bible is full of contradictions

samsara: the indefinitely repeated cycles of birth, misery, and death caused by karma (courtesy m-w.com)

BG13- try out m-w.com whenever you don't know a term. It's a sight worth bookmarking. Ohh, and here is a plug for Fark.

Yeah, same here. I think the point is that God is with us (Emmanuel), which gives me this nice glowy feeling. Reminds me of the messages God sent me when I didn't even know it was God (Emmanuel the series).

 

The essence of debate is to unearth truth. If your arguments are true and can be demonstrated to be true, then I should adjust my beliefs accordingly.

This is an aside. We can debate biblical inerrancy in another thread.

Sounds like the Jesus Seminar to me. Sorry to disappoint, but the textual evidence simply does not support this idea, even if supposed "scholars" thought it up.

So in order to believe his theories I have to execute all sorts of mental gymnastics and accept presuppositions regarding the moral character and motives for people that lived over 1500 years ago? Hmmm... not a strong basis for theory. Not only that, it doesn't play out in terms of facts, but more on that below.

I am not here to convince you either, I am here to test what I believe and to clarify my beliefs for myself. And, please, define what you believe by "literalist christianity".

There's that "evidence" word again. More on the evidence below.

The evidences used in the site are nothing new. The "additions" that are talked about beg the question. If we know that they are additions, then what do we have? What is a prerequisite for saying that a document has been edited? We must have an uncorrupted document!

I never said (and I did not mean to imply) that ALL deeds in history require documentation. However, to ascribe motive and, more than that, deeds to a person in history without record of it is to make a laughing stock of history. You said that Constantine "edited" Scripture. History records how the canon was selected at Nicea. How Constantine determined the contents is not described ANYWHERE. A simpler explanation is that Constantine called Nicea (and I am not sure that he did as his own idea, it is possible that he was petitioned by the churches and granted it). He then believe what the council determined to be canon and subsequently went about destroying heretical material.

Ahh, the crux. You cite as evidence that Constantine had his own agenda with Scripture when he destoryed all manuscripts that he didn't want included. Again, I do not ascribe motives to Constantine based on this alone. Let's look at what is required to prove the theory that Constantine significantly altered the New Testament.

Let's examine first the issue of WHAT DATA would be required to 'prove' the thesis.


Logically, one would have to produce evidence of:

1. Some original "unaltered" manuscripts
2. Some later "altered" manuscripts
3. Some evidence that some government official, acting in an official capacity, modified the former into the later
4. Some evidence that this was done on a widespread basis or large scale
5. Some evidence that these roman officials had substantially exclusive control over the publication/copying of the NT texts.

Note that it is NOT ENOUGH to simply produce a 'motive' (e.g. to control people); one must also have some evidence that it (1) COULD have occurred and (2) DID occur. Without #3 and #4 above, your brother's thesis is "rampant and pure speculation."
Now, the odd thing about this, is that if we have #1 (some unaltered original) from which to determine that an alteration occurred, THEN WE HAVE an 'accurate and reliable' manuscript! In other words, to prove his thesis is to refute it! If the empire had done alterations (without disposing of all the originals) then we would have the originals with which to base our rejection of the Empire's fabrications!


What this implies is that IF WE HAVE manuscripts that can be dated to PRE-CONSTANTINE years (i.e. in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd centuries), then we, BY DEFINITION, have manuscripts that are 'unaltered' by CONSTANTINE--and hence the supposition of the thesis becomes trivial. (Not altogether 'untrue', for we DO FIND alterations in later texts--but these changes can be 'weeded out' on the basis of the earlier, 'unaltered ones'.)

How does it follow that the destruction of heretical texts is somehow a proof that the extant manuscripts are corrupt? How does it infer that the bible is not a work of divine will? Could it not also be an indication that Scripture is divine since it could be argued (though I don't know how well) that Constantine destroyed the false scriptures through the motivation of the Holy Spirit? It looks like you have some hefty presumptions regarding Constantine, the nature of people, and the Scripture itself.


