abe smith

Chili's proposition that "the Bible" "d have to "be a very difinitive (sic) book if [because?] millions of people count on it for their salvation" exemplifies a classic logical fallacy, the Latin label of which I can't remember. The gist of the fallacy is that no matter how many believers (even the whole human race forever) believe/assert that a proposition is "true", that fact (of their belief/assertion) is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of the proposition. you know.

There's a useful site on line that explains about *fallacies*; and disputants here at EyeEye would do well to know what those are.

TySixtus

Where the hell did you get that from?! The guy asked a question. Which synapse of yours fired that off that ingenious barb? This is why people don't take you guys seriously. For all you know, his search has been very long, and he recently discovered II. Anyways....

To answer the OP, there is plenty of evidence to suggest the early church censored much of the orignal writings. Check out "The Hiram Key", a great read. You can find it on Amazon. Keep in mind that the RCC was filling a huge power vacuum, and was determined to stay on top. Lying was not (and still isn't) beneath them.

Ty

Dean Anderson

I'm moving this over to BC&H where our Biblical History experts reside, before it gets any further off topic.

They will be able to give the information / book recommendations that the OP is looking for about the formation of the canon.

Amlodhi

Hi lwf,

Depending on what you actually intended to say here, I'm not sure that this statement is entirely accurate.

gently,

Amlodhi

JohNeo

Chili,

Faith and reason are mutually exclusive. I refer to "The Case Against God" by George H. Smith. Look on the "5% Atheists?" thread where I paraphrased the differentiation between the two. You are right. As soon as reason explains something, there is no need for faith.

JohNeo

Toto

Have you been reading the Da Vinci Code?

This is a good place to start: The Formation of the New Testament Canon

I would also recomment Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth

Amaleq13

Very few scholars claim that any of the four Gospels were actually written by "eyewitnesses". The four canonical Gospels were originally anonymous and only the one attributed to Luke claims to involve considering any eyewitness accounts. Whether we should accept this claim absent any specific identification of these alleged witnesses is another matter. The author attributions to the texts we currently have dates no earlier than the middle of the 2nd century.

Well three of them, anyway, and that is due to the fact that two of them are rewritten versions of the first. Interestingly, these different versions of the same story do not compliment each other entirely and even contradict one another on occasion (eg birth narratives).

moester

The logical fallacy is argumentum ad numerum.

I would agree Elaine Pagels' book, The Gnostic Gospels is great, but I would also recommend The Jesus Mysteries. Both of these books are very accessible and interesting to read.

The website www.earlychristianwritings.com is also very interesting, but a little less accessible. You're in for the long haul.

--moe

Chili

Worse than that abe and not just "ad populum" but also "ad baculum" (fear of hell) and "ad misericordiam" (pity; eg. poor people deserve a break in heaven) are popular in N. America.

Like you said, none of the above counts for anything.

JohNeo

Uta Ranke-Heinemann, in her book "Putting Away Childish Things" also points out the contradictions and inconsistencies among the four Gospels and concludes that the Gospel of Luke is the most at odds with the other three. The most noticeable inconsistencies are found in the part of the story that is most important to the Christian doctrine: the burial of Jesus' body and the witnesses to the resurrected body.