I was reading the Infidel’s artles on the Historicity of Jesus, specifically this one (a review of the Doherty book) and I just finished reading this paragraph:
Naturally I’d like other’s opinions on the validity of this, and I’d also like to know if there are any possible ‘other versions of the bible’ out there (from the article I gather the answer is ‘no’).
If this is true, how does this effect the Christian’s faith?
“Naturally I’d like other’s opinions on the validity of this, and I’d also like to know if there are any possible ‘other versions of the bible’ out there (from the article I gather the answer is ‘no’).”
The answer is a qualified yes, it is known as “The Book of Mormon.”
Many claims are made for it and it’s presentation of things in the new world. Many of its cannot be reconciled with the hard facts of the new world.
I guess it depends on how you define “Bible.” There are apocryphal books, of course, including several “gospels,” one of which, Thomas, is contemporary with Mark. There are also the Dead Sea Scrolls but those make no mention of Jesus.
If you’re simply asking about variant manuscripts of canon, there are a few but none of them are so dramatically different from each other as to really constitute a “different” Bible.
I think maybe the closest thing to a preserved alternate tradition would be the manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi.
Here ya go. Apocrypha your brains out.
As a biologist who loves Bible history, I am required by law to recommend Darwin’s Cathedral. It is no coincidence that the “winning” form of Christianity was organized like an army and destroyed all opposing beliefs; it was natural selection.
(If anyone says “but it wasn’t natural,” I’m mailing them this handsome Cursed Monkey Paw, suitable for framing :))
The books that were removed from the Bible in 364a.d. by the Catholic church are slightly different. They contain things that actually contradict some of the church’s precepts. Like the command to observe the sabbath at home and not go to a church made by human hands. Hard to collect money and influence people if you can’t get them in the door. Can’t have that.
I don’t believe it will affect most Christian’s faith or any aspect of their belief system at all. Christians would one, just not think about it or two, consider it an evil trick. I was a Christian my entire life and knew there were some questionable things about Christianity but it was just “a mystery” and we would learn the whole truth later. When I came to SDMB a couple of months ago and started trying to defend my religious beliefs, I had problems. The temptation to go away and just “have faith” was overwhelming. After all, if I questioned anything it was almost like I was doubting God. That is the third reason most people wouldn’t be affected by bad religious PR. When I really started defending my “religious” beliefs in debate here, I was stunned at how lame and indefensible many were. That made me feel like an idiot. Almost pushed all the questions out of my mind again, so I could go back to my comfort zone. I went back and forth in my mind like this for almost two months. I had to force myself to figure out why I held each belief about my religion and then had step back and see how it felt to let each one that wasn’t mine, go. I grieved for each one and almost quit everytime. I know this must sound ridiculous, but it was grueling, depressing and heartbreaking, but I had by then gone too far to fool myself anymore. When I was done I felt odd and empty, but also stronger and better. It took me two months and almost every waking moment and thought I had, to do this. Most Christians will not ever get past the first 2 reasons not to. It wasn’t unlike what I would imagine a showdown with the devil would be. Most of my “religious” beliefs died in the struggle, but God still remained. I have my own personal reasons for believing in God, but couldn’t come up with good enough reasons to keep beliefs that were someone else’s. Long answer, sorry. The indoctrination I received from Christianity had a lot of built in safeguards that made it hard to do my own critical thinking. So no, Christianity will remain strong and intact. I don’t think there would be any impact at all.
IWLN-
I know exactly how you feel, I went through a similar process a few months ago. In some respects, I’m still going through it. I’m still examining practically everything I can get my hands on (hence this article), but my beliefs have radically changed-yet I haven’t really found comfort yet. My Wife says that I shouldn’t stress about it as much as I have been (I regularly bring home 10-40 pages of stuff I’ve printed off of the internet-from this site and others).
'possum stalker-
Well, now I have another book on my Amazon wishlist…
Diogenes the Cynic-
This might sound like a stupid question, but I’m asking it anyway: What are the chances of a pretty radical version of the current bible (the letters) having been destroyed during these ‘Christian’ wars (perhaps not a good term for it) mentioned in the article I linked?
spingears-True, I suppose I should have been a little more specific-but your information helps me realize a few things that I didn’t consider.
Thanks all for the help.
I assume that you are a seeker of truth and as such you are sure to find it if you continue to weigh and evaluate the evidence.
2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
There is a powerful bible study program available at no charge at: http://www.theophilos.sk/ including the KJV and extensive help in features of the program. Additional material and add-ons aslo available.
The American Standard Version is recommended as being closest to the original greek text .
