The first Gospel's were not written down for over 100 years after the Death of Jesus, do you have concerns
355692
Poeple can pull numbers from both sides to back up their beliefs or lack of belief. I can personally attest to the Power of those scriptures. God has left me with no other logical choice but to know that He is The I AM and Jesus is His Son and our Saviour. Bottom line....Faith. God bless.
1052747
I think your newspaper made that up 2000 years after Jesus was alive.  There are people who wrote about Jesus's life who lived with him and followed him around everywhere.  They are eyewitness reporters.  You can find their reports about Jesus in the bible, in the New Testament.  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote gospels about him - a gospel is a short story about Jesus that tells the message of why he was born and why he lived.  Luke was a historian who researched and interviewed people everywhere about all of their experiences with Jesus.\n\nNone of these people mention Jesus being married or having a child.  It is lunacy to think that they could have missed somehting that huge about Jesus's life.
579042
No. We are imperfect. Jesus did gave a report regarding the church eras up to the start of the tribulation. See it here... http://tinyurl.com/nyjzb
1130826
In an odd way, sweet_shy is right.  Sure, there are translation errors and parts of it may have been added or deleted, but it's still God's work.  It was divinely inspired; the only part that really matters is the message, and do you really think that he would let his message be corrupted?  The rest is just fluff to make it readable.  Now having read the New Testament, I find that what I read is entirely in line with my knowledge of God.  I think the message comes through just fine and there are no errors in it despite whatever stages the actual text has gone through.
567374
These claims are just that, claims.  There is no foundation of truth to these claims.  The word canon is closely related "reed."  Our word "cane" comes from the same word.  The idea is a measuring stick.  The idea is that canonical scriptures are those scriptures by which we measure our lives.  Who decides what is canonical?  Whoever is reading it, honestly.  We see that principal in Acts 17:11, when the Bereans were considered most noble because they examined the scriptures (Old Testament here) to see if what Paul said was true.  I do not agree with the Catholic's church of making the books officialy recognized (making acceptance of other books or rejection of any of the 27 a heracy) in the 16th century as a reaction to Martin Luther questioning the authority of the book of James.  \n\nHowever, history tells us that NO OTHER BOOKS have ever been widely accepted as scripture.  It also tells us that EVERY book in the New Testament WAS widely accepted as scripture.  The early church fathers, who wrote between the last part of the first century, and the first part of the second century, collectively quoted almost every single verse in the New Testament in their writtings.  No other books were quoted as scripture by them at all.  \n\nThe Muratorian Fragment is one of the earliests know lists of New Testament books.  Although it is incomplete, it refers to Luke as the "third" Gospel.  This would have been around the same time or before Irenaeus (I don't know the exact date of that fragment, only that it was the second half of the second century).  \n\nAs to your claim that we only have the 4 gospels to have the "slavation shallows...that we merely have to accept Jesus on faith and we are saved..." this is a ridiculous claim.  First of all, the Gospels say very little (although they are not completely silent) about how to be saved.  Mostly we find that in Acts and Paul's letters (Paul's letters are also written before most of the Gospels).  The simplicity of the Good News is found in Paul's writings.  \n\nAlthough I don't know the date of the three gospels you have mentioned, I know that most of the gnostic gospels are usually dated around 200 A.D.  This is reason enough to reject them.  Also, despite recent claims made by The DaVinci Code, the other gospels made Jesus out to be some mystic demi-god that didn't come in the flesh at all.  In fact, the gnostic gospels (the recent gospel of Judas among them), don't have a Jewish veiw of God at all, don't quote the Old Testament, and reject many of the events that fulfilled Old Testament prophesy about Jesus.  Their beliefs come from some Greek and Roman beliefs, and as such should be rejected.\n\nThe decision of what should be canon and what should not still goes on today.  Most of that decision goes on today in the form of Textual Criticism.  However, I believe Christians should still look at the 27 books we have and ask themselves, "Do these belong here?"  I believe we should still read some of the other early Christian writings and ask "Should these be considered scripture?"  I have done much study, and I am convinced that the 27 books in the New Testament are the ones by which I need to live my life.  Questioning what has been passed down, however, is never a bad idea.  Just make sure you don't obsess over it that you WANT to believe something else so badly that you don't remain objective (or that you want TO believe it, for that matter).  \n\nGod bless.\n\nP.S.  The importance of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is found througout the scripture, especially the letters of Paul and the writings of John.
