andrewcriddle

Are you arguing that Luke 22:43-44 probably was part of the original text ?

If so you might be right, but it is omitted in P75 (our oldest manuscript) Codex Vaticanus (probably our best witness) the Sinaitic-Syriac and a number of other important early sources. There is a detailed discussion here http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Luke.pdf which tentatively favours originality while admitting the strength of the external evidence against the passage.

Andrew Criddle


Andrew Criddle

judge

All I said was maybe it happened. You don't know that it did not. this is the starting point for openminded inquiry. We drop our prejudices.

The simplist explanation is 2., but so what. Are you turning option 2 into some unbreakable law? the simplist explantion is always true?


The story of Jesus is not like other stories , if it were we would not have this forum operating.

So in short I am open to miracles (violations of our prsent scientific consensus ) being real. Life is far to complex enchanting inspiring and wonderful, in my experience to have faith they dont happen.

Alf

My point was merely that stating the bible is true once you have removed all the non-original parts of it is kinda meaningless because we do nto have access to that original. As such this God has done a very poor job of ensuring his message came across to us 2000 years later. If the original bible were true as per divine revelation then perhaps an all powerful god would have ensured that the original was kept somewhere safe?

Ergo, it is not likely that the bible - even in its original form - was a divine revelation from an all powerful deity. Further; if the original bible was not a divine revelation then the current redacted bible most certainly isn't.

Alf

2-J

Wouldn't most believers take it as an article of faith that God, being good, surely wouldn't have let the essential theological message of the bible be distorted by alterations? Then the problem kinda disappears, no need for the original text to have stuck around in that scenario.

I think the idea that you can believe in God by reason alone went out the window for many Christian churches some time ago. (I stand to be corrected).

Agenda07

-deleting bad example-

Solo

I think the simplest explanation, consistent with what we know about how the universe works, is that Jesus (or the group that started to use allegorized artifacts of altered mentation and the peak-experiences as Jesus), believed he (they) rose from the dead (metaphorically) to the spiritual life of the coming kingdom of God,

and

Paul fought the Jesus movement with his own conservative, Phariseic, belief in the (actual) resurrection from the dead at the end of time,

and

it all got mixed up and dumbed down in the gospels.

Jiri

spamandham

In the ordinary sense of the word 'know', yes, I do in fact know it didn't happen. Is it possible it happend? I'll guess it's possible. Having an open mind does not mean you approach a proposition without prejudice, it means you approach it with a willingness to listen to the evidence and the case being made.

But there is no applicable evidence, and no case being made, so in what sense is it closed minded to dismiss the absurd when no case has even been made in support of it?

judge

OK.