Do you believe that 2007 will have the second coming of Jesus Christ?

[Bono]

I've just written down on a piece of paper that I just ran five miles in under five minutes.  This is surely a miracle of epic proportions, especially since I'm disabled.  Perhaps if this piece of paper survives for two thousand years, people living then will believe it to be true.

Actually thats a good example. If people followed the 'Almighty Joe' in his lifetime and after his death they would collect as much information about him. Much of that would be lost or change hands or be edited throughout the years or would be collected by people who had never met him, including that scrap of paper, into a book. The people would then say Joe ran a mile a minute. Anything to the contrary would be deemed as heresy and any references to his disability would be destroyed.

In two thousand years people would no doubt say that Joe existed and have evidence for his existance, but certain people would say it was physically impossible at the time (who knows about the future) to run a mile a minute yet still believe in the Almighty Joe while other would insist to their dying breath that Joe did what he or others said he did.

There is no evidence for said editing. All copies we have of new Testament Texts say the same, except for three small passages (1 John 5:7-8; John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20). All you have left is appeal to conspiracy theory.

Actually there is considerable historiographial evidence that there has been editing, both of the greek text and of course examples of papal edicts resulting in changes in translation alongside numerous existing and losts texts that never made the 'final cut' so to speak of the NT. And it is ludicrous and historically false to suggest otherwise (I have earned a qualification in historiography from a biblical context this gained at Jesuit college so I'm not saying this for the sake of argument!)

What is that evidence. Sources please?
Changes in translation only affect exactly that--the translation. Since we have the original greek text for all the books of the New Testament, I don't see how that is a problem.
As for the "lost books of the Bible", they were either complete trash or redundant.

EDIT: Before that, let me provide some sources of my own.  Textual critics Westcott and Hort asserted that the parts of the NT "still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part" of the NT - which would be less than a third of a page. Generally, however, it seems that very few scholars in this field are willing to be so bold! Most scholars in this field seem to settle for vague phrases, ranging from speaking of the "retreating mirage" of the original text to Comfort's assurance that "there are several manuscripts that are quite accurate copies of the original text." Scholars outside the field are more bold; France asserts that "among the textual variants in the gospels there are only two which throw doubt on more than a verse or two of the traditional text" - the ending of Mark and the adultery story in John , with the other variants bearing only on details of sentimental value. Beyond that, he proclaims :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Moreland adds:

   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An encyclopedic treatment of this issue is presented by the team of Kurt and Barbara Aland, who provide statistics as to both the percentage of variant free verses among the seven major editions of the Greek NT, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic errors). It is helpful to look at these:

Book---% of variant-free verses---# of variants per page

    * Matthew 59.9 / 6.8
    * Mark 45.1 / 10.3
    * Luke 57.2 / 6.9
    * John 51.8 / 8.5
    * Acts 67.3 / 4.2
    * Romans 75.5 / 2.9
    * 1 Corinthians 75.7 / 3.5
    * 2 Corinthians 78.1 / 2.8
    * Galatians 76.5 / 3.3
    * Ephesians 76.1 / 2.9
    * Philippians 70.2 / 2.5
    * Colossians 72.6 / 3.4
    * 1 Thess. 68.5 / 4.1
    * 2 Thess. 72.3 / 3.1
    * 1 Timothy 81.4 / 2.9
    * 2 Timothy 79.5 / 2.8
    * Titus 71.7 / 2.3
    * Philemon 76.0 / 5.1
    * Hebrews 77.2 / 2.9
    * James 61.6 / 5.6
    * 1 Peter 66.6 / 5.7
    * 2 Peter 52.5 / 6.5
    * 1 John 72.4 / 2.8
    * 2 John 61.5 / 4.5
    * 3 John 73.3 / 3.2
    * Jude 72.0 / 4.2
    * Revelation 52.8 / 5.1

    Total 62.9 equals 4999/7947 verses

The agreement here is quite astonishing, considering that this is the combined result of seven different teams and/or persons over an extended period of time. That all 7 editions completely agree on close to two-thirds of the NT is a striking indication of how much confidence we may have in our present text. (Though not given, the next statistics would show agreements on 6 out of 7, 5 out of 7, etc. - and if the trend above is followed, we might well reach that 99% agreement before going too far down the ladder!)

