FORGED (!?!?) ORIGINS of the NEW TESTAMENT (!?!?)

by Terry 91 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Terry

  I'm fully aware of the "tainted" nature of the magazine and the proclivities of its minions. I regularly ridicule such people's gullibility in legitimizing UFO's as Flying Saucers, etc.

  The fact remains this is one of the most lucidly written, seriously annotated articles I've yet read and it impressed me. That is why I wanted a discussion.

  There is ample opportunity to disembowel the author for his penchant for conspiracy.

  Dear Terry:

  The story article may or may not have foundation.
  However, consider the source very carefully before
  drawing any conclusions.

  Respectfully,

  The Wanderer
• 

  Terry

  Also, ask yourself why a 4th-century "forged" book would include so many contradictions

  Why would a "forged" book be less inclined to contradictions?
• 

  Terry

  My pet peeve in the 'online encyclopedia' Wikipedia, an erratic, patchy, superficial and more often than not innaccurate source of information that is very quickly hoisted in many an on-line debate. To me it is symptomatic of the weakness of the instant age that we live in that seems to be quite happy accepting that the tip of the iceberg is in fact all that matters.

  Honestly, by the same token it is readily seized upon by the sharp-eyed among us who bring all such errata to our attention!

  The best way, in my opinion, to vet such articles is to bring them to a forum such as this where the most strenuous discussion imaginable will ferret out where the fact fades to fancy.

  I don't know about everybody else, but; I don't have the time or academic concentration to fact check beyond a certain superficial smell test. If I did and could I wouldn't need a discussion forum to expose such writings to scrutiny and calumny.

  I'm just lazy enough to toss interesting articles out and let the mob wail away at it.

  Between Hillary_step, Narkissos and some others a kind of atomic filtering process quickly ensues leaving whatever kernel is worth keeping.

  I enjoy watching the process, frankly.
• 

  Terry

  Most histories we have in reference to Tacitus, he must have missed some of the other historians who have mentioned Jesus, have few MSS years between. Was the Iliad written by Homer? After the NT MSS, the Iliad is SECOND in the amount of manuscripts with 643 surviving. That demonstrates if that it is 2nd with that many, that other writings only go down from there. Shall we throw out all of our history as spurious?

  Not to put too fine a point on it, this argument overlooks the overwhelming contrast between secular history and religious history vis a vis the claims made for the supernatural. Western Society largely operates in an ethos of religious gravitas stemming from Christian assertions of transcendant truth and claims of an extraordinary nature which impact society at large every single day.

  George Bush, for example, operates as though we are compelled to view history through a filter of Biblical prophecy.

  Whether or not Herodotus got something right hardly matters to anybody in their every day life.
• 

  Terry

  This is SO true! Semi-or no-scholarship + the internet = conspiracy theories.

  I`d go as far as to say the internet is a curse.

  Let's not be infantile.

  If you honestly believed that we'd not even have your post about it, would we?

  In the marketplace of ideas the only way to defeat rubbish ideas is with better ideas. The Internet provides everybody with the equal opportunity of exercising their rational desire to expose themselves to a wide variety of thought and choose among them.

  If everybody were so easily misled it would be possible to post almost anything here and no refutation or counter opinion would appear.

  The greatest thing that ever happened to democratic thought was the proliferation of the Internet!!

  JWD, for example, has produced more significant data to a larger audience of people in societies across the globe than ever before possible ONLY BECAUSE it is available on the INTERNET. The Watchtower is besieged by the factual avalanche made possible by collaboration and idea exchange herein.

  When trolls appear spouting the same old Watchtower nonsense they are beset by INFORMED persons who have coalesced because of Internet availabilty.

  When inerrantists and anti-Darwinian knuckle-draggers commence fulminating against science the swift justice they experience is largely because of the wondrous spread of data through the Internet!

  Don't be such a knee-jerk Luddite.
• 

  Terry

  So, why did Christians just sprout up all of a sudden in the first century sinis? Can I have your opinion?

