was the "new testament" actually finished around 400 AD?

[Fern]

Peter was obviously not the first pope so the Church of Rome probably didnt actually exist until at least 400 years later than it claims to have come into existence.

i just dont see how the "new testament" could be non-fiction.

From what I can see, there is no doubt that there was a church of Rome in the early first century AD. The early Christian church(es) had no real structure, hence no Pope. That came later.

As regards your question of when the New Testament was "finished", what do you mean by finished?

The various books compiled into the New Testament seem to have all been written in the first century, some perhaps in the second. Throughout the years different books have been included or excluded from the New Testament. The 27 books making the 'cut' were generally accepted in the 3rd century. However, it appears, e.g., the Catholic church did not make it official until the 16th century.

I have no idea how the question of how/when the Catholic church came into existence has any relevance to the authenticity or development of the New Testament. IMO, the one has nothing to do with the other. The authors of the NT books would have been Jews, not Catholics.

Fern

 

[rudeguy]

The bible is obviously a crock of shit. You can clearly see how it has been written and re-written by multiple authors. Archaeology proves that it is inaccurate. Common sense tells you that people who hear voices are not good sources of information and that it bears a startling resemblance to other creation myths that pre-date it.

Honestly if you believe that the bible is real you are very naive and have been brainwashed.

Hi

We are still eagerly waiting for you show us where achaeology proved the bible is inaccurate.

 

[norseamd]

a fair amount of the bible is based on historical occurances, but that is subject to bias, exxageration, interpretation, etc. much of the early old testament is disputed on exact details. such as we dont really know who moses was, or if he really even existed. it seems judaism is a mixture of aten refugees, near eastern desert nomads, and perhaps other refugees from the nile delta. one of the pharoahs symbols was apparantly a staff with a bronze snakes head, and the bible talks about moses with a staff that turns into a snake. it seems that people think that moses might not have been ahkenaten, but maybe one of his generals. the hymn to aten and a prayer in the bible are almost the same. so there was a struggle between the pharaohs and priests of amun, so ahkenaten may have encouraged worship of aten to secure his power. this obviously failed on the long run, but it is interesting that much of the worlds major religion might be based off a power struggle.

also god apparantly had a wife, the queen of heaven, who seems to have been a very commonly worshiped goddess among many people of the near east. it seems that male priests edited her out of the bible during the bablylonion capitivity, probably to promote male dominance, but there are still passages to her in the bible.

as far as how recent some of the new testament is, i really do not know, but the catholic church did ban more than a few books, so probably quite recently. you should look at the apokrapha.

some of the details of this might be off, but it should be in wikipidia. i might look later, but not right now.

 

[Retro Rob]

Hi

We are still eagerly waiting for you show us where achaeology proved the bible is inaccurate.

He's likely still clinging to they myth that there is indisputable evidence proving the Bible to be wholly inaccurate.

Don't have to be religious to believe in myths, I guess.

 

[rudeguy]

He's likely still clinging to they myth that there is indisputable evidence proving the Bible to be wholly inaccurate.

Don't have to be religious to believe in myths, I guess.

Everyone has faith in something.

Some put their faith in God. Some put their faith in science. Some put their faith in themselves.

 

[Retro Rob]

Everyone has faith in something.

Some put their faith in God. Some put their faith in science. Some put their faith in themselves.

Yep. Faith comes in many versions, and means different things to different people.

 

[rudeguy]

Yep. Faith comes in many versions, and means different things to different people.

My big problem is and has been, that I get too wrapped up in explaining my beliefs that I forget that others feel as strongly about theirs as I do about mine.

Its a character defect I am working on. Something that is covered in very few apologetics lectures

 

[JD50]

Hi

We are still eagerly waiting for you show us where achaeology proved the bible is inaccurate.

Still waiting for you (or anyone) to explain a virgin giving birth.

And no, magic is not an explanation.

 

[Retro Rob]

Still waiting for you (or anyone) to explain a virgin giving birth.

And no, magic is not an explanation.

Well, I cannot explain it, and if I could prove it, I would...but I cannot...and that goes for any supernatural or one-time occurrence in the Bible.

Now if you want to discuss something that can be tested and proven/disproven (like the existence of Jesus), that can be debated, but lets end the "prove a miracle happened" nonsense because those can be neither proven nor disproven -- they can only be believed or disbelieved.

 

[Retro Rob]

lol, of course. 2000 years ago a woman claimed to get pregnant without ever having sex. Definitely believable.

So are you saying people CAN'T get preggo without having sex?

That's NEVER happened before?

 

[JD50]

So are you saying people CAN'T get preggo without having sex?

That's NEVER happened before?

Can you just state your point?

Edit - I'm trying not to assume here that you're going to bring up modern medicine...

 

[JD50]

Well, I cannot explain it, and if I could prove it, I would...but I cannot...and that goes for any supernatural or one-time occurrence in the Bible.

Now if you want to discuss something that can be tested and proven/disproven (like the existence of Jesus), that can be debated, but lets end the "prove a miracle happened" nonsense because those can be neither proven nor disproven -- they can only be believed or disbelieved.

