Sheshbazzar

Already went through that aa. The earliest texts, The Epistles had the longest time to achieve church approved and accepted standardization.

Your percentages are nothing but horse crap when abused in this manner.

All these percentages indicate is that there were different textual steams, these percentages in no wise determine what or which of these many streams may have comprised or remained faithful to the original manuscripts.

Your percentages only serve to identify variations from the 'received' texts.
That is no indication that these variations were the texts that were 'altered',

It is in fact far more likely that it was the texts which the church 'received' that were the texts that were so altered and edited as to create the familiar 'standardized' and catholic church acceptable 'received' versions.

The Gospels display such a high percentage of variaiation because they are late, and did not enjoy the time nor ability to attain to the level of catholic imposed standardization attained by the Epistles.

The evidence indicates that 'the Jesus story' of The Gospels, beginning with and including gMark, were not known to nor employed by the writers of the Epistles.

The evidence indicates that The Gospels were added to the Canon AFTER the Epistles.

The evidence indicates that anything found within the Epistles that came from the Gospels is a late interpolation.

The evidence indicates the name 'Jesus' was inserted into the original 'Christ' Epistles at a late date.

aa5874

What you say does not make much sense. It is actually illogical.

If the Epistles to the Churches had the longest time to acheive church approved and accepted standardization then you are implying that gMark was the very last Jesus story in the Canon and that the 1 & 2 Timothy was composed before the Pauline letters to Churches.

1 AND 2 Timothy are the most accurate of all the NT books and gMark is the least. You imply that 1&2 Timothy acheived church approved and accepted standardisation before gMark.

What nonsense!!!

Sheshbazzar

I never claimed to give these 'percentages' the significance that you wish to ascribe to them.
The various NT writings had varying levels of support among the various populations and institutions of early Christianity.
Not all these writings were accorded the same level of attention or ecclesiastical support, thus these percentages cannot be extrapolated to accurately reflect how much attention, or at what time a text came into being, some had floated around for centuries before finally being canonized.

Your flagrant abuse and misunderstanding of these statistics is what is the nonsense.

The link you supplied talks about the textual variations and percentage of 'Variant-Free Verses', it says nothing about anything being 'altered'.

Please explain to us what you mean by 'altered'.

'altered' from what?

Please explain to us what you mean by 'the most accurate'.

More 'accurate' than what?

.

aa5874

Again, you don't make much sense.

You are just make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims.

You have NO SUPPORTING DATA or evidence for your claims.

What "institutions of early Christianity" are you talking about??

When did your "institutions of early Christianity" commence??

Which text "floated around before finally being canonized"??

It is obvious that you are completely lost. You have NO idea how to analyze the DATA.

If you do not understand what "altered" means then please get some kind of dictionary. Do you understand what "changes" mean?? Do you understand what "textual variants" mean??

You are indeed hopelessly lost. Please examine the DATA. The link deals with the ACCURACY of the NEW Testament.

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

Steve Weiss

It is entirely unnecessary to trace the origins of the Jesus story in the NT in order for the bible to be classified as fiction. Firstly, fiction is the default classification unless there is necessary and sufficient reason and facts to classify a work as non-fiction. Secondly, the bible stories (OT and NT) as well as every other religious book are false on the face of them. Resort to belief in miracles does not bolster credibility, it destroys it. Deities, angels and devils do not exist, and most of the characters in these fairy stories are fictional as well. To entertain the notion that these stories are in any way credible is to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There are no angels, and the question is moot.

There are no objective criteria upon which religious books can be classified as non-fiction, none whatsoever, and dwelling on these myths is playing the game of mythmakers. Doing so gives mythmaking an unearned status that it does not deserve. These stories have no cognitive standing, and to debate them is a pure waste of time and brainpower.

Iskander

I think this explains very well why so many scholars come across as a boorish lot despite their efforts to impress and the possession of master degrees and PhDs.

Thomas Aquinas is still considered ‘the’ master scholar, but having a look at his tedious building on ignorance is enough to realize that he is only inventing.

‘Mohamedans’, and ‘ Bhramanists’ and 'Buddhanians' and ... are just as bad or worse.

Chili

All very true and Paul was ever so right to write what he did, and ignore Jesus as a [third party] 'Jesus worshiper' himself . . . as that is the last thing one should ever be.

When Jesus said: "It is your business to 'follow me'" he did not imply ''worship me', but instead he meant: "Be like I am and do as I do."

To worship Jesus, one would be a spectator to the event, instead of running the race by yourself, on your own, in a world that is only your own.

Let me take you to Rev.13 where the first beast was Jesus himself and particularily notice that this beast came out of the "celestial sea" there called the water. From there it reads easy enough, but I can sure spoon-feed it to anyone here.

Then go to the second beast that came out of the [old] earth and this is the charismatic imposter who can pretty much do the same things as magic, but notice that he does indeed worship the 'first beast' above.

He is presented again in Rev.14:6-12 where his first angel 'proclaims the good news", and his second angel shows his hard-on for Catholics, and then his third angel proclaims his own tragedy as 'saved sinner' with one leg in heaven and one leg on earth. This is what 'mid-heaven' in verse 6 means that the protestants have translated to read "midst of heaven" to justify their cause as saved sinner with no relief by day or by night.

Bottom line: The Church of God is the antichrist, always was and always will be because faith itself is the enemy to overcome if only knowledge is what counts in the end.

Chili

Bolding is mine to explain angels away. .

An angel is a 'messenger' that gives rise to a cause. It so is universal and can bind people together as one. Factually it is an 'intercourse' that people share and is like sex in the material world that is not known until then, and after you had it [most] ppl want more.

And they come in two kinds, Plato said in his Sophists 264D to the end:

- those who give life to the living are iconic

- those who taketh away are fantastic.

The basis for this is that truth 'is' and was prior to us with beauty being its vapor wherein only the profane can be conceived to exist.

To make a long story short: it is in this division that humping goats still is popular today.

aa5874

I completely disagree with you. There are billions of people who Believe the Jesus stories are history so it makes no sense to even think of classifying the NT as fiction if you are NOT prepared to show and present the evidence that the Jesus story was always a product of Mythology.
The very fact that you are debating the Jesus stories contradict your own position.

It is evident that the stories of Jesus have a Major impact on mankind. Up to today, People who claim that Jesus was a Myth are ridiculed.

Presently, denying the existence of Jesus appears to be frowned upon more than denying the existence of Gods even though Jesus was Fathered by a Ghost.

Essentially, Christians Admire Atheists who believe Jesus did exist without any evidence.

It is absolutely necessary to show that the Jesus story originated as Mythology if one wants to classify it as Fiction.

Duvduv

More specifically (and I am looking forward to Mountainman's perspective) what were the ostensible criteria of the central scriptorium for drafting four texts with both their textual similarities and differences? Would the texts suggest that three used the GMark as a boilerplate, and if so, why? What kind of criteria did the scriptorium officials use to decide what to include, exclude or change in the stories and logia in the subsequent 3 texts?

Were each of the 4 gospels drafted by people with different philosophical and theological orientations representing different streams in Roman society who wanted to integrate them with the boilerplate storyline offered either by GMark or a set of oral stories existing prior to GMark?