The more I learn about Christianity, the less true it seems

[ToBeLoved]

That doesn't necessarily mean that church wouldn't have had schisms over the following centuries, however it would have started as one unified body. That's not what we see from early Christianity though.

Since Paul had three cross-sea missionary journey's you seem to make no sense. There could not only be one church or most people could not attend. Why don't you present some facts that there should have been a unified one church and distance and transportation was no object? That would be nice.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The problem is that vast sections of Mark that appear in Matthew and Luke aren't only just reporting the same thing, they are word for word copies of Mark, then added on to with additional narrative. That suggests that Luke and Matthew are plagiarized and then expanded upon subsequently. This is known as the synoptic problem, and is well known to biblical scholars.

Likewise, it can be demonstrated that the author of Luke lifted parts of Matthew, and other secular writings, like the historical writings of Flavius Josephus, who was a prominent Roman Historian.

As for John, you are correct in that it is much more independent, however it's not completely independent as you suggest. Some of Mark and the other gospels to a lesser extent also appear in John. Interestingly enough, the Gospel of John was deemed heretical by some prominent early church fathers, however it wound up garnering enough support to make it into the canon.



Which short ending though? There are a number of different endings that we know of in different works. There's actually an expanded long ending as well in another manuscript. The resurrection narrative however (Mark 9-20) is universally regarded as a later addition



That's complete nonsense. The above described ending to Mark is one such example. We also have writings of the very early church fathers like Papias who quoted the gospels of Mark and Luke, however his quotations do not appear in the gospel of Mark or Luke as we know them.

There are a multitude of interpolations, edits, additions and deletions to the biblical manuscripts.



Ari in Greek
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ari_(name)#Greek

Mathetes in Greek
https://bible.org/seriespage/2-understanding-meaning-term-disciple

and "ea" is a common ending of biblical towns or lands, for example Judea means "Land of the Jews".

Not to mention that the location of Arimathea is intentionally left vague in the bible, only being described as a small Jewish town. As all four gospels were originally written in Greek, this is the Greek translation of the phrase.

It's not totally unexpected though, there are other characters in the bible with fairly dubious names that were almost certainly added later. For example, "Lazarus" means "God has helped him".

I think you boys need to start your own thread somewhere

 

[Dave Ellis]

The point is that it conflicts but you have no specific verses? Umm... Ok, moving on. Just your opinion and you've probably never read it.

You asked which parts of the new testament as a whole are ununified, you didn't ask for specific verse by verse contradictions. My answer was an overarching statement that no book or letter was in complete agreement with each other.

Here's a full list of biblical contradictions. It contains both Old and New Testaments: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/number.html

And yes, I have read the bible cover to cover, and listened to it in audiobook form as well.

Why don't you explain what books made it into the Bible cannon and which ones did not and why? Surely you know the specifics if you are posting about it.

It was a gradual process over time. There were various councils that helped establish the biblical canon, however there was no "one big council" that definitively established the canon (many people believe the Council of Nicaea played this role, but it did not). To go into the specifics of each book would take way too much fact checking and effort for a forum post about an issue you brought up.

However, as a complete laymans answer, the general requirements for a gospel to be accepted into the canon was that it had to be said to have been written by an apostle of someone with access to an apostle, it had to be widely known, and it had to fit in with the theology that was being promoted by the sect that eventually grew into modern Christianity.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Since Paul had three cross-sea missionary journey's you seem to make no sense. There could not only be one church or most people could not attend. Why don't you present some facts that there should have been a unified one church and distance and transportation was no object? That would be nice.

I'm not talking about one church as in a building, I'm talking about one church theologically. There would have been a unified message being promoted by the "Christian church". If there were eyewitnesses to Jesus, and he had made his teachings publicly known, there would not have been such theological conflict over basic issues.

Is salvation through faith, or works? Circumcision? Do you keep the Sabbath, and other old testament laws/practices? Jesus was said to address all of these issues, and many others, yet there was no clear answer. That's unthinkable if he had actually made his teachings known.

 

[ToBeLoved]

You asked which parts of the new testament as a whole are ununified, you didn't ask for specific verse by verse contradictions. My answer was an overarching statement that no book or letter was in complete agreement with each other.

Here's a full list of biblical contradictions. It contains both Old and New Testaments: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/number.html

You think that I am participating in this thread to be then pointed to a blog post and not your own words? lol. Come on already.

Also, to think that each gospel is going to be exactly the same would really defeat the purpose of having four gospels by four different writers.

You must have something clear to state your case with?

 

[ToBeLoved]

It was a gradual process over time. There were various councils that helped establish the biblical canon, however there was no "one big council" that definitively established the canon (many people believe the Council of Nicaea played this role, but it did not). To go into the specifics of each book would take way too much fact checking and effort for a forum post about an issue you brought up.

However, as a complete laymans answer, the general requirements for a gospel to be accepted into the canon was that it had to be said to have been written by an apostle of someone with access to an apostle, it had to be widely known, and it had to fit in with the theology that was being promoted by the sect that eventually grew into modern Christianity.

