Jesus on Marriage...

[Foxfyre]

The manuscripts were produced after the fact, yes, but they were produced by those who experienced the times or who were related to or well acquainted with those who had experienced the times.

That's the story we have, and yet, we don't have any original versions and the authorship of many of the books is questionable. Further, there were clearly disparate perceptions of "the truth"...some were labeled as heresy and attacked, others were labeled as "orthodox" and enhanced. With an oral tradition, maintaining orthodoxy is considerable harder. We don't know for sure which of what are now accepted doctrines were really heresy or orthodoxy, because that distinction resided primarily in the subjective judgement of the original apostles, and moreso...in the subjective judgement of the people who were instructed by those apostles and then dispersed by persecution.

And we know an enormous amount about why the texts that made it into the Bible were chosen, how they were chosen, and the debates that went into their selection

.

Except we don't have the actual list of books dating from 363. Odd, eh? And these decisions weren't made until the mid 4th century, when the faith could already have diverged significantly from the original message.

Mysteries abound within them, yes, and I am reasonably certain they were intentional in the face of the persecutions Chrsitians were receiving from both the orthodox Jews and the Romans. The Apostle Paul himself started out obsessed with a personal goal of stamping out all Christians who, at that time, were considered to be all heretical Jews. Otherwise he wouldn't have cared.

The apostle Paul was also obsessed with putting his own doctrinal stamp on the early beliefs, and largely succeeded, even though Peter was appointed by Christ to lead the early Church.

There are components of my religious beliefs that are based on faith, yes. But the history of the growing Church, the debates that went into the theology that was ultimately declared 'orthodox', and why the particular manuscripts were chosen for the Old and New Testaments are all a matter of record, not faith. It does require an extensive amount of rather tedious study to get to the heart of it all.

After the mid 4th century, you're correct. But, from the first century, we have very little that is original and authenticated.

We have several of Paul's letters--some in their entirety and pieces of others--plus others that were more likely written by those he mentored than likely written by him. The oral tradition was well practiced among orthodox Jews who were very skilled at it, and the manuscripts were written well within a time frame in which no legend or prominent mythology had time to develop.

There are as many dedicated conservative church historians and theologians who have arrived at much different conclusions than some of the more modern liberal seminaries are teaching. Those historians and theologians have no ax to grind, no particular political or heirarchal perspective to defend, and have done yeoman's work in giving us as much truth as was available at the time.

None of them, for instance, believe the Synoptic Gospels were written down by any one individual but rather are collections of manuscripts collected and edited together. This in no way detracts from what we can learn from those manuscripts.

And in the final analysis it really isn't important who wrote them when God is perfectly capable of speaking through them. As a matter of faith, I think we don't have the original manuscripts because if we did, we would worship them instead of the One those manuscripts address. If you believe in the God of the Bible, you know He is still speaking to us. If you do not, then it really becomes absurd to debate the scriptures and what they mean at all isn't it?

 

[Buford]

When were the original Scriptures first altered and who did it?

We don't have original versions of any of the books/epistles from the new testament. The OLDEST copies currently in existence date from A.D. 150 to the mid-4th century.

Your question is somewhat out of context. First, Christianity was primarily an oral tradition for the first 40 years (earliest estimate of authorship of one of the new testament books) after Christ's death. An oral tradition doesn't have a starting point that can be checked against later versions for errors.

Secondly, we don't know who wrote many of the original versions (it's a point of contention amongst scholars) of the new testament books, when they were written, and what they looked like originally. So, it's hard to say how close what we currently have is to the original documents, which of course, weren't written until decades after the reported crucifixion.

You ask basic questions about a rather complex subject, expecting a black/white answer. The problem is...questions about complex subjects usually don't have black/white answers.

So what you're telling us is that the original manuscripts were altered, but you can't tell us who, when, and where. Next.

 

[catzmeow]

We have several of Paul's letters--some in their entirety and pieces of others-

Incorrect.

We have manuscripts which are fairly early and include versions of Paul's epistles, but we don't have ANY of his original epistles, written in his handwriting.

The Oldest Extant Editions of the Letters of Paul

The large number of manuscripts provide a large number of variant readings and the result is that there probably is not a single verse of the letters of Paul that has the same wording in all surviving manuscripts....We do not have any letter with Paul's handwriting on it.

-plus others that were more likely written by those he mentored than likely written by him. The oral tradition was well practiced among orthodox Jews who were very skilled at it, and the manuscripts were written well within a time frame in which no legend or prominent mythology had time to develop.

Additional variants of the gospel message had crept into Christianity during Paul's era of teaching actively. The manuscripts we have date to hundreds of years after Paul's death.

