What is the New Testament???

The New Testament isn't a newer version of the Bible. :lol:
The new testament is the completion of the Old testament...But who came up with the extra stuff?

It was written by the apostles. The New Teastament is the teaching of Jesus and works in conjunction with all of God's laws of the Old.

Pick is quite correct.
Most of the New Testament is letters written by the apostles to different churches of the time.
If you read them names of the books correctly, they are 'letter to the Galatians' and so forth.
The first 4 books of the New Testament document the life of Jesus, the second 2 are the acts of the apostles after the crucifiction and the majority of the rest are compiled letters.

The new testament is the completion of the Old testament...But who came up with the extra stuff?

Huh? The new testament is like another chapter. What extra stuff?

I have a feeling we should be discussing this in the philosophy forum.

Huh? The new testament is like another chapter. What extra stuff?

I have a feeling we should be discussing this in the philosophy forum.
Good idea, see you there :)

Well for starters, I'm pretty much just creating this thread because a little discussion between me and some other members got off-topic. So here we are DGB454, let the discussion begin...:)

Split and merged....now the topic can carry on where it left off. :)

Ok so these were letters written by priests I persume???

at the time, there were no 'priests' persay, but these are a collection of the writings to different churches and individuals by the discoples/apostles. (except for revelation, which is, as the full title states, The Revelation of John.

So what I'm getting is that The New Testament is a whole new chapter based on letters from "prests" (or what they were called back then). So the New Testament is pretty much written by man...correct???

It was written by the Holy Spirit by the hands of men

It was written by the Holy Spirit by the hands of men
But was it not said that it was the aposteles that wrote the letters on how they saw the life and times of Jesus? Or was it more like a different view of the events that took place in the Bible?

(this can differ by belief), but my belief is that every word that is in the Bible is the inspired word of God. That being said, yes the apostles did the physical writing, but their thoughts and writings all came from the Holy Spirit. their teachings, their sermons, etc. Gods words spoken through men.

The apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to record the life of Jesus.
There are four books recording his life so that it is recorded in full, this way the record was more accurate and since it is from 4 different men not so easily disputed.

(this can differ by belief), but my belief is that every word that is in the Bible is the inspired word of God. That being said, yes the apostles did the physical writing, but their thoughts and writings all came from the Holy Spirit. their teachings, their sermons, etc. Gods words spoken through men.

Exactly. :sunglasse

and the rest of the NT is the aposteles teachings the the other churches that they founded:
@Phillipi (phillipians)
to the Ephesians, Corinthians, etc
letter to James....etc

So pretty much, depending on your belief, the letters could have been man made or a direct writing of the Holy Spirit. Interesting...thanks for all the info guys :thumbsup:

yea; some people believe that none of the NT is inspired, some believe some of it is, and others (like myself) believe that every word is the Inspired Word of God

Pick is quite correct.
Most of the New Testament is letters written by the apostles to different churches of the time.
If you read them names of the books correctly, they are 'letter to the Galatians' and so forth.
The first 4 books of the New Testament document the life of Jesus, the second 2 are the acts of the apostles after the crucifiction and the majority of the rest are compiled letters.
:werd:

Thanks CarSuperfreak and all who posted (special thanks to pick for not being jack ass to me as I was to him),
I was always told the version of how these prests wrote the letters themselves and had their own interpretation of Jesus' life. I learnt something new today :thinkerg:

yes i was going to say; props to all who posted. very civil exchange of ideas and info was much appreciated.

My opinion is that the New Testament, could be called an "opinion piece" These books were written by people who believed in God and wrote down their beliefs. So I never look at them as though God wrote or dictated them, but rather as what people thought and believed about God at that time.
I believe this to be correct, because of what was ommited from the New Testament. That there was originally going to be a text about the origins of man and sin (Genesis type stuff) which differed somewhat from the book of Genesis, show that yes opinions were involved in writing either this new text or the old text (or both, more likely).

The books of the New Testament were written by people who have either had personal contact with Christ or had contact with God. Not simply people who believed in God.


Learn a little about what you are giving opinions on before giving an opinion. You will be less likely to give a misleading opinion then.:2cents:

So pretty much, depending on your belief, the letters could have been man made or a direct writing of the Holy Spirit. Interesting...thanks for all the info guys :thumbsup:

Sure. Just like the Qur'an. It's a matter of your beliefs and faith.

Anybody can claim to be in contact with God, that they really are - only God would know! :)
I don't find my opinion any less missleading than your opinion on these people's opinions.
Also, if God was in fact dictating to them the Bible, then why would there be variations of the same story? God is supposed to be perfect, he doesn't make mistakes, so either the people who wrote these things down made the mistakes - OR - they were letting thier own bias into the text. :2cents:

Dictating? Did I say dictating?

Essentially you are. If it was the word of God, written through them, then it would be him dictating, like somebody would do with a secretary.
Their words, somebody else writing them.
Or I missunderstood you, and you meant that while these people were in contact with God, they did not however write down what he was telling them word for word - basically that is they wrote in their own words, not God's which is what I wrote previously.

Essentially you are. If it was the word of God, written through them, then it would be him dictating, like somebody would do with a secretary.
Their words, somebody else writing them.
Or I missunderstood you, and you meant that while these people were in contact with God, they did not however write down what he was telling them word for word - basically that is they wrote in their own words, not God's which is what I wrote previously.

