Hardcopies ready! Thankyou to all who helped.

[Andrej]

you may have misunderstood my intentions, i am not trying to disproveyou, i just would like some banlance.

There is no reason to believe that Marcion edited books which came after him... That's virtually the same argument as diabolical mimicry. Satan cracked Yahweh's secret codes and knew what Jesus would get up to, so made his evil pagan religions COPY Jesus' life and messages, hundreds to thousands of years earlier... There's no evidence that these books existed before Marcion. Let's not put the cart before the horse. What church tradition says and what history says are two very very different things!

i have to admit i do not know enough about the topic to deny what you are saying, but i am quite certain it was not like that (i might check my books again and come back later). Though my next answer partially answers this. About diabolic mimicry, never heard of it. However, i find it interesting you would say that as your book contains a whole section about divine codes (which is curious as an atheist). The codes you present are by far too complex to be done by a human.

This is an outright lie, there?s no evidence for that. Early fathers like clement wrote more like Paul as if these books don't exist. It?s not until the second half of the 2nd century where we see both the CONTENT and REFERENCFES to the NT books as we know them today (more or less - additions and changes were still made for some time which is proven). Even where content is there it only means that that idea or message was around, not that that book was around. Proto-books? Perhaps. Gospels and other NT books as we know them? No, there's not a shred of evidence to show they were around before Marcion.

it was not my intention to lie. there is not much dircet evidence, naturally, as Revelation was only written a few years earlier. Copying manuscrits by hand and spreading them, and then evaluating them, takes an incredible amount of time (e.g. vaticanus was written on 700 (!) goat skins. Someone had to prepare these skins (or other writing materials), which means a lot of money, or a lot of time. Writing was also done in a different fashion than today, more on a letter-by-letter basis, it took a lot of time to copy thousands of NTs). Also, the way those that do quote the NT later on is the most important proof we have. None of them writes in a manner as if he was setting up a new standard. They quote scripture naturally, without feelingthe need to explain where they got those ideas. If someone wrote a letter from one end of the early christian world to the other, quoting a Bible book, would he not only do that if he was certain the book spread to that region already? As the church did not have centralized organization yet in the 3rd century, the only method of distribution is uncoordinated, manual, church-by-church copying. For such a process to reach a fair amount of spread in the early 3rd century shows that the propagation of manuscripts had to be going on for quite a while (since the writing of the manuscripts in fact). That is the most prevailing evidence.

If we insist on early quotes as proof, we can name Ignatius for quoting scripture in 110AD (Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, I Thessalonians), as well as Polycarp in roughly the same time (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Hebrews, I Peter, I John, III John) before Marcion.
Now, it is true none of these were quoted by name (and some are questionnable, certainly not all though), but that is just the spirit of the NT church. Peter did not quote Paul, athough he was aware of (at least some of) his letters and approved of them, even calling them scripture (long before a canon was even theoretically possible! Clement had a similar attitude it seems (of not quoting)). Neither did Paul or James or Jude of John quote anyone. It was the time of the Holy Spirit, where Apostles and God-chosen leaders depended on divine guidance only. If you want to play the atheist card, let me just say they focused more on their own business than anyone elses. The transition to the traditional churches was a slow one, and it had some good and some bad developments. This is why the earlier church fathers slowly changed their style. It is clear to me that the change of style is far better explained by a shift of thinking than a shift of regard for scripture. Just because they had no form whatsoever does not mean they had no opinion (they also first had no form in service, offices, or any other matter. Their absence of form is a theological pillar, rather than a lack of organization). Marcion and other interesting personalities forced such form upon the early christians. Some quotations in that spirit:

1Jn 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
2Jn 1:2 For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.
Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.


Since we are mostly ranting without presenting evidence, let me just say i generally agree with the scolars that believe in apostolic authorship, and i beieve in a literal Jesus. There are thousands of scholars in this "camp", and they have just as much proof as anyone else (not that i am just chosing according to my liking, but i cannot present a sufficient essay that covers the evidence. It is impossible in a forum board.).
It would never have been possible to manipulate the manuscript development on such a large scale, especially considering there have always been churches that did not go along with the catholic (or just the major ones before that). Try to visualize your proto-books spreading to the far regions of the world, how would the catholic church control those regions (not that they did not try, they just can't). The books may have had some limited development, but that is only true for the gospels. That does not make them any less valuable.
For example, tell me, what relevance would a 3rd century Revelation of John have, as it was clearly a text that had a certain interpretation to 1st and early 2nd century christians only? No sense here.

