Did the Roman Piso Family write the New Testament?

i have also read this before, mw.
another interesting theory is that cappadocian decendants wrote the gospels of paul. ill try to find some links for you today. i dont personally believe it, but it is an interesting read for sure.
 
Medicine Woman said:
*************
M*W: I don't recall ever seeing this addressed on sciforums, but could it be possible that a Roman family by the name of Piso actually wrote the NT? Here's the link:

http://www.angelfire.com/wi/famtree/wrotent.html
It could be possible.
But they need to provide evidence before it will be viewed as any more likely than any number of alternatives. :D
 
Medicine Woman, do yourself a favour and stop this wild speculation. It's all nonsense. The New Testament was not "written" by anyone; not by anyone in Jesus' time, definitely not by some Roman family. It was compiled by the early Church out of several writings that existed at the time, quite a lot having been discarded in the process. Much more has been written about Jesus and the early Christians than what is in the bible today. There are, for instance, far more gospels than the four that made it to the New Testament.

A lot is known about the history of Christianity, you don't have to invent fantasies, the facts are actually far more interesting. For instance, read this:

Contrary to common belief, there was never a one-time, truly universal decision as to which books should be included in the Bible. It took over a century of the proliferation of numerous writings before anyone even bothered to start picking and choosing, and then it was largely a cumulative, individual and happenstance event, guided by chance and prejudice more than objective and scholarly research, until priests and academics began pronouncing what was authoritative and holy, and even they were not unanimous. Every church had its favored books, and since there was nothing like a clearly-defined orthodoxy until the 4th century, there were in fact many simultaneous literary traditions. The illusion that it was otherwise is created by the fact that the church that came out on top simply preserved texts in its favor and destroyed or let vanish opposing documents. Hence what we call "orthodoxy" is simply "the church that won."

Astonishingly, the story isn't even that simple: for the Catholic church centered in Rome never had any extensive control over the Eastern churches, which were in turn divided even among themselves, with Ethiopian and Coptic and Syrian and Byzantine and Armenian canons all riding side-by-side with each other and with the Western Catholic canon, which itself was never perfectly settled until the 15th century at the earliest, although it was essentially established by the middle of the 4th century. Indeed, the current Catholic Bible is largely accepted as canonical from fatigue: the details are so ancient and convoluted that it is easier to simply accept an ancient and enduring tradition than to bother actually questioning its merit. This is further secured by the fact that the long habit of time has dictated the status of the texts: favored books have been more scrupulously preserved and survive in more copies than unfavored books, such that even if some unfavored books should happen to be earlier and more authoritative, in many cases we are no longer able to reconstruct them with any accuracy. To make matters worse, we know of some very early books that simply did not survive at all (the most astonishing example is Paul's earlier Epistle to the Colossians, cf. Col. 4:16), and have recently discovered the very ancient fragments of others that we never knew existed, because no one had even mentioned them.


(quoted from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html)

You are missing the most important point with your pseudo-academic research: the bible was not created, it evolved. It wasn't God who wrote it, it was people writing sacred texts through thousands of years, discarding the majority of them and preserving what they thought best.

You have, as you claimed, given up the notion that the bible is the word of God, but you still cling to the notion that it is the word of someone with God-like powers. You have renounced your old religion but you have not yet renounced your old ways of thinking. And that is what is confusing you.
 
Confutatis: Medicine Woman, do yourself a favour and stop this wild speculation. It's all nonsense. The New Testament was not "written" by anyone; not by anyone in Jesus' time, definitely not by some Roman family. It was compiled by the early Church out of several writings that existed at the time, quite a lot having been discarded in the process. Much more has been written about Jesus and the early Christians than what is in the bible today. There are, for instance, far more gospels than the four that made it to the New Testament.


M*W: Sorry, but I will never stop questioning. I am well aware of when the NT was written, and it was not in Jesus' day. It was later. How can you be sure it was written by whom you say it was? Neither can I, but I can speculate as long as there is doubt. I know how the books of the NT came to be by the Church, and I know about those that were not included. I've read most of them. Sciforums is a place to come with speculation. It's a place to toss around that speculation to gather the opinions of others and debate. If we all came here with solid, verifiable fact, there would be no reason to debate. IOW, sciforums would become a boring read.


A lot is known about the history of Christianity, you don't have to invent fantasies, the facts are actually far more interesting. For instance, read this:

Contrary to common belief, there was never a one-time, truly universal decision as to which books should be included in the Bible. It took over a century of the proliferation of numerous writings before anyone even bothered to start picking and choosing, and then it was largely a cumulative, individual and happenstance event, guided by chance and prejudice more than objective and scholarly research, until priests and academics began pronouncing what was authoritative and holy, and even they were not unanimous. Every church had its favored books, and since there was nothing like a clearly-defined orthodoxy until the 4th century, there were in fact many simultaneous literary traditions. The illusion that it was otherwise is created by the fact that the church that came out on top simply preserved texts in its favor and destroyed or let vanish opposing documents. Hence what we call "orthodoxy" is simply "the church that won."



M*W: The "fantasies" you say I am "creating" are not my own. If they were, I'd put them in a best-selling book ala Dan Brown, and I'd be rich, too. What may seem like fantasy to you may be truth to someone else. I don't believe in fantasies. I believe in searching for the truth. Christiantity is a fantasy, so my goal is to prove it what it really is.


Astonishingly, the story isn't even that simple: for the Catholic church centered in Rome never had any extensive control over the Eastern churches, which were in turn divided even among themselves, with Ethiopian and Coptic and Syrian and Byzantine and Armenian canons all riding side-by-side with each other and with the Western Catholic canon, which itself was never perfectly settled until the 15th century at the earliest, although it was essentially established by the middle of the 4th century. Indeed, the current Catholic Bible is largely accepted as canonical from fatigue: the details are so ancient and convoluted that it is easier to simply accept an ancient and enduring tradition than to bother actually questioning its merit. This is further secured by the fact that the long habit of time has dictated the status of the texts: favored books have been more scrupulously preserved and survive in more copies than unfavored books, such that even if some unfavored books should happen to be earlier and more authoritative, in many cases we are no longer able to reconstruct them with any accuracy. To make matters worse, we know of some very early books that simply did not survive at all (the most astonishing example is Paul's earlier Epistle to the Colossians, cf. Col. 4:16), and have recently discovered the very ancient fragments of others that we never knew existed, because no one had even mentioned them.


M*W: I find it suspect that these ancient fragments were never mentioned by the church! What is it that the church didn't want us to know?


You are missing the most important point with your pseudo-academic research: the bible was not created, it evolved. It wasn't God who wrote it, it was people writing sacred texts through thousands of years, discarding the majority of them and preserving what they thought best.


M*W: I am certainly aware of how the bible evolved. Nowhere have I said it was written as one complete document. Does one have to be a scholar or archeologist to study a particular time in history? No! Would you prefer that we all just blindly believed in christianity? Sorry, but I'm not a follower. My mind is my own to use as I choose.


You have, as you claimed, given up the notion that the bible is the word of God, but you still cling to the notion that it is the word of someone with God-like powers. You have renounced your old religion but you have not yet renounced your old ways of thinking. And that is what is confusing you.


M*W: I am an atheist and an anti-christian, so I don't believe in anyone "with God-like powers." Exactly what do you mean when say I have not renounced my "old ways of thinking?" If I had held onto my "old ways of thinking," I'd still be a Catholic and would still be "confused." Today, I'm neither afraid to ask pertinent questions nor hesitant to share the knowledge I've gleaned in my research of the pseudo-religion of christianity.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top