[afleitch]

What is that evidence. Sources please?

If you're looking for a long list of online texts then I don't have any, it's not where I get information from. Most of what I know of this subject and studied was within books which I would have re-locate to give the correct source (and since I used about 20 seperate books for my examination essay on this it might take some time!)

Secondly, you cannot assume that the books not contained within the NT are 'trash'- the collected NT, as in terms of the collection of books chosen, is very much the hand of Constantine (who also gave us the 25th Dec as the Birth of Christ) The hierarchy of the church and of it's relationship with the state is also very much down to Constantine and his desire to strengthen his own personal power through what was little more than an extension of imperial tradition; the promotion of the faith of the emperor whatever that may be at any given time. He then proceeded to 'gut' the 600 or so books that composed the bible at the time to less than a hundred then down towards 80 (or 66 in the Authorised KJB which purged books from the bible at the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618) So the Bible and the NT has been consistantly re-organised. That's about as short as I can keep things.

Secondly translation is important. If you pick up a modern leatherbound bible it does not directly translate from the ancient greek. You are right that the greek exists but purposeful mistranslation is 'editing' - editing to suit the whims of whatever competing theological tradition is in vogue (or basic personal prejudice towards one direction or the other)

EDIT: Examples of which have been argued to death on here https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=50044.0

[Bono]

What is that evidence. Sources please?

If you're looking for a long list of online texts then I don't have any, it's not where I get information from. Most of what I know of this subject and studied was within books which I would have re-locate to give the correct source (and since I used about 20 seperate books for my examination essay on this it might take some time!)

Secondly, you cannot assume that the books not contained within the NT are 'trash'- the collected NT, as in terms of the collection of books chosen, is very much the hand of Constantine (who also gave us the 25th Dec as the Birth of Christ) The hierarchy of the church and of it's relationship with the state is also very much down to Constantine and his desire to strengthen his own personal power through what was little more than an extension of imperial tradition; the promotion of the faith of the emperor whatever that may be at any given time. He then proceeded to 'gut' the 600 or so books that composed the bible at the time to less than a hundred then down towards 80 (or 66 in the Authorised KJB which purged books from the bible at the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618) So the Bible and the NT has been consistantly re-organised. That's about as short as I can keep things.

I am not "assuming". Here is a list of the books that were considered for inclusion but that were excluded. Tell me why any of these books should be given biblical authority:
Epistle of Barnabas
Shephard of Hermas
Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans
1 Clement
2 Clement
Preaching of Peter
Apocalypse of Peter
Gospel According to the Egyptians
Gospel According to the Hebrews

For none of these books do we have evidence that they should have made the canon. In fact, even of the books that made it, seven were disputed given that whether they met the criteria for inclusion was disputed. As for the hand of constantine, while constantine did call for the council, he had no hand in the proceedings. Here is an essay explaining in more detail the canonnicity process and busting some of those myths.
Also, check my edit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is a lie, pure and simple. Ever since the auspices of the Reformation, the Bible has been translated from the original Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew text, and not from the Latin Vulgate--at least in the protestant publication world. Maybe things are different in the romanist church.

[afleitch]

That is a lie, pure and simple. Ever since the auspices of the Reformation, the Bible has been translated from the original Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew text, and not from the Latin Vulgate--at least in the protestant publication world. Maybe things are different in the romanist church.

Read through the link I posted here; that describes what I mean And don't bite my head off because I dare to use an argument based on (but not convergent with) 'romanist' theologic teaching and study. Taking side ways snipes at Catholic theology should be beneath you.

[PBrunsel]

Well I wouldn't doubt it. The world is wicked enough for his return, much like Noah and his time.

I also believe (curse that word, I can't spell it!) that the anti-Christ is alive and among us today. He is not an American or even a citizen of the Americas, but he is here.

[Gabu]

I also believe (curse that word, I can't spell it!) that the anti-Christ is alive and among us today. He is not an American or even a citizen of the Americas, but he is here.

PBrunsel, you seem to be confused; Hillary Clinton lives in New York.

