Is Bible being Distorted?

.
In this Topic I will reply to all questions anyone would like to ask about Bible distortion or its history from A to Z......I will start it by replying to Lucas post (You gotta love this topic!) which is posted in this given link ( My reply will be in 3 posts)


I just want to give a hint before starting which is :

In my previous Topics discussing ACIM Study and Seth, I didn't mention the history of the authors of Books nor their lives as what interest me Most is the content of the books they wrote....That doesn't mean That I not want to post the history of Bible...but I will be glad though to reveal this history so that I will encourage others to search and know where is the truth placed ?.

I still hold to my belief that wisdom can be gleamed from the Bible and that it is not completely useless. I find it very useful myself. However, it ceases to become useful when it is used to condemn everyone else.

Bible Target is not to condemn People but to guide them through their lives...Imagine there is No Difference between right and wrong in Bible...Can a human depend totally on his morality or his conscience ??...of course NO ...coz Human morality or Conscience is not absolute Perfect.....so he may doubt in somethings and need a higher morality level to guide him.....u see?
Besides in Bible itself , It's mentioned :

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:16)

So why does Mathew appear as the first gospel one might ask?

Matthew's gospel (Mathew was a Jewish tax collector) ,The First Gospel was written to show evidence to his fellow Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, or Savior, who was prophesied throughout the Old Testament. There are over 129 Old Testament quotes or references found throughout Matthew many of which he identifies as prophesies which were fulfilled by the things Jesus did or said or events which happened during Jesus’ ministry.

And let us remember that some of the apostles were privy to information that others did not have (for instance, Thomas was the last to see Jesus risen from the dead). Jesus often went out with Peter and a handful of his apostles. They were not always present with Jesus.

When Jesus excluded Himself from the crowd,

He always took with him Peter, James, and John. The witnesses to the Transfiguration were Peter, James, and John. (Mathew 17:1)(Mark 9:2) (Luke 9:28)
John was the one reclining against Jesus at the Last Supper, and it was John to whom Jesus entrusted the care of his aging mother as he hung upon the cross. John was one of his closest friends too.( He was the one who followed Jesus to the cross , Can you tell me what love can be more than that??! )

Even Paul condemns other Christians, saying that other churches that were spreading were misguided.

Well Paul's letters to the Christians of Corinth reflect challenges facing the early church. Because the Corinthians lived in large, complex households and worshiped in house churches that reflected the city's diverse make-up, unity within diversity was an important issue. Other key issues were leadership and authority, ritual and practice, lifestyles and relationships. Corinth had many as 150-200 Christians. Some were Jews; probably most were Gentile converts. All struggled with what it means to be made new in Jesus Christ. Paul tried to address these problems and to reconcile the conflicts that arose by calling for unity in the Body of Christ.

And let us not forget that Paul never met Jesus during his mortal years.

Paul said "For we walk by faith, not by sight." (2 Corinthians 5:7)

.

It is also interesting to note that the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas at Nag Hammadi in 1946 conflicts greatly with the four gospels. It has also been discovered that the Gospel of Thomas was written during the same period as the Gospel of John. It is entirely possible that the entire “Doubting Thomas” scene was fabricated to cast a bad light on the Gospel of Thomas and the followers of that text.

Scholars aren't sure who wrote the Gospel of St. Thomas. The first lines of the text refer to "didymos Judas thomas" as the author. The word "didymos" is Greek for twin and the word "thomas" is Aramaic for twin. It appears the author's name was Judas, and his nickname was "the twin" .The canonical Gospels of the Holy Bible mention a man named Thomas, who John called "didymos thomas." There are also several people named Judas mentioned in the New Testament other than the well-known Judas Iscariot. There is no mention of a Judas in the New Testament who was also nicknamed Thomas, "the twin."
The Gospel of St. Thomas is considered "Gnostic" in origin and viewpoint by many fundamental Christians, and is possibly the reason why the book was kept from the original canon of the Holy Bible (if the text was even known by early Christian followers at all). Generally, Gnostics hold that salvation of the soul comes from a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of secret formulae indicative of that knowledge.

If anyone interested to know Why isn't Gospel of Thomas in the Bible giving a full evidences , I can post individual topic discussing only this Gospel.

It was a man by the name of Irenaeus that DECIDED which books to include and he did so to consolidate the Christian movement, which had been struggling for over a century because of different opinions and of course the horrendous persecutions. Irenaeus’ decision took place 150 years after the events of Jesus‘ life.
There were groups who ONLY followed the Gospel of Matthew, and it was Irenaeus who decided that they must follow all 4 - the four he decided upon. Now if there was that much strife over the RIGHT Gospels - imagine then, the fights there were over the PROPER interpretation - arguments that continue to this very day.
Once the Four Gospels were made canon, Iraneaus ordered all other texts destroyed. What do you think he did to people who interpreted the existing texts differently than him? Forgive them and sent them on their merry way? I seem to remember a German Dictator who went about burning books.

