arnoldo

My understanding is that no prophecy concerning Israel will be close to being complete until the Next Jewish Temple is built. According to Christian Theology, or mythology if you prefer, we are living in the time of the gentiles. The sign that Israel is back in the Holy Land is just one sign, out of many, that a Jewish temple will soon be rebuilt after the last one was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D.

Johnny Skeptic

More accurately, it was a failed SELF-FULFILLMENT of God's SUPPOSED promises to the seed of Abraham which are the Jews/Israelis.

GET THIS: IT IS UP TO YOU TO REASONABLY PROVE THAT THE PARTITION OF PALESTINE WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF THE GOD OF THE BIBLE DOES NOT EXIST. OTHERWISE, YOU WILL HAVE TO ADMIT THAT THE PARTITION OF PALESTINE IS A FRAUDULENT SELF-FULFILLED PROPHECY.

Are you really going to tell us that false prophecies never motivate religious people to do anything?

Anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense know that all that it takes to self-fulfill a prophecy is a BELIEF that it is true, and ENOUGH MILITARY POWER TO FULFILL IT. Would you like to dispute that?

The partition of Palestine most certainly was not a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Genesis 17:8 says "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." Today, Jews do not occupy anywhere near all of the land of ancient Canaan. Following your same line of reasoning, if the Jews occupied one square mile of Palestine, that would be a fulfilled prophecy.

You can't restore a nation that you never had. Genesis 17:8 can never be fulfilled unless Jews occupy all of the land of ancient Canaan.

If the Jews occupied parts of Palestine, but not Jerusalem, would you call that a fulfilled prophecy?

In the NASB, 2 Samuel 7:10 says "I will fix a place for my people Israel; I will plant them so that they may dwell in their place without further disturbance. Neither shall the wicked continue to afflict them as they did of old." The Partition of Palestine most certainly did not fulfill that prophecy, and it never will since the Jews are surrounded by hostile neighbors, not to mention terrorists who live in Israel, and some Muslim countries that are developing nuclear weapons. That prophecy alone discredits all of your arguments about the Partition of Palestine being a fulfilled prophecy. Now please do not claim that 2 Samuel 7:10 refers to the next life. If you do, I doubt that you will find one single Bible scholar who agrees with you. Old Testaments Jews had to have believed that 2 Samuel 7:10 promised that eventually, IN THIS LIFE, Jews would be able to "dwell in their place without further disturbance."

I will be happy to instruct you further in Bible hermeneutics if you wish.

Last but not least, no loving rational God would inspire disputable prophecies when he could easily inspire indisputable prophecies.

Johnny Skeptic

Regarding "Israel is back in the Holy Land," what evidence do you have that the Partition of Palestine would not have happened if the God of the Bible does not exist? All that it takes to self-fulfill a prophecy is a BELIEF that it is true, and ENOUGH MILITARY POWER TO FULFILL IT. Would you like to dispute that?

Is it your position that false prophecies in other religious books have never motivated people to do anything?

The partition of Palestine most certainly was not a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Genesis 17:8 says "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." Today, Jews do not occupy anywhere near all of the land of ancient Canaan. Following your same line of reasoning, if the Jews occupied one square mile of Palestine, that would be a fulfilled prophecy.

In the NASB, 2 Samuel 7:10 says "I will fix a place for my people Israel; I will plant them so that they may dwell in their place without further disturbance. Neither shall the wicked continue to afflict them as they did of old." The Partition of Palestine most certainly did not fulfill that prophecy, and it never will since the Jews are surrounded by hostile neighbors, not to mention terrorists who live in Israel, and some Muslim countries that are developing nuclear weapons. Since that prophecy can never come true, that is proof the the Bible is not the word of God.

Now please do not claim that 2 Samuel 7:10 refers to the next life. If you do, I doubt that you will find one single Bible scholar who agrees with you. Old Testaments Jews had to have believed that 2 Samuel 7:10 promised that eventually, IN THIS LIFE, Jews would be able to "dwell in their place without further disturbance."

