Is there a Bible/ New Testament expert in the house?

[DMC]

I'm reading this tread, and from and unbiased observers position you're logic has been thoroughly dismantled. You've not been able to refute any point. You simply revert to faith based rabble while pretending you're the smartest guy in the room. You had no rebuttal to Fuzzy regarding the consistency of the text post-Constantinople which was, and still is, the foundation of your argument.

That's because he doesn't understand well developed exegesis of the bible. Instead, he's indoctrinated into the herd with catch phrases and well worn verses. Now and again you will encounter a theist who tries to present an apologetic based argument for the existence of God. They fail miserably but they try and they copy each other and call their flaccid attempt a success, when among peers. In the academic world however, they are laughed at like the pseudo scientists they are.

Those here have no such abilities or understanding. Instead, they attack like a lion but defend like a lamb. They try to keep one foot in the physical world and one in the imaginary mystic world, and they use one to argue for the other, conveniently escaping to the other when they've painted themselves into an epistemological corner.

[xmas1997]

There are many gospels that were not included in the Bible but should have been IMHO such as the Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, and The Lost Sayings Gospel, and The Q Do ent.
These are considered non-canonical texts, canon texts are considered inspired from God but this is really just opinion of the scholars at the times the Bible was first put together at I think the council of Nicea.

They are all interesting and much was preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The gospel of Mary was probably Mary Magdalene and has a special revelation from Jesus. This led to a conflict with Peter who may have considered her a rival to his authority.
The Gospel of Peter contains lots of accounts of Jesus during His resurrection.
The Gospel of Thomas has to do with Jesus secret sayings.
The Gospel of Judas depicts him as Jesus most loyal disciple and an innocent martyr.
The Lost Q Source contains the sayings of Jesus.
There are a few other books as well.
So it is now well known that the Bible is not complete, but hopefully someday will be. Unfortunately mainstream Christianity does not recognize these books as of yet. But the truth always has a way of coming out. It may take centuries, but the truth will come out.

[boutons_deux]

There are many gospels that were not included in the Bible but should have been IMHO such as the Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, and The Lost Sayings Gospel, and The Q Do ent.
These are considered non-canonical texts, canon texts are considered inspired from God but this is really just opinion of the scholars at the times the Bible was first put together at I think the council of Nicea.

They are all interesting and much was preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The gospel of Mary was probably Mary Magdalene and has a special revelation from Jesus. This led to a conflict with Peter who may have considered her a rival to his authority.
The Gospel of Peter contains lots of accounts of Jesus during His resurrection.
The Gospel of Thomas has to do with Jesus secret sayings.
The Gospel of Judas depicts him as Jesus most loyal disciple and an innocent martyr.
The Lost Q Source contains the sayings of Jesus.
There are a few other books as well.
So it is now well known that the Bible is not complete, but hopefully someday will be. Unfortunately mainstream Christianity does not recognize these books as of yet. But the truth always has a way of coming out. It may take centuries, but the truth will come out.

[Blake]

. The rapture is not literal either.

.......

The scripture cannot be broken.

what makes this contradiction especially impressive is that it came just a few sentences apart

[Blake]

So it is now well known that the Bible is not complete, but hopefully someday will be. Unfortunately mainstream Christianity does not recognize these books as of yet. But the truth always has a way of coming out. It may take centuries, but the truth will come out.

Centuries? That sucks.

[xmas1997]

Blake, how many posters are you?
I was told there are at least three different people depending on which cubical you are in at any given time.
How can I tell each of you apart?

[Blake]

Blake, how many posters are you?
I was told there are at least three different people depending on which cubical you are in at any given time.
How can I tell each of you apart?

just me.

[boutons_deux]

whatever happened to Phenonemaul? is he/she back as another name?

[DMC]

There are many gospels that were not included in the Bible but should have been IMHO such as the Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, and The Lost Sayings Gospel, and The Q Do ent.
These are considered non-canonical texts, canon texts are considered inspired from God but this is really just opinion of the scholars at the times the Bible was first put together at I think the council of Nicea.

They are all interesting and much was preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The gospel of Mary was probably Mary Magdalene and has a special revelation from Jesus. This led to a conflict with Peter who may have considered her a rival to his authority.
The Gospel of Peter contains lots of accounts of Jesus during His resurrection.
The Gospel of Thomas has to do with Jesus secret sayings.
The Gospel of Judas depicts him as Jesus most loyal disciple and an innocent martyr.
The Lost Q Source contains the sayings of Jesus.
There are a few other books as well.
So it is now well known that the Bible is not complete, but hopefully someday will be. Unfortunately mainstream Christianity does not recognize these books as of yet. But the truth always has a way of coming out. It may take centuries, but the truth will come out.

It's a myth that the Council of Nicaea constructed the Bible.

[xmas1997]

Then when did it happen?

[DMC]

Then when did it happen?

For what you probably know of the "bible", check with the British and Foreign Bible Society.

[Skull-1]

what makes this contradiction especially impressive is that it came just a few sentences apart

You understand what parable and metaphor mean, right? Silly me, of course you don't--we have 15 pages proving that. I should never have posited the question.