First of all, I'd like to say there were already debates and arguments among Jews at Jesus Time concerning if Jesus is GOD or not ...so what do you expect after his death?.....of course more debates.....I admit there were arguments....extra...But where is the place in the world that has no debates or arguments??....even In old ages, People had arguments whether to worship Sun or the cows ???!.
So we should agree that sometimes Debates are useful , coz there is a truth within them...and everyone must know where is it?

Irenaeus around 185 AD who remarks that there are only four Gospels that had been inspired by God, and that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. According to Ehrman, Irenaeus had reasons to convince his readers of the apostolic origin of the books: Irenaeus and many other Church leaders were involved in heated debate over correct doctrine. Irenaeus for example knew a large group of people who believed that there were two separate Gods, the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. Each group adhering to a certain doctrine had books in proof of their view. The insistence on the disciple Matthew's authorship therefore, in Erhman's view, should be viewed as part of the campaign against heretics.

The summary of all this, Irenaeus observed a continuity from old Testment to the 4 Gospels, On the other hand Gospel of Thomas (where we arenot sure who wrote it) doesn't have continuity from the Old Testment nor any match with the other four gospels !! (Taking into account that the 4 gospels were accepted by all parties ) !

The Four Gospels were chosen through the eyes of fear, and it has been taught using fear. It has been used as a wonderful device to control people. It has also done much good.

Well, Concerning that they were chosen through the eyes of fear.....using fear and to control People...don't make any sense....Besides Gospels in bible were collected after long long and heated Debates .....and They were not collected randomly or habhazardly but for a reason .
Besides Logically, If the Churches need to control People in a slavery way (which I admit that it happened in a certain time of the Church history ) It won't need to delete a gospel or other as The church could have done that without need of changing the bible Gospels !!! ( u see the point? )

The central point of Irenaeus' theology is the unity of God, in opposition to the Gnostics' division of God into a number of divine "Aeons", and their distinction between the utterly transcendent "High God" and the inferior "Demiurge" who created the world.
.

I simply do not understand that if God made Heaven and Heaven is perfect - how can any single soul be missing from it? Anything missing from Heaven would be imperfect. Any soul who won’t make it to heaven because of ‘sin’ suggests to me that God is very short-sighted, and is in fact threatened by Satan. My apologies, but the God I believe in is not only secure, but he is not threatened by anything. Not even a fallen angel.

Dear My friend , I totally understand your point. But there is something I would like you to know...god doesn't want any soul to be missed from Heaven as this breaks his heart as a Father seeing his son dieing by his own will infront of his eyes....and what a scene is it !. It can't be described.

God is not short sighted nor threatened by Satan....it's because we have freedom....that's the whole game about !.
coz god is not a dectatorian , he gave us freedom which way to choose.
Believe me coz of his most kindness , he gave this freedom too to the angels long time ago , This same freedom made one of his angels to come against GOD !.

Of course , GOD has authority on Satan but God coz he 's mighty and kind...he doesn't want to push himself onto human or order people to believe in him that 's why he gave them the FREEDOM !

I always thought of Jesus as forgiving and compassionate. Not judgemental.

Again here is the verse which says Jesus forgives and he not Judge :

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:16)

And if I wake up in heaven one day and I find that there are souls missing because of something we call sin, I would gladly give up my seat and offer it to someone condemned to hell. That my friends is compassion.


As I mentioned before GOD is Fair and at same time Kind and he wants all people to go to heaven but it's the Human who choose to be seperated from GOD.

Do you think that all people who entered heaven are without sin?..of course NOT ..coz no one is without sin even the saints but the one who believes that Jesus has washed his sins and that he's forgiven so he doesn't need to think about them anymore ...that one who will enter Heaven !

I see you imagine that heaven is like cinema , everyone has a seat and that he can offer it to someone else....but the reality is not like that at all.
I want to tell you something concerning that ....God gives for every human looong looong time ...a life time indeed so that he can know GOD !
is there any more freedom than this ?...
The problem is that no one in heaven can go to hell (hell means seperation from God) nor anyone in hell can go to heaven coz there is a huge gap between the two.

Do you know why you can't change your seat with anyone?
coz once you realized what is meaning of attending in the absolute existance of GOD presence in heaven ...you will not look for a friend nor a son nor a brother nor a mother to take your place...you won't even spend one second thinking of them .....coz what you are going to discover there can't be understood by human awareness nor cognitivity.
You will discover what is meant by the FEELING OF ATTENDING IN THE ABSOLUTE PRESENCE OF GOD !.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. ( 1 Corinthians 2:9-12)
.