Last but not least, no loving rational God would inspire disputable prophecies when he could easily inspire indisputable prophecies.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: There is excellent evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist. If he does not exist, we would expect that no one would ever hear about the Gospel message unless another person told them about it, which is exactly what the case is. If God exists, since he refuses to tell anyone about the Gospel message himself, this means that he is more concerned with HOW people hear about the Gospel message than he is with THAT people hear the Gospel message. That does not make any sense. No rational God would go out of his way to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby inviting dissent instead of discouraging dissent, and undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

In your opinion, is spreading the Gospel message more important than spreading a cure for cancer? If so, why doesn't God believe that.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, we would expect to find that what people believe would be determined primarily or solely by geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God.' Billy Graham endorses the book on the cover or on one of the inside pages. The book is well-documented. The authors show that the primary factors that influence religious beliefs in the U.S. are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age, to which I have added time period. The evidence shows that in the U.S., the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. I forget what the exact percentage is, but I can find it if I need to. As far as I recall, the percentage difference is over 7%. It is important to note that every year, the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is quite suspicious. If the God of the Bible exists, no one would be able to reasonably predict what his success rates would be by sex. In addition, if the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against men by convincing a smaller percentage of them to become Christians.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, we would also expect to find the following:

1 - Elderly skeptics would be much less likely to become Christians than younger skeptics would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against elderly skeptics, and show favoritism for younger skeptics, and mimics the ways that things would be if he did not exist.

2 - Elderly Christians would much less likely to become skeptics than younger Christians would, which is the case.

3 - Younger skeptics would be much more likely to become Christians than elderly skeptics would, which is the case.

4 - Younger Christians would be much more likely to become skeptics than elderly Christians would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against younger Christians.

The preceding arguments are easily explained secularly because it is well-known that elderly people are much less likely to change their worldviews than younger people are.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, we would also expect to find that food would be distributed entirely by humans. If God does exist, then he is more concerned with HOW people get enough food to eat than he is with THAT people get enough food to eat, and with mimicking the way that food would be distributed if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that. That would needlessly invite dissent instead of discouraging dissent.

The New Testament says that on one occasion, Jesus fed hungry people out of compassion. There is no way that that happened. A truly compassionate person who wanted people to have enough food to eat would certainly not limit his compassion to people who lived in Palestine.

Obviously, your convenient "God frequently uses men and nations for his own purposes" argument is fraudulent, and is exactly what would be the case if the God of the Bible does not exist. The more that a God mimicked a naturalistic universe, the more that he would undermine his attempts to convince people that the universe is not naturalistic.

If you had been transported at birth back to China in 250 B.C., and had been raised by Buddhists, and the community that you lived in had been predominantly Buddhist, the very same secular factors would cause you to choose your worldview.

It is much too convenient that geography has played such an important role regarding the spread of the Gospel message, which is exactly the way the way that things would be if the God of the Bible does not exist. If the God of the Bible does exist, then his frequent use of geography invites dissent instead of discouraging dissent, thereby needlessly undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists by mimicking the ways that things would be if he did not exist. The odds against a loving, rational God acting like that are astronomical.

Johnny Skeptic

If so, the Partition of Palestine did not fulfill the requirement in Genesis 17:8 that says that God would give Abraham and his descendants ALL of the land of Canaan. Today, Jews do not occupy nearly ALL of the land of Canaan. Following your same line of reasoning, if Jews occupied one square mile of Palestine, that would be a fulfillment of prophecy.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is reasonable to conclude that the Partition of Palestine would have happened anyway. Whether or not a prophecy is true or not does not make any difference. All that makes a difference is whether or not people who have enough military power BELIEVE that it is true.

In the NASB, 2 Samuel 7:10 says "I will fix a place for my people Israel; I will plant them so that they may dwell in their place without further disturbance. Neither shall the wicked continue to afflict them as they did of old." The Partition of Palestine most certainly did not fulfill that prophecy, and it never will since the Jews are surrounded by hostile neighbors, not to mention terrorists who live in Israel, and some Muslim countries that are developing nuclear weapons. Since 2 Samuel 7:10 can never be fulfilled in this life, and since it refers to this life, that is a false prophecy.

At any rate, you did not answer my question. Please do so. Hypothetical arguments are frequently useful tools for revealing bad arguments. Christians frequently use hypothetical arguments when they feel that it suits their purposes to do so. C.S. Lewis' 'Lord, Liar, or Lunatic' is a good example. In addition, since hypothetical arguments are frequently useful, they are sometimes of great value in court trials.

Any man who is afraid to discuss a hypothetical argument has revealed that he is not confident of his arguments, and, if he has ever used hypothetical arguments himself, that he is a hypocrite.

I am not afraid to discuss hypothetical arguments. Why are you afraid to discuss them? Haven't you ever used hypothetical arguments?