[Bono]

Well I wouldn't doubt it. The world is wicked enough for his return, much like Noah and his time.

What makes you think the world is more wicked today then it was, say, two hundred years ago? If anything, it's less, since the percentage of Christians to the total population is much greater than ever.

[PBrunsel]

I also believe (curse that word, I can't spell it!) that the anti-Christ is alive and among us today. He is not an American or even a citizen of the Americas, but he is here.

PBrunsel, you seem to be confused; Hillary Clinton lives in New York.

Gabu, you are mistaken. The word is CHRIST and since God is a MAN then the anti-Christ must be man!

Wait a second...if GOD is a MAN, then the anti-God must be a woman!

Curse you and you're tricky wording Gabu. Now I must go prepare myself for Hillary Clinton's reign of terror.

[afleitch]

Well I wouldn't doubt it. The world is wicked enough for his return, much like Noah and his time.

What makes you think the world is more wicked today then it was, say, two hundred years ago? If anything, it's less, since the percentage of Christians to the total population is much greater than ever.

How does being Christian alone reduce 'wickedness'? Do the wicked actions of those who call themselves Christians have no relevance, you simply have to be part of the 'tribe' and thats okay no matter what you do, how you treat others or how many wars you wage?

[PBrunsel]

Well I wouldn't doubt it. The world is wicked enough for his return, much like Noah and his time.

What makes you think the world is more wicked today then it was, say, two hundred years ago? If anything, it's less, since the percentage of Christians to the total population is much greater than ever.

Well I just got done doing some grocery shopping and saw a tabloid. Do the "wickedness" math from there.

[Bono]

Well I wouldn't doubt it. The world is wicked enough for his return, much like Noah and his time.

What makes you think the world is more wicked today then it was, say, two hundred years ago? If anything, it's less, since the percentage of Christians to the total population is much greater than ever.

How does being Christian alone reduce 'wickedness'? Do the wicked actions of those who call themselves Christians have no relevance, you simply have to be part of the 'tribe' and thats okay no matter what you do, how you treat others or how many wars you wage?

Idolatry is a sin, like it or not. By having people worshipping God, wickedness is drastically reduced.
BTW, I will respond to your post above later.

[Bono]

Well I wouldn't doubt it. The world is wicked enough for his return, much like Noah and his time.

What makes you think the world is more wicked today then it was, say, two hundred years ago? If anything, it's less, since the percentage of Christians to the total population is much greater than ever.

Well I just got done doing some grocery shopping and saw a tabloid. Do the "wickedness" math from there.

That just means wickedness is more visible, not that it is greater in quantity.

[KEmperor]

Well I wouldn't doubt it. The world is wicked enough for his return, much like Noah and his time.

What makes you think the world is more wicked today then it was, say, two hundred years ago? If anything, it's less, since the percentage of Christians to the total population is much greater than ever.

How does being Christian alone reduce 'wickedness'? Do the wicked actions of those who call themselves Christians have no relevance, you simply have to be part of the 'tribe' and thats okay no matter what you do, how you treat others or how many wars you wage?

That's just a silly question.  Do you even remember the Spanish Inquisition?  Those holier than thou saints were far less wicked than those crazy buddhists over in Asia.  Damn heathens.

[Bono]

Well I wouldn't doubt it. The world is wicked enough for his return, much like Noah and his time.

What makes you think the world is more wicked today then it was, say, two hundred years ago? If anything, it's less, since the percentage of Christians to the total population is much greater than ever.

How does being Christian alone reduce 'wickedness'? Do the wicked actions of those who call themselves Christians have no relevance, you simply have to be part of the 'tribe' and thats okay no matter what you do, how you treat others or how many wars you wage?

That's just a silly question.  Do you even remember the Spanish Inquisition?  Those holier than thou saints were far less wicked than those crazy buddhists over in Asia.  Damn heathens.

How many people were involved in the Spanish Inquisiton? Thousands at best. How many budhists live in idolatry? Hundreds of millions.
Plus, there isn't any evidence that, even if we take only into account the duties toward man and leave out the duties towards God, the average Budhist is more or less moral than the average Christian.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I hope not, as that would mean that me and most of my other friends are almost certainly doomed to hell.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But there lies the trap…

Since the book of Acts could only have been written in the 1st Century by an eyewitness of those events, for what other reason would they have had opportunity to experience so many different places and meet with so many civil/military leaders…if not for preaching the Gospel?

