Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

freefromrats · Sep 05, 2009

Awhile ago on another forum, shafique claimed that Edward Gibbon had shown through primary sources (contemporary historians) that the New Testament's historical accounts were inaccurate.

I did a little research (spent two minutes on google) and I came across a quote from Gibbon discussing his skepticism on the eclipse that was said to have taken place at Jesus' crucifixion. Gibbon implied that since no Roman historian recorded the events, the historicity of the solar eclipse that was said to have taken place in some of the Gospels is doubtful.

While I agree with shafique that this would show that at least one part of the Synoptic gospels are possibly ahistorical, I was under the impression from shafique's posts that Gibbon (a historian whose name shafique seems to drop very often) had shown through primary sources that many other historical accounts of the New Testament are suspect.

If this is true, then I ask for shafique to provide these quotes from Gibbon and I can look up these quotes from the writers themselves.

shafique · Sep 06, 2009

Fair enough - the references are quite easy to find - I suspect had you spent another minute on Google you would have found them.

Why don't you start with Chapters XV and XVI of his 'History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' - which deal with early Christian History.

And then read his follow up:

' A Vindication of Some Passages in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth chapters of the History Of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Both available on-line.

I brought up Gibbon as the first to challenge the Church's view of the history of Pauline Christianity and the view that the NT was historically accurate.

I see that at least you agree that the NT is not gospel and that some parts are fabrications (or as you diplomatically put it 'ahistorical') - but then again, you could hardly admit to another belief as you kindly provided me with quotes from experts who showed that parts of the NT were written by incompetent forgers (eg the passage where Paul says women should not speak in Church is not explained as metaphorical, but as the work of a forger).

Given that you agree with me that some parts of the Bible (the NT, as well as OT) should be ignored as historically inaccurate or forgeries, then the fact that Gibbon also challenged the Church's official view of Christian history is moot. But hey, I know if I didn't give you the refs you would moan - so let me know when you've read through the three refs and then let's discuss.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Sep 06, 2009

As it is Ramadhan, I am feeling a little charitable.

rats will confirm that Gibbon as a reference came up in our discussions on Pauline Christianity and the Muslim view that this corrupted Jesus' actual message. One of the differences between Pauline and Jewish Christians was on the divinity of Jesus.

Gibbon tackles this point head on and states in the Chapters above that the NT was forged by the Church to support their view of Pauline Christianity.

He says in the chapters above that John 5.7 is a fabrication.

Here's an explanation from the web:

1 John 5:7-8 is a corrupted verse?
I John 5:7-8 (KJV)
"For there are three [that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that witness on earth], the Spirit, the Water and the Blood and these three agree in one."
(The words in [] are the corruption)

This is often cited by Trinitarians attempting to prove their Trinity as Biblical supported. The fact is though, this is a grossly corrupted verse.

Here is the verse before the corruption:

I John 5:7-8
"For there are three, the Spirit, the Water and the Blood and these three agree in one."

Edward Gibbon(1737-1794) in his most famous work The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1788), pointed out that the church fathers defeated heretics by forged testimonies. These fathers went so far as to alter the text of the Holy Scripture itself. He pointed out one passage in particular:(which can still be seen today in the King James Version)

This passage, known as the Johanine Comma, had long been used by Christians to prove the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity. Gibbon pointed out that this text (the italicized portion above) was never quoted by the earliest church fathers, nor does it appear in any Greek manuscript earlier than the fifteenth century. And even among these late manuscripts, there are only three that have this addition. In fact the earliest appearance was in Latin manuscripts around 400 CE and its earliest quotation was from the western theologian Priscillian (late 4th century CE). In short it was a later dishonest insertion into the Bible.

Gibbon claimed that Erasmus knew the passage was false but kept it out of prudence and that both the Catholic and Protestant Churches stuck to the spurious text out of "honest bigotry". In other words, the churches were trying to defend the doctrine of the Trinity by fraudulent means.

So why then did Christians continue to accept it although it was obviously false?

