What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?

[William]

The original manuscripts of the gospels are not known to have survived, so there is no way to verify if the gospels contained in the bible are true copies of said originals, or even if there actually existed originals and that what is presented as the gospels were simply fictitious creations of the early priesthood of Christianity, which eventually formalized them into a book, which was touted as being "The Word of God".

Q: Why were the original manuscripts allowed to perish if the bible is such a holy relic Christianity touts it to be?

Word of God - the sacred writings of the Christian religions; "he went to carry the Word to the heathen" Christian Bible, Good Book, Holy Scripture, Holy Writ, Scripture, Bible, Book, ...

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #30]

Deeper spiritual things? Jesus was already gone by the time they reached old age. They wrote about what Jesus did/said when he was THERE WITH THEM.

Cmon now.

Cmon now what?

Here;

Johns Gospel
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

And what about anything biblical Jesus [BJ] might have said about why he departed their company;

Johns Gospel
Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards.”

Dig deeper an you should see in the storyline that Jesus left them specifically so that they would develop a relationship with The Father, and this can only be done through Mysticism.

My point is that there are no known records of what this process involved for each of them, so even in old age they should have been able to keep journals so as that information was also as readily available as those earlier stories they wrote about their first encounter with BJ and how immature they were back then.

Yet strangely all we get is "how to be religious and play "Church" - as if that can possibly give an individual access to a Relationship with The Father.

Smells like fish because it is fishy.



But it is what the Greeks and Romans were good at doing - creating religion.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Cmon now what?

Here;

Johns Gospel
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

And what about anything biblical Jesus [BJ] might have said about why he departed their company;

Johns Gospel
Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards.”

Dig deeper an you should see in the storyline that Jesus left them specifically so that they would develop a relationship with The Father, and this can only be done through Mysticism.

My point is that there are no known records of what this process involved for each of them, so even in old age they should have been able to keep journals so as that information was also as readily available as those earlier stories they wrote about their first encounter with BJ and how immature they were back then.

Yet strangely all we get is "how to be religious and play "Church" - as if that can possibly give an individual access to a Relationship with The Father.

Smells like fish because it is fishy.

But it is what the Greeks and Romans were good at doing - creating religion.

Well, I speak for all believers when I say; the Gospels, as currently written and constructed, is good enough for us.

Now, whether it is good enough for unbelieving mysticis' on religious forums is something that believers need not concern ourselves with.

[Tcg]

Well, I speak for all believers when I say; the Gospels, as currently written and constructed, is good enough for us.

Until you can verify that you have the proxy of all believers, you speak for yourself alone.

Now, whether it is good enough for unbelieving mysticis' on religious forums is something that believers need not concern ourselves with.

"Unbelieving mysticis'[sic]" is not a position I've seen William self-identify as holding. What is your intent in assigning it to him?


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

Until you can verify that you have the proxy of all believers, you speak for yourself alone.

The what?

Anyways, no, I cant verify it...but that wont stop me from standing by what I said.

"Unbelieving mysticis'[sic]" is not a position I've seen William self-identify as holding.

What does your ignorance have to do with my knowledge?

What is your intent in assigning it to him?

My intent on assigning it to him is good intent.

[Tcg]

Until you can verify that you have the proxy of all believers, you speak for yourself alone.

The what?

Anyways, no, I cant verify it...but that wont stop me from standing by what I said.

Not surprising on both counts.

"Unbelieving mysticis'[sic]" is not a position I've seen William self-identify as holding.

What does your ignorance have to do with my knowledge?

Please document what your "knowledge" is based on.

What is your intent in assigning it to him?

My intent on assigning it to him is good intent.

Let's rephrase then. What is your goal in assigning it to him given that you've presented no evidence he identifies as such?


Tcg

[historia]

Why were the original manuscripts allowed to perish if the bible is such a holy relic Christianity touts it to be?

The problem with the question is that Christians don't consider the Bible to be a "holy relic."

Much like Jews, Christians have historically burned or buried old, worn out Bibles. What is important to Christians are the words, not the medium the words are written on.

It also took awhile for the gospels to attain the status of scripture -- much longer than the Pauline epistles, by comparison. There was a strong oral tradition of the teachings of Jesus in the primitive church, and we know from Papias, writing in the early 2nd Century, that he and other early Christians actually preferred the oral tradition to any written gospel.

[William]

[Replying to historia in post #36]

Why were the original manuscripts allowed to perish if the bible is such a holy relic Christianity touts it to be?

The problem with the question is that Christians don't consider the Bible to be a "holy relic."

A relic is an object surviving from an earlier time, especially one of historical interest. Add that to the words Christians emboss upon the cover;



plus imagery depicting holy men with said script;



and your statement appears to be something along the lines of this;

It also took awhile for the gospels to attain the status of scripture -- much longer than the Pauline epistles, by comparison. There was a strong oral tradition of the teachings of Jesus in the primitive church, and we know from Papias, writing in the early 2nd Century, that he and other early Christians actually preferred the oral tradition to any written gospel.

IF that were the case, THEN why did Christianity change the traditional way and formalize it into a book they then proclaimed as being the holy word of god, which created a flow of money into the structure it built for itself?

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #32]

Well, I speak for all believers when I say; the Gospels, as currently written and constructed, is good enough for us.

Yes - I am not debating that fact.

What I am suggesting though, is that it is may not be "good enough" for The Father.

Now, whether it is good enough for unbelieving mysticis' on religious forums is something that believers need not concern ourselves with.

Yet here you are saying so...

...Now as to educating on Mysticism 101;

We do not use the word 'believe' - not only because it plainly has the word 'lie' inserted within it, making it what it is - but more pointedly, because it can be used re misrepresentation [another lie] as in the word "Unbelieving" next to the word "Mysticism".

[historia]

The problem with the question is that Christians don't consider the Bible to be a "holy relic."

A relic is an object surviving from an earlier time, especially one of historical interest.

But a holy relic within Christianity is "some object, notably part of the body or clothes, remaining as a memorial of a departed saint," so the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) article on relics.

Obviously, the Bible is shown great reverence within Christianity, but individual manuscripts of the Bible are simply not treated as "holy relics." As already noted, Christians have historically disposed of worn out Bibles. You don't dispose of a relic.

It also took awhile for the gospels to attain the status of scripture -- much longer than the Pauline epistles, by comparison. There was a strong oral tradition of the teachings of Jesus in the primitive church, and we know from Papias, writing in the early 2nd Century, that he and other early Christians actually preferred the oral tradition to any written gospel.

IF that were the case, THEN why did Christianity change the traditional way and formalize it into a book

Books afford an advantage in terms of distributing and controlling the tradition, so it's not surprising that, in the late-2nd and early-3rd Century, the written gospels became increasingly popular and eventually supplanted the earlier oral tradition.

[William]

[Replying to historia in post #39]

Obviously, the Bible is shown great reverence within Christianity, but individual manuscripts of the Bible are simply not treated as "holy relics." As already noted, Christians have historically disposed of worn out Bibles. You don't dispose of a relic.

So is your argument that if the originals could have been kept as evidence that the Christians wouldn't have kept them as evidence?

Books afford an advantage in terms of distributing and controlling the tradition, so it's not surprising that, in the late-2nd and early-3rd Century, the written gospels became increasingly popular and eventually supplanted the earlier oral tradition.

In the late-2nd and early-3rd Century, the written gospels became increasingly popular with who?

SEARCH: When did Bibles become widely available?

1539: The "Great Bible" or "Cramner's Bible" printed; The first English language Bible to be authorized for public use (80 Books).

Re: "controlling the tradition" what tradition was being controlled and why?