Last but not least, no rational God would inspire disputable prophecies when he could easily inspire indisputable prophecies.[/QUOTE]

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: Logically, if a God exists, and wanted to convince people to believe that he exists, he would either 1) publically and tangibly display his power in front of everyone in the world, or he would 2) exclusively use spiritual/emotional evidence, which millions of liberal theists believe is the case. No rational God would ever use limited tangible, firsthand evidence since he would know that that would invite dissent instead of discourage dissent. He would know that if one only begotten Son of God and 500 eyewitnesses was convincing evidence, 1,000 only begotten Sons of God and 500,000 eyewitnesses all over the civilized world would be much more convincing evidence. False religions by necessity must start in one place. A true religion could, and would start in may places all over the world. There would be no possible advantages for a God or for anyone else for him to start a religion in only one place. Doing that would serve only to needlessly invite dissent instead of discourage dissent, and would limit the number of people who would accept him.

Sheshonq

Everyone around here already understands the point of view of christians - and yourself. If you think any of this is new, or somehow we're all stumped because we've never heard this before, you are wrong. We've heard this hundreds of times around here.

Are you going to ever start proving any of this, though?

Otherwise, this is just preaching, and needs to be reported to the moderators so the posts can be removed or sent to the ~Elsewhere trash bin.

spin

So not only has the perpetual possession prophecy been falsified by Jerusalem having been taken out of the hands of Abraham's seed and most of that seed having been lost, you admit here that you have no fulfilled prophecy at all. They will be fulfilled though -- according to your hopes and desires.

But you have nothing, other than the Zionist movement which lured Jews to Israel by pretending to be interested in prophecy and use the prophecy to lure more back to occupy settlements in Palestinian land: "you can be a part of the prophecy!" If you were an average Jew after WWII, wouldn't you feel the allure of that? You'd want to try to fulfill the prophecy, wouldn't you?


spin

Jack the Bodiless

Again you have neglected to cite chapter and verse.
Last time I checked, Luke 21 wasn't in the Book of Revelation.
Yes.
You have provided no verse which indicates anything of the sort. Indeed, if you're now trying to move Luke's "prophecy" of the sacking of the temple in AD 70 to some future time, and are then attempting to infer the construction of a new temple in the intervening period so that this can happen... well, that's pretty desperate.

Johnny Skeptic

Argument #1

If so, the Partition of Palestine did not fulfill the requirement in Genesis 17:8 that says that God would give Abraham and his descendants ALL of the land of Canaan. Today, Jews do not occupy nearly ALL of the land of Canaan. Following your same line of reasoning, if Jews occupied one square mile of Palestine, that would be a fulfillment of prophecy.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is reasonable to conclude that the Partition of Palestine would have happened anyway. Whether or not a prophecy is true or not does not make any difference. All that makes a difference is whether or not people who have enough military power BELIEVE that it is true.

Of the 33 governments that voted in favor of the partition, 32 are predominantly Christian. The only non-Christian government that voted for the partition was Russia. At that time, Russia was joyfully getting lots of aid from the U.S. for rebuilding purposes, and was certainly not interested in contesting the wishes of the U.S. and 31 other countries. Of the 13 governments that voted against the partition, 12 are non-Christian, and one, the Greek government, is, according to one source that I read, I forget which one, nominally Christian.

The vote was almost completely predominantly Christian governments against predominantly non-Christian governments. All that it took for the vote to be the way that it was was the BELIEF that the Bible is true. Logically, a man can be just as motivated by a false belief as he can by a true belief.

Argument #2

You did not answer my question in Argument #1. Please do so. Hypothetical arguments are frequently useful tools for revealing bad arguments. Christians frequently use hypothetical arguments when they feel that it suits their purposes to do so. C.S. Lewis' 'Lord, Liar, or Lunatic' is a good example. In addition, since hypothetical arguments are frequently useful, they are sometimes of great value in court trials.

Any man who is afraid to discuss a hypothetical argument has revealed that he is not confident of his arguments, and, if he has ever used hypothetical arguments himself, that he is a hypocrite.

I am not afraid to discuss hypothetical arguments. Why are you afraid to discuss them? Haven't you ever used hypothetical arguments?

Argument #3

In the NASB, 2 Samuel 7:10 says "I will fix a place for my people Israel; I will plant them so that they may dwell in their place without further disturbance. Neither shall the wicked continue to afflict them as they did of old." The Partition of Palestine most certainly did not fulfill that prophecy, and it never will since the Jews are surrounded by hostile neighbors, not to mention terrorists who live in Israel, and some Muslim countries that are developing nuclear weapons. Since 2 Samuel 7:10 can never be fulfilled in this life, and since it refers to this life, that is a false prophecy.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? 2 Samuel says that Jews will "dwell in their place without further disturbance." That cannot possibly happen unless Jews make peace with Muslims, and that is not going to happen.