None of them, for instance, believe the Synoptic Gospels were written down by any one individual but rather are collections of manuscripts collected and edited together. This in no way detracts from what we can learn from those manuscripts.

And in the final analysis it really isn't important who wrote them when God is perfectly capable of speaking through them. As a matter of faith, I think we don't have the original manuscripts because if we did, we would worship them instead of the One those manuscripts address. If you believe in the God of the Bible, you know He is still speaking to us. If you do not, then it really becomes absurd to debate the scriptures and what they mean at all isn't it?

I think it's fine that this is the place you've come to in your faith. I don't agree with it, but if it works for you, it works for you.

 

[catzmeow]

So what you're telling us is that the original manuscripts were altered, but you can't tell us who, when, and where. Next.

Reading comprehension fail. I'm saying we don't know what the original message was, on a variety of subjects, because of the process by which what we have came about.

 

[BluePhantom]

As long as you use Wikipedia as a source you're not going to be taken seriously.

Wikipedia is a useful conglomeration of information from other sources. I'd advise not dismissing it until you've reviewed the original sources from which it's drawn.

Your meme is so 2005.

I'd advise you to heed the words of the founder and most college professors.

Your meme is so ignorant.

Most college professors agree with me. Jesus H Christ

 

[Buford]

So what you're telling us is that the original manuscripts were altered, but you can't tell us who, when, and where. Next.

Reading comprehension fail. I'm saying we don't know what the original message was, on a variety of subjects, because of the process by which what we have came about.

Do you know how transcribers made copies of Scripture?

 

[Buford]

So what you're telling us is that the original manuscripts were altered, but you can't tell us who, when, and where. Next.

Reading comprehension fail. I'm saying we don't know what the original message was, on a variety of subjects, because of the process by which what we have came about.

I understood you correctly. Now you say the "process" is the problem. You obviously do not know how transcribers made copies of Scripture.

 

[Buford]

Wikipedia is a useful conglomeration of information from other sources. I'd advise not dismissing it until you've reviewed the original sources from which it's drawn.

Your meme is so 2005.

I'd advise you to heed the words of the founder and most college professors.

Your meme is so ignorant.

Most college professors agree with me. Jesus H Christ

Uh, right...and every translation of the Bible available is an incorrect translation....uh, right.

 

[Ravi]

I believe the point Valarie previously alluded to bears repeating.

Matthew 22:36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

If Leviticus ever forbade homosexuality, and it looks more likely that it forbade idolatry and/or taking someone against their will instead, Jesus revoked that law (and the rest of Leviticus), for Christians and replaced it with the all encompassing Love your neighbor as yourself. That would leave prohibitions against bestiality intact, as you cannot get consent from an animal (too bad for mal!) and it would leave all the other prohibitions from the OT intact, i.e. murder, rape, theft, etc.

 

[Foxfyre]

We have several of Paul's letters--some in their entirety and pieces of others-

Incorrect.

We have manuscripts which are fairly early and include versions of Paul's epistles, but we don't have ANY of his original epistles, written in his handwriting.

The Oldest Extant Editions of the Letters of Paul

The large number of manuscripts provide a large number of variant readings and the result is that there probably is not a single verse of the letters of Paul that has the same wording in all surviving manuscripts....We do not have any letter with Paul's handwriting on it.

-plus others that were more likely written by those he mentored than likely written by him. The oral tradition was well practiced among orthodox Jews who were very skilled at it, and the manuscripts were written well within a time frame in which no legend or prominent mythology had time to develop.

Additional variants of the gospel message had crept into Christianity during Paul's era of teaching actively. The manuscripts we have date to hundreds of years after Paul's death.

None of them, for instance, believe the Synoptic Gospels were written down by any one individual but rather are collections of manuscripts collected and edited together. This in no way detracts from what we can learn from those manuscripts.

And in the final analysis it really isn't important who wrote them when God is perfectly capable of speaking through them. As a matter of faith, I think we don't have the original manuscripts because if we did, we would worship them instead of the One those manuscripts address. If you believe in the God of the Bible, you know He is still speaking to us. If you do not, then it really becomes absurd to debate the scriptures and what they mean at all isn't it?

I think it's fine that this is the place you've come to in your faith. I don't agree with it, but if it works for you, it works for you.

It is absurd to claim on a message board that your sources, none of whom you know or have any ability to comprehensively critique, are somehow superior to anybody else's sources,. It is fine to disagree. It is fine to trust your sources. But when one claims that another is stupid because they believe or have been taught differently in matters of faith, we have long departed from any scholarly effort and returned to the schoolyard insult and childish mudslinging.

That isn't aimed at you Catz, but as an observation in the tone of the discussion in general.

