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, ...

[We_Are_VENOM]

You implied it was a book:

Again, P52 is a newsflash compared to other books of antiquity.

<bolding added>

Not surprisingly you cut this out of your quotation.


Tcg

You are right, I did. What I meant was; other WORKS of antiquity.

I had been using books/works throughout the discourse of this subject depending on the context, and simply misspoke.

Hey, I am human.

[We_Are_VENOM]

How does that change the content of the O.P.?

It doesn't change the "context". We are now discussing a sub-topic within the context.

One conversation leads to another.

Such is life.

It is seems to me that William is still addressing the gospels.

Of course, but at this point, is it only the Gospels.

If I am incorrect I trust he will correct me.

Tcg

I wouldn't count on it. You guys don't do enough correcting of each other on it.

[Tcg]

You implied it was a book:

Again, P52 is a newsflash compared to other books of antiquity.

<bolding added>

Not surprisingly you cut this out of your quotation.


Tcg

You are right, I did. What I meant was; other WORKS of antiquity.

I had been using books/works throughout the discourse of this subject depending on the context, and simply misspoke.

Hey, I am human.

You also earlier referred to P52 as a copy of the gospels:

And even though we don't have the original manuscripts of the Gospels, what we have are a plethora of copies of the Gospels, with the earliest copy (P52) dating around 150 CE (which is the latest date given for it).

So, as can be clearly seen, my reply was not a Straw Man as you claimed.

More importantly, a fragment such as P52 clearly can't be used to verify anything other than a tiny fraction of the contents of gospel John. In light of that, its date is of very little import.


Tcg

[Tcg]

I wouldn't count on it. You guys don't do enough correcting of each other on it.

I'm not sure who the "You guys" you refer to are, but William corrects me plenty. In any case, the topic concerns the original copies of the gospels which quite clearly leaves the writings attributed to Paul irrelevant.


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

You also earlier referred to P52 as a copy of the gospels:

Yeah, and I am also saying I misspoke on that too.

So, as can be clearly seen, my reply was not a Straw Man as you claimed.

My bad.

More importantly, a fragment such as P52 clearly can't be used to verify anything other than a tiny fraction of the contents of gospel John. In light of that, its date is of very little import.

When it comes to dating the earliest fragment of a Gospel, it is very important. It may not mean anything to you, but to us (believers, scholars, historians), it is important.

[Tcg]

You also earlier referred to P52 as a copy of the gospels:

Yeah, and I am also saying I misspoke on that too.

So, as can be clearly seen, my reply was not a Straw Man as you claimed.

My bad.

More importantly, a fragment such as P52 clearly can't be used to verify anything other than a tiny fraction of the contents of gospel John. In light of that, its date is of very little import.

When it comes to dating the earliest fragment of a Gospel, it is very important. It may not mean anything to you, but to us (believers, scholars, historians), it is important.

How does that change the fact that:

"More importantly, a fragment such as P52 clearly can't be used to verify anything other than a tiny fraction of the contents of gospel John."

Great, so you have a date of this fragment. The issue is its value regrading the content of gospel John.

Oh, and nice ad hominem.


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

How does that change the fact that:

"More importantly, a fragment such as P52 clearly can't be used to verify anything other than a tiny fraction of the contents of gospel John."

Great, so you have a date of this fragment. The issue is its value regrading the content of gospel John.

And what is the content of John as it relates to this fragment...is the issue?

Oh, and nice ad hominem.


Tcg

I see no ad hominem.

[Tcg]

How does that change the fact that:

"More importantly, a fragment such as P52 clearly can't be used to verify anything other than a tiny fraction of the contents of gospel John."

Great, so you have a date of this fragment. The issue is its value regrading the content of gospel John.

And what is the content of John as it relates to this fragment...is the issue?

I have no idea what this is asking.

Oh, and nice ad hominem.


Tcg

I see no ad hominem.

Check out your last sentence. You'll see it.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #15]

IF I am understanding the argument correctly, John would have been a very old man at the time of writing.

Point?

If I am understanding the P52 argument, a fragment which may have come from what John originally wrote, is the oldest and only surviving remnant of anything which might have existed as original?

Given we also have Matt, Marky and Luke, all writing their individual account over a time period which they each saw their lives out into old age, we can also assume that they wrote about their lives after all that stuff recorded in the bible - so why is it that all we have are the part of their story which is an account of their immature days, and we have nothing at all about the deeper spiritual things Jesus told them they would have access to - principle The Fathers Kingdom.

Why wouldn't those writings also have been copied and preserved and available to the world at large?

My point being that I do not know of any other works of antiquity which boast of being 'the word of god' so the standard for such a claim would naturally be expected to be much higher re the Christian bible.

I disagree with such expectations.

Sentiments aside, can you support why you disagree in a debating fashion?

My point remains. There are no 'originals' therefore we cannot assume that to be the case.

Well, you have your standards, and we have ours.

I am sensing a disturbance in 'the force' - such sentiment alone comes over as a kind of sulking and I am looking for maturity in relation to my standards hereabouts. I come here to discuss, argue, point out things and have things pointed out to me.