[Skull-1]

This is nonsense.

They are inconsistent but they are not....

If thy are different then some of them are going to to differ from Constantine's version. Just because one was chosen by Constantine does not mean that was the 'correct' one. It just means he chose one and ignored the rest.

It is called collation or cross check, and I can see why your feeble mind can't figure it out.

When the two oldest texts have obvious, but differing errors (omissions, transcriptional mistakes, or stupid scribal confusions like the one that says Jesus bled out and THEN got pierced with the sword, etc.).........but in every instance of an error the one without the mistake agrees with the BMT.......then we can fairly confidently assert the accuracy of the BMT. It was more faithfully preserved than any other text or group of texts.

If an older, less error prone manuscript exists, it has not been found.


Constantine didn't "choose" anything.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is called collation or cross check, and I can see why your feeble mind can't figure it out.

When the two oldest texts have obvious, but differing errors (omissions, transcriptional mistakes, or stupid scribal confusions like the one that says Jesus bled out and THEN got pierced with the sword, etc.).........but in every instance of an error the one without the mistake agrees with the BMT.......then we can fairly confidently assert the accuracy of the BMT. It was more faithfully preserved than any other text or group of texts.

If an older, less error prone manuscript exists, it has not been found.


Constantine didn't "choose" anything.

His proxies certainly did. You are still woefully ignorant of the history of the Church. You still have no answer to the actions of guys like Nestor and their policy of excising people that differed from one vision with a torch and sword. The Bible as we know it was put together by men. We do not even know who all of these proxies were.

I am well aware of the concept of cross verification. It seems you do not understand it.

error prone

Look up confirmation bias and assumption. There is nothing saying that Constantine's was the 'correct' version and the other versions are error prone. I hate having to repeat myself but you seem only able to repeat the same very basic canned nonsense. Instead as has been pointed out, it's an assumption you make based only on faith. Who is to say that one of the earlier texts is not correct. You can call me a moron but we both know its not true but when I call you naive it certainly is demonstrated on merit, narcissist.

Let's make an assumption that the Bible is indeed the work of God and there is/was a perfect rendition. If that were the case then a 'cross check' of another perfect version would come back precisely the same. Further, piecemealing a bit here and a bit there does not demonstrate that another is a perfect whole. IT means that pieces in an of themselves may both be correct but this is supposed to be the divine word and not a jigsaw puzzle.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

what makes this contradiction especially impressive is that it came just a few sentences apart

NPD-boy is special in how he alone can discern the word of God.

He also is friends with Saudi royals, astronauts, and Stephen Hawking. He has had two sci-fi books published. I am still waiting for anyone to say they believe that horse .

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You understand what parable and metaphor mean, right? Silly me, of course you don't--we have 15 pages proving that. I should never have posited the question.

You pick and choose greater than all the rest!

Revelations is now a parable, guys. We can figure whatever figurative we want as long as we pass it by our resident prophet here to make sure it's okay.

[DMC]

The obvious truth of all the books of the bible is that they are stories told by men. Jesus, as capable as he supposedly was, couldn't write a single word for anyone to read, yet his disciples could.

Oddly enough, and tellingly enough, there's no "Book of Jesus".

In fact, there's no evidence that either of the big 3 ever wrote anything. Moses said God wrote the 10 Commandments, yet God couldn't do it in front of scores of people who would have been utterly convinced had they seen the writing occur. The Holy Spirit never wrote anything and as I said, Jesus never put pen to paper.

What god would sacrifice his son, want people to believe in his son as a savior, yet depend on those who were not meeting his standards to spread the word of a son who spent some 33 years or so on the planet?

Tolkien makes more sense tbh.

[xmas1997]

The obvious truth of all the books of the bible is that they are stories told by men. Jesus, as capable as he supposedly was, couldn't write a single word for anyone to read, yet his disciples could.

Oddly enough, and tellingly enough, there's no "Book of Jesus".

In fact, there's no evidence that either of the big 3 ever wrote anything. Moses said God wrote the 10 Commandments, yet God couldn't do it in front of scores of people who would have been utterly convinced had they seen the writing occur. The Holy Spirit never wrote anything and as I said, Jesus never put pen to paper.

What god would sacrifice his son, want people to believe in his son as a savior, yet depend on those who were not meeting his standards to spread the word of a son who spent some 33 years or so on the planet?

Tolkien makes more sense tbh.

I don't expect you or any one else to believe this, and that is ok, but there is a new body of evidence from recent discoveries suggesting that Jesus actually did write a Gospel, and that is the Gospel of Thomas which has never been included in the modern or ancient Bible.
For those of you interested, look up "The Perennial Tradition". These are some of the deeper esoteric teachings of early Christianity from Paul, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Valentinus, and Marcion among others outlining a more gnostic or hidden view. Has anyone ever noticed how much different Paul's writings were from the others? This is no coincidence. Paul was versed in the esoteric teachings given him directly from Jesus.
However, it is the exoteric (public) view of Christianity that we have today which was given to us during Constantine's day and the Council of Nicea. And for the rank and file average everyday Christian, that is all that is needed.
Yet if one seeks, the esoterical teachings will be brought to him.
The Perennial Tradition is an esoteric (secret) tradition.
There are many seeds pretending to be plants.
I Am That I Am

[Blake]

You understand what parable and metaphor mean, right? Silly me, of course you don't--we have 15 pages proving that. I should never have posited the question.

oh cool, back to the parable bull .