It was only after I got away from liberal academia that I was able to find authorities more interested in truth than in academic philosophy. And the additional information made available rang more true and the pieces slowly but surely began to fit into place better. Liberal academia too often leaves one dry and convinced of facts, but is given no foundation for free thought or any insight that doesn't fit the meme used more for indoctrination than in searches for truth. Liberal academia too often destroys faith rather tthan create paths through which one can find deeper truths.

 

[mal]

I believe the point Valarie previously alluded to bears repeating.

Matthew 22:36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

If Leviticus ever forbade homosexuality, and it looks more likely that it forbade idolatry and/or taking someone against their will instead, Jesus revoked that law (and the rest of Leviticus), for Christians and replaced it with the all encompassing Love your neighbor as yourself. That would leave prohibitions against bestiality intact, as you cannot get consent from an animal (too bad for mal!) and it would leave all the other prohibitions from the OT intact, i.e. murder, rape, theft, etc.

Says the Tubby Bitch with the Peanut Butter Taco's for her Dog...



peace...

 

[catzmeow]

So what you're telling us is that the original manuscripts were altered, but you can't tell us who, when, and where. Next.

Reading comprehension fail. I'm saying we don't know what the original message was, on a variety of subjects, because of the process by which what we have came about.

Do you know how transcribers made copies of Scripture?

How did the transcribers make copies of doctrine from oral "scriptures"?

See, I can tell that you didn't actually read my entire post, smart guy.

 

[Ravi]

We have several of Paul's letters--some in their entirety and pieces of others-

Incorrect.

We have manuscripts which are fairly early and include versions of Paul's epistles, but we don't have ANY of his original epistles, written in his handwriting.

The Oldest Extant Editions of the Letters of Paul





Additional variants of the gospel message had crept into Christianity during Paul's era of teaching actively. The manuscripts we have date to hundreds of years after Paul's death.

None of them, for instance, believe the Synoptic Gospels were written down by any one individual but rather are collections of manuscripts collected and edited together. This in no way detracts from what we can learn from those manuscripts.

And in the final analysis it really isn't important who wrote them when God is perfectly capable of speaking through them. As a matter of faith, I think we don't have the original manuscripts because if we did, we would worship them instead of the One those manuscripts address. If you believe in the God of the Bible, you know He is still speaking to us. If you do not, then it really becomes absurd to debate the scriptures and what they mean at all isn't it?

I think it's fine that this is the place you've come to in your faith. I don't agree with it, but if it works for you, it works for you.

It is absurd to claim on a message board that your sources, none of whom you know or have any ability to comprehensively critique, are somehow superior to anybody else's sources,. It is fine to disagree. It is fine to trust your sources. But when one claims that another is stupid because they believe or have been taught differently in matters of faith, we have long departed from any scholarly effort and returned to the schoolyard insult and childish mudslinging.

That isn't aimed at you Catz, but as an observation in the tone of the discussion in general.

It was only after I got away from liberal academia that I was able to find authorities more interested in truth than in academic philosophy. And the additional information made available rang more true and the pieces slowly but surely began to fit into place better. Liberal academia too often leaves one dry and convinced of facts, but is given no foundation for free thought or any insight that doesn't fit the meme used more for indoctrination than in searches for truth. Liberal academia too often destroys faith rather tthan create paths through which one can find deeper truths.

Could you provide these sources you have claiming that we have several of Paul's letters in their entirety?

 

[catzmeow]

It is absurd to claim on a message board that your sources, none of whom you know or have any ability to comprehensively critique, are somehow superior to anybody else's sources,.

There is just a lot that we don't know. The process of the creation of Christian doctrine and scripture wasn't clean and orderly. it was messy, disrupted, and complicated. That's why there simply aren't (in my mind, at least), black and white responses to some of these issues.

It was only after I got away from liberal academia that I was able to find authorities more interested in truth than in academic philosophy. And the additional information made available rang more true and the pieces slowly but surely began to fit into place better. Liberal academia too often leaves one dry and convinced of facts, but is given no foundation for free thought or any insight that doesn't fit the meme used more for indoctrination than in searches for truth. Liberal academia too often destroys faith rather tthan create paths through which one can find deeper truths.

I've never worked in liberal academia, I've sought out information from a variety of sources and tried to be objective about what I've found. I don't have a particular agenda, in fact, this whole process was extremely painful and intellectually challenging for me.

I think both of the extremes have an axe to grind. The conservative scholars downplay the holes and gaps. The liberals play them up. The truth is somewhere in-between.

 

[Buford]

Wikipedia is a useful conglomeration of information from other sources. I'd advise not dismissing it until you've reviewed the original sources from which it's drawn.

Your meme is so 2005.

I'd advise you to heed the words of the founder and most college professors.

Your meme is so ignorant.

