The Shroud of Turin - Authentic Again!!!

[Sigurd]

More interesting to me is the fact that the oldest text of the bible was not written until 200+ years after the event. Which would be a bit like someone sitting down this afternoon to write a personal account of the battle of Waterloo.

Furthermore it was heavily edited when first compiled and large sections of the original text was ommited or rewritten.

And finally, the Gospel according to Judas which is actually the oldest of the texts so far recovered was completely excluded.

I have used your arguments before but consider this:

We know the testaments, books and epistles of the New Testament are supposedly written by the authors that name them. We also know that some of them never experienced the 3 year mission of Jesus before his crucifixion.
The apostles, after the events discussed, were all leaders of an organisation starting with themselves and some 120 odd souls at the time of the crucifixion.
The testaments describe these men and women as immature, not really getting the message.
Then Luke begins the account of the Acts of the Apostles, Luke having not first hand witnessed the events that took place in the Testaments nor the first part of Acts.
It starts off by claiming that Jesus stayed with them for 40 days after his resurrection.
In that time span the Apostles grows and become leaders of an organisation that preaches the word of the anointed one; the Messiah. From the 120 souls they soon grow to 5000. Peter, James and John are imprisoned and taken before the Scribes and leaders of the Jews. Because of the great number of followers they don’t dare to kill them. One Pharisee makes an interesting point. If this is of God then the organisation will live. If not they will be destroyed as the others [names a few examples].

But as I was pointing out this was not written at the time of the events but much later, possibly at a time when the organisation were large enough that a need was created to write down the accounts to gather the threads and help the story of Christ from “bloating”.
Supposedly this was all done within the 1st century with John the beloved, the last of the living Apostles, writing Revelations on the island of Patmos in 98AD.

I don’t know if this new Jewish, and soon to expand to other groups of people, school of religion followed all of the Jewish traditions.
One particular comes to mind: the rule of not being allowed to destroy scripture.
This is the reason we have the Dead Sea Scrolls. By Jewish tradition scriptures that no longer were usable were sealed in jars and buried. This was not a tradition of preserving scripture for future generations but to get rid of mangled, and too tired to be further used, books and scrolls considered scripture.
The Dead Sea Scrolls do not seem to contain any New Testament content and therefore are probably not buried by Christians.
The Nag-Hammadi library was also found in a similar way to the Dead Sea Scrolls.
This library was considerable newer than that of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Only a fragment of what was discovered was able to survive. Those who found them used the parchments as firewood [damnable]. This library however, consisted of New Testament era writing. The question is; was these too buried in the Jewish tradition, to omit the destroying of scripture no longer suitable for using?
The Nag-hammadi library consists of copies of Testaments, books and epistles. This is interesting because it suggests that other books have existed previous to these copies; the originals so to speak.

I am in no position to say that Jesus, Peter, James, John or the other followers are imaginations of the mind of Constantine and his priests and that it was all invented to establish the new religion of Christianity. I seriously doubt this is the case and therefore are inclined to believe in the early church that became a world religion in the hands of Constantine.
But I recognise that this school of Judaism would have been destroyed as pointed out by the Pharisee at the meeting, were they discussed what to do with Peter James and John preaching under the arch of Salomon at the temple, hadn’t it been for Constantine and his ilk.
I recognise the tumults in the said early church when the Leaders of this early church were all killed. Those with first hand experience were gone and the organisation were about to be dissolved as the other false sects of Judaism.
Clement of Rome, the Bishop of Rome, converted by Peter, would not take up the mantle when asked. He claimed that the authority to speak in behalf of God and him that were crucified were lost as prophesied by Jesus himself.
It was a dooms sect from the beginning and the miraculous revival of this religion in the 3rd century was apostate.