Here you have it - the new old answer to all those biblical chestnuts that always puzzled you in the wee small hours.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7651105.stm

I for one am looking forward to the debate this is bound to spark in both ecclesiastical and political circles alike!

this will make interesting reading - especially soI can quote bits back at the annoying idiots who insist on knocking on my door to preach at me

Thanks Tas, bookmarked it for when my dad next starts quoting the bible at me

Interesting article. I have a feeling that nothing will change though. Everyone already knows it's full of inaccuracies, even the christians themselves, but they still ignore it.

It will be interesting to see what sort of reaction it gets.

Q

Bugrit! If you'd posted this half an hour earlier Tas, I'd have got another point in tonight's pub quiz!

The comments are quite scary though - total denial in many cases. (Apart from George of Maidenhead!)

But comments such as:

"Could we have a balanced article, please? Christians have known about these documents for over a century and yet there are still many of us, evangelicals (not necessarily fundamentalists) who believe the bible is God's word."

and

"The current Bible is God's word. Of course it was written by man, but it was breathed into life by God. The way that it has over time, evolved into is present form is not important."

seem to say in other words, "We know it's wrong but we still base our religion on it."

I'd like to see a gospel that has the Mitchell & Webb version of the parable of the good Samaritan, where they all pull Jesus up for his rascist views that all Samaritans are bad

Wonder when and where that bit about resurrection came from then.

Whoever added to it, like the words on the cross, had an eye for drama and a good yarn. Wonder if he wrote anything else

My guess would be one of the Pauls. There was one who sure could write a beautiful line and also had an eye for drama and continuity.

Marto

Actually at least one of the canonical gospels has had a bit added on the end to make it more palatable and biblical scholars are undecided on the others. Christianity was created by committee from the fourth century onwards using texts written at least thirty years after the events depicted in the New Testament. Anything that did not fit in with the corporate image was rejected as heretical. One particular book that was part of the early bible (The Shepherd of Hermas?) states quite clearly that you can repent once and once only, after that you are going to hell no matter how sorry you are. This was seen as an obstacle for an evangelising faith and so was quietly sidelined and forgotten. Books that upheld the power structure and apostolic authority were given greater prominence and just about anything that was left unsigned was attributed to St. Paul in an attempt to legitimise the lineage of the new Christian establishment.

Bringing these books to light again won't make a scrap of difference because "God" has already told the church that he made a mistake in having them written...

"We know it's wrong but we still base our religion on it."

Erm - so maybe the Wiccans ARE right after all?



( Dives for the safety of the big sofa! )

this was my favourite reply to the article

Didn't they also find the missing page that says 'All characters depicted in this book are purely ficticious and any resemblence to anyone alive or dead is purely co-incidental.'