You probably shouldn’t stress so much about it. You don’t need to do what’s fast, just what’s right; or as close to right as you can figure out. I don’t think you’re going to get your answers from anything written. The only thing that’s helped me is to go off someplace quiet and ask God “Now what?” I don’t get a booming voice(thank God), but if I wait long enough, I feel peace. I was definitely more comfortable being a clueless Christian. Don’t worry, be happy. I liked that safe feeling. This is a lot harder, but I think it’s supposed to be, so we can learn. You might want to stay out of Thessalonians for awhile though.:eek:
The New Testament was not fully canonozed until the fourth century so there wasn’t really an accepted version of the current Bible for quite a long time. I’m not aware of any destroyed letters of either Paul or any apsotles and it’s highly unlikely that a letter with any apostolic authority would have been destroyed by the early church. There were and are several letters which are spuriously attributed to Paul or to apostles (and some are in the NT) but I’ve never heard or read anything about a destroyed apostolic letter.
Mostly what was destroyed was alternate gospels (such as the Gnostic stuff found at Nag Hammadi) and other manuscripts which contained early heretical teachings. Some of those manuscripts were lost forever and some survive but I’m not aware of any alleged “lost” apostolic letters even being talked about by historians or writers of the time.
The letters of Paul and others circulated around in various churches and were frequently copied. The copies also made the rounds and some of those copies contained mistakes. Then those copies were copied and even more mistakes were made. Eventually there were enough copies with enough mistakes that it was no longer possible to discern precisely what the original had said. This is the problem that Dougherty was referring to when he talked about variant letters. It wasn’t that they were really different versions but that they were just all copied differently.
So I guess the answer to your question is that no, there was no radical version of the current NT which was ever destroyed. The current canon is there because it consisted of books and letters that were accepted by the church. As I said before, the closest thing to another burgeoning “canon” would have been the Nag Hammadi library.
Meatros and IWLN, I’m in the midst of all that, too. Study of the history of the Bible and Christianity’s origins showed that what hadn’t been made up several different ways had been borrowed from some other faith and a lot that had been included in the canon was contradictory or just obvious bullshit. I asked myself if Jesus’ message of love would be changed were He not God. “Not really,” I said. How about if He had never existed at all? “The message is still valid.” So what’s the problem? “I guess there isn’t one.” But are you going to keep your mouth shut at church? “You bet I am!”
The most I’ve done was to mutter “It get worse!” in Bible class when a student asked the pastor if what he was saying was that not everything in the Bible was to be taken literally.
I’m sure that speaking up in church would do no good. I asked countless questions when I was younger. I didn’t receive answers but I did quickly get the impression that it was not okay to question anything. I was doubting God if I did. It was magnificent psychology and it worked. I still have those feelings that I’m somehow wrong to be questioning anything. Emotional baggage. I’m not questioning God, just the facts man wrote about him and the churches set up for him. It’s a stretch, but you could even consider those who question things - quality control.
" Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."
(Matthew 22:37)
To think is to follow the greatest commandment.
I can think of a dozen verses that talk about having cunning and evil thoughts overcome your mind. 
DtC, I have an “in your honest opinion” question. Do you think that the steps myself or others like me have taken away from our religious traditions, usually lead to eventually not believing in God?
I have to differ with Diogenes here. First of all, there are several letters of Paul that seem to have been lost. I think there is a verse in 1 Corinthians that mentions a previous letter to the Corinthians. Some scholars think that 2 Cor (and possibly 1 Cor) are actually cobbled together from several originally independent letters. There is also some mention of a letter to the Laodecians in early Christian writings. (Someone forged a letter to the Laodecians, but it was never accepted as genuine by large numbers of Christians.)
Secondly, there is the NT according to Marcion. Marcion was a second-century Christian from Egypt (IIRC) who later went to Rome. He is sometimes credited with being the first to realize that the Christian writings were getting out of hand - infancy gospels, the Acts of various apostles, fake letters of Paul, etc. - and decide to make a “canon” of acceptable books. His canon was very different from our NT. He accepted only a version of Luke as a gospel, and some sort of collection of Paul’s letters. Later Christian writers declared him a heretic, and claimed he had mutilated both Luke’s gospel and Paul’s letters. But, as the article cited in the OP points out, these “orthodox” views are biased towards a certain theology. Who’s to say that Marcion’s version of the NT was not more historically accurate than ours?
I recommend finding a good “Introduction to the New Testament”, like the one by Bart Ehrmann.
Only if an individual identifies “God” as being inseparable from religious dogma. A lot of people become so disenchanted with with the nonsense that is tied up with specific religious doctrines that they decide it’s all bullshit and become atheists. Others just decide that God is beyond specific dogma and just have faith without entangling themselves in religion.