I'm sure if rats downloads history of decline and fall and does a search for the above reference, he will have his answer.

Therefore, rats asked for the reference to show that the NT accounts are not accurate - according to the historian Gibbon, I think the above seals the deal.

QED

Cheers,
Shafique

freefromrats · Sep 06, 2009

Why don't you start with Chapters XV and XVI of his 'History of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire' - which deal with early Christian History.

Great, since I've asked you for the alleged New Testament historical inaccuracies from Gibbon's work, I'll let you provide the quotes.

I brought up Gibbon as the first to challenge the Church's view of the history of Pauline Christianity and the view that the NT was historically accurate.

I agree - you said this (although you never mentioned Paul). But since you now acknowledge that Gibbon challenged the historical accuracy of the New Testament, I don't have to worry over quibbling with you on what I'm asking - although I suspect you'll begin to move the goal posts from alleged historical inaccuracies in the New Testament to well known insertions.

(eg the passage where Paul says women should not speak in Church is not explained as metaphorical, but as the work of a forger).

Oh yes, I remember that thread. That was the thread where you tried to argue that women, according to the New Testament, should not speak in Church, etc,. Then I pointed out to you the *numerous* passages showing that Paul commissioned female deacons and evangelists and women were named by both Paul and Luke as apostles and disciples. I guess those Ahmadiyya missionary websites you glean talking points off of somehow forgot to mention those passages.

:wink:

Given that you agree with me that some parts of the Bible (the NT, as well as OT) should be ignored as historically inaccurate or forgeries

I said this where?

rats will confirm that Gibbon as a reference came up in our discussions on Pauline Christianity and the Muslim view that this corrupted Jesus' actual message.

Still waiting for that passage on the Trinity from Paul's epistles.

Oh and thank you for that quote. Unsurprisingly, it does not address my question from the OP - which NT passages are historically inaccurate based on the contemporary sources written at the time outside of the NT?

I feel that this will be a long thread. Not as long as the thread where you literally back-pedaled and changed your argument on early Christianity - initially and repeatedly saying that Paul was the first to preach to Gentiles and this was the conflict between him and some of the early Jewish Christians, to saying that the controversy was over which laws Gentiles were to follow (something that I had to repeat over and over to you).

But hey, if Flying Dutchman is still around and he happened to read the thread before it was deleted, he can confirm it here.

shafique · Sep 06, 2009

You start a thread asking for a reference from Gibbon to show that the Bible is not a trustworthy source of historical information because it contains forged verses - asked and answered.

I've even given you one verse in question from the NT which Gibbon showed was a fabrication - a fact that was disputed then, but is now accepted by most now (except for some who believe that the Canonised Bible is infallible).

As for the other issues - if you want to re-hash these in other threads, happy to show where you are wrong there as well.

Pauline Christian officials inserted fabrications into the Bible to strengthen their arguments in support of Trinity and other Pauline Christian beliefs.

Shown by Gibbon, accepted by scholars and most modern translations - and ignored (thus far) by rats/ikka.

Perhaps you disagree with Gibbon that the portion quoted in my second post was a fabrication? (Or did you not read my charitable donation to you.. it would not be the first time you get the wrong end of the stick!)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Sep 06, 2009

Just because I'm feeling particularly charitable, here is a quote from a Christian web site which deals with the 'textual problems' of the NT:

..
Letting the public in on scholarly secrets about the text of the Bible is not new. Edward Gibbon, in his six-volume bestseller, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, noted that the Comma Johanneum, or Trinitarian formula of 1 John 5.7–8, was not authentic.

This scandalized the British public of the eighteenth century, for their only Bible was the Authorized Version, which contained the formula. “Others had done [this] before him, but only in academic and learned circles. Gibbon did so before the general public, in language designed to offend.”33 Yet by the time the Revised Version appeared in 1885, no trace of the Comma was to be found in it. Today the text is not printed in modern translations, and it hardly raises an eyebrow.