"Bible Target is not to condemn People but to guide them through their lives...Imagine there is No Difference between right and wrong in Bible...Can a human depend totally on his morality or his conscience ??...of course NO"

i think people don't need the bible and christianity to guide their lives just look at a buddhist they dont use the bible to guide them and they are very moral and compassionate but is the only way to get into heaven if u accept jesus as ur god and believe in the bible?

i think people don't need the bible and christianity to guide their lives just look at a buddhist they dont use the bible to guide them and they are very moral and compassionate but is the only way to get into heaven if u accept jesus as ur god and believe in the bible?

We can discuss "Buddhism Morality and Christianity" in an individual Topic as we here are mainly discussing everything concerning Bible History only ...so Please we should be all on same Track !

Any Questions concerning Bible History , They are all welcome !

.

.

ok well what about those gods and messiahs who lived before jesus who were all born on dec 25, performed miracles, had 12 disiciples, was crusified on a cross, was dead for 3 days, and risen on the third days. there are multiple messiahs who had all these characterics and lived before jesus how do you explain that

Matt wrote:

ok well what about those gods and messiahs who lived before jesus who were all born on dec 25, performed miracles, had 12 disiciples, was crusified on a cross, was dead for 3 days, and risen on the third days. there are multiple messiahs who had all these characterics and lived before jesus how do you explain that

All those characteristics?

Could you provide some proof? Otherwise I'm going to conclude that you just made that up on the spur of the moment, which is hardly academic.

Horus 3000 bc, performed miracles, known as the lamb of god, after being betrayed by a friend he was crucified, dead for 3 days, and then resurrected

Attis 1200 bc, mother was a virgin, born on dec 25, was cruicfied, dead for 3 days, resurrected

Krishna 900 bc, mother was a virgin, star in the east signal his birth, performed miracles, was resurrected after 3 days

Dionysus 500 bc, born of a virgin, born on dec 25, performed miracles, after his death was resurrected,

Mithra 1200 bc, born of a virgin, born on dec 25, had 12 disciples, performed miracles, dead for 3 days, resurrected,

Matt wrote:

Horus 3000 bc, performed miracles, known as the lamb of god, after being betrayed by a friend he was crucified, dead for 3 days, and then resurrected

Attis 1200 bc, mother was a virgin, born on dec 25, was cruicfied, dead for 3 days, resurrected

Krishna 900 bc, mother was a virgin, star in the east signal his birth, performed miracles, was resurrected after 3 days

Dionysus 500 bc, born of a virgin, born on dec 25, performed miracles, after his death was resurrected,

Mithra 1200 bc, born of a virgin, born on dec 25, had 12 disciples, performed miracles, dead for 3 days, resurrected,

Krishna's mother was not a virgin, he had no star in the east, he was not resurrected at all.

My source is the Bhagavat Purana, the main Vaisanava purana, which contains details about the life of Krishna, amongst other contents. I have this book in 30 volumes on my shelf.

What is your source, the internet?

I shan't respond to the other claims as clearly you have not researched anything.

Ask and ye and shall receive Harrifer,

Krishna (The various traditions dedicated to different manifestations of Krishna, such as Vasudeva, Bala Krishna and Gopala, existed as early as 4th century BC.)

Here are their similarities:

Jesus and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.

Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.

Both were called Saviour, and the second person of the Trinity.

His adoptive human father was a carpenter.

A spirit or ghost was their actual father.

Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.

Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.

Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.

Both Jesus and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.

Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."

Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."

Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.

Both were without sin.

Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.

They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases." Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.

Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.

Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.

Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.

Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

NONE OF THIS IS TRUE

What is your source? You have no source from the Puranas, the Upanisads, the Mahabharata etc.

Please post some scripture or I shan't accept this. The only record of Krishna is from Hindu scriptures and temple decorations. There are no other historical records of Krishna. I will refute these one by one below, and will exclude everything that is blatantly untrue.

I asked for a real source and you gave me another website, which could be written by anybody. Which is the same thing I criticised.

Can we raise the bar a little?

I think you can also look up the Egyptian God Horus also.

Lucas wrote:

I think you can also look up the Egyptian God Horus also.

I think maybe you can learn to debate intellictually instead of copying and pasting websites. I have sources, you have nothing. Therefore I consider the matter closed.

Now, since the similarities are clearly quite small, can I please ask people to never post things from misinformed websites. At bare minimum, please check wikipedia, since it is sourced. I understand that you may not have access to the Vedic literatures, but wikipedia will give you basic information, and by checking it's discussion pages you can see what is not agreed upon.

My above post is not from Wikipedia, it is from books which I have named. Websites which do not cite sources are not valid evidence of anything.

I made my posts because I am offended that people will post things which have no basis in anything and pass them off as truth.

My posts were not motivated by personal pride or any desire to defend Jesus. I respect Jesus greatly, and enjoy reading the new testament, but I am not a Christian.