I think it’s about 50/50 as to whether people go all the way over to atheism but those who don’t have to do some mental house cleaning as to what is important to their faith and what isn’t (as it sounds like you’ve already been doing).
I think that one of tne of the hardest things to let go of is any sense of exclusivity when it comes to how God(s) can be imagined or worshipped. For Christians this may mean letting go of the notion that one must go through Christ to get to heaven or that the religious experiences of other traditions are less legitimate than those of Christians.
From the Hindu perspective it’s all allegory. All gods are Brahman and Brahman is unknowable. God appears to people in ways that will move them in an individual, personal way. Some people are moved by communing with a Mother Goddess, others by a protective father or by empathizing with the suffering of of Christ. Some folks are comforted by the notion that nature is filled with benevolent spirits and others think of the universe itself as God. It’s all true and none of it’s true. If there is something transcendent in the universe then it is shown to humans in endless ways.
I know there are some who would question whether one is being moved by God or being tricked by something more malevolent, whether it be the devil or “evil spirits” or even insanity.
I think that the prophets who have endured (Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha) have been the ones who stressed compassion as being the thing that ultimately matters. Love is an emotion which can always be trusted and which can never be wrong. Whatever makes you feel love is “right” (and at this point I often get asked by fundies about child molesters and the like. Obviously that wouldn’t qualify as love. Love is not sexual. I’m talking about compassion, empathy, the ability to be able to feel another person as one’s self).
Socrates said that he had a daimon (“little spirit”) inside him which didn’t necessarily tell him when he was right but which always told him when he was wrong.
Bruce Lee said in Enter the Dragon that if somebody points at the moon, don’t look at their finger.
Religions are like signposts all pointing at the same thing but too many people climb up the post instead of following where it points.
Jesus talked about polishing the outside of the cup when what mattered was what was inside the cup. Religion is the outside of the cup. Don’t drink the outside, drink the inside.
So you’re saying the New Testament was assembled by Martians?
I must be the rare exception in that I became closer to God when I dropped the Christian dogma.
I spent a couple years doing research on the historicity of the bible and I reached basically the same conclusions stated in the excerpt in the OP. My initial reaction was a small repulsion to the possibility that what my parents religiously instilled in me was wrong, but that feeling was very short-lived and was replaced by a sense of complete freedom. Like many people, I cannot accept the possibility that blackness awaits us when we die, but I have come to my own pseudo-Deist conclusions of the nature and purpose of life on earth and the role of God, and once I found a belief that made sense to me, I felt a comfort that I had never found within the confines of modern Christian dogma.
It’s probably not hard to figure out from my question that I’m worried about this being the road to not believing in God and some how I could get there without quite realizing it. I don’t see how that could possibly happen, but I also don’t feel as sure of me anymore. I’m continually amazed at how much of me was molded and affected by that religion. I enjoy the sense of irony I feel at asking you questions, when early on your’s was one of the hardest arguments for me to deal with. Stockholm sydrome or something.
This one isn’t hard for me at all. I have never doubted the story of Christ, but have always known that the impact, the Christian interpretation of it was not correct. I have always thought that all religions were legitimate. They are all just different reflections of the same God. I even include the decent loving people who believes in no God. Their life is a reflection of God. He doesn’t need a name.
This one I’ve wondered about. Maybe not like evil spirits, but just evil internal dialogue, produced by my rebellious brain. I also keep remembering how we were taught not to get too close to non-believers because this could damage our beliefs. They were kind of right on that one, but how much of it was the church’s self interest and how much was concern. It should never be a bad thing to get as many facts as possible. Unless, I guess they think atheists are guided by the devil or something. There’s a little twist in there too, being guided by something you don’t believe exists. Hmmm…That’s funny.
That should be enough. But I’ve never been in a “religion” where it was. I’ve spent years saying I was a Christian, but always needed to qualify it with explanations that actually went against Christian beliefs. I was a Christian by default, but not fact. Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions. You’re pretty good for an infidel.
what made Marcion & his revised New Testament heretical was his anti-Judaic theology which regarded the Old Testament Jehovah as Satan, from whom we are saved by the pure Spiritual Teaching of Jesus.
Not of all this work was heretical, however. Some of it was deeply connected to a larger and ongoing rethinking of how Christianity fit into and on top of Judiasm. It’s a pretty intriguing subject, because despite the very clear picture of how they fit together that many Christians have today, it was once a pretty controversial, traumatic, and confusing issue, and a lot of work was done to try and gell the traditions together. It’s also important to realize that doing so was not simply a theologically motivated project, but also one born out of the need for social acceptance. As a “new” religion filled with new and radical ideas, Christianity would be much more suspect and much less compelling to establishment people than if it could lay claim to an ancient and established tradition.