15840
Definitely:\n\nMany noted critical historians, such as Shaye Cohen, John Dominic Crossan, Paula Fredriksen, John Meiers, E.P. Sanders, and Geza Vermes argue that Jesus lived from about 8-4 BC/BCE to 29-36 AD/CE. The main sources regarding his life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels from the New Testament, which took written form some decades after his death. They depict him – among many other things – as a Jewish Galilean preacher and healer who was at odds with the Jewish religious authorities , and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate. After his death numerous followers spread his teachings, and within a few decades Christianity emerged as a religion distinct from Judaism.\n\nBeyond the historical information accepted by most secular scholars, the gospels make various additional claims about Jesus: that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible); that he was the son of God; that his birth by Mary was virginal; and that after his crucifixion he rose from the dead, and then ascended into heaven. Most Christians hold that the Gospels also attribute divinity to Jesus; however, others hold that the Gospels are equivocal on the subject. Many Christians and some scholars believe that the accounts in the New Testament are historical facts, though others maintain that different parts have different degrees of accuracy, and a few hold Jesus did not exist at all.
484487
Dear child, I feel I must answer you...you keep on asking ?about the Sabbath. In the new testament Jesus said old things are put away...the teachings of the sabbath is one of them, this was before the death of Christ.\nAlong with keeping the sabbath there were many other  requirements, like sacrificing, which we no longer have to do because Jesus did it for us. He was the ultimate sacrifice. I hope this helps you and GOD BLESS
166327
Well, since the Bible is referenced in historical texts, more than any other book, and the story of Jesus is told in the Bible, I think that is considered historical proof. These stories are not new. The concept of Jesus' existance is harder for the modern day person to believe because we are 2000 years removed from that time. However, several texts, scrolls, letters, etc. were written soon after the death and resurection of Christ. Also, do not forget that zealous Jewish priests were persecuting Christians in order to try and get them to deny the message of Christ. This went on for a long time, and yet, the message has survived until now...2000 years later. Is it possible that it is all made up? I suppose there is no 100% evidence that it existed. But then, can you 100% proove that your great (time 5) grandfather existed? If you never met him and no one alive on this earth ever met him, how can you "proove" he existed. The simple fact is, you can't. But you believe because 1) you have faith. and 2) all the evidence presented supports that he did exist. All the evidence supports the existance of Christ. \n\nI suggest you pick up a copy of the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stroble. This presents the stories in a very "judicial" method. Giving the evidence and the opposing sides views and why the evidence supports the message of Christ.
