The New Testement as a changing document

Kipperhell

I tried a while ago to discuss the subject of the New Testament as an incomplete set/altered over time in the Christian forum to no avail. Generally there was an insistence on bible quotation and general denial about even the possibility that there was actual valid academics who felt there were issues. As one of the people involved was a mod it deteriorated into personal insults from them is how I felt.

So from my understanding is there is definite belief that the early Christian church diverged at an early stage and later a purging of these details later on. Is there a more neutral source of such information? I am not looking for extremist view points but more a well argued case. I must also admit I find many atheist belief are argued this way so I am most likely somewhat biased

philologos

Kipperhell: Do you have anything to substantiate what you are saying?

I think many Christians would be glad to discuss this with you if you actually start to bring theologians to the table to back up your POV.

Kipperhell

Jakkass wrote: »

Kipperhell: Do you have anything to substantiate what you are saying?

I think many Christians would be glad to discuss this with you if you actually start to bring theologians to the table to back up your POV.

I was hoping to avoid this kind of argument on the subject when asking for information on the question. I am aware the question exists and I find this kind of answer is ignoring the existence of the question and is asking for proof. Many people simple believe the bible and know nothing of it translation or existence of the gnostic books. There actually is no need for a theologian as it isn't theory but the existence of differing text.

There is at least " Who Wrote the Bible" and this included references to academics who ask the question and their understanding of the development of NT

philologos

I don't ignore the existence of the question, however you complain that your question wasn't entertained in the Christianity forum, it might well have been entertained if it wasn't down to mere speculation.

As for Robert Beckford, and the Channel 4 stuff he does. It's somewhat interesting, but it's based on a mere attempt to be controversial for the sake of it.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

Kipperhell: Do you have anything to substantiate what you are saying?

I think many Christians would be glad to discuss this with you if you actually start to bring theologians to the table to back up your POV.

Garbage.

You and a number of other regulars on the christianity forum delight in bashing questioners over the head with either bible verse or demands that they "take it someplace else".

Unless you have a reserve of reasonable christians locked away for just such an occassion but the possibility seems unlikely.

For the record, the new testament is cobbled together from various accounts, is deliberately incomplete and appears in a number of different variants some of whos text is mutually contradictory (while still remaining internally contradictory, a feat yet to be matched by either science or math).

Do you deny the existance of more than four gospels? Do you deny the existance of a New World, King James and various other versions of the Bible? Do you deny that the Bible has been translated from its original language into others and from those copies into other languages with the potential for corruption in the text with every copy made?

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't ignore the existence of the question, however you complain that your question wasn't entertained in the Christianity forum, it might well have been entertained if it wasn't down to mere speculation.

Not sure those with hypothetical friends should be throwing rocks about "mere speculation" mate.

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote: »

You and a number of other regulars on the christianity forum delight in bashing questioners over the head with either bible verse or demands that they "take it someplace else".

How do you propose discussing the New Testament without referencing it? How stupid wouild that be?

Hivemind187 wrote: »

For the record, the new testament is cobbled together from various accounts, is deliberately incomplete and appears in a number of different variants some of whos text is mutually contradictory (while still remaining internally contradictory, a feat yet to be matched by either science or math).

It's actually rather consistent if you take a read through it.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Do you deny the existance of more than four gospels? Do you deny the existance of a New World, King James and various other versions of the Bible? Do you deny that the Bible has been translated from its original language into others and from those copies into other languages with the potential for corruption in the text with every copy made?

These are translations, not differing versions. They all come from source texts. No I don't deny this, that doesn't mean that the Bible is corrupt.

I also don't deny the existence of more than four gospels, all of which were rejected for authenticity reasons. I even own a book with these extra-canonical books. Their dating is well off, they aren't even in the same language, and there is no reason to believe that some of these writers had any connection whatsoever with the Early Church. However, there is a case that the New Testament was used consistently from the 1st century by Church Fathers.

Please watch the youtube video in the link on my signature. It explains this rather nicely.

Kipperhell

Jakkass wrote: »

How do you propose discussing the New Testament without referencing it? How stupid wouild that be?

That is a completely ridiculous statement and appears to indicate a complete lack of understanding of the question. The book itself is not actually proof something was limited or discarded.

Jakkass wrote: »

I also don't deny the existence of more than four gospels, all of which were rejected for authenticity reasons.

If they were rejected I am asking why? You seem to know why

Jakkass wrote: »

However, there is a case that the New Testament was used consistently from the 1st century by Church Fathers.

At a later point the church was more than powerful enough to attempt to eliminate parts of history or re-write it. There is proof of such events as in where the church exaggerated the Colosseum use to kill Christian. Still a common mis-belief.

Jakkass wrote: »

Please watch the youtube video in the link on my signature. It explains this rather nicely.

No it doesn't and overtly bias.

Dades

What is or isn't required of a discussion in the Christianity forum, is of no consequence here. As is a discussion about details of the NT.