Well I don't find any fact in this answer. There are only four gospels, unless you do not know the difference between the gospels and the other books of the Bible. But oddly, you do not even consider the gospels with the words of Jesus to be scripture.

I think maybe you should ask more questions and find out answers.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I'm not talking about one church as in a building, I'm talking about one church theologically. There would have been a unified message being promoted by the "Christian church". If there were eyewitnesses to Jesus, and he had made his teachings publicly known, there would not have been such theological conflict over basic issues.

Is salvation through faith, or works? Circumcision? Do you keep the Sabbath, and other old testament laws/practices? Jesus was said to address all of these issues, and many others, yet there was no clear answer. That's unthinkable if he had actually made his teachings known.

Why don't you tell me where each of these above topics is referenced by Jesus? You said you read the entire Bible, yet you are saying that Jesus was said to have addressed all of these issues. Just reading Jesus words in four gospels won't take that long.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You think that I am participating in this thread to be then pointed to a blog post and not your own words? lol. Come on already.

Also, to think that each gospel is going to be exactly the same would really defeat the purpose of having four gospels by four different writers.

You must have something clear to state your case with?

It's not a blog post, it's an online bible, had you bothered to check it out you'd have known that. This bible is annotated to show all of the problems with it.

It's a fairly well known website, and the skeptics annotated bible is available for purchase in paper form. He's also done the Quran and Book of Mormon as well.

I've provided you with easy access to evidence, with links to book, chapter and verse. If you choose not to click the link, that's not my problem. I have supplied you with 535 biblical contradictions across both testaments. You wanted to see disunity, I have provided that information to you.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Well I don't find any fact in this answer. There are only four gospels, unless you do not know the difference between the gospels and the other books of the Bible.

There are four canonical gospels, however there were dozens more written that didn't make it in the canon.

Here's a list of the non-canonical gospels that didn't make the cut: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gospels#Apocrypha_and_pseudepigrapha

Those are the ones we know about, it's certainly likely that other gospels were lost to history as well.

But oddly, you do not even consider the gospels with the words of Jesus to be scripture.

How would you draw that absolutely bizarre conclusion? When did I say the gospels weren't scripture? They are a key section of the new testament.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Why don't you tell me where each of these above topics is referenced by Jesus? You said you read the entire Bible, yet you are saying that Jesus was said to have addressed all of these issues. Just reading Jesus words in four gospels won't take that long.

Faith or works:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html

Circumcision:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/circum.html

Keep the Sabbath:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/sabbath.html

Follow Old Testament Laws:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

 

[ToBeLoved]

It's not a blog post, it's an online bible, had you bothered to check it out you'd have known that. This bible is annotated to show all of the problems with it.

It's a fairly well known website, and the skeptics annotated bible is available for purchase in paper form. He's also done the Quran and Book of Mormon as well.

I've provided you with easy access to evidence, with links to book, chapter and verse. If you choose not to click the link, that's not my problem. I have supplied you with 535 biblical contradictions across both testaments. You wanted to see disunity, I have provided that information to you.

You have been making accusations in a thread, to which you have provided no proof, nor Bible verses saying that the Bible contridicts, but point to an outside skeptics Bible. That's why an atheist always said they have read the Bible but cannot substantiate in their own words using any verses what they do not agree with.

So, you have nothing, but when you want to refer to something you grab something that has been annotated by others.

Ok then. lol.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You have been making accusations in a thread, to which you have provided no proof, nor Bible verses saying that the Bible contridicts, but point to an outside skeptics Bible. That's why an atheist always said they have read the Bible but cannot substantiate in their own words using any verses what they do not agree with.

So, you have nothing, but when you want to refer to something you grab something that has been annotated by others.

Ok then. lol.

Buddy, the verses are right there for you to see. I have provided you with all the evidence you could reasonably require to substantiate my claim.

If you choose to not look at it, that's not my problem. I have still provided you the evidence you asked for.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Faith or works:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html

Circumcision:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/circum.html

Keep the Sabbath:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/sabbath.html

Follow Old Testament Laws:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

You don't want to hold a conversation about it, you just want to bash the Bible. You probably do not even know what the topics are for or about.

Let me know if you want a real conversation and not an annotated version of someone else's writings.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You don't want to hold a conversation about it, you just want to bash the Bible. You probably do not even know what the topics are for or about.

Let me know if you want a real conversation and not an annotated version of someone else's writings.

Ok, fine. I provide you with what you ask for, then you evade and dismiss.

I'm willing to have an honest discussion here, it appears you're not.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Buddy, the verses are right there for you to see. I have provided you with all the evidence you could reasonably require to substantiate my claim.

If you choose to not look at it, that's not my problem. I have still provided you the evidence you asked for.

You are showing that you have no real problem with any topic, but only that you seek to bash the Bible in general. Why are you even posting in this subsection? Your not exploring Christianity, nor do you want to discuss any real topic.

So what's the point?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Ok, fine. I provide you with what you ask for, then you evade and dismiss.

I'm willing to have an honest discussion here, it appears you're not.

