Jesus Christ

I've heard it possible that Early Catholics in possesion on the bible may have altered it and left many things out... That they have released this abridged version that we have today to further their agenda (whatever that may be - power or money).

This seems probable to me, but I have little info. Are there any good links or books that you could point me to so that I can recieve more information on the subject. Thanks.

THX1138

Jesus Christ! Is it really you? Are you planning to sue the CC for libel?

Get "Honest to Jesus" by Robert Funk (of the Jesus Seminar). He goes thru the history of how the Bible was assembled (there was no such thing as a finalized Bible (tm) until the printing press & not all individual church communites agreed on what was canonical, etc. The concrete had not hardened, so to speak, even by Luther's day who rejected the book of James - the book of Revelation was doubted for centuries, etc. Then there's the gospel of Thomas, etc.

"Honest to Jesus" is a good place to start since it deals head-on with the formation of the "official" Christian canon. Elaine Pagels has some good books on the subject of Christian gnosticism & the texts used, etc.

J

Chili

If you are looking for the missing link in your own life please be informed that according to the bible it must come directly from God via revelation. The whole story is contained in the bible (without any errors or contradictions) and any more of it would would just be more of the same thing and redundant to the true believer.

Kaiser_Soze

If it were not for the smilie at the end of that I would've sworn you were being terse, seriously judgemental and discouraging an individual on his long quest for information on which to base his beliefs/non-beliefs.

Oops - there was no smilie.... never mind, there is now

long winded fool

Most of the books that are contained in today's Bible are translated directly from manuscripts that pre-date Catholicism. There are other books which speak of Jesus which are not in the Bible, however most reputable historians agree that these manuscripts are less reliable as historical documents go than the four evangelist gospels contained in the Bible we know today. (The very few parts of these gospels where historians are unsure of authenticity are specifically cited in Bibles nowadays.) Since these four gospels are so old, widespread, and written by either eye-witnesses or those in contact with eye-witnesses of the events they speak of, and since they largely compliment each other, it is only reasonable to assume these gospels as the basis of knowledge, and judge other sources against them.

Plognark

*snicker* :notworthy

Damn, I can't tell if this is a joke or not....especially considering your profile...but either way it's amusing

Chili

Long quest for information? The seeker named Jesus Christ has 19 post on this BB and is ready to blame the Catholic church for everything that is wrong with his idea of religion.

To you I would say that there is something seriously wrong with faith if it must be based on reason.

mlcowgurl04

Do you know what the Jesus Seminar is? It's people pretty much just putting beads together to put a bible full of morals together. It's crap.
And hmmmm... isn't James included in the bible?

THX1138

mlcowgurl04, you are entitled to your opinion - however I wouldn't be too swift to dismiss a bunch of scholars just because they use a hokey way to get their point across to the less-well-educated public (that includes me too!).

And yes, James is considered a canonical book of the Bible. My point is there was no One Big Book called the Bible for centuries - and that as late as the Reformation, the "cement" had not solidified - Martin Luther, the very instigator of the Reformation outright rejected the book of James (this had largely to do with James dealing with faith and works & Luther believed faith saved, not works - he perceived it as a contradiction of Chrostian principles).

I'm not saying Luther was right or wrong to do so (that's for another thread), but it does indicate how the Bible was not a single finalized document for centuries. The gradual formation of the Bible was a complex development that was affected by different theological, historical & cultural events. Christians (and non-christians too) often forget (or ignore or dismiss) that the Bible was not one definitive book until Gutenberg came along with the printing press!

J

Chili

Sounds about right and it better be a very difinitive book if millions of people count on it for their salvation. As far that is concerned God must be very happy with the Gutenburg press.