You are partially correct, good job! Just because we find something disagreeable in a religion, say, like Islam, doesn't make the religion false. If a pagan religion practices human sacrifice and orgies, again, a Christian can?t use that as evidence that the religion is false. My position is however, if you are going to say that it's good to kill baby boys and rape baby girls because god said so in the bible, then you had better be able to prove that your god/bible/religion is true. So far this hasn?t been done, hence I am outraged when crimes are done in god's name. The dao de jing never tells people to do such things as kill your relatives who stray from the faith or wipe out a whole race of people. This is partly why I rate the Eastern philosophies so highly as opposed to the ?Western? religions.

i fully understand you. Though, i am absolutely certain both proverbs and ecclesasties, as well as some NT passages, are at least as dense as the dao. But, the Bible does not stop at just philosophy, it encompasses the entirety of the human existence, and accounts for all lifestyles, and all philosophies, and all forms of poetry, and all forms of faith.

Well one reason I just gave you. If people are going to kill/die in god's name they had better be able to prove it! There's a whole bunch of other gods they could be believing in... I would like to see your proof, sincerely. But not if it's the typical "god revealed it internally" as that can't be verified and can just as well be applied to Marduk as to Yahweh. Once again, arguments for an existence of "some sort of God" (most arguments can apply to any god like Zeus, Thor, Thomas Paine?s deistic god, a pantheistic god, etc) do nothing to prove Christianity or the Bible.

i see your point, but this does not entirely apply to the NT church, as the underlying message was to simply do the best in any kind of circumstances (it is apparant in teachings of Jesus as well as John and Paul). There is a moral framework for reference, which is based on the principles of peaceful community life and love, and some (at first sight) less wisdom-based principles, but the overall message is a strongly individual faith with the obligation of love, righteusness, truth and faith. If i was no christian, i would adhere to the same principles, as i (and i say this with all honesty) have tested other philosophies, and they are all limited by the misconceptions of their founders. To me, if you take out all the "faith" part of christianity, it is still superior to all other philosophies, because it does not neglect human drives or the facts of real life (as opposed to philosophy and wisdom only). So, based on the theory alone, i have found nothing better (and i checked the eastern philosophies, in fact they come second on my "list", and third is agnosticism). The christian lifestyle is the best for you and your community. i have to admit, though, that things like Islam disqualified also because they do not adhere to truth (a principle that, to me, cannot be shaken, regardless of culture and circumstances) and logic (which i put before my decision to be a christian). Interestingly, even if there was no Jesus, having such a figure as a reference point to ones psyche is extremely helful.

I encourage you to look into modern Jewish archaeology which blows the lid on the Old Testament. As for the New Testament, I encourage you to peruse the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts. I encourage you to look into the "early ChurchES" a bit more. The sect of Christianity most of us stem from today was the literalist/orthodox sect (later the Catholics), who killed and tortured their rivals, and destroyed their texts. Not very Christ-like. Study the origins of the faith and why so many believed in Jesus in different ways, including why many didn't believe he existed at all.

As i said, i know how it is conducted. Both sides (evangelical vs. secular) are worse in their conduct than little children. it is, in fact, just a bunch of guys making unproven claims based on extremely obscure "facts" and theories and hoping the other side cannot refute them. This is really what many of those "scolars" have in mind, believe me. So,a certain kind of animal bone in an ancient public dumpster may become the major evidence for theories saying the early christians were all bisexual, had orgies, loved to kill children and eat them, and a lot of other things. Formulate this with false, pretended logic, and hide it in a complex structure, and your opponent will have years of work refuting you. You should know hoew they conduct their research, you are (somwehat of) an aramaic primacist. Tell me how they come up with book-long essays "proofing" greek primacy? It is just a bunch of misguided pride. Also, please konw that "scolarly consensus" is nothing more than a bunch of people patting each others back. When a new scholar is born, we wants to belong to the group. He does so by patting the backs of those that are currently "in charge" of his group. It is phariseical politics. That is why some really dumb ideas become so popular.

