When was the Bible corrupted?

[Grace Seeker]

even for the sake of argument suppose that the Testimonium is true

What does it prove? in other words If Josephus mentions the crucifiction without refering to a source .

what does it prove?!!

all of all is that a writer heard the christian propagandistic hearsay regarding their so called savior ,and wrote it down.....

Did he listen to testimonies ? Did he use a source?
where is Jewish Sanhedrin testimony you're talking about?
where is the early Christian eyewitness accounts ?

my friend,the obvious forgeries,the hearsay accounts holds no merit for serious ,objective studies.
Not only there is no historical crucifiction,there's no historical Jesus as well....

Now, use the same way of thinking that you presently are.

Even if all Josephus, Tacitus, or any other had to go on was propoganda, what precipitated that propoganda?

Why would people who knew it all to be a hoax, a fable put their lives not only put their lives on the line, but go to their death when all they had to do to save their lives was deny this fables as being true?

As far as Jesus not being an historical figure, by the same reasoning neither is Julius Caesar nor Homer.

Do you believe that Leonidas, King of Sparta, died in attempting to defend Greece from being invade by Xeres of Persia at the battle of Thermopylae? There is far less "objective proof" for this accepted historical account than there is for the crucifixion of Jesus. It is one's apriori judgments that cause one to accept as evidence in one accounting what is rejected in the other.

 

[back_to_faith]

Why would people who knew it all to be a hoax, a fable put their lives not only put their lives on the line, but go to their death when all they had to do to save their lives was deny this fables as being true?

.

You ask, would people suffer,die for a hoax?

ask history and it tells you well,how many those who died for a hoax including muslims (according to you)..

why did muslim believe the hoax of Mohamed being the last prophet of God ,and go to their death by the hands of the Pagans,when all they had to do to save their lives was deny this fable as being true?

 

[back_to_faith]

Do you believe that Leonidas, King of Sparta, died in attempting to defend Greece from being invade by Xeres of Persia at the battle of Thermopylae? .

Do you believe that the resurrection of Osiris,Mithras, Dionysus to be historical? if not why not?

 

[Keltoi]

Do you believe that the resurrection of Osiris,Mithras, Dionysus to be historical? if not why not?

The same reason you believe that Gabriel delivered a message to Muhammed is the same reason Christians believe in Christ's Resurrection, because we believe there is more than enough religious and textual evidence to support that. Why don't I believe in some resurrection of Osiris? The same reason you don't believe that Zeus throws lightening bolts from Mt. Olympus.

 

[Grace Seeker]

You ask, would people suffer,die for a hoax?

ask history and it tells you well,how many those who died for a hoax including muslims (according to you)..

why did muslim believe the hoax of Mohamed being the last prophet of God ,and go to their death by the hands of the Pagans,when all they had to do to save their lives was deny this fable as being true?

But we are talking about people who, according to Muslims, knew that Jesus was never even crucified dying not becauase they believed in the hoax, but in order to continue perpetrating the hoax on others. I've never heard of that case before.

 

[Grace Seeker]

The same reason you believe that Gabriel delivered a message to Muhammed is the same reason Christians believe in Christ's Resurrection, because we believe there is more than enough religious and textual evidence to support that. Why don't I believe in some resurrection of Osiris? The same reason you don't believe that Zeus throws lightening bolts from Mt. Olympus.

That's it exactly!!!

 

[back_to_faith]

The same reason you believe that Gabriel delivered a message to Muhammed is the same reason Christians believe in Christ's Resurrection, because we believe there is more than enough religious and textual evidence to support that.

Don't mix your cards ,my friend

we are discussing the historicity of the so called crucifiction,resurrection of Jesus,and your
(more than enough religious and textual evidence to support that)
holds no merit for

1-proved to be errant.
2-not supported by external authentic source.


If yoy were honest,you would have answered that you don't believe in the resurrection of Osiris,Mithras, Dionysus to be historical,cause the works upon which such stories based on,proved to be inerrant,with no external,historical support.

again the Question:

what makes better the narratives of the resurrection of Jesus ,than the Passion of Osiris Mithras, Dionysus,krishna etc from a historical point of view?

if they have the same historical defects,then only one reason to urge you prefer the Jesus' passion rather than Krishna's passion,It is (Blind faith).

It is obvious for me ,and expected too...
that you and Seeker as well ,skipped all the internal gospel problems regarding the ,crucifiction,resurrection ...and rather prefer to discuss ,rather minor issue (The historicity of the resurection),cause you know it well,to prove inerrant Bible is a losing battle....

 

[back_to_faith]

But we are talking about people who, according to Muslims, knew that Jesus was never even crucified dying not becauase they believed in the hoax, but in order to continue perpetrating the hoax on others. I've never heard of that case before.

You have never heard of that case before? Really?

Have you ever heard of the those who continued perpetrating the hoax of Osiris' passion on others?

