I came across this today and thought I'd put it up for debate here.  Since you guys love all my religious posts. 

I know it's a long read, but trust me, I was glued to it once I started reading what it's author was pointing out as forgeries and deceptions in the The New Testament.  Some of them are simply incredible.

Everyone just do me one favor.  Make sure you actually read the article before you post, PLEASE!  I don't want this to head off in the typical direction that these posts go off on.  You know what I mean, where it becomes Christians vs Atheists and whatever.  That's so non-productive.

The Forged Origins of The New Testament <-- Link to article

Here, I'll give you guys a little snippet just to get you interested in clicking the link to read the whole thing...

-------------------------------------------------------

Just what is Christianity?
The important question then to ask is this: if the New Testament is not historical, what is it?
Dr Tischendorf provided part of the answer when he said in his 15,000 pages of critical notes on the Sinai Bible that "it seems that the personage of Jesus Christ was made narrator for many religions". This explains how narratives from the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata, appear verbatim in the Gospels today (e.g., Matt. 1:25, 2:11, 8:1-4, 9:1-8, 9:18-26), and why passages from the Phenomena of the Greek statesman Aratus of Sicyon (271-213 BC) are in the New Testament.
Extracts from the Hymn to Zeus, written by Greek philosopher Cleanthes (c. 331-232 BC), are also found in the Gospels, as are 207 words from the Thais of Menander (c. 343-291), one of the "seven wise men" of Greece. Quotes from the semi-legendary Greek poet Epimenides (7th or 6th century BC) are applied to the lips of Jesus Christ, and seven passages from the curious Ode of Jupiter (c. 150 BC; author unknown) are reprinted in the New Testament.

http://educate-yourself.org/lte/provinghistoricJesus23mar05.shtml

Thanks ;)

http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/proving_jesus

Originally posted by shcndw

http://educate-yourself.org/lte/provinghistoricJesus23mar05.shtml

 

Thanks ;)

 

http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/proving_jesus

"CONCLUSION - Though the New Testament has many historical errors, ..."

So, does that make it the "word of God" still?  If you want to call it some kind of historical document, then have at it.  I know that some other primary source documents I've read have been from people known to bend and stretch the truth as well.  But, when you base a whole religion around it and call it the inerrant word of God, it changes things considerably.

So, to sum up the main thrust of the article: Christianity (and Jesus) did not exist until Constantine and the council of Nicaea brought together a collection of ancient writings from accross the civilized world and essentially created the New Testament, which included writing the gospels. They invented Jesus Christ from Hesus and Krishna and threw in a bit of Horus and Mithra for good measure, in order to create a religion which would unite the various religious factions in the Roman empire.

The author states that "the Church further admits that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7). That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine" . Note the added [New Testament] - surely if we were talking about the New Testament as a whole, we wouldn't expect to find a complete text preceding the council of Nicaea which is when it was collated? Actually (and this is pretty telling of the author's citations in general) the Catholic Encyclopedia is very clearly referring to the gospel of John in that quotation (seen in this link).

When we look at the dates of the texts we have of other New Testament books, we see that many, if not all, predate Constantine. (Link).

While Constantine did summon the council of Nicaea, the bishops who attended were Christian bishops because, as many historical documents testify, Christianity was already a thriving religion at that point. The aim was to bring some kind of unity to the religion. Constantine's motives in this are certainly debatable. While he did legalise Christianity and stopped the persecutions, whether he totally embraced the religion has been called into question. It would not be unreasonable to make the suggestion that he was attempting to gain some kind of influence over a fast growing religion which Rome had been unable to quash, no matter how many Christians they turned into charcoal or cat-food.

Apparantly, the author of this article, Tom Bushby, also wrote a book "The Bible Fraud" in which he describes a historical Dan Brownesque Jesus (as opposed to Hesus Krishna). There's a critique of this book here.

One last link - a wall of text which hurts my eyes about the credibility of the bible.

Edit: Yay! post 1000 

but do we ever really know anything

philosophy FTW!