Ehrman has followed in Gibbon’s train by exposing the public to the inauthenticity of Mark 16.9-20 and John 7.53-8.11. The problem here, though, is a bit different. Strong emotional baggage is especially attached to the latter text. For years, it was my favorite passage that was not in the Bible. I would even preach on it as true historical narrative, even after I rejected its literary/canonical authenticity. And we all know of preachers who can’t quite give it up, even though they, too, have doubts about it. But there are two problems with this approach. First, in terms of popularity between these two texts, John 8 is the overwhelming favorite, yet its external credentials are significantly worse than Mark 16’s. The same preacher who declares the Markan passage to be inauthentic extols the virtues of John 8. This inconsistency is appalling. Something is amiss in our theological seminaries when one’s feelings are allowed to be the arbiter of textual problems. Second, the pericope adulterae is most likely not even historically true. It was probably a story conflated from two different accounts. Thus, the excuse that one can proclaim it because the story really happened is apparently not valid.

http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart

It is actually a fascinating read - about how Christian faith can be reconciled with the fact that the Bible is not to be trusted as a historical document.

The exact reference he gives for Gibbon is (note 32):
Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edition DeLuxe, six volumes (Philadelphia: John D. Morris, [1900]) 3.703–5. (So that is volume 3 page 703-5)

Cheers,
Shafique

freefromrats · Sep 06, 2009

As for the other issues - if you want to re-hash these in other threads, happy to show where you are wrong there as well.

lol. Strange that you want to keep a thread on topic. But you're more than welcome to answer my questions on this thread if you like.

Shown by Gibbon, accepted by scholars and most modern translations - and ignored (thus far) by rats/ikka.

Well, the OP was asking which writers alive during the events of the New Testament wrote about Christianity and had shown that their writings were different/conflicted with the New Testament accounts.

I recall mentioning to you that most of the non-Christian historians who wrote about Christianity were not yet alive - Josephus being the most obvious example. You doubted my claims (perhaps you're not aware of Josephus?), so I was wondering which historians you could possibly be referring to.

I'm not sure why my question in the OP is presenting such a challenge for you.

In any event, your response seems to confirm my original assertion. I, of course, take many New Testament passages as being as historically accurate as I take many passages in the Koran.

shafique · Sep 06, 2009

You asked for the reference from Gibbon - it has been provided.

It shows that what is in the Bible is not historically accurate as it contains fabrications - especially on the point Gibbon pointed out regarding the Pauline Christian doctrine of Trinity.

I presume you are now satisfied that Gibbon did indeed show this was the case and that credible historians now unanimously agree that this is the case - to the point where modern translations of the Bible don't include the fabricated bit inserted into 1 John 5.7

You cited other examples of fabricated verses attributed to Paul (eg women not talking in church) - so at the end of the day we have to choose carefully which parts of the Bible are Gospel and which aren't.

The fact that Pauline Christian officials inserted supporting verses into the Bible (in support of their view of Divinity of Jesus) shows that on the topics that they disagreed with Jewish Christians, the Canonised Bible cannot be trusted to be a true and unbiased account (how can it be, when those choosing to canonise texts were of one school of thought?)

Anyway - happy to answer any other related questions you may have on Gibbon, otherwise I look forward to your next thread.

Perhaps you'll ask me to prove that the Pope is Catholic next?

Cheers,
Shafique

freefromrats · Sep 06, 2009

You asked for the reference from Gibbon - it has been provided.

Yawn.

I actually asked for where Gibbon provides

primary sources (contemporary historians) that the New Testament's historical accounts were inaccurate.

As I said, this will appear to be a(nother pointlessly) lengthy thread. I'm guessing it will take at least another four pages for you to address my question.

Although it appears that you are now backing away from your previous claim that Paul 'corrupted' Christianity by inventing the concept of the Trinity - instead saying that "Pauline church officials" 'inserted' verses in the New Testament, although this is all off topic to what I am asking for.