[Blake]

I don't expect you or any one else to believe this, and that is ok, but there is a new body of evidence from recent discoveries suggesting that Jesus actually did write a Gospel, and that is the Gospel of Thomas which has never been included in the modern or ancient Bible.
For those of you interested, look up "The Perennial Tradition". These are some of the deeper esoteric teachings of early Christianity from Paul, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Valentinus, and Marcion among others outlining a more gnostic or hidden view. Has anyone ever noticed how much different Paul's writings were from the others? This is no coincidence. Paul was versed in the esoteric teachings given him directly from Jesus.
However, it is the exoteric (public) view of Christianity that we have today which was given to us during Constantine's day and the Council of Nicea. And for the rank and file average everyday Christian, that is all that is needed.
Yet if one seeks, the esoterical teachings will be brought to him.
The Perennial Tradition is an esoteric (secret) tradition.
There are many seeds pretending to be plants.
I Am That I Am

So Jesus waited 1000 extra years to give us his book.

Thanks a lot bin laden

[xmas1997]

So Jesus waited 1000 extra years to give us his book.

Thanks a lot bin laden

As I said I didn't expect any of you to believe this.
And that is ok.

[Skull-1]

His proxies certainly did. You are still woefully ignorant of the history of the Church. You still have no answer to the actions of guys like Nestor and their policy of excising people that differed from one vision with a torch and sword. The Bible as we know it was put together by men. We do not even know who all of these proxies were.

I am well aware of the concept of cross verification. It seems you do not understand it.

error prone

Look up confirmation bias and assumption. There is nothing saying that Constantine's was the 'correct' version and the other versions are error prone.


....

Let's make an assumption that the Bible is indeed the work of God and there is/was a perfect rendition. If that were the case then a 'cross check' of another perfect version would come back precisely the same. Further, piecemealing a bit here and a bit there does not demonstrate that another is a perfect whole. IT means that pieces in an of themselves may both be correct but this is supposed to be the divine word and not a jigsaw puzzle.

And as the Divine Word of God it is inspired purely by accident into the perfection it is. Constantine had no version. The canon was established over centuries and was fairly well codified even before the Council of Nicea.

You are not only stupid, you are ignorant. There are corrupt copies and there are those that are, best we can tell, true to their source. The two oldest extant have the same original source material (OSM) as the BMT does. Through careful examination and simple common sense the departures from the original can be spotted in the older texts, proving that the BMT is closest to the OSM. It isn't hard. But you're not that bright, soi guess it is hard...

As for the rest, the Bible is quite a miracle in its consistency, continuity, and brilliance. It came out just right in part by accident, but so be it.


Even then, the mystery remains. Scripture, as assembled, does not support a trinity. Yet that was the bias for many in assembling the canon. Funny that they assembled a canon that invalidates their bias. But again, only to those who can see.

Even with transcriptional errors the truth still comes through because of the massive number of failsafes built into it, but these are veiled, as God intended.

The BMT is as close to perfect compared to the non-existent OSM as there is, so far. Strangely enough, English translators pick and choose what version to use in different places, turning the truth of God into a lie as prophesied.

The Word of God is veiled. It is a mystery. Constantine and the rest merely served their prophetic purpose without realizing it.

[Skull-1]

You pick and choose greater than all the rest!

Revelations is now a parable, guys. We can figure whatever figurative we want as long as we pass it by our resident prophet here to make sure it's okay.

Correct. Parable.

(Oh, and it is REVELATION, Mister Smart Guy. It isn't plural. Apocalypse. Singular. And I am supposed to believe you have the slightest clue about anything scriptural? Don't make me laugh, rookie.)

Are you so stupid that you believe Jesus is gonna ride out of the sky on a horse? Don't fear the rapture. When he lands in NYC it will take him a few months to ride all the way to the west coast.


IDIOT.

[THEGOAT]

Correct. Parable.

(Oh, and it is REVELATION, Mister Smart Guy. It isn't plural. Apocalypse. Singular. And I am supposed to believe you have the slightest clue about anything scriptural? Don't make me laugh, rookie.)

Are you so stupid that you believe Jesus is gonna ride out of the sky on a horse? Don't fear the rapture. When he lands in NYC it will take him a few months to ride all the way to the west coast.


IDIOT.

The people I go to when I want a better understanding of the bible never call me names for disagreeing, even when I argue. You're the type of person that make people like me (on the fence about religion), not want to practice it. You're arrogant and obnoxious.

[Skull-1]

The people I go to when I want a better understanding of the bible never call me names for disagreeing, even when I argue. You're the type of person that make people like me (on the fence about religion), not want to practice it. You're arrogant and obnoxious.

Well, be nice and you'll get the nice side. Act like a jerk and I will lose patience very quickly.

flake and lumpyfuzznuts made their choice.

People with humility and a desire to learn deserve respect. I am quite patient with the sincere.