I assume that a thorough historic research could grants some information.

Romans executions are bounded to have left some written confirmation in many areas.  Especially an execution of the scope of Jesus with all the ramifications, it can't have happened with no writting behind.

The Romans write a LOT of stuff.  I am pretty sure that in Roma itself, there must be exhaustives lists of all executions in all provinces and much more information.  The appearance of Christianity and all, there must be TONS of written documents.  Egypt must also have some writting and informations concerning all neighboring regions, especially for an execution of that scope.

Finally, the Coran recognizes Jesus as a prophet...

First of all, I think you're deliberately skewing the perception by the title of the thread. I would prefer either the title in quotes or something to show that it's an article and not 100% fact.

The short answer is that there will never be any 100% factual way to prove that the new testament, or the bible, (or most religious doctrine for that matter) are true or false.

That's where Faith comes in.

Edit: Forgot to add, the feeling I get from the article is that it's basically quotes from various sources that are strung together by a signifigant amount of conjecture and what one person thinks may have happened.

As well, Anofalye has a very good point. Jesus does appear in the Qur'an. The islamic faith recognizes Jesus as a prophet (if not to the extent that Christianity does, and they look at Jesus' relationship with God in a different way). For a "faked" figure to have such a far reaching impact on so many is almost mind-boggling.

Originally posted by Blurr

First of all, I think you're deliberately skewing the perception by the title of the thread. I would prefer either the title in quotes or something to show that it's an article and not 100% fact.

The short answer is that there will never be any 100% factual way to prove that the new testament, or the bible, (or most religious doctrine for that matter) are true or false.

That's where Faith comes in.

when it all comes down to it, who cares, just believe what you want and let everyone else worry about themselves

Originally posted by b0rderline99

but do we ever really know anything

philosophy FTW!

Only that wich we create.

Originally posted by gnomexxx

Here, I'll give you guys a little snippet just to get you interested in clicking the link to read the whole thing...

-------------------------------------------------------

Just what is Christianity?
The important question then to ask is this: if the New Testament is not historical, what is it?
Dr Tischendorf provided part of the answer when he said in his 15,000 pages of critical notes on the Sinai Bible that "it seems that the personage of Jesus Christ was made narrator for many religions". This explains how narratives from the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata, appear verbatim in the Gospels today (e.g., Matt. 1:25, 2:11, 8:1-4, 9:1-8, 9:18-26), and why passages from the Phenomena of the Greek statesman Aratus of Sicyon (271-213 BC) are in the New Testament.
Extracts from the Hymn to Zeus, written by Greek philosopher Cleanthes (c. 331-232 BC), are also found in the Gospels, as are 207 words from the Thais of Menander (c. 343-291), one of the "seven wise men" of Greece. Quotes from the semi-legendary Greek poet Epimenides (7th or 6th century BC) are applied to the lips of Jesus Christ, and seven passages from the curious Ode of Jupiter (c. 150 BC; author unknown) are reprinted in the New Testament.

Just a few points I have found relating to these older texts alleged to have been copied to make up part of the New Testament:

Firstly, should these passages be so apparant, why only brief and vague references here? This would be pretty damning evidence and considering the number of websites that can be found making similar claims, why are such supposedly direct comparisons only ever hinted at and not ever spelled out clearly and well referenced for people to see for themselves?

Narratives from the Mahabharata - This is the suggestion that Jesus was largely based on writings about Krishna. I've found no evidence of these texts having the similarities suggested. This site on the subject is well worth a read.

The Phenomena and the Hymn to Zeus refer to the same quote. Both this quote and the Epimenides one are quoted intentionally by Paul in Acts 17. I can find no other link between the NT and these texts.

Thais is a play by Menander which may well have been known to many at the time. There is indeed a biblical reference, but again it's Paul. In 1 Corinthians, Paul writes "Bad company ruins good morals" which is a line from Thais, and would have probably become a common saying of the time, in the same way as some of Shakespeare's writing is proverbial to us today.

