New Testament Documents - are they Reliable?, page 2

This topic is in the Religion, Faith, And Theology discussion forum. (rss)

New Testament Documents - are they Reliable? << 1 2 >>

reply posted on 14-4-2008 @ 05:01 PM by HIFIGUY
reply to post by pause4thought The reference I made to bible correction was not me advocating correction. It was the history of those that made Corrections in the Bible that was rather alarming. Such as the eating of meat and the consumption of alcohol; or was that just for John the Baptist alone? Rev. Ouseley writes: Preface to the Gospel of the Holy 12 "The early Christian Fathers did well their work of destroying the sources and records from which they gathered the information and data put by them in the Bible. But they failed to destroy it all. Some escaped, and as it is discovered here and there by patient research workers, it is astonishing to see how the world has been deceived by the Christian Fathers For reference here is the link: reluctant-messenger.com... Maybe you should do a little reading on the translation of the Bible. Then realize we reside within a living God and he within all of us. www.skypoint.com... Realize that Jesus himself is known to have read the Book of Enoch which is not included into the Bible. Reluctant Messenger Jesus Christ himself seem directly connected to terms and ideas in the Book of Enoch. Link to Book of Enoch: reluctant-messenger.com... I read the Canonized Bible like anyone else. I also explore some of the other doctrine looking at similarities and common teachings. And like Jesus said, " The sheep will know the shepherd by his Voice ", so it is in the other scripture of inspiration that this voice is also heard. Originally posted by pause4thought I can only say that you are deaf to the response I gave in the other thread (after you said common sense tells any sensible individual Jesus said much more than was documented): This statement where you label me as Mormon, which btw, even though I am not, I will take as a compliment. They too bring another witness to Jesus Christ. Some of the most devout followers of Jesus Christ I have known in my life are LDS. Its clear that if I mention the Book of Mormon that you assumed I was mormon. Is not their testimony valid? Would you send your Mormon Brothers to damnation? It is my belief that as Jesus said when all will be revealed, that perhaps their will be friendly council. Oh wait...dangit..he did say he was going to send us the Councilor now didn't he. As far as being dead to your comment, well, I think you can see why now. As far as the dream where I meet a man who says I Am the Universe, does not the book of Daniel speak of dreams? Does not the Book of Job also say that God speaks to use when we are in slumber? Your accusations and condemnation are unbecoming for a man walking in the way of Christ. I seek a common ground under Christs reiteration of Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and to Love one another. And Ill do you one better. Love your enemy. ( Jesus said that ) So, if you claim Im a false teacher, and that perhaps in some sense Im your enemy, lets agree to disagree, and bond under Love one another. I can see some of your points...but dont be dead right about it. Judge not lest yea be judged. The worlds tough enough without Christians crucifying fellow followers on the path. Then Brother, you gotta friend in Jesus. "All that is hidden will be revealed". And thats the Truth as said by The Truth. Wink Peace [edit on 14-4-2008 by HIFIGUY]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 9-11-2009 @ 03:50 PM by pause4thought
Although this thread got derailed I thought it might be worth reviving the discussion in order to include the following thought-provoking information: The earliest undisputed manuscript of a New Testament book is the John Rylands papyri (p52), dated back from 117 to 138. This fragment of John's gospel survives from within a generation of composition. Since the book was composed in Asia Minor and this fragment was found in Egypt, some circulation time is demanded, surely placing composition of John within the first century. Whole books (Bodmer Papyri) are available from 200. Most of the New Testament, including all the gospels, is available in the Chester Beatty Papyri manuscript from 150 yeas after the New Testament was finished (ca. 250). No other book from the ancient world has as small a time gap between composition and earliest manuscript copies as the New Testament. Jose O'Callahan, a Spanish Jesuit paleographer, made headlines around the world on March 18, 1972, when he identified a manuscript fragment from Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) as a piece from the gospel of Mark. The piece was from Cave 7. Fragments from this cave had previously been dated between 50 BC and AD 50, hardly within the time frame established for New Testament writings. Using the accepted methods of papyrology and palaeography, O'Callahan compared sequences of letters with existing documents and eventually identified nine fragments as belonging to one gospel, Acts, and few epistles. Some of these were dated slightly later than 50, but still extremely early... Source: bethinking.com The whole article is well worth mulling over.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 9-11-2009 @ 07:56 PM by Granton
Let me begin by acknowledging that I am new here - to the threads and to BTS/ATS - hope that you don't me barging into the conversation. A lot of good information is being discussed. Please allow me to also comment that I am a Christian. As an accurate document, I think that the New Testament is as reliable as any other ancient writing we have. Straight off, it is reliable because so much has been inspired by what is written. Whether anyone likes it or not, it is what so much of Christianity is based on. So that makes it the reliable account -- now before someone says I am being circular - the question everyone is dancing around is "did these things actually happen?" That is a different questions than are these the reliable tenants of Christianity. Even for folks who say the events didn't happen, and the New Testament isn't authentic, how can the rise and spread of Christianity be explained? It wasn't easy to be a follower of Christ in the early days - if there wasn't something to it, some group of people that at least acknowledged there was something to this Jesus fellow - how did it survive? If there was not something worthwhile about Jesus to take note of --- wouldn't he have been forgotten altogether? Is someone suggesting the notion of a Jesus character as portrayed by the gospels was just made up out of thin air? I realize asking that, is offering any evidence of the authenticity of the New Testament - I am honestly just curious. Also, I am curious to hear what people say about things like the Nag Hammadi library, the Gospel of Thomas, the alleged "Q" source, etc... My view is that the New Testament is a reliable source of information about Jesus, but can't exactly be taken like a Hansard or court transcript. As much as they had been influenced by first hand witnesses, they were influenced by a lot of others too - to what audience they were directed, other common myth/stories/traditions going gently, G.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 09:02 AM by Granton
Originally posted by Granton Let me begin by acknowledging that I am new here - to the threads and to BTS/ATS - hope that you don't me barging into the conversation. A lot of good information is being discussed. Please allow me to also comment that I am a Christian. As an accurate document, I think that the New Testament is as reliable as any other ancient writing we have. Straight off, it is reliable because so much has been inspired by what is written. Whether anyone likes it or not, it is what so much of Christianity is based on. So that makes it the reliable account -- now before someone says I am being circular - the question everyone is dancing around is "did these things actually happen?" That is a different questions than are these the reliable tenants of Christianity. Even for folks who say the events didn't happen, and the New Testament isn't authentic, how can the rise and spread of Christianity be explained? It wasn't easy to be a follower of Christ in the early days - if there wasn't something to it, some group of people that at least acknowledged there was something to this Jesus fellow - how did it survive? If there was not something worthwhile about Jesus to take note of --- wouldn't he have been forgotten altogether? Is someone suggesting the notion of a Jesus character as portrayed by the gospels was just made up out of thin air? I realize asking that, is not offering any evidence of the authenticity of the New Testament - I am honestly just curious. Also, I am curious to hear what people say about things like the Nag Hammadi library, the Gospel of Thomas, the alleged "Q" source, etc... My view is that the New Testament is a reliable source of information about Jesus, but can't exactly be taken like a Hansard or court transcript. As much as they had been influenced by first hand witnesses, they were influenced by a lot of others too - to what audience they were directed, other common myth/stories/traditions going gently, G. Sorry, I haven't figured out the "edit" feature yet - and wanted to make a correction to my post.
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.