And if they did indeed preach the Gospel to all these places and people during the middle of the 1st Century, for what reason would they have conspired to make up the story of Jesus’ resurrection?

I don't know, but there are an awful lot of possibilities given the fact that all of that was 2000 years ago, and I don't exactly think that "Jesus was the Son of God and everything they said was 100% true" is the likeliest.  It's entirely possible that they all saw something, but were mistaken about what they saw, or perhaps only one person saw something and the others didn't want to admit that they hadn't seen it, or whatever.

It's entirely possible that all of them did indeed earnestly believe in everything, but even if they did, that doesn't mean that everything actually was as it was written.

I am saying the evidence is the following:

1) From the historical accuracy of all the places and leaders mentioned in the Book of Acts, it can be concluded, with a high degree of certainty…that the Book of Acts was written in the middle of the 1st Century.

2) No other activity, other than the teaching of something controversial (like a religion), could explain the situational accounts of the book of Acts…meaning, the places and descriptions of the Book of Acts were not borrowed from the diary of a fish monger, the Book of Acts was originally what it claims to be – an intentional record of the activities of the first generation of Christians.

3) The first generation of Christians actually believed what they taught, they had no alterative motives, for if they had alterative motives (profit, fame, etc), they would have fallen away in short order, they would not have endured loss of possessions, freedom, and life...they would not have endured what they endured.

Therefore, since the trail of Christianity leads directly to eyewitnesses living in the middle of the 1st Century who taught, without alterative motives, what they earnestly believed, there is no basis for a conspiracy.

The only basis for not believing the Gospel is the wonder of the story itself.

[The Dowager Mod]

This thread got pretty damn ignorant pretty damn fast.

[Gabu]

Well I wouldn't doubt it. The world is wicked enough for his return, much like Noah and his time.

What makes you think the world is more wicked today then it was, say, two hundred years ago? If anything, it's less, since the percentage of Christians to the total population is much greater than ever.

How does being Christian alone reduce 'wickedness'? Do the wicked actions of those who call themselves Christians have no relevance, you simply have to be part of the 'tribe' and thats okay no matter what you do, how you treat others or how many wars you wage?

That's just a silly question.  Do you even remember the Spanish Inquisition?  Those holier than thou saints were far less wicked than those crazy buddhists over in Asia.  Damn heathens.

How many people were involved in the Spanish Inquisiton? Thousands at best. How many budhists live in idolatry? Hundreds of millions.
Plus, there isn't any evidence that, even if we take only into account the duties toward man and leave out the duties towards God, the average Budhist is more or less moral than the average Christian.

If you define "wickedness" to mean "things that go against Christian teachings", then yeah, obviously one's wickedness is inversely proportional to how Christian that person is, purely by definition.

I don't think that definition would exactly be universally accepted as the proper definition of the word, however.

I am saying the evidence is the following:

1) From the historical accuracy of all the places and leaders mentioned in the Book of Acts, it can be concluded, with a high degree of certainty…that the Book of Acts was written in the middle of the 1st Century.

2) No other activity, other than the teaching of something controversial (like a religion), could explain the situational accounts of the book of Acts…meaning, the places and descriptions of the Book of Acts were not borrowed from the diary of a fish monger, the Book of Acts was originally what it claims to be – an intentional record of the activities of the first generation of Christians.

3) The first generation of Christians actually believed what they taught, they had no alterative motives, for if they had alterative motives (profit, fame, etc), they would have fallen away in short order, they would not have endured loss of possessions, freedom, and life...they would not have endured what they endured.

Therefore, since the trail of Christianity leads directly to eyewitnesses living in the middle of the 1st Century who taught, without alterative motives, what they earnestly believed, there is no basis for a conspiracy.

The only basis for not believing the Gospel is the wonder of the story itself.

Since I am not asserting a conspiracy of any kind, you're going to an awful lot of trouble to disprove something that I haven't said.

