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

[Skull-1]

So since there is no evidence of the parting of the red sea, the prophecy of the four horsemen of the apocolypse, or any of the other obvious bull does that mean God and Jesus and everything else that is claimed is also a 'parable' that we can mae to be whatever the that we feel like it. Or what you can interpret because your special?

Lies cop outs and cowardice. It's noted how you gave up on arguing the consistency of the texts. I guess that we can chalk those up to parables that are figurative. How about repentance and the 10 commandments. Or are you stupid enough to believe that God showed up to Moses in the form of the burning bush to hand down those commandments?

Hey, dumba--. We're done. Got it? I already explained it through Christ and Paul's own words as clearly as can be shown. Your failure to comprehend is not a failure of the facts. Toss all the lies you want my way. I have explained it plainly and simply. You obviously cannot read. Might wanna' check on that Axis 1 Disorder of yours.

The discussion is over.

HE WHO HAS EARS LET HIM HEAR.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey, dumba--. We're done. Got it? I already explained it through Christ and Paul's own words as clearly as can be shown. Your failure to comprehend is not a failure of the facts. Toss all the lies you want my way. I have explained it plainly and simply. You obviously cannot read. Might wanna' check on that Axis 1 Disorder of yours.

The discussion is over.

HE WHO HAS EARS LET HIM HEAR.

And yet again with the claim of an argument having been made and no argument. Your bible is only 'consistent' after a certain point and that point was was constantine's commision. We still have no idea what happened after what was a very dark period of chistianity in the interim. You can quote Paul in galatians saying that he ws inspired by Jesus but Jesus ws still dead at that point. Are you stupid enough to think that dead people talk to the living?

You may want me to b e done but as long as you come one here saying stupid things, I am going to call you on them. You are not my audience so deal with it because not even putting me on ignore will stop me. You notice how people have come on here and talked about what I have had to say? That is why I do this and not for your cowardly Christianity of convenience. I know your emotionally crippled ass will lie and front. It's what your type does. You are not unique and its what people like you do. We have gone down the checklist and you meet the criteria.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

MS Aleph (or Codex Sinaiticus) is not to be trusted. It errs, and errs badly on occasions. Unfortunately the pool of MSS making up its Text-type (Alexandrian/Egyptian) is too small to know where it has departed from its text-type. For this reason, and in contradistinction to the Majority Text,
it is sometimes referred to as the Minority Text. It is in a minority as regards extant manuscript witnesses and geographical spread. This small base of manuscripts cons utes an inherent weakness in establishing what is the Egyptian/Alexandrian Text-type. The Majority Text, on the other hand,
does not have this inherent weakness because of the multiplicity of MSS in its pool, and its unbounded geographical spread. However, we lack a critical edition of both Text-types.

Way to not think for yourself.

This is stupid. It should read: we will discard this because its inconvenient to our narrative. That it is older should and thus closer to the original should mean that it is closer to the original but in your brain the one that has been passed down 900 more years is the one to be trusted. If nothing else it underscores the point that has been made from the beginning: they are not consistent. As I pointed out: confirmation bias and might as well throw in plain stupid logic.

The NU88 text is basically the text of two manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It is the direct descendant of Westcott and Hort’s 1881 edition. This can be proved by the observation that in the Gospel of John the NU has altered the Westcott-Hort text in only 167 places (most of them spelling differences), and in every instance it has replaced those readings with the Majority Text. Westcott &
Hort worked on the simple rule that where B and a agreed, that was the original text. They departed from this rule on only eight occasions (all of them spelling differences).

An exact copy of the original text which had been exactly recopied for ten generations and is dated to 1000 years after Christ, is to be preferred to a first copy which was carelessly copied and which can be dated to 100 years after Christ. It is, therefore, a sound principle of textual criticism that the date of a manuscript has absolutely no bearing on its faithfulness to the original text. The date of a manuscript is meaningless and irrelevant. It is a common error among text-critics to assume that the older a manuscript is, the more faithful it is to the original text. The two concepts are unrelated.

A later copy differs from an early copy and so we should conclude that the new copy is the valid one. That is just stupid. You can call it a 'common error' but in the world I live in the closer to the source you are the more reliable it is. But again it still underscores the point: they are not the same and deviate to a significant degree.

Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament illustrates how we can all find a way of justifying our preferred reading. He was not making his comments from a neutral position. He made it known that he regarded the Aleph-B text as the nearest thing to the original text and he regarded the Byzantine Text as an inferior Text-type because he uncritically followed Hort’s subjective opinion (not based on facts) that the Majority Text was the creation of the Byzantine Church in the fifth century. This overriding, flawed assumption influenced every decision he made in his Commentary. We need a neutral commentary, not one whose set aim is to produce an eclectic text, but one which will explain how the Text-types come to differ from each other at each point of disagreement.