Have you ever heard of the those who continued perpetrating the hoax of Krishna's passion on others?

you ask again What on earth urged them to perpetrate a hoax and convince others with ?

and the answer is very simple:

They believed that if the truth of God through their lies abounded unto his glory,they still can't be judged as a sinner.

in other words

(the end justifies the means)

 

[Keltoi]

Don't mix your cards ,my friend

we are discussing the historicity of the so called crucifiction,resurrection of Jesus,and your
(more than enough religious and textual evidence to support that)
holds no merit for

1-proved to be inerrant.
2-not supported by external authentic source.


If yoy were honest,you would have answered that you don't believe in the resurrection of Osiris,Mithras, Dionysus to be historical,cause the works upon which such stories based on,proved to be inerrant,with no external,historical support.

again the Question:

what makes better the narratives of the resurrection of Jesus ,than the Passion of Osiris Mithras, Dionysus,krishna etc from a historical point of view?

if they have the same historical defects,then only one reason to urge you prefer the Jesus' passion rather than Krishna's passion,It is (Blind faith).

It is obvious for me ,and expected too...
that you and Seeker as well ,skipped all the internal gospel problems regarding the ,crucifiction,resurrection ...and rather prefer to discuss ,rather minor issue (The historicity of the resurection),cause you know it well,to prove inerrant Bible is a losing battle....

Firstly, we have accounts from Christ's own disciples of the Resurrection. It doesn't get much better than eyewitness accounts, especially knowing they wrote their accounts independently of each other.

On the matter of historical evidence, there are various accounts of a "man" named Jesus who was crucified and whose disciples called him "Cristus" or Christ. That in itself is rather impressive, knowing that writing materials were quite precious during this period. People did not write things on a whim. There was no Star Tribune or New York Times. You would be hard pressed to find a serious objective historian of this period who does not believe Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and whose followers founded a new faith based on His Resurrection.

As for your supposed internal Gospel problems relating to the Crucifixion and Resurrection, you are nitpicking hours of the day and a speech by Paul relating to the eternal life granted to mankind as a result of Christ achieving victory over death. These issues do not call into question the repeated narrative, of all the Gospel authors, of Christ's crucifixion or resurrection.

 

[Keltoi]

You have never heard of that case before? Really?

Have you ever heard of the those who continued perpetrating the hoax of Osiris' passion on others?

Have you ever heard of the those who continued perpetrating the hoax of Krishna's passion on others?

you ask again What on earth urged them to perpetrate a hoax and convince others with ?

and the answer is very simple:

They believed that if the truth of God through their lies abounded unto his glory,they still can't be judged as a sinner.

in other words

(the end justifies the means)

That is a nice conspiracy theory, but there is about as much evidence of your supposed "hoax" as there is evidence of the resurrection of Osiris.

 

[back_to_faith]

Firstly, we have accounts from Christ's own disciples of the Resurrection. It doesn't get much better than eyewitness accounts, You would be hard pressed to find a serious objective historian of this period who does not believe Jesus of Nazareth was crucified
QUOTE]

How easy your game of assertions without proofs !!!

 

[back_to_faith]

As for your supposed internal Gospel problems relating to the Crucifixion and Resurrection, you are nitpicking hours of the day and a speech by Paul relating to the eternal life granted to mankind as a result of Christ achieving victory over death. These issues do not call into question the repeated narrative, of all the Gospel authors, of Christ's crucifixion or resurrection.

Keltoi,I guess that you have a reading comprehension
problem:


the point under discussion is:

Paul contradicts the 4 ,NT writers ,claiming that the resurrection is not physical as they assert

Luke 24
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."



Paul had another concept in his own agenda

1 corinthians 15:42

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.


1 corinthians 15:50

I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Firstly, we have accounts from Christ's own disciples of the Resurrection. It doesn't get much better than eyewitness accounts, You would be hard pressed to find a serious objective historian of this period who does not believe Jesus of Nazareth was crucified
QUOTE]

How easy your game of assertions without proofs !!!

We have a book, that the church claims was written by John, that asserts that Jesus was crucified and resurrected.

Was it really written by John?

According to Polycarp, who was known as a disciple of John, John himself told him that he wrote the book, though it was already attributed to John before Polycarp was born.

We also have Iranaeus' letter to the same effect.

Could they have been liars? Sure. But I don't think they were. So, I believe that John really wrote the gospel that the church says he wrote.

Now, could John himself have been inventing the story of the crucifixion and resurrection?

Sure, but I cannot think of what he would have to gain by it, I have cannot think of what "ends" he would accomplish to convince people to believe something that he himself didn't believe was true. I believe that John himself must have believed it to be true.

So, what would cause John to believe any of this was actually true, especially if he was among the select group that according to Islamic teaching knew that Jesus wasn't the person who was actually crucified? There is no "ends" to justify the means in this activity. There is no advantage in John inventing such a story. And no way that he could have been misled into believing it to be anything less than true, unless (as some Muslims like to suggest) even the disciples themselves were dupped by God into believe that Jesus died on the cross, and then when they met Jesus walking around later they assumed a resurrection.

Is that possible? Sure, with God all things are possible. But that would make God into a deceiver, and I while I will believe all sorts of things, I am unwilling to believe that God intentionally deceived the disicples.