Just to give an example of what i mean: One very funny OT "theory" that finds somuch aceptance it the belief that montheism was a late development in the age of the Kings. They suppose before that, Jews worshipped all kinds of godsside by side. Now, the funny part is when you trace back those theories, they are founded on the unearthing of some ashera sculptures that date to the age of the kings in Israel. There has been little to no other circumstancial proof of what has happened there. What happened after that is a classic.
"Scholars" took their appropriate drugs and got in their accustomed prideful attitude and got worked up on their trip in a manner where not even fantasy could limit them. The result was the modern consensus. "Polytheism prevailed at least after solomon". All because of some ashera sculptures. Books and essays on this are still written as we speak.
Now, see this from my point of view. i know the Bible quite well, and the funny thing about all this is that the Bible admits for ashera worship all over, especially in the age of the Kings. And, if you read the biblical record and put it all in the correct frame, you can clearly see it was done parallel to monotheism, and the Bible even records some events where the common people were worshipping both ashera and YHWH in the same era, but, interestingly, the Bible itself always keeps the distinctions clear, even if kings did not do so. Of all the books that were written on this, not a single shred of new information that was not clearly revealed in the Bible even much more consistent with the evidence (except, naturally, for some insane theories) has been presented. This is one of the major issues that are supposed to "blow the lid" on the OT.
The simple fact that they worshipped other Gods is irrelevant to monotheis, just as it is irrelevant to the christian faith if some "christians" are greedy money lovers (=worshippers of mammon). They may still even formally confess to monotheism.

Other funny stories are, e.g. the exodus. The Bible never evengives the impression of cencorship. It speaks of the evil deeds of the patriachs as well as the judges and kings. Egyptian history, however, is one slick, polished piece of garbage. Now, why to trust the near absence of Joseph or the hebrews in archaeology, when the pharaos are known for their information suppresion? Such attempts were not done by the hebrews. Truth has always been the major definer of God's people.

Again i refer to the fact that all "arguments" i am aware of that have been presented against the Bibles approx. 200 years ago (like the Hittites, orthe listings of foreign Kings) are refuted. The same will happen to the modern theories. In time, truth will prevail.

This is all that "modern archaeology" is about. Even magazines like the BAR (kind of evangelical) are full of lies and idiotic ideas (of which i am convinced the authors know they are wrong, but just put the burden of proof on the other side).

I encourage you to look into the "early ChurchES" a bit more. The sect of Christianity most of us stem from today was the literalist/orthodox sect (later the Catholics), who killed and tortured their rivals, and destroyed their texts.

Yes, there were many churches, with very undefined borders. Yet, such developments were already refuted by the apostles, in the NT. Gnosticism is refuted by name, mysticism (incompatible with NT writings), Nicolaitism, the "free sex" philosophies, ascetism, extreme literatism, and many more. There were many churches, but allow me to draw some borders (as it is a matter of definers and opinion) and say there is only one somewhat consistent NT church. All other churches are by nature excluded from being candidateds of agreeing with the apostolic doctrine, and are thus not the NT church. In this case, i simply employ the NT as the benchmark of those borders. Whoever fully agrees with it, and knows how to put the OT in context (not only in a direct literal sense though(both OT and NT)) may call himslef the original NT church. And yes, pure literalists (that deny further interpretation) tend to be fundies and extremists. This is also not NT teaching.
1Co 9:25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

You said most of us stem from there. Thanks for saying "most". i myself do not see it that way for my own person. i have (mostly) freed myself of cultural and historical preoccupation, and am continuously attempting to agree more and more with the NT, not only in a literal sense. i may have some similar or even the same opinions as some traditionalists regarding certain topics, but that has nothing to do with them, but much more with the NT. i am not scared to figure out the Bible may be wrong, as truth is of the highest value. But, i have not yet found any real evidence against anything in there.

That's an interesting question in itself: Why would people who lived in the time of Christ, and loved Christ and his teachings, deny that he even existed? I pose this question to scholars and debaters and I never get a satisfactory response. The only logical reason is that they are right. They'd know. They created the Christ myth. Even before Christ was meant to be around. The details came later, in the 2nd century. Hence the NT Gospels as we know them only get referenced in the latter half of the 2nd century. Actual existent manuscripts of these books of course show up much much later, so these references are important in figuring potential dates of composition.

i am uncertain what you are referring to. Who denied he existed? The Apostles? The Early fathers? Nicean contemporaries?
Do you deny the NT writings are first century material that came into existance during the apostolic age? Are you saying some kind of conspiracy war going on over a timespan of 300(!) years? Such a thing is impossible, more so back then than today. It is also my impression that most secular scolars (that actually wrote a text concerning the topic) agree Jesus existed (e.g. Jesus seminar etc).