The higher we can elevate our standard of critical thinking, the more likely it is we can get through life within the expanding bubble of truthfulness.

30 years after the fact compared to hundreds of years after the fact. That is a newsflash from where I'm sitting.

A lot can be achieve in 30 years. A novice disciple would have matured greatly and shared their journey with the rest of us. The absence of that material is questionable. It makes what material is available, questionable as well.

You don't say...

Talking about Christianity before the formation of the priesthood is irrelevant

Right, it is so irrelevant that you brought it up in the first place.

No. You did, in the context and from the position that you are arguing this. Anyone who mentioned Christianity before the formation of the Christian priesthood, could well have been referring to something else.

I see no reason to take off the table the possibility that the Christian bible is a work of fiction created by the Priesthood. I am not necessarily arguing that is actually the case, but that it is very possibly the case...

I have seen no argument that positively shows that we can remove that possibility from the list.

re the idea that the stories were invented by the early Christian priesthood.

Believe that if you must, amigo. Anything that will keep you from salvation, believe it.

Woo-woo aside, the idea is still very much on the table.

Are any of the manuscripts dated prior to the first century 60's CE?

Originals? No. But some of Paul's writings are dated to the 50's CE.

Are you saying that Paul's original writings still exist?

Now there we have something of a more mature personality than what we have been offered re the disciples aforementioned...but he is awfully Roman about most everything and even though Paul is the one explaining what Christianity is to us, we hear nothing from those who apparently actually spent time with biblical Jesus and nothing noteworthy of the mysticism they would/should have naturally evolved into over the years as they matured.

What does Paul direct us toward? Mysticism or religious conformity?

To boot, we also don't have anything official from any of the others like Thomas and Mary and etc...it is almost as if a few schisms happened which have largely been kept under wraps by the prevailing branch which did surface come the advent of the official priesthood.

All very sus I think...

[We_Are_VENOM]

If I am understanding the P52 argument, a fragment which may have come from what John originally wrote, is the oldest and only surviving remnant of anything which might have existed as original?

I don't know about the "as original" part...but yeah.

Given we also have Matt, Marky and Luke, all writing their individual account over a time period which they each saw their lives out into old age, we can also assume that they wrote about their lives after all that stuff recorded in the bible - so why is it that all we have are the part of their story which is an account of their immature days, and we have nothing at all about the deeper spiritual things Jesus told them they would have access to - principle The Fathers Kingdom.

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.

Why wouldn't those writings also have been copied and preserved and available to the world at large?

This question is the result of a faulty assumption, and can be discarded.

Sentiments aside, can you support why you disagree in a debating fashion?

I disagree with the notion of your higher standard, which is that original manuscripts must be at our fingertips.

Not only doesn't it necessarily follow, but again, even if we had the originals, I doubt you would be any closer to Christ.

So, these are all just dead points and sensationalizing.

I am sensing a disturbance in 'the force' - such sentiment alone comes over as a kind of sulking and I am looking for maturity in relation to my standards hereabouts. I come here to discuss, argue, point out things and have things pointed out to me. The higher we can elevate our standard of critical thinking, the more likely it is we can get through life within the expanding bubble of truthfulness.

Um, I pointed out to you that we don't have the originals of practically anything as it pertains to ancient works of literature.

So, Gospels are no different in any other book in that regard. You responded by implying, "Yeah but, since those books are the alleged word of God, I expect originals".

Well, I disagree with your expectations. I believe that God will see to his word being preserved, but you don't have to have the originals in order for the word to be preserved.

You disagree, so we will have to agree to disagree.

A lot can be achieve in 30 years. A novice disciple would have matured greatly and shared their journey with the rest of us. The absence of that material is questionable. It makes what material is available, questionable as well.

Hey, if that is the way you feel.

No. You did, in the context and from the position that you are arguing this. Anyone who mentioned Christianity before the formation of the Christian priesthood, could well have been referring to something else.

I see no reason to take off the table the possibility that the Christian bible is a work of fiction created by the Priesthood. I am not necessarily arguing that is actually the case, but that it is very possibly the case...

I have seen no argument that positively shows that we can remove that possibility from the list.

Cool. Jesus never existed, and Christianity was just some cockamanie fiction created by the priesthood.

Gotcha.

Are you saying that Paul's original writings still exist?

Now there we have something of a more mature personality than what we have been offered re the disciples aforementioned...but he is awfully Roman about most everything and even though Paul is the one explaining what Christianity is to us, we hear nothing from those who apparently actually spent time with biblical Jesus and nothing noteworthy of the mysticism they would/should have naturally evolved into over the years as they matured.

What does Paul direct us toward? Mysticism or religious conformity?

To boot, we also don't have anything official from any of the others like Thomas and Mary and etc...it is almost as if a few schisms happened which have largely been kept under wraps by the prevailing branch which did surface come the advent of the official priesthood.

All very sus I think...

Everything but what actually occurred, eh.