EDIT: I forgot to add this as an aside:


Most of our NT texts are based on existing manuscripts that were in existence LONG BEFORE the Constantine deal!

First, let me point out that these texts are NOT simply 'tiny fragments'. Let's look at each of the two collections.


The Beatty papyri.
The major papyri in this collection are p45, p46, p47.

• p45: 150-250ad; contains some (or all) of Mt 20, 21, 25, 26; Mr 4-9, 11-12; Lk 6-7, 9-14; Jn 10-11; Acts 4-17.
• p46: 90-175ad; contains some (or all) of Rom 5-6, 8-16; all of I & II Cor, Gal, Eph., Philp., Col, I Thess 1,2,5; all of Hebrews.
• p47: third century, contains Revelation 9:10-17.2

Depending on how one defines 'tiny', this set of mss ALONE comprise a 'non-tiny' fragment collection!
The Bodmer papyri
The major papyri in this collection are p66, p72, p75.

• p66: 150-200 AD, contains almost all of the Gospel of John!
• p72: 200's, containing all of I & II Peter, Jude
• p75: 175-200 AD, contains most of Luke 3-18, 22-24; John 1-15.

Again, substantial portions of the NT (as opposed to 'tiny fragments'). And, notice that ALL of these large mss. date from before the 4th century---that is, pre-Constantine.

 

So BlackGuard, if you ever get married. Do you think you and your friends will be invited to attend your wedding?

 

By referencing the facts as assembled in my various posts to date, it can be seen that factuality is precedent. At least on my part. The propensity to argue belief and dogma on the other hand in the face of contrary factuality belies " The essence of debate is to unearth truth."
Once again you misrepresent the truth when you attribute the phrase "Constantine edited Scripture" to me. Maybe your problem is with basic comprehension!
I said (quoting historical documents) that constantine chose the books of the bible.
I then went on to say that additions had been made to later books of the bible as evidenced by notations in columns, and those additions have found their way into the bible we now have.
If you have no idea what is being said directly to you in written word, how can you claim knowledge in any form? You clearly aim to put your spin on anything and everything without due regard for factuality, as now evidenced by you twice now misrepresenting my stated words. You are either negligent with factuality, or ignorant of it's necessity. Or both.

You also summarily disregard scholarly works and history at you whim ~ as if you are sole arbiter of what is and is not historically or literarily acceptable. Such pretensions beggar belief, but not to those with delusional grandeur, it seems!

 

I looked over them and I have not seen any documented facts. You posted a few links and made some claims, but you haven't quoted any ancient documents that I saw.

My apologies. Let's keep it civil, please.

Which document did you quote?

And if you finish Metzger, the "additions" are well known. Most bibles have a footnote or even pages of documentation notating that fact. Here's the funny part. Not one addition changes the doctrines of Christianity. Not only that, but while it does add support for an inductive argument, it is by no means proof that the book has been edited over the centuries or that the essential messages have been changed.

I don't. I just try to learn what I can. Look the only reason that I object to your posts is because I have heard some of it before. Other parts I have had to research (and am still researching).

My apologies for not quoting you exactly. I will not attempt to paraphrase your words any more. That does not mean that I am negligent with all factuality though. But I am not here to defend myself from personal attacks. Let's keep to the matter at hand, shall we?

The scholarly works that I dismiss are from a school of thought that is incompatible with the thrust of the New Testament. Those scholars have stated presuppositions which, in my opinion, make it virtually impossible to approach scripture with even a spectre of a moderately unbiased opinion. Those scholars are philosophical naturalists. Do you know what that means? That means that they *automatically* dismiss any supernatural event as legend and myth without allowing for even the *remote* possibility that it *might* be true. If a historian/scholar approaches scripture like that, please forgive me for disregarding their work as being unreasonably biased and incapable of objectivity.

I am not the only person who completely disgregards Mack's books. There are many noteworthy scholars (Metzger, for example) who disagree with Mack entirely. I am not alone when I doubt his works. And the historical documents that you have provided (which ones were those again?) are not relevant to the question.