369238
I tell people that if the King James Bible could not make holy people after 400 years then the other version will not either.  Jesus said in Luke 16:17 "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, then one title of the law to fail."  Well what is a title?  Smaller then lice, even smaller.  Jesus also said in Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pas away, but my words shall not pass away."  Why are we looking for a new bible that is missing over 4,000 words and scriptures twisted?  The simple reason is because Christianity today and from the time the apostles left have been seduced, and bewitched by these soph called bible scholars.  People in the churches are sick and gettting sicker with no truth no bible just socials, holidays and funny teachings and funny bibles outside of the truth the King James. \n\nThe bible says in Galatians 1:6-9 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; butt there be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (The King James Bible) But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you then that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed.  As we said before, so I say now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you then that which ye have received let him be accursed."  Today we are stuck with the same serpent that deceived Eve in the garden the same slick subtile teachings in all denominations, TV, Radio, Internet ministries.  And God and Father of Jesus gave them strong delusions to believe a lie because they refuse the love of the truth 2nd Thessalonians 2:10 "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.  And for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the love of the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."  This is what the churches today have pleasure in unrighteousness.  Jesus said in Luke 8:14 when he talked about the parable of the seed and the sower of the different ground that it would end up on. "And that which fell among thorns are they which, when they have heard, go forth and are chocked with cares and riches and pleasure of this life and bring no fruit to perfection."  The problem with Christianity today is that they don't bring forth fruit unto perfect but unto death.  These new bibles that are out are worse.  Things that the church never endorse 25-30 years ago when the King James was around and a little truth of still around, (Not the whole as man still perverted the bible back then as well) the churches are endorsing all types of sin and iniquity.  Why? 2nd Cor. 11:14-15 "And no marvel for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.  Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."  Christians are so seduced by the devil who transformed himself as an angel of light bewitching the people the Greek was wrong or the Hebrew or the whatever was wrong, so he has bible scholars to seduce people not to believe the bible.  The devil's workers will always go opposite of the bible, as a matter of fact they don't read the bible any more and they tell people a lie not to worry about the bible and give them a sermon like Eve had in the garden of Eden.  Yes the devil know his bible but he doesn't want you to know your bible because he got kicked out of heaven.  \n\nRevelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of th
288511
Jesus is coming since 2000 years ago If I were you I'll be worry about my dead (to face him) than his come back...\n\n;)
577321
There probably is missing Gospel. What relevance? It would have the same message, no?
685388
I have been saying, for years, that modern Christians follow Paul, not Jesus. The Christian New Testament is in large degree a Paulist document. The books that were accepted as worthy of inclusion were chosen by religious leaders long after the time of Christ at the request of Constantine. It was his desire to make Christianism the Roman state religion. It needed to be something that was very structured so as to give control over the masses. Paul's writtings afforded them the opportunity to do that, which is why they were picked. Anyone interested in a good look at the REAL Jesus and what HE taught, as opposed to Paul, should read the Lost Gospel of Thomas. Its easy to find, just do a web search. Funny thing about that book ... Jesus was married, spoke in ways that are foriegn to many now days, and comes off looking much more like the Jesus presented by Muslim scholars and also modern Gnostics. Its also dated, as a translation of an earlier work, to 60 C.E. which makes it older than 60 C.E. and very close to the life of Jesus. Its also older than most of Paul's works. And that married part? Makes it a little hard to let that pass as a fact and still enjoin celebacy on priests, monks, and nuns by way of example, don't you think? There goes the control over a cheap source of church labor. Another funny thing that lends credence to the Gospel of Thomas is that almost every quote in it can be found in the current Christian New Testament. But the OTHERS, the ones that are left out, make all the difference in the world. Paul was who and what he was. That's between Paul and Deity. But I don't think he was an Apostle, and I don't think he spoke for true Christianity. But, hey, Thomas did a good job. ;-) ~ Peace and Blessings ~ (Just an added thought ... Luke wrote the Book of Acts.He wasn't an Apostle, he probably never knew Jesus, he came on the scene latter. He worked and traveled with Paul. Realistically, where do you think he got his information. Who gave Luke input?)
