The Forged Origins of The New Testament
- Thread starter Cliffy
- Start date
I needed support from a mentally disturbed character on a tv show? lolUmm, ya, well.
I always find it amazing in that the bulk of the Threads started in the
subforum of "Christian Discussion" are started by Atheists....and the
ones that aren't are soon filled with posts by Atheists who quickly
appear for reasons that are beyond me. :-?
subforum of "Christian Discussion" are started by Atheists....and the
ones that aren't are soon filled with posts by Atheists who quickly
appear for reasons that are beyond me. :-?
lol So you are saying I post boring things?Of course not. He just sums it up so well.
lol Well, in what other forum would you have had Cliffy post his OP in?
It's called "obsession", Ron.
A priest gave me that answer. Ironically, it was the same one that comes up whenever they are stumped and "screw you" isn't the politically correct thing to do:
"It is a mystery"
lol Well, in what other forum would you have had Cliffy post his OP in?
It's called "obsession", Ron.
No. We're just so happy we're not bound by it that we can't help ourselves.
Religion tends to have a manifest destiny mentality. Whether it is proselytizing or Jihad, the free thinkers of this planet (read atheists) need to protect themselves lest the thought police become as strong as they were in the dark ages.
Besides religion is just a convention by which a group of people agree to believe in a creator. Atheists are the people that know, by the obvious fact we are here, that we were created, but no one really knows if we were created in the image of god or if he is a giant single celled slug from the 11th demension.
... or if just the right components for life happened to be in the same place, at the same time, and under the right conditions to generate life.
Rather than let it get out in public I will PM you the following information. It could be they are 'well searching for something that will make them do a 180 on how they feel towards God at the present time'.
I just love it when the very first opinion has some historical errors in it, especially when presented by somebody who holds those same history books in high regard. Add in the venom and the .... well lets stick to the 'false facts' presented so far.
You have your source and I have mine. Mine is from the collective mouths of the ones who were the translators of the 1611 KJV edition. (that preface is available on many sites)They address these two points in their pre-face, parts of which you now get to read , most likely for the very first time, that says you are mistaken. The RCC was very much opposed to them using onlt two transcripts. The original Hebrew for the OT and Greek for NT.
"Many men's mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of Translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment: Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, here silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime? (Lacte gypsum male miscetur, saith S. Ireney,) [S. Iren. 3. lib. cap. 19.] We hoped that we had been in the right way, that we had the Oracles of God delivered unto us, and that though all the world had cause to be offended and to complain, yet that we had none. Hath the nurse holden out the breast, and nothing but wind in it? Hath the bread been delivered by the fathers of the Church, and the same proved to be lapidosus, as Seneca speaketh? What is it to handle the word of God deceitfully, if this be not? Thus certain brethren. Also the adversaries of Judah and Jerusalem, like Sanballat in Nehemiah, mock, as we hear, both the work and the workmen, saying; "What do these weak Jews, etc. will they make the stones whole again out of the heaps of dust which are burnt? although they build, yet if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stony wall." [Neh 4:3] Was their Translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people? Yea, why did the Catholics (meaning Popish Romanists) always go in jeopardy, for refusing to go to hear it? Nay, if it must be translated into English, Catholics are fittest to do it. They have learning, and they know when a thing is well, they can manum de tabula. We will answer them both briefly: and the former, being brethren, thus, with S. Jerome, "Damnamus veteres? Mineme, sed post priorum studia in domo Domini quod possums laboramus." [S. Jerome. Apolog. advers. Ruffin.] That is, "Do we condemn the ancient? In no case: but after the endeavors of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God." As if he said, Being provoked by the example of the learned men that lived before my time, I have thought it my duty, to assay whether my talent in the knowledge of the tongues, may be profitable in any measure to God's Church, lest I should seem to laboured in them in vain, and lest I should be thought to glory in men, (although ancient,) above that which was in them. Thus S. Jerome may be thought to speak."
"If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive branches empty themselves into the gold. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or original tongues; [S. August. 3. de doctr. c. 3. etc.] "
I find it interesting that anyone who challenges the authenticity of the bible is called an atheist. I may not believe in the authenticity because it can be proven to be false. That does not preclude me or anyone else who challenges the authenticity from believing in a creator. Hindus, Buddhists, Janes, Shintos all believe in a creator. Native Amerindians all believed in a creator. None of them believe in the God of the Torah, Bible or Quran. Until it was force fed the natives of the Americas, none had even heard of him, yet they had their own beliefs.
As many on here see, it is the religious fanatics who are dangerous. They use their god to attack others and sometimes kill them. It is the fundamentalists who threaten the freedom of expression that bring non-believers to threads about religion because many feel threatened by the very existence of fanatics and fundamentalist. If we are to be free, sometime countering the proselytizing is an act of self defense.
As many on here see, it is the religious fanatics who are dangerous. They use their god to attack others and sometimes kill them. It is the fundamentalists who threaten the freedom of expression that bring non-believers to threads about religion because many feel threatened by the very existence of fanatics and fundamentalist. If we are to be free, sometime countering the proselytizing is an act of self defense.
The zionists had their hand in the NT also? Wow, they've got their mitts in everything, don't they.:roll::lol::lol: