Johnny Skeptic

In which case we would have to live with those problems, wouldn't we?

WWJD4aKlondikeBar

LOL!! This thread reminds me of how scared xians act whenever I see them encounter the number 666. "My lunch costs $6.66?!? I'd like to add a bag of chips!" Then I tell them how Greek scribes who hated Nero (but couldn't say anything about him without being killed for it) had changed the number of the beast from 616 and that the number that they should fear is 616, not 666.

Can a blank stare be priceless?

blastula

Then maybe you can answer the question I asked ksen. Where's the obscurantism other than from you in covering up and failing to address the relevant theological implications?

I ask again then:

Does that mean you agree that we don't know exactly what any original NT text said?

And do you also agree that the textual history of the NT provides no evidence to support the claim that the NT has a divine source?

Sheshonq

The problem with that point of view is that you want to have it both ways.

First you acknowledge that the earliest mss date from the 3rd or 4th centuries. So far, so good.

But then you want to pretend that a 4th century copy is equivalent to the autographs, merely because we don't have anything else to work from. And then you proceed to ascribe to the 4th century copy all the certainty and strong affirmative declarations that could only be made about actual autographs.

That will not do.

-Jay-

Roger has made the claim of obscurantism before, specifically against Bart Ehrman, yet I don't recall having seen him provide details of what it is about Ehrman's approach makes him him that way (please correct me if I'm wrong). In fact, I seem to recall from one recent thread that the implication was that Roger hasn't read Ehrman's works (again, please correct me if I'm wrong).

I've wondered the same things. These would seem to be yes-or-no questions.

regards,

NinJay

Johnny Skeptic

No, you cannot get away with saying "never mind the Bible." You believe is that God passed on his literary agenda to future generations, which supposedly has eternal consequences, the same ways that human non-Biblical writers promoted their agenda. Since when would a God choose to copy the often inefficient ways that pass on spread their agenda? Does God place such a low priority on the spread of the Gospel message that he allows it to spread entirely by human effort, which is exactly the way that all of religions that have books are spread?

I know, your position is that God's motives are not the topic of this thread, which is true, but in case you are not aware of it, no sensible person will become a Christian unless they believe that God's motives are reasonable. The best that you can hope to achieve at this forum is to reasonably prove that a God inspired the Bible, not that the Bible writers properly represented what he is like. If a God inspired the Bible, he is not a moral being. If Jesus rose from the dead, so what? All that it takes to raise a person from the dead is power, nothing more.

arnoldo

Of course it will do since Jesus Christ is a historical person.

arnoldo

Uhhh.. christians are the ones that have been spreading the gospel down through the centuries.

GenesisNemesis

However, His miracles may not be necessarily historical. From what I've seen you do not understand the point Sheshonq is trying to make.

arnoldo

The only evidence that the NT is from a divine source is the fact the Jesus rose from the dead.