Johnny Skeptic

That is most certainly not true. Following are all of your comments in this thread:

Post #4

Post #8

Post #10

Now readers, have I missed something here? Surely this is a record regarding a withdrawal from a debate. Bede wrote only a total of 18 words in posts #4 and #8, withdrew in post #10, and did not answer any of my questions.

Gamera

There are numerous (usually short) commentaries on rejected texts by the various scholars of the time or close in time. They sometimes give the reasoning (they discern) for the rejection of a text. A good source of those discussions are at early christain writings.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Gamera

[QUOTE=Johnny Skeptic]This is an odd criticism, since it "is impossible" for anybody living today to know what Homer "wrote" or what Socrates wrote or what Plato wrote or what Aristotle wrote or what Buddha taught or what original Hinduism taught, or what anybody wrote or taught or said prior to the early modern period wrote, since it has all been put through the washing maching of redaction.

So your epistomological qualms, while seemingly directed at Christian texts, really are just the state of history as we know it, and don't illuminate anything special about Chrisitianity.

Johnny Skeptic

It is not valid for you to compare secular writings with supposedly divinely inspired writings. If a few lines of the copies of the writings of those secular authors are not original, so what? Would you care one way or the other? However, if a few lines of the New Testament are not original, for instance 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, you would have much more difficulty defending Christianity.

Secular history and supernatural history are not the same.

Dargo

I think all infidels would agree that there is nothing at all special about Christian scripture other than it being more popular today than other writings of it's era. There nothing to indicate that it is anymore free of errors, additions, deletions, and editing than other ancient writings. The only reason it gets special attention is because some people are still convinced that it is a magic book of unquestionable authority and that all humans should be bound by it's teachings even though Christians themselves cannot agree on what exactly those teachings mean.

gregor

Gee, and I thought there were lots of volumes with rigorous analyses of why NT items were selected and why other stories were rejected with a comprehensive determination for each inclusion or exclusion. At least that's what I'd read somewhere. . .