Steve Weiss

If there is a cogent, relevant idea here hiding beneath verbiage so convoluted as to lead nowhere, I fail to find it. Angels are messengers? And you know this how?

Steve Weiss

What gives you the impression that I am debating the veracity of the Jesus stories? I most emphatically am not. I am flatly saying these fictions need no explanataion because A. They are impossible, and did not occur and B. Only a mind escaping into a disassociative, delusional state could give them any credence. On the face of it, the biblical stories should not be accepted by anyone of average intelligence over the age of 13 at most. All that is necessary is to stand up and shout: "The Emperor has no clothes." It doesn't matter how many people now believe and how many people historically have believed nonsense; nonsense it was and nonsense it remains. Getting into "he said, she said" is an exercise without a payoff. The bible is fiction start to finish; no need to debate anything. Did Superman really come from the planet Krypton? Who cares? There is no Superman.

To state that one must prove that the bible is fiction is logically incorrect. Christians make an assertion of truth that they must prove, and they admit that they cannot do so. That is why faith is central to their twisted and perverse doctrines. The burden of proof is 100% on Christians, and they have no case to make that relies upon reason (which is a whore according to Luther) or facts. Believe it or else is all that preserves Christianity from being exposed as the nonsensical, pernicious mumblings of deranged minds. The assertion that there was a man/god 2000 years ago that still has an influence on people's lives and that in order to conform to his wishes believers must drink his blood and eat his flesh is as low a standard of truth as I could imagine. Civilized people reject cannibalism, even if the masses call it holy communion.

aa5874

As I have said before the Jesus stories and the Pauline writings are Myth Fables of the 2nd century and later ABOUT the Son of a God called Jesus.

My statement is COMPLETELY corroborated.

No Jesus story or Pauline letter has ever been found and dated by any means to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

All NT manuscripts are dated NO earlier than the 2nd century.

We know that there was NO person known as Jesus Christ in the 1st century from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, Tertullian's Answer to the Jews and Origen's Against Celsus.

We also know the reason why the Jesus story was fabricated.

The Jesus story was fabricated to Blame the Jews for the Fall of the Temple and the Calamities of the Jews. See Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, Aristides Apology and Hippolytus' Treatise Against the Jews.

We know that the Pauline letters were NOT known when Acts of the Apostles was composed.

We know that the Pauline writings were composed AFTER Revelation from the Muratorian Canon.

The history of the Jesus cult have been discovered.

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century and NOT before c 70 CE.

The Actual Recovered DATED manuscripts completely support a 2nd century Jesus story and cult.

Sheshbazzar

If you were involved in real scholarship rather than pursuing an agenda you would know the answers to these questions.
Having to ask them only makes you look obstinate and foolish.


Yes I understand very well what 'textual variants' means. Evidently you don't as it does NOT mean 'altered' or 'changed'.

Again 'accuracy' can only be established by comparison against a STANDARD text. NO such 'standard' texts exist or has ever been located.
As the link itself reveals;
An 'eclectic' -[LOOK UP THE DEFINITION of the word eclectic if you don't understand the term]- text is a text that is a -composite- text, one that does not accurately follow any particular early example, but selects readings from a wide variety of early religious texts and recombines them, disregarding readings not present in the majority, so as to produce a 'eclectic version' by committee. Such a eclectic text is NOT authoritative, and is not a STANDARD against which any actual surviving authentic early text can be judged or deemed to be 'altered'.

No such 'eclectic' text so produced is any 'standard' by which to weight or to discard the reading in any one of these actual surviving early texts.
In point of fact, one of those variant early texts of which maybe only one or two examples still exist, is far more likely to be the one closest to the reading that appeared in the original manuscripts.
The huge amount of minutely agreeing texts tend to point more towards late organized efforts to force standardization, thus those texts that display significant textual variations are the far more likely to be earlier and more authentic, not having suffered the censorship revisions and demands for exacting conformity imposed by a powerful (read late) church orthodoxy.

Simple percentages of textual variations, and 'eclectic' texts produced by 'committee' cannot be (correctly) employed to make a claim that any particular one of these early texts were 'altered' as there exists NO -standard- early and original text by which to make any comparisons.
All that can be done is to demonstrate the number of 'textual variations' that exist within the ancient examples available and examined.

These numbers CANNOT be (correctly) construed to establish which among hundreds of ancient texts were 'altered', or where such 'alterations' occur, nor WHEN any particular text was written. That is not at all the purpose of that statistical analysis.

The as presented linked material makes no attempt to do so, nor ever posits that any particular text was 'altered', or can be dated by these percentages
The word 'altered' in fact does not appear anywhere on that page.

You simply are reading into it your own misunderstanding of the DATA presented, and your own misconceptions as to what that DATA indicates, and how it is to be properly interpreted and used. The problem is YOURS not theirs.

aa5874

Something is radically wrong with your response. You are the one who claimed that EARLY SAUL writings were doctored but all of a sudden you don't seem to understand that "textual variants"in the NT must mean that verses of the books of the NT were altered.

Again, you are hopelessly lost.

This is so basic.

If the same verses of any two books of the NT contain textual variants then it can be reasonably deduced that at least one has been altered.

