• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

was the "new testament" actually finished around 400 AD?

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Many Christians were hunted down and killed by Paul after Christ Died. There were revolts shortly after that and Romans slaughtered thousands of Jews and Christians. They went into hiding in many places. This is why it is so hard to pin down. Sacred Texts were hidden up and people lived in caves in the mountains and met in secret.

King James was the one that ordered that the Bible be translated into english. There was an elaborate process for translating it. The final form was reviewed by scholars and theologians of his era for correctness in the Kings English. King James wrote the Bible or authorized it to be written in English so every person could have their own copy to study and read on their own. Up until this point only learned men had access to biblical texts written in latin or some other language. It is unclear how many books have been hidden up by organization within the Catholic Church and other organizations. Take the

Codex as an example. It was a written text from the 4th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_bible

The codex is an Alexandrian text-type manuscript written in the 4th century in uncial letters on parchment. Current scholarship considers the Codex Sinaiticus to be one of the best Greek texts of the New Testament,[3] along with that of the Codex Vaticanus. Until the discovery by Tischendorf of the Sinaiticus text, the Codex Vaticanus was unrivaled.[4]

Then there is the Dead Sea Scrolls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls (Some of Them) were believed to have been found around 1946-47 and then some more were found later. A sect of the Catholic Priests hid up these manuscripts for about 50 years. What is it about the Catholic Church that makes them want to hide up manuscripts and ancient texts?

Eventually somone imaged some of these and made them available for study. The Computer defeated the Catholic Church which worked with tyrany and secrecy to hide the truth. Some of the scrolls are still missing including the book of Enoch. Sometimes only fragments were recovered.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of 972 texts discovered between 1946 and 1956 at Khirbet Qumran in the West Bank. They were found in caves about a mile inland from the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, from which they derive their name.[1] The texts are of great historical, religious, and linguistic significance because they include the earliest known surviving manuscripts of works later included in the Hebrew Bible canon, along with extra-biblical manuscripts which preserve evidence of the diversity of religious thought in late Second Temple Judaism.

The Jews had people trained to write down texts called scribes, they were not secretaries.
 
Last edited:
You might also research books not in the Bible. Heaven Forbid a Biblical Text not in the Bible. Can such a thing exist???

Apocrypha (Hidden Secret).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about a class of books included in some Bibles. For other books generally excluded from Bibles, see Apocrypha.

This article is about biblical books printed apart from the New and Old Testaments. For books whose inclusion in the Old Testament canon is controversial, see Deuterocanonical books.

The Biblical apocrypha (from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφος, apókruphos, meaning "hidden") denotes the collection of ancient books found, in some editions of the Bible, in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments[1] or as an appendix after the New Testament.[2] Although the term apocrypha had been in use since the 5th century, it was in Luther's Bible of 1534 that the Apocrypha was first published as a separate intertestamental section.[3] Luther was making a polemical point about the canonicity of these books. As an authority for this division, he cited St. Jerome, who in the early 5th century distinguished the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments,[4] stating that books not found in the Hebrew were not received as canonical. Although his statement was controversial in his day,[5] Jerome was later titled a Doctor of the Church and his authority was also cited in the Anglican statement in 1571 of the Thirty-Nine Articles.[6]
 
The Gospels are authored by whose name they bear.

You don't honestly think the original authors wrote their names on the front of their codexes or the top of their scrolls, do you? That'd be awfully self-absorbed of them, to name a book about someone much greater than them after themselves. The names were added later based on whom the church considered, via tradition, to have written the books. Even very fundamentalist Christians agree with this.

Authorship means that the author named himself in the writing. This does happen in some of the books of the Bible, but not the gospels and several other books of the New Testament.
 
Last edited:
You don't honestly think the original authors wrote their names on the front of their codexes or the top of their scrolls, do you? That'd be awfully self-absorbed of them, to name a book about someone much greater than them after themselves. The names were added later based on whom the church considered, via tradition, to have written the books. Even very fundamentalist Christians agree with this.

Authorship means that the author named himself in the writing. This does happen in some of the books of the Bible, but not the gospels and several other books of the New Testament.

Just saying, that begs the question about what else may have been "added" later -- which means the Bible was at least edited in the NT.

Fundamentalists basically think the Bible teaches the Earth is only 6,000 years old...I simply don't trust anything they "agree" upon.
 
Just saying, that begs the question about what else may have been "added" later -- which means the Bible was at least edited in the NT.

I think you're taking the attributing of authorship in books of the Bible more gravely than is warranted. It doesn't mean that they changed the actual content. Your Bibles probably have a lot of extra text and metadata that's meant to be supplemental to the core material. You could view the titles as an early example of that.

(mind you, I don't personally hold the view that the books of the Bible were unaltered since inception or the authored work of god or anything like that)

Fundamentalists basically think the Bible teaches the Earth is only 6,000 years old...I simply don't trust anything they "agree" upon.

How does the Bible not say that the earth is thousands of years old? There are chronologies in the Old Testament that give lineages, life spans, and birthing ages from the first person all the way up until people who couldn't have lived more than a few thousand years ago. Matthew then gives a lineage from Abraham to Jesus and Luke goes even further, giving a complete lineage from Adam.

