i dont understand how a book written 400 years after the events took place can be taken seriously

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
The New testament was compiled by the first Council at Nicea about 325 yrs after Christ, not written 400 yrs later. The Gospels included in the New Testament were all written w/in the first hundred years, other gospels written much later were not included.

edit on 14-10-2010 by Blarneystoner because: to correct spelling

there was also a 2nd council in 787... And the council still picked and chose what went in... that along should raise eye brows. second... the gospels were written 100 years after, the same point still applies. i ask the question again..

what would happen if the events of 9/11 were only written about 100 years after... imagine how different the stories would be.

Argh. I wish that people would stop using Dan Brown as their historical source.

The canon of the New Testament was NOT determined at the Council of Nicaea, which met to discuss the nature of Christ. The books of the New Testament were determined over a hundred years prior. The books that make up the New Testament were written before 150AD, and arguments can be made that they were all written prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

So take your "400 years" figure and drop it to 30-110 years (though it's certain that Paul's epistles were written prior to his death in 67AD.) Christianity was an underground religion in the decades following Christ's death, and they believed that the Second Coming was immanent, so it probably didn't seem all that important to write stuff down until the Apostles and the Apostle's followers started dying off.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Because I don't like to debate. I will answer a question, or present a point of view that I may feel isn't being represented well, but at the end of the day I have no desire to impose my will or beliefs on another who is just as capable and probably more capable of discovering their own path for theirself.

I have made peace with what I am and what I believe, until a time comes that presents evidence that in no way can be discounted, for example: "Hey JudgedCover, you idiot, the earth isn't flat and HERE'S the proof!" or "Hey JudgedCover, you moron, the earth isnt' the center of the galaxy, the sun is and HERE'S the proof!"

Seriously, though science isn't infallible. Not to mention there are many perspectives in the faith community OTHER than fundamentalist/evangelical doctrine that allow the Bible and much of modern scientific discovery to be in agreement.

I could, and honestly have done so in times past, link numerous sources and opinions refuting every thing you said, but in the end, why?

Only you can determine where your heart follows and what your mind believes, as it is for me. If you truly search for truth with an open heart and mind, you will find it.

reply to post by adjensen


Who's Dan Brown? (jk)

Well... regardless... my point was that the OPs premise was incorrect with regard to the when the Gospels were written.. I think we can agree on that.

reply to post by bknapple32


On another note, the arguments that the actual writings occurred centuries later are tenuous at best. Plus you have to take into account later found writings like the book of thomas that could very well have been written while Jesus of Nazareth was still alive since it doesn't mention his death When so many of the early christian writings were destroyed or kept in secret, it is impossible to know when they were actually written and for those who believe it comes down to a matter of faith.

Jaden

reply to post by Masterjaden


I do not recommend that opponents of the Bible's validity do any kind of thorough research on why the Apocryphal books (Enoch/Maccabees/Thomas etc.) were not included into the Canon. For in doing so they will discover just how strict and thorough church scholars were in their investigations of historic origin and accuracy regarding all of the biblical texts, and that sort of revelation would not help their personal beliefs too much.

reply to post by JudgedCover


I have investigated it just fine and it hasn't affected my beliefs much... well, of course I haven't trusted the religious organizations interpretations since I learned about Martin Luther as a teenager.

Jaden

For the younger people on here I would like them to know that history is a lie. Even with all the lies, we can still find the truth if we examine the past. We might not learn from our mistakes but the journey is what life is all about. It is a good book with some good rules and it helps people to move to higher levels of consciousness. What is so bad about that?

You know what baffles me even more...

If God is so powerful, devine etc... Why was the first edition not good enough ?

An edition with a rule that said. Thou shalt not worship an other God then your lord God. Cause your lord is n envious God.

reply to post by bknapple32


Note: I'm not a believer. Three out of the four gospels were written well within 100 years, i.e. within a generation or two after Jesus' death. That would be like me writing a story about my grandfather who died in 1947. It's not that far off. Except for John they are very very similar, even to the point of postulating "Q" (Quella) as an unknown source for them. There's nothing to indicate that Paul's letters (such as to the Corinthians) have changed at all. And yes, we all know about the picking and choosing at Nicea. And there we have the essence of the whole thing. So I don't think your telephone analogy works very well. There's plenty of things available to pick apart Christinaity, but I don't think this is one of them.

You might be interetsed in reading "The Five Gospels; what did Jesus really say?" done by 'The Jesus Project.' It delves into these issues very nicely and is a good read (and introduction) to the entire idea of Christian historiography.

reply to post by bknapple32


please do more research before such posts. the text we got the "Book" from were very much older than a few hundred years. The instance you are trying to refer to without any historical accuracy I might add was the editing of the bible we have today, at the council of nassir- I know I might have misspelled that. In any case there is a bit of truth behind your motive for the post and feeling. I only respond due to the fact that posts and statements of this type are becoming rampant on ats. There was manipulation I am not denying that, what I am saying is at the very-least research before posting. love all-

reply to post by bknapple32


Dear bknapple32

I agree with what you say, and there is always a but.