To be fair to you, this seems like a big improvement over your previous claim that Paul 'persuaded' Peter to convert Cornelius in Acts 10, even though Paul isn't even mentioned in Acts 10. :thumbright:

shafique · Sep 07, 2009

I've always maintained that the primary sources used by the Jewish Christians (for example) weren't corrupt - Gibbon was brought into the debate when I mentioned the fact that historians no longer consider the Bible as a reliable source of historical records - because of the fabrications inserted by Pauline Christians to support their theology. I said that Gibbon went back to primary sources to show that the Bible had been corrupted.

You asked for the reference for this - QED. Primary sources showed Pauline Christians inserted text to support Trinity into the Bible and this was accepted as fact, until historians corrected this view. It is noteworthy that Isaac Newton and others all weighed into this long debate and it took some time for the Church to face the facts and erase these forged verses in some translations.

I presume you are just in the same state of denial?

In the other thread, you were quoting the Bible/NT to me in support of Pauline Christian view of Christian history.

It seems we all now agree that some parts of the Bible (and specifically the NT) are forged, so the question now becomes which parts of the Bible do we consider original.

I agree with your experts who view the lesser commission (Jesus says his mission is only to the House of Israel) is true, and agree that the 'Great Commission' (where Jesus apparently changes his mission) to be a forgery.

Gibbon showed that Pauline Christians inserted fabricated text to support their view of Trinity. The Christian scholars turned on him and argued the Bible was not corrupted - but that was then, and now even the Church acknowledges that Gibbon was right on that point.

Let me know if there is anything else you'd like me to correct/clarify for you.

Cheers,
Shafique

freefromrats · Sep 07, 2009

I agree with your experts who view the lesser commission (Jesus says his mission is only to the House of Israel) is true

My experts? Which ones were they again? I remember you posting a link that included the views of the Jesus Seminar, but that was your link, not mine.

And if I recall, the same sorts of scholars who believe the Great Commission is a forgery also believe the lesser commission is a forgery too, unless, of course, you have in mind 'experts' that you had linked to before.

Gibbon showed that Pauline Christians inserted fabricated text to support their view of Trinity.

Strange obsession you have with Gibbon. Your own quote says that knowledge of these insertions was already known before Gibbon, he was simply the first to make it known to the public at large 'in a language designed to offend.'

Anyways, still waiting for those passages on supporting the Trinity from Paul's epistles. Shouldn't be too hard to do if you've actually read what Paul wrote in the New Testament, right? I mean, you have read Paul's letters since you seem to write so much on Pauline Christianity?

(Hopefully you've read Paul's letters with more attention for detail than you've read Acts or the Gospels, but that's another story altogether)

Primary sources showed Pauline Christians

Again with 'Pauline' Christianity. It doesn't sound like you've actually studied Paul one bit. Hopefully you have and you aren't simply regurgitating what one can find on missionary websites.

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/bi ... ter_8.html

Anywho, I'll wait for your 'scholarly' findings on what the church fathers wrote about the different groups of Jewish Christians - including the Jewish Christians who accepted Paul as a prophet, etc. It should be interesting since I remember your claim that "all" the historical accounts of the Jewish Christians opposed Paul. Then, perhaps you can tackle the thorny issue of apostolic succession and the Apostolic fathers of the early Church who were direct apostles to John and Peter.

Eh, who am I kidding? I know this will be another five page thread of obfuscation.

shafique · Sep 07, 2009

Umm - I mentioned Gibbon in passing when you tried to make out that the Bible was a historical document - hardly an 'obsession' with Gibbon!

I didn't start this thread, but answered your question about wanting a reference to show that Gibbon challenged the view that the Bible was historically accurate when he showed it contained fabrications inserted by Pauline Christians in support of their view of Trinity.

Now it appears you wish to move to another topic - does that mean you are now happy with the original request for the reference from Gibbon?

We seem to agree now that the Bible contains forged verses and therefore our differences merely stem from which verses we choose to believe (eg. I believe Jesus' words regarding the lesser commission weren't abrogated).

