You base a lot on...

You base a lot of your views on this idea that these 300 monks were forced to destroy the truth of the Bible and they created a new version that hid the old "real" meanings in it.

But the old testament has been around in some form for over 3,300 years. Those works have not been modified since 424 bc or perhaps 100 bc, and can be seen in their original unaltered form. There are many Greek manuscripts of the early days of Christianity where you can see many parts of the New Testament. The early Christians covered the world - Africa, Asia, all over Europe, the entire known world. It is hard to imagine that these letters and manuscripts that were written were able to be rounded up and completely destroyed with no trace left.

Then, when you analyze how the new covenant (new testament) fulfills the old convenant (old testament), and you see how perfectly fulfilled every line is, it becomes very difficult to imagine that this fulfillment could have been written so perfectly by humans.

It seems to me you are saying that there was at some point an objectively true version of the bible, but it was then lost to all.

I guess the real question is, who had the authority to decide what that objectively true version was and should continue to be? And what should and should not be parts of the bible?

There is either Objective Truth that is available today for us to live by and that has survived, or there is not - and then the result of that is that nothing matters and that there is no purpose to life - an opinion of many it seems.

The last question is whether we decide to live with the thought that everything is hidden from us, so there is no point in seeking Truth. Seems like a rather depressing way to live to me, and there is no hope in it. Tweet