Correct. God did not dictate. This however doesn't mean that there is room for all of their own interpretation.Some interpretations could be false or misleading. God lead them what to write. He would not allow false statements in his word to be believed as truths.

What you said earlier was that these were all just people who believed and wrote down what they believed. Even ruling out those who had personal contact with God(because you believe they could be liars) that still leaves those who were the deciples of Christ. Were they also making up that they were his deciples?

Well, even Christ is presented in different ways in some of the texts that were left out. When the New Testament was created, the churches who were putting it together, wanted only one version of who Jesus was, and what his purpose on Earth was.
Other stories, those that aren't in the bible, suggested that Jesus was not the son of God sent to Earth to forgive us of our sins, but rather simply a man, in touch with God destined to teach others about God and how they should live.
The biggest reason the New Testament was created, was to make one view of things, since before hand there were two many variations - most were only slight, but lead to many different beliefs from what were at their core the same stories.
So taking into account the variations, and the fact that it was the church that made the final decisions as to what went in and what stayed out, I maintain that the New Testament is still a selective piece, with opinions represented by it.
You may say that God would never let anybody make stuff up for him, but he gave us free will - and allows us to do what we want. I wonder what God would have to say about the usage of "his word" by the Lord's Resistance Army in Africa?
The old testament also has alot of stuff left out of it.

[QUOTE=2strokebloke]Other stories, those that aren't in the bible, suggested that Jesus was not the son of God sent to Earth to forgive us of our sins, but rather simply a man, in touch with God destined to teach others about God and how they should live.
QUOTE]

well they are prolly not in there b/c that goes againts the rest of the Bible. Just wondering, who wrote those? There was a show on the History Channel about books left out, any of u see it? I did not see most of it(i only saw like 15min). But ya, why would you put in contradicting things? Pluss that sounds like the Koran(however you spell it). is that african army thing one of those anti-muslim military groups? or one of those help organizations with the funny names? just wondering.

Yes, it's probably the biggest "anti muslim" group, though their real goal, is to create a government based on the ten commandment - it's incredibly ironic that they'd violate most of the commandments just to reach that goal.

nice goal(the gov based on the 10 commandments) but prolly not the best way to go about it!

I don't think that the goal is so great. A government founded solely on the ten commandments would never really work. Because outside of those ten rules (most of which are common sense anyway) everything could go to hell in a handbasket - and the government would not be able to deal with it if stuck to their original plan of using the ten commandments as their only laws.
The worst thing about it, is that this is just another instance of somebody using religion as justification for their doings. The LRA, uses children as soldier - forces them to kill and torture their own parents, massacres villages, destroys everything - and they claim they're doing it in the name of God! What kind of a message does this send out to people who don't know anything about christianity? Is it no wonder, these people don't welcome their idea of a government based on the Bible with open arms.
It shows the worst of the worst of what could happen when a government is based around religion (or claims to be anyway).

ya i see ur point, you would need more then just the 10 comandments but they are a great starting point.

Well, even Christ is presented in different ways in some of the texts that were left out. When the New Testament was created, the churches who were putting it together, wanted only one version of who Jesus was, and what his purpose on Earth was.
Other stories, those that aren't in the bible, suggested that Jesus was not the son of God sent to Earth to forgive us of our sins, but rather simply a man, in touch with God destined to teach others about God and how they should live.
The biggest reason the New Testament was created, was to make one view of things, since before hand there were two many variations - most were only slight, but lead to many different beliefs from what were at their core the same stories.
So taking into account the variations, and the fact that it was the church that made the final decisions as to what went in and what stayed out, I maintain that the New Testament is still a selective piece, with opinions represented by it.
You may say that God would never let anybody make stuff up for him, but he gave us free will - and allows us to do what we want. I wonder what God would have to say about the usage of "his word" by the Lord's Resistance Army in Africa?
The old testament also has alot of stuff left out of it.
1) Please provide the names of these books or links to them on the web if there are links. I don't doubt they are out there. I have even read some of them. I just wonder if you are repeating what you heard or if you actually know. If you know then I applaud you. Most can talk the talk but can't back it up. If you can't find links that's ok. I will accept some quotes from these books along with the authors name.

2) Free will yes. But we are talking about His word. They had free will to write whatever the wanted but do you think he would allow lies to be put in his word? Possibly this is the reason these "other books" are not in there.

3) I don't wonder what God would think about the usage of His word in the manner you refer to. As I said in earlier post. Judge your leaders against the word of God they profess to follow to see whether or not they are truely men of God.

Which books do you mean? The actual ommitted texts, or books about the history of the Bible?
I used to have (or might still do, if I look for it) a set of books published in the 30's I believe was called "The Legends of The Jews" which was just collection of stories left out of the old testament, I never finnished reading the whole set.
Then of course there the Apocrypha, I have in both greek and english, and other stuff. I'm going to have to dig it all up, but I didn't want to make it look like I never responded.
Anyway, on the interenet, this site links to a few good ones: http://www.ntgateway.com/noncanon.htm

I was refering to the actual omitted text. I have been to that site. It is a very interesting read.

john who wrote john the 3 small chapters called st john and revalations is the same person who walked with jesus during the whole time period(his discliple). james who wrote james is jesus half brother. meaning these people are not simply people who heard it and wrote it, they were orderd by the holy spirit to write. they were there