But let me spell it out s l o w l y for you:

a. Gibbon showed using primary sources that the Bible contains forged verses.

b. Forged verses were propaganda in support of Pauline Christian views of Trinity (in the example he chose)

c. Ergo - Bible is not a reliable source of information concerning differences between Pauline and Jewish Christianity.

You specifically asked in the opening thread where Gibbon used primary sources to show the Bible is not historically accurate - he showed, using primary sources, that Pauline Christians inserted forged verses - QED.

Let me know if anything else is still confusing you regarding this thread's topic?

Cheers,
Shafique

freefromrats · Sep 08, 2009

Well, actually I think what I was asking for was pretty clear. It was amusing for you to post a bunch of irrelevant information in this thread, but I guess this is what I should come to expect.

Anyways, I may have missed your answer to my question, but have you read Paul's letters in the New Testament? I think I know the answer to that, but I'll let you confirm whether you have or haven't before I draw any conclusions.

shafique · Sep 08, 2009

freefromrats wrote:Well, actually I think what I was asking for was pretty clear.

Yes. You asked for a reference from Gibbon to show why the Bible can't be trusted as a historical record.

Gibbon showed that according to primary sources, Pauline Christians inserted forged verses into the Bible to support their theological views (vs those of Jewish Christians).

Can't see what's irrelevant with quoting Gibbon as requested.

That said, it appears that we are in agreement that Gibbon was right and that the Bible contains forged verses and therefore is not an impartial historical document when looking at the differences between Pauline and Jewish Christians.

Thanks for starting the thread so we now have Gibbon's reference available and our agreement about forged verses in the Bible available for future reference.

As I said, if you have any other queries about Gibbon - I'll be happy to provide some clarity (and I hope you now realise that had you spent more than 2 mins researching the topic, you would have found the answers yourself).

As for Paul's letters- please inform me what this has to do with a reference from Gibbon? Perhaps you wanted to start a new thread and forgot what this thread was about - which is a bit strange, given the fact it is your thread. (And yes, I have read Paul's writings - but as you showed, what is attributed to Paul could be a forgery -as the verses relating to women in speaking in churches is according to your experts - and as we have seen, given the forgeries attributed to Jesus - this is indeed a valid concern)

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 08, 2009

Yes. You asked for a reference from Gibbon to show why the Bible can't be trusted as a historical record.

Actually, I asked for primary sources from historians/authors alive at the time the events of the New Testament were said to have taken place.

I see my simple request was too difficult for you to understand, but bravo for going off topic.

And yes, I have read Paul's writings

Perhaps I should have phrased my question to ask if you've read *all* or a majority of Paul's letters, rather than a few snippets you've read on missionary websites?

But since you've claimed to have read Paul's letters, can you find that reference to the Trinity you say Paul wrote about?

shafique · Sep 08, 2009

event horizon wrote:
Yes. You asked for a reference from Gibbon to show why the Bible can't be trusted as a historical record.

Actually, I asked for primary sources from historians/authors alive at the time the events of the New Testament were said to have taken place.

I see my simple request was too difficult for you to understand, but bravo for going off topic.

eh - really, must you change the goal posts so often?

What you said, verbatim was:

freefromrats wrote:Awhile ago on another forum, shafique claimed that Edward Gibbon had shown through primary sources (contemporary historians) that the New Testament's historical accounts were inaccurate.

.. [Something about Gibbon and eclipses..]

While I agree with shafique that this would show that at least one part of the Synoptic gospels are possibly ahistorical, I was under the impression from shafique's posts that Gibbon (a historian whose name shafique seems to drop very often) had shown through primary sources that many other historical accounts of the New Testament are suspect.

If this is true, then I ask for shafique to provide these quotes from Gibbon and I can look up these quotes from the writers themselves.

You asked for a quote, I provided one. It showed that Gibbon proved from primary sources that the Bible had forged verses inserted to support the Pauline Christian view of Trinity - therefore the Bible is not an unbiased source (or historical document) when comparing the beliefs of Pauline vs Jewish Christians.