  I'm not saying christanity, as a pagan religion, did not exist. I am saying that the so called holy books are a fabrication after the fact. It would be akin to me starting a new and improved religion with a steady flow of followers. Eventually, it takes off, but I'm no more holier than the shitty religion next to me.

  To me, a test case experiment in how Christianity began and proliferated while changing and self-modifying is easily demonstrated. Look at how Mormonism and Scientology began. Look at their founders and their followers. Look at the clashes and the redactions and changes. Compare the sanitized versions with the beginning versions. The process is all there.

  Every clash a new religion experiences causes it to retrench, rethink and reformulate. It is like a virus. The mutations allow the virus to change just enough to meet the last "objections" with a new explanation. Theology is a practical battle with a foe bent on destroying it.
• 

  Terry

  LOL. You've just got to love a rationalist's gullibility.

  I'm disappointed, Narkissos. That is as close as you've ever come to "snide".
• 

  Leolaia

  The fact remains this is one of the most lucidly written, seriously annotated articles I've yet read and it impressed me. That is why I wanted a discussion.

  Maybe when I get back I can look up some of the more obscure sources (and there are many of them, wonder why?), but to someone who is familiar with ancient sources, including those pertaining to the Council of Nicaea, Bushby's account is pure fiction. And I find it offensive, just as I find the Watchtower Society's use of sources offensive, to see such dishonesty peddled to the masses and taken seriously. For just one small example, Bushby refers to Eusebius in the following passage:

  "Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects: Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus and Zeus (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325)."

  Notice that there is no specific citation. Why? Because nothing remotely resembling this occurs in Eusebius at all. This reference is a fabrication....look it up in Eusebius yourself, the entire text is on the internet.

  Another one of Bushby's "sources" is "God's Book of Eskra", which he uses to back up the totally invented story of the Council of Nicaea. Did you know that this is a piece of automatic writing (i.e. fiction), written by an American dentist and theosophist named John Ballou Newbrough in 1880? It is not a historical source in any way, anymore than the Book of Mormon (another 19th century example of automatic writing) is an authentic history of ancient America. But does Bushby let on this fact? Or does he leave the impression that this is a genuine source?

  The "Bible was invented at Nicaea" meme seems to come up a lot on the internet these days (thanks, Dan Brown), and it is especially annoying when dishonest stuff like Bushby gets an airing and the facts rarely do not. More on the Council of Nicaea and historical sources:

  http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
• 

  Narkissos

  Terry,

  I regularly ridicule such people's gullibility in legitimizing UFO's as Flying Saucers, etc.

  LOL. You've just got to love a rationalist's gullibility.

  I'm disappointed, Narkissos. That is as close as you've ever come to "snide".

  Why would a "forged" book be less inclined to contradictions?

  I'll let you think again about the last one.

  Now, as a matter of fact, I enjoy the show too. Instead of researching and applying your own critical thinking to what you just skimmed through (sorry, "one of the most lucidly written, seriously annotated articles [you]'ve yet read") you simply throw it into the cyberspace and see what happens: within a few hours an international network of a half-dozen brains gather like flies and they can produce amazing things. Especially changing the topic (to whether Jesus existed, whether the NT is history, whether the Bible God is good or bad, etc.) and then misrepresenting those who care refute the said article as Christian/Bible/theist apologists.

  "Democratic thought" you say. But it becomes strangely reminiscent of the fascist theories of propaganda when we hear the most unexpected voices candidly saying, in effect: "The Bible is bad, so whatever is said against it is good."

  That's the essence of cyber-"democratic thought" of course. We don't like JWs so we'll welcome all charges against them, even though they may be mutually contradictory. You disagree, you're a JW-apologist. Those who don't like the US administration will welcome any theory against it. The inflation of scandal leaves the opinion currency worthless. The next real big issue will be undistinguishable from the last junk theory for a growing number of citizens. Ironically this would make a great conspiracy scenario.0
• 

  greendawn

  Many of the writings of the New Testament are already refered to in the second century eg in the writings of the (so called) early fathers therefore it is ridiculous to claim that the whole of the NT was contrived in the fourth century.

  If I recall well there are also gospel fragments written in the second century, mainly the second part of it, still in existence.