Most roman documents, especially if they would be incovenient to the church, were lost during the Dark Ages when the Catholic Church had a monopoly on all things historical,religious, all things written down basically.  Many things were re written or trasnlated by the catholic church hence whatever would be there might not be now.  If a document was found by the Vatican that showed a record of a man named jesus christ killed on the cross and buried in a unmarked ditch along with 50 others guys......do you beleive that would be saved for the future generations ?

Originally posted by Blurr

The short answer is that there will never be any 100% factual way to prove that the new testament, or the bible, (or most religious doctrine for that matter) are true or false.

That's where Faith comes in.

"Placebo Effect"

"The placebo effect occurs when a patient takes an inert substance (“a sugar pill”) in conjunction with the suggestion from an authority figure that the pill will aid in healing and the patient’s condition improves. This effect has been known for years. Generally, one third of a control group taking a placebo shows improvement..."

The "sugar pill" is religion, the "authority figure" is the church.

Originally posted by EggFtegg

 

Originally posted by gnomexxx

Here, I'll give you guys a little snippet just to get you interested in clicking the link to read the whole thing...

-------------------------------------------------------

Just what is Christianity?
The important question then to ask is this: if the New Testament is not historical, what is it?
Dr Tischendorf provided part of the answer when he said in his 15,000 pages of critical notes on the Sinai Bible that "it seems that the personage of Jesus Christ was made narrator for many religions". This explains how narratives from the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata, appear verbatim in the Gospels today (e.g., Matt. 1:25, 2:11, 8:1-4, 9:1-8, 9:18-26), and why passages from the Phenomena of the Greek statesman Aratus of Sicyon (271-213 BC) are in the New Testament.
Extracts from the Hymn to Zeus, written by Greek philosopher Cleanthes (c. 331-232 BC), are also found in the Gospels, as are 207 words from the Thais of Menander (c. 343-291), one of the "seven wise men" of Greece. Quotes from the semi-legendary Greek poet Epimenides (7th or 6th century BC) are applied to the lips of Jesus Christ, and seven passages from the curious Ode of Jupiter (c. 150 BC; author unknown) are reprinted in the New Testament.

Just a few points I have found relating to these older texts alleged to have been copied to make up part of the New Testament:

 

Firstly, should these passages be so apparant, why only brief and vague references here? This would be pretty damning evidence and considering the number of websites that can be found making similar claims, why are such supposedly direct comparisons only ever hinted at and not ever spelled out clearly and well referenced for people to see for themselves?

Narratives from the Mahabharata - This is the suggestion that Jesus was largely based on writings about Krishna. I've found no evidence of these texts having the similarities suggested. This site on the subject is well worth a read.

The Phenomena and the Hymn to Zeus refer to the same quote. Both this quote and the Epimenides one are quoted intentionally by Paul in Acts 17. I can find no other link between the NT and these texts.

Thais is a play by Menander which may well have been known to many at the time. There is indeed a biblical reference, but again it's Paul. In 1 Corinthians, Paul writes "Bad company ruins good morals" which is a line from Thais, and would have probably become a common saying of the time, in the same way as some of Shakespeare's writing is proverbial to us today.

 

However, what if one thing he says is true?  Even one little bit of the article has some validity to it?  If that's the case, then it shatters the whole idea of the Bible and the New Testament being the "word of God".  Right?  Like Gnomexxx said, once you start saying it's the word of God you've opened up a whole new can of worms.

If people would start looking at religious doctrines in a realistic sense, then maybe religions around the world would stop suffering from the insanity that literal readings is causing.  That's where fundamentalism comes in to play and people start doing outrageously wild things.

It's time these texts (all religious texts) start being inspected and viewed for what they really are.  Not seasoned with a blind eye and "faith" to make them more palatable.

Originally posted by War_Eagle

 

Originally posted by Blurr

The short answer is that there will never be any 100% factual way to prove that the new testament, or the bible, (or most religious doctrine for that matter) are true or false.