No reasonable argument (either via the Bible itself or historical record) could be made events of ancient Israel didn't happen on the order of ~3000 years ago, certainly not off by orders of magnitude beyond that. Nor does the Bible make any suggestion that these interim generations long after the flood would have consisted of people having children at ages well beyond normal human lifespans.

Granted, the separate listed lineages don't actually agree with each other (a major problem in their authenticity) but at least the number of generations is within a similar order.

So the Bible says humans haven't been around more than thousands of years. Add to that the account that the world was made in 7 days and you get that it's barely older than man is.
 
How does the Bible not say that the earth is thousands of years old? There are chronologies in the Old Testament that give lineages, life spans, and birthing ages from the first person all the way up until people who couldn't have lived more than a few thousand years ago. Matthew then gives a lineage from Abraham to Jesus and Luke goes even further, giving a complete lineage from Adam.

No reasonable argument (either via the Bible itself or historical record) could be made events of ancient Israel didn't happen on the order of ~3000 years ago, certainly not off by orders of magnitude beyond that. Nor does the Bible make any suggestion that these interim generations long after the flood would have consisted of people having children at ages well beyond normal human lifespans.

We were never taught this. They're creation stories they aren't meant to be taken literally.
 
Last edited:
We were never taught this. They're creation stories they aren't meant to be taken literally.

Why weren't the meant to be taken literally? Or put another way, what reason would contemporary readers thousands of years ago have not to take it literally?
 
You might also research books not in the Bible. Heaven Forbid a Biblical Text not in the Bible. Can such a thing exist???

Apocrypha (Hidden Secret).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about a class of books included in some Bibles. For other books generally excluded from Bibles, see Apocrypha.

This article is about biblical books printed apart from the New and Old Testaments. For books whose inclusion in the Old Testament canon is controversial, see Deuterocanonical books.

The Biblical apocrypha (from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφος, apókruphos, meaning "hidden") denotes the collection of ancient books found, in some editions of the Bible, in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments[1] or as an appendix after the New Testament.[2] Although the term apocrypha had been in use since the 5th century, it was in Luther's Bible of 1534 that the Apocrypha was first published as a separate intertestamental section.[3] Luther was making a polemical point about the canonicity of these books. As an authority for this division, he cited St. Jerome, who in the early 5th century distinguished the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments,[4] stating that books not found in the Hebrew were not received as canonical. Although his statement was controversial in his day,[5] Jerome was later titled a Doctor of the Church and his authority was also cited in the Anglican statement in 1571 of the Thirty-Nine Articles.[6]
quite a bit of ignorance and uneducated or lack of knowledge on your part!!

Just like you said the king James version had scholars make sure it was accurate.....is the same reason some books were left out of the "Bible"!!

Their relationship to the other book s was in question. Some of those books were totally separate having nothing at all to do with the book of the Bible!

yet for entertainment value I give your posts a A+....
As far as accuracy -- an F-
 
quite a bit of ignorance and uneducated or lack of knowledge on your part!! Just like you said the king James version had scholars make sure it was accurate.....is the same reason some books were left out of the "Bible"!! Their relationship to the other book s was in question. Some of those books were totally separate having nothing at all to do with the book of the Bible! yet for entertainment value I give your posts a A+.... As far as accuracy -- an F-
i give your posts an A+ for ingenuity.🙂
 
The Codex Sinaiticus reading of John 9:4 alone is significant to the traditional orthodox interpretation of the omnipotence of the ministry of Jesus Christ. The Codex has, "We must do the works of him who sent us [in place of other manuscripts' 'sent me'] while it is day; night comes, when no man can work."

seems like jesus went from prophet to messiah in the christian relgion. something i have been thinking about is that jesus says he is the child of god but everyone is considered the child of god. considering a whole religion is based around jesus eventually the priests and rulers would want to make him more pwerful and infallible. remember that jesus was likely just one prophet of a whole prophet family. john the baptist was another
 
quite a bit of ignorance and uneducated or lack of knowledge on your part!!

Just like you said the king James version had scholars make sure it was accurate.....is the same reason some books were left out of the "Bible"!!

Their relationship to the other book s was in question. Some of those books were totally separate having nothing at all to do with the book of the Bible!

yet for entertainment value I give your posts a A+....
As far as accuracy -- an F-
I was going to comment as well but you beat me to it. Bigotry and ignorance go hand in hand.
 
Christian religion was created under the roman empire, its creator is Philon of Alexandria and its corpus is based on Seneca the Younger philosophy, this was scientificaly demonstrated by Bruno Bauer in the late 19th century.

As for the Old Testament it is proved that it use ancient mythology
recycled for the purpose , most obvious is the story of Sargon that
was litteraly plagiarized...


Similarities between the Neo-Assyrian Sargon Birth Legend and other infant birth exposures in ancient literature, including Moses,

Curious that the english version doesnt contain Sargon record of his own
origin but the french version has it , i post it as it is written , use google
translate and you ll understand that the Old Testament is a pure fabrication.