People are capable of believing things to be true that aren't true in reality.  L. Ron Hubbard has successfully convinced thousands of people of the validity of Scientology.

[Bono]

I am saying the evidence is the following:

1) From the historical accuracy of all the places and leaders mentioned in the Book of Acts, it can be concluded, with a high degree of certainty…that the Book of Acts was written in the middle of the 1st Century.

2) No other activity, other than the teaching of something controversial (like a religion), could explain the situational accounts of the book of Acts…meaning, the places and descriptions of the Book of Acts were not borrowed from the diary of a fish monger, the Book of Acts was originally what it claims to be – an intentional record of the activities of the first generation of Christians.

3) The first generation of Christians actually believed what they taught, they had no alterative motives, for if they had alterative motives (profit, fame, etc), they would have fallen away in short order, they would not have endured loss of possessions, freedom, and life...they would not have endured what they endured.

Therefore, since the trail of Christianity leads directly to eyewitnesses living in the middle of the 1st Century who taught, without alterative motives, what they earnestly believed, there is no basis for a conspiracy.

The only basis for not believing the Gospel is the wonder of the story itself.

Since I am not asserting a conspiracy of any kind, you're going to an awful lot of trouble to disprove something that I haven't said.

People are capable of believing things to be true that aren't true in reality.  L. Ron Hubbard has successfully convinced thousands of people of the validity of Scientology.

Yes, people die all the time for things they believe to be true. however, no one dies for what they know to be a lie. All the apostles but one were maritred for their beliefs. They were the eyewitnesses. Even when under torture and impending execution, they never let that cat out of the bag. Why? Because that cat was never in the bag to begin with.

[Gabu]

Yes, people die all the time for things they believe to be true. however, no one dies for what they know to be a lie. All the apostles but one were maritred for their beliefs. They were the eyewitnesses. Even when under torture and impending execution, they never let that cat out of the bag. Why? Because that cat was never in the bag to begin with.

I don't know why you two are trying to convince me that they did not purposefully lie, because I have never asserted that they did.

[Bono]

Yes, people die all the time for things they believe to be true. however, no one dies for what they know to be a lie. All the apostles but one were maritred for their beliefs. They were the eyewitnesses. Even when under torture and impending execution, they never let that cat out of the bag. Why? Because that cat was never in the bag to begin with.

I don't know why you two are trying to convince me that they did not purposefully lie, because I have never asserted that they did.

Then what is your explanation? Hallucination? That won't work, because hallucinations require predisposition, and there was no predisposition. Also, hallucinations don't eat, nor stick around for 40 days, nor appear separately to different people.

[Gabu]

Then what is your explanation? Hallucination? That won't work, because hallucinations require predisposition, and there was no predisposition.

I don't know; I don't know enough history of that time period surrounding Biblical events to form some sort of theory.  All I know is that "there were these people and they were really, really convinced that this is true" is not exactly conclusive evidence in favor of whatever it is.

Many people who believed in Scientology believed in it so much that they drew their bank accounts to zero and gave up their life savings for their belief.  This obviously isn't quite to the degree of getting tortured or killed, but it's a lot more than many people would do.  Doesn't make the belief any more or less correct.

[Bono]

Then what is your explanation? Hallucination? That won't work, because hallucinations require predisposition, and there was no predisposition.

I don't know; I don't know enough history of that time period surrounding Biblical events to form some sort of theory.  All I know is that "there were these people and they were really, really convinced that this is true" is not exactly conclusive evidence in favor of whatever it is.

Many people who believed in Scientology believed in it so much that they drew their bank accounts to zero and gave up their life savings for their belief.  This obviously isn't quite to the degree of getting tortured or killed, but it's a lot more than many people would do.  Doesn't make the belief any more or less correct.

But those people weren't eyewitnesses to any of the purported scientological events, while the Apostles were.

[KEmperor]

There are people who set themselves on fire because of their beliefs.  Doesn't mean they are right.  Just that they are unwavering in their beliefs.

[Bono]

There are people who set themselves on fire because of their beliefs.  Doesn't mean they are right.  Just that they are unwavering in their beliefs.

Yes, I just said that above. Many people die for something they believe to be true. However, no one dies for what they know to be a lie.