Gibbon did this by looking at primary sources and then comparing it with the Bible and the Church's official view of history. Then the Church disputed Gibbon's findings - now pretty much all agree that the Bible does contain forged verses.

You asked for a reference (see last part of quote above), this has been provided. The reference refers to a comparison of what the canonised Bible says happened (in this case what Jesus said about his divinity/trinity) vs what primary sources record.

eh - if you have more questions about Gibbon, let me know. Otherwise happy to discuss Paul's letters etc in another thread.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 09, 2009

Well, I thought my question was pretty straight forward. Please tell me which words confuse you so I won't use them again in the future.

Edward Gibbon had shown through primary sources (contemporary historians) that the New Testament's historical accounts were inaccurate.

which NT passages are historically inaccurate based on the contemporary sources written at the time outside of the NT?

Well, the OP was asking which writers alive during the events of the New Testament wrote about Christianity and had shown that their writings were different/conflicted with the New Testament accounts.

shafique · Sep 09, 2009

Gibbon showed through primary sources that the NT had been corrupted with false verses. Can't get clearer than that (and you don't seem to dispute this fact).

Do you have a different definition of 'primary sources' than historians?

You may be confusing the fact that the canonised Bible is not a primary source of the NT, but contains forged verses.

Of course, the unforged words of Jesus etc are ok - and are what the Jewish Christians, Arians etc followed.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 09, 2009

I see, asking for which 'contemporary historians [to the ] New Testament must have thrown you off as to what I was asking for. In the future, I hope to avoid using anymore words that may confuse you. Additionally, I think it would be beneficial if a 'crayon' function were added so a poster could 'type' their messages in crayon making it easier for other members to read them..?

I also see in your confusion and your fasting that you've repeated the discredited claim that the Ebionite version of Matthew was vastly different from the orthodox copy. To be fair, it was. The Ebionites rejected the story of the virgin birth of Jesus and so Church historians who had copies of the Ebionite Matthew wrote that the first two chapters of Matthew were missing/cut out from the Ebionite version.

It's interesting to find out that you agree with the Ebionites that the virgin birth of Jesus is a fabrication and reject Orthodox Christian and Muslim views that Jesus was born of a virgin. Are there any other non-mainstream views you also hold - such as Jesus not ascending to heaven and traveling to India instead?

shafique · Sep 09, 2009

I appreciate your offer to not use phrases that may confuse me.

So - given we agree that the canonised Bible (New Testament/NT) contains fabricated verses not in primary sources (as shown by Gibbon and countless others since), I really can't see what more there is to say in this thread which you titled, and asked about a reference from Gibbon.

As I've said, ad nauseum, the only difference between us is in the choice of which particular parts of the Bible we maintain are fabrications and which we maintain are pristine.

As Gibbon showed, Pauline Christians inserted pro-Trinity verses into the Bible and these were taken as historically accurate - until historians pointed out that they were fabrications.

Are you fasting as well? You seem to be seeing things that are not there - I haven't mentioned Matthew or Ebionites here, I've just answered your query about a reference from Gibbon - and re-emphasised that we all now agree that the canonised NT contains fabricated verse. I thank you.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Sep 10, 2009

I really can't see what more there is to say in this thread which you titled, and asked about a reference from Gibbon.

Hmmm, I think I see where the problem lies.

You must not have understood the word 'contemporary' when I asked for contemporary sources [to the] New Testament.

Here are the definitions of 'contemporary' from an online dictionary:

con⋅tem⋅po⋅rar⋅y
/kənˈtɛmpəˌrɛri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-tem-puh-rer-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -rar⋅ies.

–adjective
1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time: Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz.
2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand.
3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel.
–noun
4. a person belonging to the same time or period with another or others.
5. a person of the same age as another.

So, when I asked for those quotes from Gibbon, I probably should have said "sources belonging to the same time or period as the events in the New Testament' instead of asking for contemporary sources to the events in the New Testament.