Argument #4

If the Bible had accurately predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur, will you agree with me that it would have been much more difficult for skeptics to discredit Bible prophecy?

Will you please tell us why God makes disuptable predictions which invite dissent when he could easily make indisputable predictions that discourage dissent such as predicting when and where some natural disaters will occur? By "when," I mean month, day, and year.

Logically, a loving, rational God would never do anything that he did not intend to benefit himself and/or someone else at present, or at some time in the future. Refusing to make indisputable predictions could not possibly benefit God or anyone else.

The logical conclusion is that even if a God exists, it is very improbable that he is the God of the Bible.

Argument #5

The partition of Palestine most certainly was not a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Genesis 17:8 says "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." Today, Jews do not occupy anywhere near all of the land of ancient Canaan. Following your same line of reasoning, if the Jews occupied one square mile of Palestine, that would be a fulfilled prophecy.

You can't restore a nation that you never had. Genesis 17:8 can never be fulfilled unless Jews occupy all of the land of ancient Canaan. Even if the Jews were to occupy all of the ancient land of Canaan, you would still lose because 2 Samuel 7:10 says "I will fix a place for my people Israel; I will plant them so that they may dwell in their place without further disturbance. Neither shall the wicked continue to afflict them as they did of old." That IS NOT going to happen.

Argument #6

Better stated, if the God of the Bible does not exist, that is exactly what we would expect to find regarding many issues, which just so happens to be the case. A God who exists, and wants people to believe that he exists, most certainly is not going to go out of his way to give billions of people the impression that he does not exist by mimicking the way that things would be if he did not exist.

Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Regarding those Scriptures, faith alone in Jesus' words was not enough to convince people to accept him, so he provided them with tangible, firsthand evidence. If God was fair, he would provide everyone with tangible, firsthand evidence of that quality. Mentioning the Holy Spirit will not do you any good. First of all, some people who will not accept spiritual/emotional evidence alone will accept spiritual/emotional evidence AND tangible, firsthand evidence, just like supposedly happened on some occasions during the time of Jesus.

Second of all, In the NIV, the book of Acts basically says that the disciples when about confirming the message of his grace by performing miracles. It is quite odd that with all of the miracles that Jesus had performed, and with his post-Resurrection appearances, and with the presence of the Holy Spirit, that God provided people who were ALREADY saved with even more evidence and turned his back on the very people (skeptics) who needed additional evidence far more than people who were already saved. "O ye of little faith" contradicts the many miracles that Jesus and the disciples supposedly performed. Jesus supposedly criticized Thomas for wanting tangible evidence that he had risen from the dead, but yet Jesus was willing to perform miracles before some stubborn skeptics who were not convinced by his words alone.

There is excellent evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist. If he does not exist, we would expect that no one would ever hear about the Gospel message unless another person told them about it, which is exactly what the case is. If God exists, since he refuses to tell anyone about the Gospel message himself, this means that he is more concerned with HOW people hear about the Gospel message than he is with THAT people hear the Gospel message. That does not make any sense. No rational God would go out of his way to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby inviting dissent instead of discouraging dissent, and undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

In your opinion, is spreading the Gospel message more important than spreading a cure for cancer? If so, why doesn't God believe that.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, we would expect to find that what people believe would be determined primarily or solely by geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God.' Billy Graham endorses the book on the cover or on one of the inside pages. The book is well-documented. The authors show that the primary factors that influence religious beliefs in the U.S. are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age, to which I have added time period. The evidence shows that in the U.S., the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. I forget what the exact percentage is, but I can find it if I need to. As far as I recall, the percentage difference is over 7%. It is important to note that every year, the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is quite suspicious. If the God of the Bible exists, no one would be able to reasonably predict what his success rates would be by sex. In addition, if the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against men by convincing a smaller percentage of them to become Christians.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, we would also expect to find the following:

1 - Elderly skeptics would be much less likely to become Christians than younger skeptics would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against elderly skeptics, and show favoritism for younger skeptics, and mimics the ways that things would be if he did not exist.

2 - Elderly Christians would much less likely to become skeptics than younger Christians would, which is the case.

3 - Younger skeptics would be much more likely to become Christians than elderly skeptics would, which is the case.

4 - Younger Christians would be much more likely to become skeptics than elderly Christians would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against younger Christians.

The preceding arguments are easily explained secularly because it is well-known that elderly people are much less likely to change their worldviews than younger people are.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, we would also expect to find that food would be distributed entirely by humans. If God does exist, then he is more concerned with HOW people get enough food to eat than he is with THAT people get enough food to eat, and with mimicking the way that food would be distributed if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that. That would needlessly invite dissent instead of discouraging dissent.

