Just Wondering.

the church came first. the n.t. was written by the church around 350. there were books, but the coiuncils called them, rewrote them as they saw fit, and burned the originals, as they saw fit. they also burned the library of alexandria to attempt to wipe out all traces of pagan originals of the myths used to compile the n.t.

The term "church" applies simply to a gathering of believers. As such, those who gathered and believed in Jesus were in essence a church. In this way, the church obviously came first.

I disagree here with Gideon though in that the New Testament was written long before AD 350.

All the best,

btw, Welcome Dang

Yes, likewise.

As well as everything else he said.

Agreed Gideon Mage. It was under constantine and his henchmen that the NT was put together, and the catholic church was formed. History is written by the winners, not by the truth. Constantine and his henchman effectively wiped out and burned anything that contradicted their newly formed religon. They quite literaly had absolute powere by force of the sword, and we all know absolute power corrupts absolutly.

The early church history of the catholic/christian church is VERY sketchy, and it would be ignorance not to research it better. There are far too many pagan parallels between the NT and pagan religons for it to be merely a conicidence.

I reccomend reading The Jesus Mysteries : Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? and The Pagan Christ : Recovering the Lost Light .

The church; that is why they have been able to write the bible to soot them, and what they want you to believe!

That doesn't make sense. Otherwise there would be no bible verces that conflict with other verces . And I undestand you can write a book about that subject alone.

Wow! thats is remarkable. How do they get away with that? I heard at work the other day that around 350 ad that all the bishops had to go to a council and vote which of the churches writing were the least corrupt and trust worthy to bond together and to omit the least trustworthy ones. After much arguing and pickering
they all agreed with what we call the new testament. I also heard you can read the books and writings that were rejected. Just go to barnes and noble and pick up a copy of "the Lost Books Of the Bible" Which is kind of a misleading title because they were never part of the bible and actually never lost. Just not included. I read them. Kinda stupid that the Catholic Church rejected them because most of them are so Pro-Catholic!
But your resources are probably correct , after all what i heard is just gossip at work.

The church came first and the new testament was formed c350 ad. but the actual books/gospels of the nt were written/collected around 20-40 years after Jesus' death and resurrection. Thats still enough time to confuse and exagerate the story of Jesus. Interpreting what is true and what you feel are exagerations is ultimatly up to your faith. I personally feel that whether or not he did the miricals that are listed in the NT is in itself insignificant. The true meaning of the stories is to teach us to grow closer to God and to learn to listen to the Holy Spirit.

oh and as for the "lost books." They weren't left out because the Church felt they were "teaching the wrong lesson" or something like that. They were left out mostly because parts of their story added things that didn't flow with the gospels that were left in. (ie the book of peter tells of how Jesus would model animals out of clay and then bring them to life. it also tells of his teachings in hell where he spent 3days between the crusifiction and resurrection.)

Gideon and Venom shocker great posts and truthful information it just has that ring of truth to it I have read so many sources that say the same things you are saying , Its such common knowledge I am always surprised when people don't know about the bible not being a accurate account of history. Karen Armstrong is a great writter of biblical history for our time, Namaste Sheri

Actually, only Paul’s letters were written within 20 to 40 years of the supposed time of Jesus’ death. Mark, being the oldest of the Gospels, is considered by most scholars to have been written sometime after 70 CE, Matthew, Luke sometime between 85 – 110 CE and John around 117 – 125 CE. The gospels were not even mentioned until around 150 CE and not named until 180 CE. Since the oldest existing, intact bibles are 4th Century CE (and even then, there are marked differences between them and modern versions), we have no idea what the earliest copies of these books actually said, but with over 200 years to edit and change them, they could have said almost anything. Even then, we aren’t sure of when Jesus was born or really when he died, we only have the word of the NT gospels that it was during the period that Pilate was Prefect of Judea. It is entirely possible that Irenaeus was correct when he said that Jesus was born before Herod the Great (73 BCE). If a church father (Irenaeus) living in the second century CE didn’t know, the how could we?

Granted the writers of the bible were great writers and great historians but many lived many years after Jesus lived and didn't even know him. Writing things down is a relatively new practice before taht people told of history thru oral storys. Namaste Sheri

in my opinion, the New Testament came first. and then years later The Romans became the dictators of the christian faith and edited the bible (and the faith) to their liking, and destroyed damn near every original books that said otherwise.

Most of the New Testament are letters...not books. A lot of it was written before AD 60

There were churches before the books of the NT but nothing with the size or orginization that the term "the Church" usually implies.

id ignore most of that. GM is fairly ignorant concerning this issue.
Again GM, I ask you: How are ancient documents dated?

I might recommend something written by actual historians. Freke, Gandy, and Harpur arent.


How is manuscript dates a problem?
our earliest manuscripts from Josephus and Tacitus are from the 9th and 10th centuries, and very few seem to have problems accepting most of what they have written. other than screaming CONSPIRACY! there is little reason to doubt the vast majority of what the NT says was there originally. of the places in the text where text critics are unsure of wording, there are only 15 places that make any real difference.

First and foremost, neither Josephus nor Tactius claimed to be disciples of a supernatural being that were putting forth the tenets of this being's "way for salvation", Second their material can be validated using other historians writings from that period and the periods prior to and afterward. What Christians always seem to ignore is - if you make fantastic claims, then you must present fantastic proofs to back those claims. This is something that they can not present, so they try attacking scholarship (even thought the majority of biblical scholars are Christians, but too honest to do the typical apologetic trick of lying to cover the truth) in order to make their beliefs seem true.

Numerous ways, throught epigraphics for one, by documental sequence for another, by historical content for another, and on and on and on!

woah, put out that strawman, mako. whether or not what the text says is true is a totally different issue from when it should be dated or if the text has been accurately preserved. its not that fantastic for a set of works to maintain its textual integerty.

Far from a straw man argument, manuscript dates, especially in the case of the NT, is a definite problem. We can already see that Mark has been added onto since the 4th century CE, in that 16:9-20 does not exist in the two oldest existing Codex. This brings to question the textual integrity of the entire NT. Without earlier texts of the NT to compare with the current versions, there is no way that it can be claimed that the “set of works” maintains textual integrity. It can instead be argued that the probability of politically motivated editing was done extensively over the first three centuries of its existence. As I said before, neither Josephus nor Tacitus were doing more than reporting history and their works can be verified by comparison to the works of prior or contemporaneous historians. With the exception of those probable insertions by overly enthusiastic Christians, the textual integrity of Josephus or Tacitus is not nearly as important (especially since they can be validated by comparison with the works of other historians and by quotations of these works by early church fathers.

argue it then.