I can see how that can be confusing to someone who does not take the time to read someone's post or has some pathological tendency to 'twist' the meaning to someone's posts, etc,.

shafique · Sep 10, 2009

Ok - I'll bite.

In the reference I gave, Gibbon did not need to refer to any authors of documents other than the NT documents to show that the canonised Bible (NT) contained forged verses that were inserted by Pauline Christians. He didn't need to - as he was showing that later authors (forgers) added verses to a prior document.

The point I've been making all along is that the Bible is not a reliable source of history when it comes to the theological differences between Pauline Christians and Jewish Christians - because the Pauline Christians won the debate and edited the Bible (choosing which books to include in the Bible, as well as tinkering with the text).

Gibbon showed that PRIMARY SOURCES (a phrase you should look up), showed that the NT that was canonised was not pristine, but contained forged verses.

Now - Gibbon DOES also go into the fact that there were many other Gospels that were rejected when the Bible was compiled by the various Councils (Trent, IIRC) - and therein is your reference to 'contemporary authors' - HOWEVER, that is moot - as the reference I showed showed that within the canonised Bible there are forged verses.

The fact you agree with this last point makes all the other arguments seem like you just want to obscure this central point - that the Bible has been tampered with and can't be trusted as a complete and accurate record.

Cheers,
Shafique

ignostic morgan · Oct 29, 2009

Shafique, thanks for the Gibbon remarks. And Christian scholars themselves remind us that the Tanakh and the Testament both have faults. Bart Ehrman in "Misquoting Jesus"show how the oral traditions was like the telephone game- distortions and the same with the transcribed passages.
Theologian John Hick reveals how Issa never claimed to be God-incarnate but is still Lord and Savior.
I also like what Kueng states about the contradiction in that it shows that Christians could lie as Eusebius told them to as I remember.
We ignostics find that the Trinity makes for no meaning [ We find God's attributes as incoherent and contradictory to each other, And the Trinity affirms that for Yahweh.]
And Christians did indeed distort those passages from the Tanakh, which indeed did not concern Issa.
Now, why should we others think that the Qu'ran states what happened to Issa is right?

shafique · Oct 29, 2009

Firstly, welcome.

To the best of my knowledge, you are the first ignostic I have come across - so double welcome!

Thanks for the other references - I agree that there is no shortage of scholarly reviews and conclusions about the distortions in the Bible. This thread was started by 'freefromrats', who now goes by 'eh' (event horizon) who challenged me to justify what I thought was a well-known fact - viz. that historians had long abandoned the notion that the Bible was free from man-made fabricated verses whose intent was to change Jesus' teachings in favour of Pauline Christian theology.

Anyway, it is now clear that no serious scholar argues that the canonised Bible can be trusted as accurate on the issues which separate Pauline Christianity with Jewish Christianity, for example.

You end by asking why should a person think the Quran is more accurate when it recounts what happened to Jesus/Issa - or what he taught.

The Quran was revealed many centuries after Jesus' ministry and after the Bible had been canonised, and that the Quran does not claim that it was written by eyewitnesses - but rather claims to be a direct revelation from God. Therefore your question then hinges on whether to believe the general claim of the Quran that it is a revealed scripture that will be protected by God Himself.

Leaving that old nugget aside, we can also examine which of the two accounts is more internally consistent (we've seen, for example, the contradicitons in the Bible) and which fits historical accounts of what those closest to Jesus practiced and believed - i.e. the Jewish Christian sects.

We can then compare and contrast the Pauline Christian view of Jesus' teachings with those of Jewish Christians and the narration in the Quran.

Then we make our minds up which (if any) to believe. Can't be fairer than that, I think.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Oct 29, 2009

his thread was started by 'freefromrats', who now goes by 'eh' (event horizon) who challenged me to justify what I thought was a well-known fact

Actually, the challenge is clear and so far unmet. I have no idea how anyone who has the intelligence to turn their computer on can manage to consistently not understand what I am asking. But thanks again for the laughs.

