What is the oldest manuscript of new testament gospel so far?
543701
I assume you mean which book of the New Testament was written first, because there are no existing original manuscripts as far as we know.\n\nThe general consensus is that some of Paul's letters are the oldest known manuscripts. There are speculations of earlier ones (e.g., "Q") but they are just that: speculations.
94503
Paul wrote the most of the letters  in the New Testiment.  I do not believe he had anything to do with any of the Gospels!
208161
If you are looking to find some great conspiracy you won't find it.  There is one book in the New Testament that we don't know who wrote it, the book of Hebrews.  We have some educated guesses, though.  Other than that, we know who wrote the New Testament books.  Even the most critical atheist literary critics agree that the New Testament is one of the most authenticated anceint writtings we have.  \n\nThe Old Testament is a bit harder to authenticate, but no more than any other anceint writting.  There is more actually more evidence to support that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, for example, than there is evidence to support that Homer wrote the Illiad.  And there is MUCH more reason to believe that it is, essentially, unchanged.  We know the exact process that was used in copying the Old Testament books, and we know that the books were often used for 400 years or more before a new copy was made.  \n\nI recommend "How we Got the Bible" by Lightfoot if you want to know more about this amazing piece of literature and how it has survived thousands of years.
332874
The literal meaning of the word gospel mean "good news". Four gospel were included in the Bible's new testiment. Their are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  There are some three dozen other gospel about the life and teachings of Jesus that were not included into the bible including the newly discovered Gospel of Judas.
688295
Sparky First let me say I appreciate the 10 pts. I don't know what I did to piss you off though. I told you to look up the work "Qumran" because it is one of the best documented archaeological finds in the world and I knew that there would be plenty of info online (which would be convenient for you). Would you rather me refer you to the dozens of books that I know of offhand or to an infinite # of archaeological reports that are incredibly boring to read? I studied Qumran under Jodi Magness at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and she is the foremost American Archaeologist in the world concerning the "holyland." In particular, she is definitely the foremost authority on Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.  In case you don't know, archaeology is SCIENCE, not religion, and archaeological reports and finds are scientific and are not at all connected to the Church or any religion.  \n\nNothing in my answer to you dealt with religious dogma, I simply tried to answer your question as to why SOME Christians see a threat in the DaVinci code. Now, as for your claim that the bible was written 200 years after Christ, well that's true for some of the later NT books, but not of the Gospels. Some of the gnostic texts were much later than the gospels, which is part of the reason they were rejected by the church. \n\nAnd lastly, you claim that the bible has changed so many times that it's all crap. What do you have to support this? Go see the Dead Sea Scrolls some time, which were written between 2500-2000 yrs ago (as I visited a DSS exhibit about a month ago in Charlotte, NC). And then compare that to the KJV or the American Standard Bible.  The Old Testament found in the 1950s in the Caves near Qumran is nearly word for word with what we have today.  It is amazing that in 2000 or more years the Jewish text has changed so little!  This means that we should all reexamine the amount of credit we have granted the Jewish oral tradition that was so important to the early Christian Church.  IT IS ACCURATE, whether you want to admit it or not. SCIENCE and HISTORY support that.\n\nAgain, I answered your question rather well... Let me try one more time in FIVE SIMPLE SENTENCES that will be very easy for you to comprehend this time:\n\n1.  It wouldn't be so bad if Jesus was married.\n\n2.  Christians are NOT offended or threatened by the possibility that Jesus could have been married.\n\n3.  It's simply not historically true or believable, from the bible and from the writings of two Roman historians Tacitus and Josephus.\n\n4.  However, Some Christians ARE offended by the notion that Christ was not Divine; and the "The DaVinci Code" claims his having a child is proof that Jesus was NOT divine.\n\n5.  Such a claim can be damaging to the mission field because people like you believe anything and everything you read in a novel or see on TV and are therefore hostile toward Christianity.\n\nSo, that's why some Christians are offended by the DaVinci Code and by the notion that Christ might have been married to and had a child with Mary Magdalene.  Because of the hostility towards Christianity that such false belief creates.  People like you work directly against anyone trying to bring people to Christ.  \n\nPS.. the whole "MM was a whore" lost in translation thing.. do your history research man, you don't know what you are talking about at all.  You speak fiction and pass it off as truth. \n\nAnd you wonder why people would be offended?  maybe some people just like the truth?\n\nLet me ask you a question.  Why are you so offended by Christianity?  What are YOU afraid of?  The Truth?
988142
No. There has been too much lost in the numerous translations. And I would question your statement about the book being in existence for 'thousands' of years. The new testament and the gospels were not instantly assembled upon the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The old testament was passed on by word of mouth long before the books were written.  Compound these necessary flaws with the council of cardinals who decided which books were going to be part of the bible and which books were not, and the church's practice of censoring anything that did not agree with doctrine, and you have a less than perfect product.
346698
Most of the "Gospels" that were not included in the Bible have been dated to about the second century. The books of the New Testament were all written either by eyewitnesses to the events or people who spoke with those eyewitnesses. Many of the books refer to other books of the New Testament as scripture. It certainly wasn't one person who "got to pick what would go into the Bible."\n\nAdded:\nThe language and content of the Gospel of Thomas is consistend with the second century, not the first. It was written after all the eyewitnesses were dead. It's pretty easy to write a book about events that happened two hundred years ago, since no eyewitnesses are around to refute it. Also, some of the things in the Gospel of Thomas don't line up with the rest of the Bible. The gospels (and other New Testament books) that are included in the Bible were written at a time when eyewitnesses to the events were still around to refute it. Luke, for instance, was most likely written within 30 years of Jesus' death. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, actually lists names of eyewitnesses and tells the church in Corinth that most of the eyewitnesses were still alive when he was writing.