In the end, scholarship must choose between Text-types, not between MSS, and certainly not a pick-and-mix approach to establish the autograph text, as is done in all modern attempts to reconstruct the original text. The significance of the Majority Text is that it is not an eclectic text. Because of this feature it stands apart from all previous editions, revisions, and reconstructions of the Greek text of the New Testament.

The part that I get from this is that this guy think that we shouldn't bother recreating the original. Do I need to walk you through why that is asinine and further how it blows your notion that the text has been faithfully reproduced.

The object of this Appendix is to show that the Reformation Churches were misled in 1881 into giving up the Majority Text (also called the Byzantine text, the Koine Text, the Textus Receptus, or simply MT90) in favour of a local Egyptian Text. The Egyptian text came into prominence through Westcott
and Hort in the late nineteenth century. Their text was based mainly (if not solely) on two manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The criterion used was, where these two manuscripts agreed against the MT, their text was to be preferred every time. This criterion still dominates all modern Greek texts of the New Testament.

Westcott and Hort succeeded in replacing the Majority Text with a local, Egyptian text using three false assumptions, namely, that the older a manuscript was the nearer it was to the original text. Secondly, that scribes were more likely to add words here and there in the copying process, than omit them. The latter criterion can be double-edged, in that if a copyist thinks this has happened to the copy he is about to re-copy and sets out to omit what he regards as redundancies, then he will end up with a shorter text, which is the case with the Egyptian text. It is about 3% shorter overall when compared to the MT. All modern English translations are based on this local, Egyptian text, which is a corrupt form of the Majority Text.

So basically his text is to be preferred because he says so? That's nice.

Their third assumption was that the Majority Text did not exist before the fifth century. They believed that it was created by an individual called Lucian. It is then postulated that his text was then taken up by the major centres of Christianity, particularly Constantinople, where it became the official text of the Church, resulting in the loss of almost all other text-types. There is no evidence for this conjecture. No modern scholar now accepts this concocted scenario, but it was accepted in 1881 as a probable fact, and the damage was done before it could be challenged. As a result the Revised Version of 1881 was not the revision of the Authorized Version that it was intended to be, but a version heavily influenced by Westcott and Hort’s new Greek text.

Well we know it didn't exist prior to 300 Ad so as for our disucssion who cares.

WHY SHOULD CONSERVATIVE SCHOLARS BE SU IOUS OF THE EGYPTIAN TEXT?

The reason why the Egyptian text should not be accepted is that it is a corrupt text.

There are two blunders in the Egyptian Text that should alert all conservative-evangelical ministers of the Gospel to the nature of that corrupt text. In Matthew 27:49 Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have transported part of John 19:34 to this place. Their addition, which appears to have come from memory as the Greek words are in a different order, reads: “Now another taking a spear he plunged into his side and out came water and blood.” What betrays this addition as a blunder is the position where it was added in Matthew’s narrative. In John, it occurs after Jesus is dead, and the spear thrust was to make sure Jesus was dead. But in Matthew, it is added at a point where Jesus was still alive.

So a piece of one gospel in a later work is shown to be moved in the newer work and the presumption is that the movement is the fault of the older work. What do confirmation bias mean? The logic is just plain re ed.

The second blunder in the Egyptian text occurs in Luke 4:44, where “Galilee” was replaced with “Judaea” in the Egyptian text, resulting in Jesus conducting two major preaching tours in two places at the same time. The error is found mainly in the local, Egyptian text. Apart from these obvious blunders, there are over 200 instances in the Gospels where the Egyptian text has omitted words due to ioteleuthon (‘similar ending’). This mechanical error occurs when the same word occurs nearby and the scribe’s eye shifts forward to the same or similar word, resulting in an omission.

He has no basis as to why the 'egyptians scribes' did a damn thing. Fronting like he did is fun but it like most of his conclusions are based on nothing more than wishful thinking or at best logic that is not mutually exclusive with other possibilities. This guy over and over blaming the older text for being wrong when they differ over and again is mindboggling.

The sheer volume of these mechanical errors in the Egyptian text suggests that it goes back to an early, sloppy copy, or a rushed copy made by a careful scribe. There is also internal evidence that the copy from which all the Egyptian manuscripts are descended was made from an old, worn copy, which was unreadable in places. In these instances the scribe had to guess what the text read.

What a convenient self serving theory. Your guy is quite the sophist. Maybe the very original copy was ty to begin with or any other possibility. All of these points he is making are bsed on unsubstantiated assumption. It's obvious what he wants to believe and its sophistry at its finest the whole way.

On top of these obvious blunders and scribal mistakes, there are, in addition, thousands of minor changes to the Majority Text, hundreds of which do not affect the translation, but the fact that these alterations were made at all should make one su ious of following a scribe who is that careless in copying out the Word of God for the next generation.

It just doesn't stop. There is no basis for this other than it would be nice for his conclusion if that was the case.