908845
How much proof can there be for a book writen under the auspices of a pagan roman emperor who worshiped the sun God to his death.\n\nEven The four gospels were not written by the apostles.\n\nThey were written close to the end of the first century long after the apostles were dead and gone. The john who wrote revelations was not the apostle john. He was a poor man kept in prison so long that he simply lost his mind and started to imagine a vengeful God who would punish his captors and anyone like them.\n\nThe bible was created 2 centurys later by the roman empire to change the message of Jesus to something that the Romans found more acceptable.\n\nThis is why it is often difficult to understand. The message of Jesus on the other hand is elegant and simple to understand. You need to separate the message that Jesus left for us from all of the nonsense that the Romans overlaid it with and it will start to become quite easy to understand.\n\nDon't take my word for any of this. Study biblical history for your self and draw your own conclusions. There are many good books on this subject by some intelligent and thoughtful people. Take advantage of their efforts. \n\nEmail if you are interested and I will send so suggested reading material.\n\nLove and blessings.\nDon
141840
I apologize in advance for how long this answer is, but seeing some of the errors that that have been stated in other answers, this is as short an answer as I felt I could give to address the confusing answers already given.\n\nThe Bible claims to be actual communication from God to humanity. Notice these biblical passages:\n\nAll Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 \n\nAbove all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21 \n\n The Bible claims to be the very Word of God (verbum Dei), indeed, the very words of God (verba Dei). But this claim often raises a number of objections. \n\nObjection #1: The Bibles we have today are nothing like the biblical books as they were originally written. \nThis is a real concern people have. The question of whether or not the Bible was God’s Word 2,000 years ago is irrelevant if the Bible we read today is substantially different from what was originally written. Until the invention of the printing press around 1450, all literature was hand-copied and scribes could make mistakes in copying. It’s hard to know if errors are present with many ancient works simply because few early hand-written copies exist. But this is not a major concern with the biblical documents: \n\n1. There are over 24,000 surviving partial or complete manuscripts of New Testament books today. By comparison, the next largest number is for Homer’s Iliad, with only 643 surviving manuscripts. We have only 7 copies of Pliny’s History and only 10 of Caesar’s Gallic Wars―but we don’t hesitate to trust them. \n\n2. Furthermore, the New Testament has unusually early manuscripts compared with other ancient literature. Our earliest copy of Pliny’s History dates to 750 years after Pliny’s death. A lot can happen in 750 years. And the earliest copy of Gallic Wars was copied 1,000 years after Caesar’s death. By contrast, some early New Testament fragments date to within 30 years of their first writing, as with the John Rylands papyrus found in Egypt. There simply wasn’t enough time between the original writing and our earliest manuscripts to allow for much corruption. \n\n3. There are over 84,000 quotations from the New Testament (mainly from sermons) dating to the early centuries of the Church. In fact, even if we didn’t have a single manuscript of the Bible today, we could reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ. \n\n4. Similarly, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950s, we now have copies of the entire Old Testament from before the time of Christ―complete copies of every book except Esther.\n\nModern translations of the Bible (New International Version, New American Standard Bible, etc.) are translated directly from these earliest biblical manuscripts. \n\nObjection #2: The Bible is just a book of fairy-tales. Its account is not historically reliable. \nWhile there are letters and songs and laws and doctrinal teachings in the Bible, the most common genre within the Scripture is history. Observers point out that the Bible is an historical document in that it consistently gives accurate information on the geography, chronology, people, places, customs, nations and events recorded within it.\n\nThe Bible is therefore unusual compared to other human religious literature. The Book of Mormon, even though relatively recent, nevertheless reads like a cheap nineteenth century American gothic novel. It describes an entire pre-Columbian civilization which shows no signs of ever having existed. There simply never was a highly advanced Jewish civilization in ancient New York. Th
542994
You bet, if it has remained in the bible all this time , it is there for a reason. All of the bible preserved throughout the centuries is true and important.
375207
"There is actually quite a bit of written history from that time period that proves he did exist. But thanks for playing anyways."\n\nHAHAHAHAHAHA.... prove it. Show me one single piece of paper and I will believe you. The fact of the matter is, there was NO record of a historical jesus. In fact, St. Paul (who recorded the very first story of "Jesus") didnt mention anything about a virgin birth, miracles, or even this plane of exsistance. It was set in the same relm as Zeus, Hera, and other fictional characters. There are no writings from ANYONE who supposedly followed "jesus". If you know of any first hand evidence, I will gladly look at it and convert my faith if its true. So heres your big chance, all you good christians out there... In fact, Im gonna make it a new topic.
338755
that is fine except for the tiny fact it contradicts everything written before it. Before Jesus you will find no place in the bible that says that the Law is ever to be fulfilled.