« Ma mère était grande prêtresse. Mon père, je ne le connais pas. Les frères de mon père campent dans la montagne. Ma ville natale est Azupiranu [« ville du safran » ?], sur les bords de l’Euphrate. Ma mère, la grande prêtresse, me conçut et m’enfanta en secret. Elle me déposa dans une corbeille de roseaux, dont elle scella l’ouverture avec du bitume. Elle me lança sur le fleuve sans que je puisse m’échapper. Le fleuve me porta ; il m’emporta jusque chez Aqqi, le puiseur d’eau. Aqqi le puiseur d’eau me retira [du fleuve] en plongeant son seau. Aqqi le puiseur d’eau m’adopta comme son fils et m’éleva. Aqqi le puiseur d’eau m’enseigna son métier de jardinier. Alors que j’étais jardinier la déesse Ištar se prit d’amour pour moi et ainsi j’ai exercé la royauté pendant cinquante-six ans. »

 
The Codex Sinaiticus reading of John 9:4 alone is significant to the traditional orthodox interpretation of the omnipotence of the ministry of Jesus Christ. The Codex has, "We must do the works of him who sent us [in place of other manuscripts' 'sent me'] while it is day; night comes, when no man can work."

seems like jesus went from prophet to messiah in the christian relgion. something i have been thinking about is that jesus says he is the child of god but everyone is considered the child of god. considering a whole religion is based around jesus eventually the priests and rulers would want to make him more pwerful and infallible. remember that jesus was likely just one prophet of a whole prophet family. john the baptist was another

This is incorrect. Taken as a whole, it's quite clear that Jesus sure thought he was and is the Messiah.

Do with that assertion what you will. It's our choice. But He never shied away from the fact that He is God.

John 8:58 is perhaps the clearest statement, where He says "Before Abraham was, I AM."

When he was being sentenced, he told them, basically, Uhh, just so ya know, I could have a legion of angels here wiping you all out if I wanted to. I'm not.

Could any human claim that and be truthful? Now, you may say that he COULDNT have done that, but he felt that he could. There's no way around the fact that Jesus asserted that He was and is God.

We can take that only 3 ways that I can figure. He was either crazy, he was a liar, or, in fact, He's God. There's not really any evidence that He was either crazy or a liar
 
We can take that only 3 ways that I can figure. He was either crazy, he was a liar, or, in fact, He's God. There's not really any evidence that He was either crazy or a liar

And there s no evidence that he even existed so the point is moot,
the only ones that could be liars are the people who created this story.
 
And there s no evidence that he even existed so the point is moot,
the only ones that could be liars are the people who created this story.

The evidence is Christianity.

Josephus provides solid, near-contemporary history of Jesus existing. There are many verses which are debated, but the core ones are not. We know from Josephus that Jesus was the brother of James and was called the Christ. We also know that Jesus was put to death by Pilate. Those things are not really debatable.

Tacitus, a Roman historian, makes it clear that Jesus existed and that He was knows as the Christ. Pliny the Younger also describes Christians clearly.

We know that Christians were dying in the 1st century due to refusal to renounce faith. We know that contemporaries of Jesus TRULY believed in his resurrection, else why would they be willing to die for it? Contemporaries would know if it was a lie. Who stood to gain from creating this lie in the 1st century? Nobody. The only thing one had to gain back then from believing was persecution. It simply doesnt make logical sense that it was a lie.

To suggest that there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus is really a reach.
 
The evidence is Christianity.

That is as obvious as judaism being an evidence that Methuselah
existed and lived 969 years...

Josephus provides solid, near-contemporary history of Jesus existing. There are many verses which are debated, but the core ones are not. We know from Josephus that Jesus was the brother of James and was called the Christ. We also know that Jesus was put to death by Pilate. Those things are not really debatable.

Tacitus, a Roman historian, makes it clear that Jesus existed and that He was knows as the Christ. Pliny the Younger also describes Christians clearly.

We know that Christians were dying in the 1st century due to refusal to renounce faith. We know that contemporaries of Jesus TRULY believed in his resurrection, else why would they be willing to die for it? Contemporaries would know if it was a lie. Who stood to gain from creating this lie in the 1st century? Nobody. The only thing one had to gain back then from believing was persecution. It simply doesnt make logical sense that it was a lie.

To suggest that there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus is really a reach.


There is not a single roman official document that speak of Jesus.

Pliny the younger doesnt talk of Jesus , only of christians while
Tacitus could well have only reported hearsay or worse , his
writings could have been altered....

The passage states:
"... called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin ..." In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[15] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
 
Last edited:
That is as obvious as judaism being an evidence that Methuselah
existed and lived 969 years...




There is not a single roman official document that speak of Jesus.

Pliny the younger doesnt talk of Jesus , only of christians while
Tacitus could well have only reported hearsay.
And Josephus? Quite a conspiracy we've got going here!
 
That's not how the big bang happened.

were you there?

😛

I like to over simplify it because honestly, most people never take the time to find out exactly what it is they believe. Maybe someone will want to prove me wrong and look into what did happen. If people question what they think they know, they get to learn some cool things. And when the world is more informed, its a better place.

I do the same thing with my religious friends. I like to think of it as community service trolling 🙂
 
Back
Top