So, we are left with

1) The Disciples knew the truth that Jesus had never been crucified, let alone rasied from the dead and they chose to write and teach a lie.

2) The Disciples were witnesses to the death and resurrection of Jesus and that experience changed their life and witness, ultimately producing both the church and the records known as the gospels.

 

[back_to_faith]

We have a book, that the church claims was written by John, that asserts that Jesus was crucified and resurrected.

Was it really written by John?

.

Seeker,

It doesn't need a scientific discovery to find out that John never wrote


(1)

JOHN 19

35. And he that saw it bare record,
and his record is true: and he knoweth
that he saith true, that ye might believe.


"HE" AND "HIs"
NOT JOHN!

24. This is the disciple which testifieth
of these things, and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.

25. And there are also many other things
which Jesus did, the which, if they should
be written every one, I suppose that even
the world itself could not contain the books
that should be written. Amen.


the abrupt shift from third person to first person in vss. 24-25 indicates that the author of the epilogue, who is supposed a third-party editor, claims the preceding narrative is based on the Beloved Disciple's testimony, while he himself is not the Beloved Disciple.



(2)


critical scholarship has further questioned the apostle John's authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes. The critical scholarship argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context, and these suggest redaction.(Ehrman 2004, p. 164-5 )

Raymond E. Brown, a biblical scholar who specialized in studying the Johannine community, summarizes a prevalent theory regarding the development of this gospel He identifies three layers of text in the Fourth Gospel (a situation that is paralleled by the synoptic gospels):

(1) an initial version Brown considers based on personal experience of Jesus(

2) a structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources; and
(3) the edited version that readers know today .

(Brown 1979Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible, p. 363-4. ).

to be concluded

 

[back_to_faith]

[QUOTE

So, what would cause John to believe any of this was actually true, especially if he was among the select group that according to Islamic teaching knew that Jesus wasn't the person who was actually crucified? .

What is (the select group) you talking about?!!!

 

[back_to_faith]

the disciples themselves were dupped by God into believe that Jesus died on the cross[/U], and then when they met Jesus walking around later they assumed a resurrection.

.

would you quote a Quranic verse showing that ,the disciples themselves were dupped by God into believe that Jesus died on the cross?

 

[back_to_faith]

we still left with another possibility

3)Either, then, the men called apostles are impostors, or the books ascribed to them has been written by other persons and fathered upon them,(Age of Reason, Part II, Section 14)

"None of those books have the appearance of being written by the persons whose names they bear, neither do we know who the authors were. They come to us on no other authority than the church of Rome, which the Protestant Priests...call the ***** of Babylon."The Theological Works of Thomas Paine p. IX.

--"Nothing can exceed the credulity of the early fathers, unless it may be their ignorance. They believed everything except the truth.... They revelled in the mishapen and the repulsive. They did not think it wrong to swear falsely in a good cause. They interpolated, forged, and changed the records to suit themselves, for the sake of Christ. They quoted from persons who never wrote. They misrepresented those who had written, and their evidence is absolutely worthless. They were ignorant, credulous, mendacious, fanatical, pious, unreasonable, bigoted, hypocritical" Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 5, p. 273

 

[back_to_faith]

That is a nice conspiracy theory.

Actually you can say ,that's nice Pious Forgeries :sunny:

 

[Keltoi]

Firstly, we have accounts from Christ's own disciples of the Resurrection. It doesn't get much better than eyewitness accounts, You would be hard pressed to find a serious objective historian of this period who does not believe Jesus of Nazareth was crucified
QUOTE]

How easy your game of assertions without proofs !!!

Can you prove He wasn't crucified? Seems I'm not the only one playing a game of "assertions". Christians look to the Gospels for the account of Christ's crucifixion. Do you have a more "credible" account that Christ wasn't crucified?...without looking to the Qu'ran? In the end it boils down to what source we are using for authority on the matter.

 

[Keltoi]

we still left with another possibility

3)Either, then, the men called apostles are impostors, or the books ascribed to them has been written by other persons and fathered upon them,(Age of Reason, Part II, Section 14)

"None of those books have the appearance of being written by the persons whose names they bear, neither do we know who the authors were. They come to us on no other authority than the church of Rome, which the Protestant Priests...call the ***** of Babylon."The Theological Works of Thomas Paine p. IX.

--"Nothing can exceed the credulity of the early fathers, unless it may be their ignorance. They believed everything except the truth.... They revelled in the mishapen and the repulsive. They did not think it wrong to swear falsely in a good cause. They interpolated, forged, and changed the records to suit themselves, for the sake of Christ. They quoted from persons who never wrote. They misrepresented those who had written, and their evidence is absolutely worthless. They were ignorant, credulous, mendacious, fanatical, pious, unreasonable, bigoted, hypocritical" Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 5, p. 273

There is an obvious problem with your theory here. There was no Church of Rome during this period, and the Gospel accounts still existed. Quoting passages from Thomas Paine and Ingersoll is interesting, but hardly make any case for the elaborate "hoax" you've been going on about.