The New Testament says that on one occasion, Jesus fed hungry people out of compassion. There is no way that that happened. A truly compassionate person who wanted people to have enough food to eat would certainly not limit his compassion to people who lived in Palestine.

Obviously, your convenient "God frequently uses men and nations for his own purposes" argument is fraudulent, and is exactly what would be the case if the God of the Bible does not exist. The more that a God mimicked a naturalistic universe, the more that he would undermine his attempts to convince people that the universe is not naturalistic.

If you had been transported at birth back to China in 250 B.C., and had been raised by Buddhists, and the community that you lived in had been predominantly Buddhist, the very same secular factors would cause you to choose your worldview.

It is much too convenient that geography has played such an important role regarding the spread of the Gospel message, which is exactly the way the way that things would be if the God of the Bible does not exist. If the God of the Bible does exist, then his frequent use of geography invites dissent instead of discouraging dissent, thereby needlessly undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists by mimicking the ways that things would be if he did not exist. The odds against a loving, rational God acting like that are astronomical.

Argument #7

That is easily explained by the facts that the partition of Palestine is a self-fulfilled prophecy, and that the Middle East has the largest oil reserves in the world. If the Arab-Israel conflict was happening in the middle of a remote Australian desert that had few natural resources, most nations would not care about the conflict.

I previously said:

In other words, if the God of the Bible does not exist, the BELIEF that he exists accounts for why Jesusalem is a source of concern for all nations. If Islam is a false religion, you will have to admit that the BELIEF that Islam is why Muslims do many of the things that they do.

All that it takes to occupy land is desire, and sufficient military power. If Muslims had enough military power, they would control all of Palestine today. Historically, Palestine has always been controlled by parties who had the most military power. There are not any good reasons for anyone to assume that the Jews will not be kicked out of Palestine again..

Argument #8

Even if God will one day give the Jews all of the ancient land of Canaan, decent people will reject him because of his historical favoritism towards Jews, and his bigotry towards non-Jews. God had no right to help Abraham persecute and murder the Canaanites when he could easily have given Abraham enough money to legally purchase Canaan from the Canaanites. God also has no right to cause animals to kill each other, and humans.

Of course, the best answer is that Jews appointed themselves to be God's chosen people. That explains why during Old Testament times God essentially turned his back on everyone else in the world.

You, like many other Christians, have claimed that during Old Testament times, God revealed himself to non-Jews through nature. Well, why didn't God use nature to reveal himself to people during New Testament times? Why didn't God use nature to reveal himself to Jews during Old Testament times instead of directly communicating with some of them?

Historically, many humans have placed great importance on genetics and ethnicity. Old Testament Jews were most certainly no exception. They believed that their messiah would a genetic descendant of David. Matthew contradicts that by claiming that Jesus would be conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mentioning the genealogies of Mary and Joseph will not do Christians any good since supposedly messianc prophecies predict that the messiah will be a genetic descendant of David, not Mary and/or Joseph.

Arguments #9

Micah 5:2 says "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

Matthew invented the story of the magi in order to try to validate Micah 5:2.
He embarrassed himself. First of all, in Matthew chapter 1, he himself said that Jesus would be conceived by the Holy Spirit, and thus could not possibly have fulfilled Micah 5:2 which said that the ruler would be a genetic descendant of David. Second of all, there is no way that a loving God would have led the magi to Herod when he could have led them directly to Bethlehem from their homes in the east, thereby preventing the needless deaths of some babies and young children.

Arguments #10

One of the best arguments against Christianity is the lack of confirmations from non-Jewish and non-Christian sources. Other than the Bible, there is not one single credible non-Jewish record of the Exodus and the Ten Plagues. If the Ten Plagues occurred, that would have been the end of Egypt as a major power in the Middle East. As history shows, that did not happen. Logically, the very best evidence that the Exodus and the Ten Plagues occurred would be from non-Jewish sources. If the God of the Bible exists, why did he refuse to provide confirmations from non-Jewish sources?

The New Testament says lots of things regarding what the Pharisees said and did, but why aren't there any surviving copies of records where the Pharisees spoke for themselves? If the God of the Bible exists, why did he refuse to provide convincing confirmations from non-Christian sources who spoke for themselves?

Logically, the best evidence that some people who saw Jesus perform miracles rejected him would not be Biblical evidence, but firsthand evidence from the dissenters themselves. If there were any such records, they would have been highly prized by early Christians, and they would have been copied and preserved. Or, if early Christians were not smart enough to do that, God should have told them to do that.