New Testament original texts, where are they?

a reply to: chr0naut
Itt doesn't prove but it indicates it never happened

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: chr0naut
Itt doesn't prove but it indicates it never happened

Considering the weight of ancillary information, not likely.

Meh. The problem with the New Testament is that there are no texts from the period. The Gospels themselves contradict themselves in certain ways. It's a confused mess and very likely means that several figures have been conflated together. It's interesting to see how Paul's Epistles are more about what thinks that Jesus was like than what Jesus actually did, which is fair enough because the two never met. It would be interesting to see what Christianity would be like if the old church leadership had survived the siege and sack of Jerusalem in 70AD. What's been left out?

a reply to: chr0naut
Very likely, actually.

a reply to: DISRAELI

What you are doing is making an arbitrary and artificial definition of what OUGHT to happen, in the hope of proving God false because nobody chooses to live up to the definition you have created. A very common technique on these boards.

But its alright when you make an arbitrary statement a few posts ago -

In that case, I suppose the answer would be "That's not how he chooses to work". Just as he doesn't choose to contact every human individually

One certainly needs faith when leaving logic outside the door of reason.

a reply to: DISRAELI
You don't have to be so defensive or hurl untrue accusations such as I'm trying to disprove God. Your papyrus argument doesn't hold as much water as a cup with no bottom. It is an answer, but I don't consider it worthy of debate because people weren't limited to papyrus and older scrolls such as the definitely B.C. Qumran scrolls show us we absolutely could preserve written works.
"Arbitrary and artificial definition of what I think ought to have happened?" That's heavy. Those are your words. That sounds like an arbitrary and artificial insult intended to make me look bad. None of it is true and is almost completely nonsensical. A definition of what I think ought to have happened. Ok I think the originals should have been preserved. That ought to have happened.
Why would I make an artificial definition of that. Is there an artificial definition of that? And did I try and make one?
If so please show me and I will be happy to discuss it.
" Nobody chooses to live up the definition I have created. A very common technique on these boards." Was another of your little comments. I still haven't figured out what this definition I have created is. But how could people 2000 years ago live up to my created definition, how could I expect them too and again, what is this created definition you speak of? And how is it a meaningless way to score cheap points and has no value.
Everything you just did and said is more meaningless and definitely more of a cheap technique than I have seen in a long time. You should have been a professional propagandist because you really know how to employ tactics designed to discredit.

a reply to: areyousirius360

If you haven't already, you should read the story of King Josaiah. The priest accidentally found the lost Torah just laying around somewhere in the Temple. Those were probably originals (or close to it), and Israel had forgotten they existed.

We don't have the originals today because man is careless and evil. It's a miracle in itself that we have the copies and fragments that have re-sufraced today.

Somewhere within the collection of copies and fragments exists the complete Word of God. The documents are not God, but the content are His Words and Mind.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriestI've read it although I missed that part. It's the NT specifically I am interested in because this is the account of God becomIing HUMAN and tasting death, apparently for our eternal salvation. Man is not THAT careless and if we were God should damn sure be on top of it if he went through all that do you think he's going to let the written account of the key to mans salvation unprotected? The Catholics claim to have The very nails used to crucify Jesus but not the documents to prove it happened. Not a single reference to Jesus as a historical person is to be found outside the bible.
And don't give me, please, the Joseph Smith argument that he is testing our faith because in my mind that is calling God a !#@& and that's not helping.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Meh. The problem with the New Testament is that there are no texts from the period. The Gospels themselves contradict themselves in certain ways. It's a confused mess and very likely means that several figures have been conflated together. It's interesting to see how Paul's Epistles are more about what thinks that Jesus was like than what Jesus actually did, which is fair enough because the two never met. It would be interesting to see what Christianity would be like if the old church leadership had survived the siege and sack of Jerusalem in 70AD. What's been left out?

Interestingly, Christians were one group who did, mostly, survive the destruction of Jerusalem.

The Romans brought their "Eagles" (the symbols on their military standards) into the outer courts of the temple, and killed both High Priests, Johnathan and Ananias. These actions amongst other pressures, fomented the Jewish rebellion against Rome (AD 66-70).

The Christians saw the Roman standards as the "Abomination that leads to Desolation"; a foreign god, brought into the Temple. This was one of the prophesies given by St John in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Revelation goes on to say that when they see the "abomination" they should head for the hills (the origin of the colloquialism), not stopping to gather their possessions or looking back.

Christians left Jerusalem in droves prior to the siege and so were spared when it was finally sacked.

Many Jewish people also saw this as a religious 'abomination' perpetrated by Rome and these Jewish "Zealots" centered their ranks around the Temple and so were caught up in the siege and destruction.

a reply to: areyousirius360

So, if someone were to destroy every single original document pertaining to your birth, you would more or less have no solid proof that you exist?

a reply to: ketsuko
That's a horrible analogy and I don't mean to be rude. It's just not even close, I'm not God, and nothing gets lost once it's in the grid. I would thank God if every bit of data on me in the world disappeared.

a reply to: areyousirius360

The same principle in Josiah's day applies to the NT. Not everyone is so careless, but you must realize that some time after Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome, the Church descended into tyrrany. That is probably when the NT originals vanished.

But is it not enough for you that we have so many ancient manuscripts in different languages which all so closely harmonize?

God did protect His Word, and you live in the age of information. You have a greater opportunity to learn His Word today (via the internet alone) than even the believers existing during the time of the epistles.

1 Cor 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 

Until Christ returns, we must make due with what God has made available to us.

If you want a more direct answer, you'll have to take it up with God in prayer. Use 1John 1:9 first though, to establish fellowship.

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: ketsuko
That's a horrible analogy and I don't mean to be rude. It's just not even close, I'm not God, and nothing gets lost once it's in the grid. I would thank God if every bit of data on me in the world disappeared.

No it's illustration of the absurd.

You would not cease to exist if all documentation on you was lost? Well neither would God.

a reply to: ketsuko
God has the power to prevent it.

a reply to: ketsuko
Absurd is taking a myth as history.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
I wish I could believe that. God has unlimited power and he can't preserve his life's account. I can't buy it. I place knowledge and wisdom higher than faith and quoting Corinthians is pointless because IF I believe the bible Paul is a corruptor of Jesus teachings.

a reply to: areyousirius360

You wrote this:

God has manifested in the same way as we do, minus the sex, and refers to himself as his Son, fine. It's great that it happened and our salvation depends on it

How do you justify your faith if the absence of the original NT is such an issue?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriestWho is justifying his faith? I'm not. I have faith in God, not so much the bible.

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: Agree2DisagreeNo. You don't meet God and not write it down. That's unbelievable as spending 400 years in Egypt and never mentioning the pyramids once. But every detail of the ark, the other ark and Solomon's temple.

Who are you to say what a group of people thousands of years would do? You are no one. You have no idea what they would do or how they would behave...nor do I. The only thing we do know is what we have evidence to suggest...and that would be that Jewish tradition indicates that much of what we have was passed orally for many generations before it was written...such as the oral torah, or otherwise known as the talmud, which wasn't compiled until around 200–220 CE. So yes, if the stories are accurate...they "met god and did not write it down"...at least until a while later...

A2D

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
...he has made it clear that he himself will do nothing without the help of his servants

So what would be the point of 'him'?

To do the supernatural things that his servants can't do...To embolden and empower his servants...you know...those types of things....if you've read any religious books you'd understand what the proposed point of 'him' is...

A2D