1 & 2 Timothy are the most accurate books in the New Testament based on the DATA supplied and gMark is the least accurate.

The accuracy of the Pauline letters MATCHES the accuracy of Later Pastorals.

This DATA supports the OTHER pieces of evidence that the Pauline writings were COMPOSED AFTER gMark.

Sheshbazzar

You display an inability to comprehend the meaning of the DATA contained in the link that you provided.
I trust my above explanation of the problem will be sufficiently clear to anyone else.

So you can consider that what I wrote above, and what follows is for the edification of others who are not subject to your problem.
Thus the rest of this is addressed to our readers.

aa seems to suffer from the mistaken idea that if this or that early text has a 'variant reading' that text must have been 'altered'.

That perception is not accurate. Scholarship recognizes that much of the written content of these texts first existed in, and were conveyed, and discussed among believers in oral form before being put into into writing, or into the production of additional 'copies'.
It is not like there was in those days one single 'official' written text that all others were compelled to slavishly follow letter by letter.

And this would not have been, as in the earliest days of Christianity these earliest NT texts were not even recognized as being Scripture but as shared messages between believers.
No one at that time would have been concerned with the minute hair-splitting in the preparing of additional Christian documents, slavishly, letter by careful letter, that has since overtaken mankind.
The educated scribes of each far flung messianic group would attempt to produce what they believed to be the clearest text that they could. based on whatever texts had came into their hands, and whatever oral information that had came to their ear, and how the elders collectively understood the content in light of their own knowledge, experience, and persuasions.

Sentences crudely phrased were corrected for grammar, words with unusual or 'incorrect' spellings were 'corrected'. Names were changed to fit Greek ears. Sometimes the sentence or paragraphs were slightly rearranged for clarity, and entire sentences or paragraphs added that were thought to clarify obscure statements, or that favored the local elders views.
Hundreds of textual variations on a basic text would have evolved in a matter of months. There was no thought that they were 'altering' sacred documents, only copying and passing on the glorious Christian message as they understood it. (As 'The Living Bible' etc. does today. My congregation long published a Bible that read almost word for word, and verse for verse like the familiar King James Bible, yet nonetheless contained around 20,000 significant changes and corrections.)

There is no STANDARD text of the NT, there never was, and there never has been.

The texts were not, and are not the essence of Christianity, personal persuasion and conviction was and is.

It has never mattered in the least how lousy of a copy or translation of the NT texts a believer has used, no matter how bad, no matter how corrupt that text, the believer will make the best of it, ignoring anything 'wrong' with it and not let text prevail over faith and conviction of the guidance of The Holy Spirit.

Even today there are millions of virtually illiterate Christians, even devout church goers, whose beliefs do not depend nor hinge upon the hair-splitting minutiae of the books, but upon their personal hopes and fears, and convictions, and their 'Walk with Jesus'. They could care the least about these percentages, -other than how they might be employed so as to help others 'find their way to Jesus'.
Any form of book or translation that does not seem to agree with those deeply held convictions, is simply passed over as it always has been.

.

aa5874

You are hopelessly lost. You are embarrassing yourself.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual..._New_Testament

Sheshbazzar

I am not embarrassed by your lack of comprehension.

It may be noted that you needed to hop to an entirely different link when the wording of the former would not support your claim.

I am not in a position to be arguing with the authors of your last link. IF I were, I would also be taking them to task for their ill chosen of terminology.

Again those charts of percentages only reflect the fact that there are 'Textual variants' and variant texts.

And in ether case;
There is NO 'right' text.

There is NO 'wrong' text.

There is NO 'correct' text.

There is NO 'incorrect' text.

There is NO 'erroneous' text.

There are NO textual 'errors'.

Because There is NO 'STANDARD' TEXT, by which to infallibly judge or determine such things.

Without having the very first and actual original document of each text, there exists NO STANDARD TEXT by which to make any value comparisons.
This is why I asked you WHICH texts were 'altered'. NO such individual text can be identfied.
Those that differ simply differ. They are neither 'better' nor 'worse' for it.

And for the reasons previously delineated, the most variant of NT text examples are likely to be the older and closest to the originals.
But that is of small consequence because in the end, to the people to whom it counts, these petty textual differences make absolutely no difference at all.


.

Chili

Because potentially each one of us is God and so intuitly we all know the idea of God that is the inner man. This is where intuition is that part of us that we do not know but may come to us in dreams and inspirations, wherefore then the inspired man no longer is a dreamer nor has inspirations come his way.

An angel can be seen as an inspiration and finally walking on water is to fully go by intuition without a conscious memory to use.

.

Sheshbazzar

Technically speaking, the ancient word מלאכים ma'ak'eem (plural) has the meaning of 'messengers or representatives'.
The corresponding Greek term is ἄγγελος aggelos meaning 'messengers, envoys, ones sent'.

Chili indeed writes some very obscure and convoluted prose, and does present some very strange sounding ideas, but his claiming that 'Angels are messengers' is not one of them. That is the intrinsic meaning of the word.

(and no, a 'messenger' does not always have wings ....least not any that would appear to an unaided eye. ....With a nod and a wink to my old friend Chili)