Too me it doesn’t matter about the accuracy of the Bible any think person can see right through what the Roman Catholic Church has done with that.

What matters is our attempt to emulate the life of its main man in this fable.

The Bible was created as a control sure; no one can sensibly argue that fact.

What really get me is that the religious zealots that attend church, in the most part do not even attempt to emulate the life of the man.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


you can thank the catholic roman church for the second edition.... so p[lease agin can we have some at least somewhat factual posts.

reply to post by bknapple32

Misconceptions [edit] The Biblical Canon Main article: Development of the Christian Biblical canon A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the Biblical Canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the Biblical Canon at the council at all.[45][46] The development of the Biblical Canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (the exceptions being the Antilegomena) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written, over 150 years before the council. Later in 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople. Little else is known, though it has been speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists.

en.wikipedia.org...

Check out the Dead Sea Scrolls sometime.

reply to post by bknapple32


i am trying to figure out the wholes that you put in your thread. are you argueing that the bible was written over 400 years after christ died? cause the way you termed your post keeps most everything up for an arguement

reply to post by allprowolfy


THANK YOU
SECOND LINE THIS ATS MEMBER ROCKS!

I also used to ridicule God any and everything and specifically Christian as all just something for the weakminded UNTIL one night when I started to open the Gideon NT that a woman had left on the counter a few days earlier and before reading anything I turned to an audible and invisible voice as if sitting on my left that said He was Jesus and had died for my sins and if I believed in Him I would never perish-AWESTRUCK like I have never been struck I quickly stood to my feet turned to the voice and said yes Lord and years later came across these-

Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.-John5.25

For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died-2Corinthians 5.14

As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.-Acts9.3

Greetings. I admire and respect the subject matter of your post. I realize that you are setting forth this assertion to get varying opinions. I am going to just throw a hodgepoge of stuff out here on religion and ancient writings. In actuality the New Testament was written about 50 years after Christ's death, and in the language of New Testament Greek-different from other various dialects of Ancient Greek-Classical, Attic et al. Jesus, from a scholarly standpoint, spoke Arimaic. Something to make one further reflect the writings of the New Testament-they were in New Testament Greek. It was not really orally spoken like long epic poems such as the Illiad or Odyssey. The Illiad and Odyssey were only set to paper by Homer(circa 8th and 7th centuries BCE) not created by him. These long epic poems, about 10,000 to 15,000 lines in length, were memorized and passed on. The Illiad is hypothesized to have been created circa 13th to 12th centuries BCE. And the Odyssey circa 10th to 9th centuries BCE. There were attributes that existed in these poems that made them easier to recite and commit to long term memory. There are still people that can recite epic poems such as these in remote places of Romania and Bulgaria. Parts of the (prophets) Old Testament(Torah) were an oral tradition before they were transcribed. Some debate three to four hundreds before transcribed. Moses was believed to have written Exodus and Genesis. As for the New Testament, the text was written by people whom were supposed apostles of Jesus. Fifty to seventy years after Christ's death. Authorship of many gospels is often debated. Yes, there are gospels other than the main four. From an intellectual perspective, I understand the ramifications of how context and content changes over time, and how it changes from an oral tradition to a written one. Moreover, something even more to ponder is how texts change and adapt to society and historical context, and how also texts change when they are translated to an addtional language. I look at all mythology and religious texts subjectively, and, objectively. There is always some little shard of truth and historical accuracy to every myth or text. Most myths or religions can be traced back to a previous one held by another culture. Christianity is an adaptation of Judaism and so forth. Some aspects of Greek religion were borrowed and adapted from Egyptian religion. To put it simply, the civilizations of the Mediterranean and of Mesopotamia were always interacting and assimiliating with one another. When translation occurs words and entire phrases can radically lose their raw form. I just wanted to add to this philosophical and intellectual debate-I, myself, often think about these very things and religion. Sometimes, though futile, wish we were all on the same spiritual basis.

reply to post by bknapple32


See www.thechronicleproject.org...
read the study notes and research before the rest.
The new testament I can't comment on, but the O.T. with these findings will actually answer your question

Ichabod

You have what you want

Originally posted by BeyondBelow
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

 

you can thank the catholic roman church for the second edition.... so p[lease agin can we have some at least somewhat factual posts.

In all honesty almost all of the books that are included within the new testament, were already regarded important. What the Catholic churge did was bind them together as a book.. Like any normal book it has a beginning a middle section and an end. Even a cliffhanger.

Did you know that the book of revelations almost didn't make it in the NT ? There was another piece written by St Peter.

You ask for a factual post. I wonder how you've imagined that to happen when the question asked in the title basically says Christians that have faith in the NT are dumbasses. Every answer given will be a personal opinion and none of them will be very factual I'm afraid.