Congratulations. You've succeeded in avoiding any sort of rational thought about the questions you've asked.

I'm sure that means something to someone, somewhere, somehow.

 

[Buford]

Incorrect.

We have manuscripts which are fairly early and include versions of Paul's epistles, but we don't have ANY of his original epistles, written in his handwriting.

The Oldest Extant Editions of the Letters of Paul





Additional variants of the gospel message had crept into Christianity during Paul's era of teaching actively. The manuscripts we have date to hundreds of years after Paul's death.



I think it's fine that this is the place you've come to in your faith. I don't agree with it, but if it works for you, it works for you.

It is absurd to claim on a message board that your sources, none of whom you know or have any ability to comprehensively critique, are somehow superior to anybody else's sources,. It is fine to disagree. It is fine to trust your sources. But when one claims that another is stupid because they believe or have been taught differently in matters of faith, we have long departed from any scholarly effort and returned to the schoolyard insult and childish mudslinging.

That isn't aimed at you Catz, but as an observation in the tone of the discussion in general.

It was only after I got away from liberal academia that I was able to find authorities more interested in truth than in academic philosophy. And the additional information made available rang more true and the pieces slowly but surely began to fit into place better. Liberal academia too often leaves one dry and convinced of facts, but is given no foundation for free thought or any insight that doesn't fit the meme used more for indoctrination than in searches for truth. Liberal academia too often destroys faith rather tthan create paths through which one can find deeper truths.

Could you provide these sources you have claiming that we have several of Paul's letters in their entirety?

You and your pals are the ones claiming we don't have the authentic Scriptures. Still waiting for you to address that claim with some facts.

 

[Buford]

Reading comprehension fail. I'm saying we don't know what the original message was, on a variety of subjects, because of the process by which what we have came about.

Do you know how transcribers made copies of Scripture?

How did the transcribers make copies of doctrine from oral "scriptures"?

See, I can tell that you didn't actually read my entire post, smart guy.

And you obviously don't realize that Scripture is from writers inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's what the Word of God states. Doesn't matter when or where they were written down. God's Spirit doesn't live in time. Yes, I am a smart guy.

 

[BluePhantom]

I'd advise you to heed the words of the founder and most college professors.

Your meme is so ignorant.

Most college professors agree with me. Jesus H Christ

Uh, right...and every translation of the Bible available is an incorrect translation....uh, right.

Yes pretty much...and i think I have a pretty good idea what college professors think since I AM a college professor, idiot.

 

[Buford]

Most college professors agree with me. Jesus H Christ

Uh, right...and every translation of the Bible available is an incorrect translation....uh, right.

Yes pretty much...and i think I have a pretty good idea what college professors think since I AM a college professor, idiot.

What is your field of expertise?

 

[Foxfyre]

Incorrect.

We have manuscripts which are fairly early and include versions of Paul's epistles, but we don't have ANY of his original epistles, written in his handwriting.

The Oldest Extant Editions of the Letters of Paul





Additional variants of the gospel message had crept into Christianity during Paul's era of teaching actively. The manuscripts we have date to hundreds of years after Paul's death.



I think it's fine that this is the place you've come to in your faith. I don't agree with it, but if it works for you, it works for you.

It is absurd to claim on a message board that your sources, none of whom you know or have any ability to comprehensively critique, are somehow superior to anybody else's sources,. It is fine to disagree. It is fine to trust your sources. But when one claims that another is stupid because they believe or have been taught differently in matters of faith, we have long departed from any scholarly effort and returned to the schoolyard insult and childish mudslinging.

That isn't aimed at you Catz, but as an observation in the tone of the discussion in general.

It was only after I got away from liberal academia that I was able to find authorities more interested in truth than in academic philosophy. And the additional information made available rang more true and the pieces slowly but surely began to fit into place better. Liberal academia too often leaves one dry and convinced of facts, but is given no foundation for free thought or any insight that doesn't fit the meme used more for indoctrination than in searches for truth. Liberal academia too often destroys faith rather tthan create paths through which one can find deeper truths.

Could you provide these sources you have claiming that we have several of Paul's letters in their entirety?

It was called to my attention by seminary level professors at the University of the South (Episcopal.) That led me to reading several other scholarly works on the subject. The text of Galatians, for instance,contains a salutation, follows an orderly construction dealing with various issues pertinent to that congregation, ends with a standard closing and benediction, and the text (in its original Hellenistic Koine (common) Green in which Paul almost certainly used in the original manuscripts) would fit on a single scroll. There is no reason to believe that we don't have the letter in its entirety.

I and II Corinthians are more problematic as these appear to be portions of three, possibly four, letters written at different times, but nevertheless are typical of and follow the general style of Paul's writings.