Anyways, just to be clear, I am asking for sources written at the time of the New Testament:

which NT passages are historically inaccurate based on the contemporary sources written at the time outside of the NT?

For some reason, my request for shafique to provide any sources which are contemporary to the New Testament proved a daunting task and shafique, it would appear, is still confused by what I was/am asking for.

We can then compare and contrast the Pauline Christian view of Jesus' teachings with those of Jewish Christians and the narration in the Quran.

Ah - once again pontificating on a topic you know little/nothing about. If I recall, you were claiming that the Jewish Christians (as if Jewish Christianity were a monolithic group) opposed missionary work amongst Gentiles and then back pedaled once you realized your embarrassing error.

I'll go ahead and let you explain the different beliefs within Jewish Christianity and Judaism at the time of Jesus and Paul to me - since you've already demonstrated your deep knowledge on Rabbinic Judaism.

Care to tell me the differences in beliefs between the followers of Stephen and some of the Pharisaic Christian converts later on?

It should be an easy and straightforward answer and one I'll look forward to. Hope you don't tire yourself googling for talking points or obscure the question with yet another fact less post.

shafique · Oct 29, 2009

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
:lol:

I suggest you read my previous post (Sept 10 above) and also I Morgan's quotes above and let us know what still confuses you eh. (There are separate threads where Jewish Christian beliefs have been dealt with - let us know what confuses you in those, it appears you still have doubts)

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Oct 29, 2009

I remember that other thread. I corrected your mistaken beliefs on that thread as well.

But I see that you have not answered my question.

What were the differences between Stephan's followers (I'll give you a hint, he's from the New Testament) and the later Pharisaic Christian converts?

shafique · Oct 29, 2009

eh - you may have not noticed, but the conversation has moved on - you asked a question about Gibbon and it was answered.

The Bible is not a good source of historical information about the differences between Pauline and Jewish Christianity because historians all now agree that the Bible was corrupted and changed by Pauline Christians.

If you feel the need to ask questions about Pauline vs Jewish Christianity -why don't you resurrect the Jewish Christianity threads and do it there.

This thread was about correcting your view that Gibbon did not show that the NT had been corrupted - when he did in fact show that original gospels had been modified by Pauline Christians to bolster their theological claims. Do you disagree?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Oct 29, 2009

you asked a question about Gibbon and it was answered.

I agree - you believe you've answered my question, but my *actual* request has still not been addressed. What don't you understand about contemporary sources to the events of the New Testament?

Is the word 'contemporary' throwing you off just as 'interpolate' threw you off on the other thread when I said some scholars believe that certain passages in the New Testament are interpolations?

The Bible is not a good source of historical information about the differences between Pauline and Jewish Christianity because historians all now agree that the Bible was corrupted and changed by Pauline Christians.

Still waiting for you to explain to me the differences in belief in first century Judaism and Jewish Christianity. I'll ignore your babbling until you've shown you actually have a cursory knowledge of what you're writing about as opposed to dropping talking points in this thread you don't comprehend.

This thread was about correcting your view that Gibbon did not show that the NT had been corrupted

Uhm, no. This thread is about which primary sources from the first century Gibbons used to show that the New Testament is ahistorical.

Absolute failure in basic reading comprehension on your part.

shafique · Oct 30, 2009

Asked and answered.

The events described in the canonised Bible which relate to Pauline Christianity's fundamental beliefs (eg divinity of Jesus, whether Christians need to follow Judaic laws including circumcission etc) are not historically accurate because the original texts were later modified by Pauline Christians who added fabricated verses to justify their beliefs.

The primary sources of the gospels are different from the canonised Bible - therefore the contemporary sources available when the Bible was canonised do show that the Bible verses chosen are not historically accurate.

This is particularly so when it comes to the differences between Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity.

Let me know if you are still confused.

Cheers,
Shafique

Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

For Shafique - Gibbon And The Historicity Of The NT

Go To

Dubai Discussions

Dubai Expat Forums

Dubai Business

Dubai Tech Discussions

Dubai Classifieds