most likely say that one man stabbed thee other and ran off. You may even say that you saw thee knife thee man was holding. However, you truly do not know what had happened in this interaction. Your belief system simply accounted for thee cause-and-effect chain occuring. Speaking to other witnesses and having them agree with your perception ov thee event strengthens your own beliefs on thee happenings ov thee event. "They saw thee knife too!" helps turn a shaky, subjektive reality into a artificial universal reality.

When a person dedicates most ov their life to championing a belief system, such as Christianity, that states there is a universal reality, thee spread ov HIr belief system is most beneficial to thee stability ov HIr world.

 

[DigitalDuality]

killarava those are assumptions and theories

"The Word became flesh--and then through theologians it became words again." - Karl Barth

michael, evidence?

next time you're tempted or your soul is stirred so you can't sleep at night say aloud, "Satan you were beaten by the cross"

i think the original poster was asking for accuracy and history.. not religious rhetoric.