That's where Faith comes in.

In my short time on this Earth, here's what I've come up with when it comes to faith...

 

"Placebo Effect"

"The placebo effect occurs when a patient takes an inert substance (“a sugar pill”) in conjunction with the suggestion from an authority figure that the pill will aid in healing and the patient’s condition improves. This effect has been known for years. Generally, one third of a control group taking a placebo shows improvement..."

The "sugar pill" is religion, the "authority figure" is the church.

You disagree with the church and you want proof ? Blasphemy !@!

Faith needs something to stand on other than childhood brainwashing through rituals and repetition.  I can have faith in another person, if I trust him etc.  That person exists and I have reason to have faith in him doing right by me. That's faith.

Religious Faith is another word for Blind Obedience.  Because the bible says so is no excuse to do anything. 

Originally posted by War_Eagle I agree, a lot of it seems like conjecture and stretching.

 

However, what if one thing he says is true?  Even one little bit of the article has some validity to it?  If that's the case, then it shatters the whole idea of the Bible and the New Testament being the "word of God".  Right?  Like Gnomexxx said, once you start saying it's the word of God you've opened up a whole new can of worms.

If people would start looking at religious doctrines in a realistic sense, then maybe religions around the world would stop suffering from the insanity that literal readings is causing.  That's where fundamentalism comes in to play and people start doing outrageously wild things.

It's time these texts (all religious texts) start being inspected and viewed for what they really are.  Not seasoned with a blind eye and "faith" to make them more palatable.

I tend to think that those who see the bible (or other religious texts) as a perfect work and God speaking to us directly are either likely to become disillusioned or perform circus contortionist acts of reason to explain discrepancies and apparent contradictions (which often make sense when the historical context of the texts is studied).

In my opinion, and from reading the bible, it appears that the Christian religion wasn't ever supposed to be solely based on a book. It's a relationship, not some test in studying a book to work out the rules so that you can try to follow them and judge those that don't.

If people see the bible as God's ultimate and complete message to man, it's no wonder many would want little to do with such a confusing being who clearly suffers from all man's foibles.

 Yah imagine if someone got a misprint "Thou shall not spill"

                                    "Religion is the opium of the masses"

We cannot prove that there is no God (and the religious people can't show the opposite) so we cannot deny that it's possible. However, what we do know is that there is no Abrahamic God, there is no Aztec God and so on. How can we know that you might ask? We know it because Humans evolved from another species, and no religion say that "Once upon a time Humans evolved from........", instead the religions either involve clay or something else which is absolut bullshit when they talk about the creation of men

P.S. Sorry for my crappy english + grammatics.
P.P.S. "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"
P.P.P.S. Americans, Cthulhu for president 2008. Why would anyone vote for a lesser evil?

Originally posted by Airspell

 Yah imagine if someone got a misprint "Thou shall not spill"

Well even "Thou shalt not kill" is actually a slightly misleading translation (kill what?  What if your country is at war? Does it include ants and should we watch where we tread for fear of hell?). Modern bibles use the word "murder" which is believed to be much closer to the original meaning.

 Heh I think kill makes sense, it is as broad enough as possible for the religious leaders to interpret it any way they like.  That is the point of religion.

Originally posted by Aragoni

                                    "Religion is the opium of the masses"

We cannot prove that there is no God (and the religious people can't show the opposite) so we cannot deny that it's possible. However, what we do know is that there is no Abrahamic God, there is no Aztec God and so on. How can we know that you might ask? We know it because Humans evolved from another species, and no religion say that "Once upon a time Humans evolved from........", instead the religions either involve clay or something else which is absolut bullshit when they talk about the creation of men

P.S. Sorry for my crappy english + grammatics.
P.P.S. "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"
P.P.P.S. Americans, Cthulhu for president 2008. Why would anyone vote for a lesser evil?

I don't follow your logic. You're dismissing certain gods because those who believed in them millenia ago, did not have the benefits of modern science and had a different understanding of how we came to be?