I didn't say there was a fabrication. I'm saying there was a war between sects on what the truth was and that one group won out and became the Catholic church. It was the battle for orthodoxy. There are many books written on it, the one I read for a Survey of Church History (at a Catholic college no doubt) was Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew by Bart Ehrman, who is an American New Testament scholar, and currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

But each group had their own interests and politics was what lead to some books being included and some books not.

This post was edited by Skinned on May 14 2013 01:18pm

...right so you're talking about the Catholic church fiasco with Constatine? That's far from 1st century authorship.

You'd have to prove that the Gospels originated from the 4th century or you have no case.

No, I'm not talking about that I'm talking about the apostles going separate directions after Jesus's death and starting their own churches, and then those churches battling amongst themselves until most were run into extinction and the survivors picking which of the Gospels became canon.

There are reasons the Gospel of Mary didn't make it in, or Gospel of Thomas. Also there were forgeries which complicated matters.

Most people haven't the slightest idea what happened and nobody knows for sure. But like all historical developments social conflict was at its root.

The sole reason why the gospel of mary or thomas isn't historical is because they are forgeries. No other reason.

Do you have any scriptural support for the battling of these churches? Or is it all contemporary theories?

you know whats interesting? When the majority of academia agrees upon things religious people use as evidence. When it doesn't, it's accused of dismissing "facts".

It was prior to the bible. Study it for yourself instead of keeping your fingers in your ears. Start with the book I linked from one of the preeminent Christian theologians practicing.

There is history behind it. There are political reasons some were forgeries and some weren't, and it wasn't necessarily based on authenticity. The word forgery was kind of an ad hominem then to begin with.

Right I'm sure every historian out there is covering their ears to make sure they don't know about this bias New Testament compilation you are talking about.

How about considering the fact that most scholars know that the final form of the bible is indeed authentic for its time?

Explain how Roman bias gets into scripture before 4th century? Explain how the Gospel we have now is indeed authentic for its time, yet describes Pilate the way that it does? You will have to prove that Jewish-Roman bias existed during 1st century.

You keep saying most historians and most scholars but you haven't named a single one...I'm naming a specific theologian and talking about specific things...that the discoveries at Nag Hammadi and in the Dead Sea give classical evidence substantiating...

You're just offering appeals to authority in the most vague way possible. You haven't even read anything I typed.

Michael Grant is a well known secular historian that said the New Testament scriptures are indeed authentic for its time. So authentic that to doubt its historicity should basically put doubt what any other ancient scripture has to say on anything.

How about NT Wright, the Bishop of Durham. He's written so many books on the NT that he's basically founded the girds of NT authenticity and interpretation.

I can name others, Michael Licona, James Vanderkam, etc etc. dude there are seriously a wide spectrum of scholars who believe the New Testament is authentic for its time. A very very very small handful of scholars actually think otherwise, so small that I would even say they do so for the sake of conspiracy or $$$.

/e I'm not gonna read anything from Bart Erhman. If you watch his debate with D'souza on theodicy you will see why.

This post was edited by dajusta on May 14 2013 02:26pm

The Gospel of Thomas is not a forgery. I suggest you read The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus. It clearly shows in very scholarly terms that the Gospel of Thomas is the oldest gospel there is, its sayings being far more primitive, less embellished, and interpreted than Mark itself. The Gospel of Thomas is the most authentic text on Jesus' sayings that there is. I've read the counters to this notion, the people who say 'well, it just copies off of Matthew, Luke, and Mark; however, they are wrong. That book proves that they are not copies from the older gospels, and in fact shows that it perfectly reflects the way Jesus preached and especially the way he lived by being a wanderer and teacher to various towns he visited while passing through.