How convenient.

 

[Retro Rob]

Can you just state your point?

Edit - I'm trying not to assume here that you're going to bring up modern medicine...

My point is simple: If we (humans) can find a way to pro-created without sexual intercourse, then it's nothing for God to do it.

So the idea of pregnancy without sex isn't absurd...which is the point I was making.

 

[JD50]

My point is simple: If we (humans) can find a way to pro-created without sexual intercourse, then it's nothing for God to do it.

So the idea of pregnancy without sex isn't absurd...which is the point I was making.

Ah yes, of course, magic.

 

[Retro Rob]

How convenient.

It's hard enough to prove ancient history using scientific means (i.e archaeology), so trying to prove supernatural feats using natural means is simply impossible.

 

[JD50]

It's hard enough to prove ancient history using scientific means (i.e archaeology), so trying to prove supernatural feats using natural means is simply impossible.

Yes, I'm aware that is the go to response when trying to explain away magic. Like I said, very convenient.

 

[Retro Rob]

Ah yes, of course, magic.

Doesn't mean the idea is absurd, though, no matter what word you attach to it.

You've been defeated, and now you're desperate (as all appeal to ridicule fallacies are...acts of desperation).

Just because something is silly or ridiculous doesn't prove its false.

lol

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes, I'm aware that is the go to response when trying to explain away magic. Like I said, very convenient.

Well, are miracles falsifiable, then?

A simple yes or no is sufficient.

 

[JD50]

Doesn't mean the idea is absurd, though, no matter what word you attach to it.

You've been defeated, and now you're desperate (as all appeal to ridicule fallacies are...acts of desperation).

Just because something is silly or ridiculous doesn't prove its false.

lol

I've been defeated? How so?

When asked to prove something you can't just say it was magic and then claim victory.

Edit - Also, it's up to you to prove it's true, not up to me to prove it's false. JHC I can't count how many times that's been explained to you.

 

[JD50]

Well, are miracles falsifiable, then?

A simple yes or no is sufficient.

Generally no, that's why I said it's convenient.

I guess you can just make up anything and claim it was magic.

 

[Retro Rob]

I've been defeated? How so?

When asked to prove something you can't just say it was magic and then claim victory.

No, I said I cannot prove it, and science cannot disprove it either.

You've been defeated in the sense that you have to ridicule my beliefs because you can't disprove them. Magic is silly and not real, so you attached the word to miracles to achieve the same purpose...to make them silly.

But the fact is, no matter how asinine something is, or how stupid it seems, that doesn't equate to evidence that they are false.

You should know this.

I embrace the FSM/Dracula/Goblins being equated to God because I know why the comparisons are made...and that's to distract from the lack of supporting evidence.

 

[JD50]

No, I said I cannot prove it, and science cannot disprove it either.

You've been defeated in the sense that you have to ridicule my beliefs because you can't disprove them. Magic is silly and not real, so you attached the word to miracles to achieve the same purpose...to make them silly.

But the fact is, no matter how asinine something is, or how stupid it seems, that doesn't equate to evidence that they are false.

You should know this.

I embrace the FSM/Dracula/Goblins being equated to God because I know why the comparisons are made...and that's to distract from the lack of supporting evidence.

Like I said in my edit, it's up to you to prove that these claims are true, not up to me to prove that they're false.

Also, you're wrong about the bold. It's not to distract from the lack of supporting evidence, it's to highlight the lack of supporting evidence.

We've gone over this countless times. You can't even grasp the basic concept of burden of proof.

 

[JD50]

If you're claiming something is a supernatural feat, that's magic. Look up the definition.

 

[Retro Rob]

Like I said in my edit, it's up to you to prove that these claims are true, not up to me to prove that they're false.

Any claim of truth requires some form of evidence.

Also, you're wrong about the bold. It's not to distract from the lack of supporting evidence, it's to highlight the lack of supporting evidence.

No, people who do that are trying to claim a belief is false because a similar belief is false, as if correlation implies causation.

Secondly, the FSM is totally arbitrary -- belief in God is not. Why? Well, we've seen complex mechanisms create less complex mechanisms (i.e humans making pencils), so it not illogical to believe a complex being can create something less complex than itself, like God creating humans.

Thirdly, find me someone inside and/or outside the scientific community that thinks vampires, Goblins, FSM are all real things....I'll be waiting.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Like I said in my edit, it's up to you to prove that these claims are true, not up to me to prove that they're false.

Also, you're wrong about the bold. It's not to distract from the lack of supporting evidence, it's to highlight the lack of supporting evidence.

We've gone over this countless times. You can't even grasp the basic concept of burden of proof.

Some claims are verifiable and some are not. Several people in this thread have made claims that are, in fact, easily verifiable...however, when asked to provide evidence to support their allegations they become strangely silent. How curious is that? Spiritual matters may not be your cup of tea...but asking for proof in such matters is an exercise in futility and you know it. The only hint that an atheist has that something may be awry with their "perception" is that only about 2% of their fellow humans beings share such a world view.