I've dug around, and found a copy of the A.C Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada translation of the Srimad Bhagavatam/Bhagavat Purana for all to see.

This link is to the Tenth canto, the canto that deals with the life of Krishna. Please feel free to enoy this book.

http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto10/c10-contents.html

After more searching I have found that the origional source of your information, before it was on the itnernet, was a book by a man called Kearsey Graves.

Here is a refutation from an Atheist.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html

Here is a comparison between Christianity and Hinduism, from the same Atheist.

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/3/3hare94.html

I have read it, and it seems to be reliable. He has clearly done research. You may wish to post this instead of your other posts. I do not consider these similarities evidence that Christianity was taken from Hinduism. It's a long shot.

Is it not fascinating how passionate people are about this subject? It is no wonder wars have been fought over this very thing.

Lucas wrote:

Is it not fascinating how passionate people are about this subject? It is no wonder wars have been fought over this very thing.

Have you read what I posted?

It's not a matter of passion, it's a matter of being correct.

There are records of Krishna's life, you may not beleive them, that's your prerogative. They are, however, the only records, so if your information does not agree with them, and is not from any other record, then it is obviously not true.

Let me explain: Abraham is mentioned in the Torah and the Koran. There are different accounts, but they are both accounts nonetheless. Different explanations are given of his sons, so the truth depends on your choice of account.

However, if i publish a website saying Abraham liked to play on a pogo stick, and it does not agree with either of those sources, and there are no other sources, how can it be true?

How can you not grasp this concept? You need sources.

Well, the Ramayana is 3000 years old. I don't think there is much literature that survived during that era, so I do agree, there are no other sources available.

But you must admit that it is compelling that someone like Confucius said:“Do not do to others what you would not like yourself.” which is the Golden Rule.

I am not suggesting that Jesus plagiarised, for like you I love the wisdom of his teachings. What started this whole debate was the suggestions that another member of this forum was lawless and sinful by using the words of Jesus to condemn. I am not against Jesus, or the Gospels, but people's interpretations of them. I would like others to not dismiss others texts, but to read them and gleam any helpful wisdom from them as they can.

.
I made the research myself , Harrifier is the right one.

My Research was based on the following References:

1) Wikipedia ( One of the most famous trusted resources ) .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna#Literary_sources

2) Srimad Bhagavatam Offical Website :

http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto10/c10-contents.html

Then since one (Krishna ) is proved to be not matching Jesus, we won't waste our time looking for the others who may or may not match Jesus Life.

Please Guys, we will move to next questions about Bible history.

.

Lucas wrote:

Well, the Ramayana is 3000 years old. I don't think there is much literature that survived during that era, so I do agree, there are no other sources available.

But you must admit that it is compelling that someone like Confucius said:“Do not do to others what you would not like yourself.” which is the Golden Rule.

I am not suggesting that Jesus plagiarised, for like you I love the wisdom of his teachings. What started this whole debate was the suggestions that another member of this forum was lawless and sinful by using the words of Jesus to condemn. I am not against Jesus, or the Gospels, but people's interpretations of them. I would like others to not dismiss others texts, but to read them and gleam any helpful wisdom from them as they can.

Yea see now that's beautiful. Please do that, just don't quote unreliable websites that don't cite their sources.

As a History student, that's basically all I do, cite sources. When I see a website that has no sources at all, not even a bibliography, I assume it is made up. It is not reliable to assume otherwise.

The website you chose, was froma secondary source. Ie the book 'sixteen messiahs' or whatever it is called. The author clearly has no knowledge of primary texts on Krishna, which is understandable since the scope of translations was very poor in the 19th century, and as far as I am aware, there is only one translation of the Bhagavat Purana readily available, which was written in the 1960s.

So, by a quick wikipedia-ing and a googling of the name of that author or the book, you would have found out if it is a reliable secondary source, which it is not. This would not take five minutes.

Are the Puranas and the mahabharata(&Gita) reliable primary sources? They're the only primary sources. So we trust them or nothing.

That's correct methodology, and that does not apply just to History students.

The Philosopher wrote:

.
I made the research myself , Harrifier is the right one.

My Research was based on the following References:

1) Wikipedia ( One of the most famous trusted resources ) .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna#Literary_sources

2) Srimad Bhagavatam Offical Website :

http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto10/c10-contents.html

Then since one (Krishna ) is proved to be not matching Jesus, we won't waste our time looking for the others who may or may not match Jesus Life.

Please Guys, we will move to next questions about Bible history.

.

My point was that the source was unreliable, since it was a secondary source by an author who had not studied primary sources and therefore was not evidence.

gospel of thomas, gospel of judas, gospel of peter, gospel of mary

Saying that the Bible is the one and only true source is like saying I can fully experience the world with only my nose. My other 4 senses don't matter.