875681
I've read the Gospel of Barnabus, it is very similar to the ones in the new testament, it was ommitted by the Vatican because it spoke of prophecies conserning the coming of a final Prophet after Jesus.
577321
There probably is missing Gospel. What relevance? It would have the same message, no?
124024
Cyanne, think!!  The Dead Sea scrolls show that almost the entire Old Testament had not changed a single word in well over two thousand years.  Of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts in existence, there are very minor discrepancies (eg. the second half of Mark 16 - was it added later?) but the underlying content can be demonstrated as being unchanged.  Those who claim the Bible has been 'changed' repeatedly simply do so as a crutch to avoid considering the claims made BY the Bible.\n\nAs for apostles and miracle workers, the Bible states that God is the same yesterday, today and forever.  GOD is the same; however, the way He works changes.\n\nThe passages in Paul's letters referring to spiritual gifts make no distinction between 'miraculous' gifts and 'natural' ones such as administration.  No-one claims that administration should have disappeared from the church, so why miracles or prophecy?\n\nThe scriptural arguments on both sides are complex, but the bottom line for me is that the Bible gives no indication that these gifts should disappear.  If they were supposed to be gone from the church, the Bible would tell us!
1080723
I know and to be a gospel it had to be written by one of the disciples or their assistant.  The gos[pel of Thomas, Judas etc, were NOT written by them.  The stuff that people will believe!
1080776
#1.  It was written too late to have been written by an apostle or a companion of an apostle.\n\n#2. The content contradicts the rest of the New Testament.\n\n#3.  It was never accepted by the early church.\n\nThe New Testament was in its complete form before the end of the first century, long before Constantine or the Roman Catholic Church.  There never was any reason to accept "The Gospel of Judas."
1116645
the oldest that we can find and have full knowledge of it.is VEDA.\nit is about 7500 years old,with some fascinating transcript of general belief of this religion
1145776
Read it for yourself and decide. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas
920409
The oldest book in print today!\nbut what about the new & more new chapters being included??\nwhy are their new testaments & old ones???\nWhy not one complete book like the HOLY QURAN.\n\nActually the only book that has not yet been changed to a full stop or an alphabet is the holy Quran.\n\nJust tell me How many People have learnt Bible by heart.\nExact word to word...\nI guess none...\nNot even the Pope has learnt bible by heart....\n\nBUT \n\nQuran is the only book that can be & IS being learnt by heart by billions of muslims.....\n\n& exact word by word....\nfrom first alphabet to the last one...\n\n& no one can make the entire billions of muslims forget the Quran....\n\nEven if all the written Quran is lost, the billions of muslims can recreat it in written form exactly word by word....\n\nNow tell me how many christians U know have learnt Bible by heart??\nJust seen around, in ur family or friends or in the church...\nCan u find atleast 10 people who have learnt Bible by heart word by word???\n\n\nHere I can find 17 in my relatives who are Quran learners by heart...\n\n\nSo now tell ....\nWhich holy book is more taken care of??\nWhich is same as it was at the time it came upon us...??\nQuran is the right answer....
1103215
For the Bible, the answer is "about forty." Of the sixty-six books, several are attributed to the same author (as in the traditional view that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament; in the New Testament, the Gospel of John, I John, II John, III John and the book of Revelation are all attributed to Jesus' disciple. The book of Acts was certainly written by Luke, the writer of the third Gospel. The apostle Paul wrote about 1/3 of the New Testament (the espistles to the early Christian churches).\n\nThere are some books for which an author cannot be readily identified, such as the New Testament book of Hebrews, and a couple in the Old Testament for which authorship is debated, which makes the number forty a very close, if maybe not precise, number. Execpt for the voices of a few very liberal/radical scholars, the academic community is quite settled on this question.\n\nAs for the Qu'ran, I believe tradition holds that the entire thing was revealed to Mohammed; but the text has gone through much redaction, re-arranging and editing, and displays some stylistic changes which suggests more than one author. It's impossible to tell what Mohammed dictated originally, and what was added later, but it seems unlikely that the Prophet wrote the whole thing.
475306
While millions were celebrating the memory of the passion and death of the savior the National Geographic Society unveiled the first modern translation of the third-century Coptic translation of the Gospel of Judas on April 6 in Washington. \nThe Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John focus on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and include events supposedly related to the life of Jesus. \nHowever, the Gospel of Judas and the others, the text of which was always been known, in whole or in part, really are texts attempting to bolster the importance of the personalities they are named after, not of Jesus. It is therefore really amazing that it is being given such a level of credence.\nWe are in the age of the media and the media are more interested in novelty and money but least in truth. Consider the media reports regarding the Pope’s Homily on Maundy Thursday. The headlines screamed “POPE BANISHES GOSPEL OF JUDAS, PORTRAYS HIM AS DOUBLE-CROSSER.”\nDid they expect him to adopt the Gospel of Judas forthwith and banish the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in a jiffy!!!\nDoes it really matter the circumstances that surround the death of Jesus? Does it change who He was or what He did for us? \nThere are some people around the world who seem to be constantly seeking to discredit the Church in some form or the other. The challenges before the Church today are no different from those faced by the early Christians after Jesus died.\nFalse/sensationalistic reports spread like wildfire, fuelled by unprincipled journalism.\nHowever, responding to such malicious slander is not productive. But it doesn’t mean that one should never respond. The important thing is how one responds. If your response is of anger and in self-defense then you are only walking into the trap but your response should be gentle, firm, respectful, and in defense of the truth.