We don't even have a topic to discuss because you take issue with the entire Bible, not any one issue.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You are showing that you have no real problem with any topic, but only that you seek to bash the Bible in general. Why are you even posting in this subsection? Your not exploring Christianity, nor do you want to discuss any real topic.

So what's the point?

You're the one that asked me to pull up specific examples!

Now that I've provided you with literally hundreds of them, you accuse me of just being here to bash the bible. If you didn't want to see the examples, you shouldn't have asked for them. You're the one that steered the conversation the way it did.

I'm not here to bash the bible specifically. The thread is about "the more I learn about Christianity the less true it seems". One of the reasons why I rejected Christianity is because I actually read the bible and started to learn about how it was compiled. However, any debate or discussion is an exploration of that topic. I'm posting on here because it directly applies to what I went through years ago... the more I learned about Christianity, the less true it seemed to me as well.

Therefore it seemed like a pretty interesting topic.

 

[Radagast]

Likewise, it can be demonstrated that the author of Luke lifted parts of Matthew

Well, no it can't. Matthew and Luke almost certainly draw from some other source, now lost.

and other secular writings, like the historical writings of Flavius Josephus, who was a prominent Roman Historian

You obviously know little about Josephus, if you think he was Roman. And the possible overlap of a few words between Luke and the Testimonium Flavianum is generally believed to be a later addition to Josephus.

Interestingly enough, the Gospel of John was deemed heretical by some prominent early church fathers, however it wound up garnering enough support to make it into the canon.

That is not true. No ECFs deemed John heretical. And the earliest canons we have contain all four gospels.

There are a number of different endings that we know of in different works.

And every variation contains the resurrection account, which is in 16:1-8. Maybe you should read the passage again?

is universally regarded as a later addition

It may be a majority view, but it's far from a universal view. And if Mark 16:9-20 was a later addition, it must have been written no later than the early 2nd century -- thus before even the so-called "Gnostic gospels."

We also have writings of the very early church fathers like Papias who quoted the gospels of Mark and Luke, however his quotations do not appear in the gospel of Mark or Luke as we know them.

Yes they do. Read the ECFs, and you will see.

There are a multitude of interpolations, edits, additions and deletions to the biblical manuscripts.

There are quite a few, but mostly copying errors: minor single-word variations, or passages copied from one synoptic gospel to another.

Ari in Greek

I read Greek, actually, and your theory impresses me not at all.

Not to mention that the location of Arimathea is intentionally left vague in the bible, only being described as a small Jewish town.

It's only vague because so many towns have vanished over the past 2000 years. Ha-Ramathaim is one plausible candidate.

It's not totally unexpected though, there are other characters in the bible with fairly dubious names that were almost certainly added later. For example, "Lazarus" means "God has helped him".

Sloppy reasoning. All ancient names mean something, and most Jewish ones say something about God.

 

[Radagast]

Here's a full list of biblical contradictions. It contains both Old and New Testaments: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/number.html

Those are not contradictions, just a set of deliberate misreadings.

But I think TBL is right: you're not here to explore Christianity.

In any case, I think the mods need to close this thread for multiple rule breaches. Personally, I see no point in further conversation.

 

[dcalling]

However, that principle did not originate within Judaism, or Christianity. It appears in much older writings, both theological and secular. For example, Hindu religious texts like the Rigveda that predate the Abrahamic religions have that principle in it.

Likewise, not all early Christian sects used the Torah. Some sects completely disregarded the old testament.

Now you need to show me the actual text to back up your claim. The principle from Gospel is "Love God with all and Love your neighbor as yourself".

And yes, before the Gospel all early Christians uses the torah, they didn't start with Paul's letters They were a sect of Jewish at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gospels#Apocrypha_and_pseudepigrapha

All of those gospels had a group that followed that particular gospel. Some of those gospels are probably not all that different, whereas others are very different than what we see in the modern gospels.

And that's a list of the gospels we know about. There are plenty of others which have been lost to history.

Look at the date, the earliest is from 100, most of 2nd century. The 4 Gospels are the oldest to date, and they are all very close in their message.

There are a number of relatively early bibles that we still have, either in complete or nearly complete form. However, those date from the 4th or 5th centuries. Still, we can see some dramatic differences from those early bibles and the bibles of today.
For example, in the Codex Sinaiaticus, one of the two earliest complete or near complete versions of the bible (along with Codex Vaticanus), there is no resurrection story for Jesus. He's never described as the son of god, there's nothing about Mary, a virgin birth, Joseph of Arimathea, the star of Bethlehem, or anything of that sort. A lot of the tales which tie him to old testament prophecies also do not appear, likewise the story about Jesus and the woman taken in adultery "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" also does not appear in this copy of the bible.

There is also no resurrection story in virtually all of the other early surviving bibles, the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Bezae, etc. Some of these bibles include additional works which are non-canonical today, such as 1 and 2 Clement.

I could keep going, but I'm sure you get the idea.
The Gnostic Christians, which were a major collection of early sects believed nothing like that.

Look at the dates of those writings, none of them are the earliest sources, unlike the 4 Gospels, and most (with the only exception to Thomas) are written far removed from the people who know Jesus. The earliest Christians sources are all in accord and they are the same as the ones we use today.