I am saying that these differences were not the kind of differences that you are implying they were. They were copyist errors, and because of the vast array of New Testament manuscripts, textual critics can show what was in the autographs. By the scholars who study the manuscripts? By the people who compile the Greek version of the New Testament? And from my understanding, the errors don't at all affect any major Christian doctrine. If I am wrong than feel free to correct me, but honestly I know of no such error. And the Septuagint was around at the time of Jesus, so I don't know why he couldn't reference it. And my point is that these supposed edits and alterations are not what you are implying them to be, but instead are errors that can be resolved with the practice of textual criticism. And from briefly looking at information for those two authors, they both appear to put forth a mythic Jesus. I think Doherty wrote a book claiming that He didn't exist, which goes against the majority of New Testament scholars, as I believe even Bart Ehrman said in the video I posted. I agree, but I am just saying that your view is not the only view, and neither is the view of the authors you quoted. There are many opinions out there, as well as many theories. If you choose to believe that The New Testament has been corrupted then that's fine. But that is not the only option, and there are other scholars who look at the same manuscripts and do not doubt their authenticity.
Yes, closer to this - so it is annoying for me when people claim that there is historical proof. There isn't. We will never know an historical Jesus existed unless something new is discovered or there is some new method of discovery.
Franchise, it takes a small amount of faith to accept Jesus. When you do and start studying the Bible, the Holy Spirit takes over and your faith grows. There are a lot of lukewarm Christians out there who may believe in Jesus however they never turn there life completely to him. I used to be one of those people. I have since come to turn my life fully to him and have been blessed. Mark 4:1-10 1 And he began again to teach by the sea side: and there was gathered unto him a great multitude, so that he entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land. 2 And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine, 3 Hearken ; Behold , there went out a sower to sow : 4 And it came to pass , as he sowed , some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up . 5 And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up , because it had no depth of earth: 6 But when the sun was up , it was scorched ; and because it had no root, it withered away . 7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up , and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. 8 And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased ; and brought forth , some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred. 9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear , let him hear . 10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. View in parallelInterlinear viewCompare Translations Mark 4:13-20 13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables? 14 The sower soweth the word. 15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown ; but when they have heard , Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. 16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; 17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended . 18 And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, 19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in , choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful. 20 And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit , some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.
There has been a discovery of 70 metal (lead) books discovered in a cave in Jordan. This is likened to the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. From first looks these books are from the time of Jesus. Now I am not claiming these are authentic or accurate just pointing out that they have been found. Maybe when they are through processing this find you will have the proof you need. LINK- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1371290/70-metal-books-Jordan-cave-change-view-Biblical-history.html
This is wrong. I don't know how else to say it. Alterations were done and manuscripts added or deleted as needed to coincide with particular points of view as christology evolved. Easy proof, note the shift in the messiah motif as you progress from Mark to John. Badly phrased question, as the point of these "errors" is not to illuminate "wrong" doctrine, merely that it was fought over and that the authors redacted as needed to fit their POV. To that extent, "true" christian doctrine is unknown. I'd be happy to point some out this evening when I can reference (I don't want to make mistakes and cloud things). As it is, from your perspective this may all be moot, since "major christian doctrine" for you is a defined and immutable thing. Yes, and a Jew, the messiah prophesied in Jewish scripture and brought up in the Jewish community, would quote it (and it's errors) and not the accurate translation from the Tanakh? Funny. Not true. Textual criticism is a nice way of saying apologist. Red herring. There is plenty of intriguing evidence that the mythic idea is truth, but it's not terribly relevant to the argument at hand (although it is pertinent to the thread topic so....meh). Very true. I just prefer opinions based on factual analysis instead of vague and incomplete notions of "solidarity in christian doctrine".
Ok... it appears this argument has run its course. We obviously have irreconcilable differences in how the New Testament came to us. I disagree with just about all of your statements, especially the one about textual criticism being a synonym for apologetics, as it is a practice that is not unique to the New Testament, but is practiced on ancient documents to evaluate their reliability. That comment alone shows that you have as much bias for your position as you claim I have for mine. I thank you for your time, and I appreciate your responses. Take care.
Maybe it was too harsh, fair enough. My apologies - I just don't think we can have an honest argument if you think textual criticism is sufficient to claim a consistent "major christian doctrine". Research (indeed, textual criticism) shows a startling degree of the opposite. More to the point, since you claim agreement on said doctrine and assert that it is accurate, if I provided evidence of alteration, you could claim that any such alteration was the correct decision! Likewise. I'll still try to update the thread later with evidence for my claims - maybe you'll read them, maybe no. Regardless, I've sunk too much time in this thread to not at least provide the data you asked for.
Well, first they need to get a hold of them and rely on more than looking at photographs (Jordan doesn't really know where they are, apparently). Then we will see if they are allowed scientific examination. IF they are real, they could be very interesting. But five years and no examination and analysis is troublesome.
Yeah, a quick internet search brought that up. I guess even the Greek is nonsensical. Another in a long line of fakes, unfortunately.
I am not saying they are not fake however after doing a quick search I can only find one expert saying they are fake. I actually only found this yesterday while searching for something else. I think this will be scrutinized quite a bit. Some people claim the same thing about the Dead Sea Scrolls. We shall see.
havoc1, research what happened at the First Council of Nicea. It won't be in the bible, but it might be informative.
Like I said originally, the fact that these were "discovered" 5 years ago and still no analysis has been done and these haven't ben vetted by scholars and scientists? That almost never ends up real.