In the following section it can be shown that: Wherever Vaticanus differs from Sinaiticus, Sinaiticus agrees with the MT, and wherever Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus, Vaticanus agrees with the MT. This means that all disagreements between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus came about because one or other has departed from the Majority Text. The MT lies behind both manuscripts, and their differences are due entirely to their failure to reproduce it.

(SNIP)

The conclusion that should be drawn from this is that none of them can be trusted. Seeing how these were put together in the first place I would take from it that they were all doctored and untrustworthy and not that one of them is good even though they all are dissimilar. That is just my assumtion though and there is no basis for that. In the end who the knows.

There are about 9,166 differences between the Majority Text and the combined errors in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the four Gospels alone.

Mind you that these are only 3 copies and you are here granting the argument that has been made from the beginning. You picking an author that likes one best and willing to go sophist to conclude it notwithstanding.

(A glaring error occurs in MS B which contradicts itself at Acts 10:19. There it states that two men came to visit Peter in Joppa, but in 11:11 it states there were three. It is the only manuscript to contain this contradiction.)

There are two important facts that emerge from a comparison of the texts of Eras, CP and MT. The first remarkable fact is that in only six cases do Eras, CP and MT all disagree. The second remarkable fact is the figure of 82 agreements between Eras and CP against the Majority Text. This shows that the Greek MSS consulted by Eras and CP came from a common ancestor, albeit probably an ancestor four or five generations back, when these 82 divergences from the MT were introduced.

From these two totals we can make the following important observation: Wherever Erasmus differs from CP, CP agrees with the MT, and wherever CP differs from Erasmus, Erasmus agrees with the MT. This means that all disagreements between Erasmus and the Complutensian come about because one or other departs from the Majority Text.

Why is this important? The answer is that we find an identical situation between MS B (Codex Vaticanus), MS a (Codex Sinaiticus) and the Majority Text. This can be demonstrated from a comparison between Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus (Sin.) and the Majority Text (MT) in the Gospel of John. Three important facts emerge.

The first is that in only 29 cases do Vat., Sin., and MT all disagree.


The second fact is that Vat. and Sin. agree against the Majority Text in 666 cases. This shows that the text copied by Vat. and Sin. came from a common ancestor, albeit probably an ancestor four or five generations back. If we deduct the 666 divergences from the MT—plus the 29 where they each disagree—from their combined disagreements with the MT, which is 1529 variants, we can make the following important observation: Wherever Vaticanus differs from Sinaiticus, which happens 610 times, Sinaiticus agrees with the MT, and wherever Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus, which happens 890 times, Vaticanus agrees with the MT.

An identical study was carried out on Luke’s Gospel which produced the same pattern. There are 14 cases where Vat., Sin., and MT all disagree. The second fact is that Vat. and Sin. agree against the Majority Text in 1157 cases. It is this large number of shared disagreements that cons utes the Egyptian Text as a distinct text-type, and so distinguishes it from the MT. These shared disagreements are found in the local Egyptian text (*95).

(It was never a universal text, like the MT. This shows that the text copied by Vat. and Sin. came from a local, Egyptian common ancestor, albeitprobably an ancestor going back to the second century.)


If in Luke we deduct the figure of 643 divergences of Vaticanus from the MT—plus the 14 where they each disagree—from their (B+a) combined disagreements with the MT, which is 1425 variants, we can make the following significant observation: Wherever Vaticanus differs from Sinaiticus, which happens 643 times in Luke, Sinaiticus always agrees with the MT, and wherever Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus, which happens 768 times, Vaticanus always agrees with the MT.

The conclusion is inescapable, namely, all disagreements between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus come about because one or other departs from the Majority Text.

In the copying of Luke, Sinaiticus has moved further way from the text of
Vaticanus, which is closer to the MT. It is the same in the copying of John. Sinaiticus has moved further way from the text of Vaticanus, which is closer to the MT. The same goes for Matthew and Mark; Vaticanus is closer to the Majority Text.

(SNIP)

The only English version I would recommend at the present time is the New King James Version (NKJV), but it can only be a stop gap translation because it does not translate the Majority Text as its main text. We need to lay the TR aside and give a straight translation of the Majority Text to the next generation.

[/quote]

This si just more of the same assumptions and wishful thinking. Changes are made and it is the older copy that is flawed blah blah blah blah according tot his guy. He obviously has other scholars that disagree with him -surprise surprise- but he at no point provides certainty in anything. He wants to be lieve what he wants to believe just like our resident narcissist.

[Skull-1]

And yet again with the claim of an argument having been made and no argument. Your bible is only 'consistent' after a certain point and that point was was constantine's commision. We still have no idea what happened after what was a very dark period of chistianity in the interim. You can quote Paul in galatians saying that he ws inspired by Jesus but Jesus ws still dead at that point. Are you stupid enough to think that dead people talk to the living?

You may want me to b e done but as long as you come one here saying stupid things, I am going to call you on them. You are not my audience so deal with it because not even putting me on ignore will stop me. You notice how people have come on here and talked about what I have had to say? That is why I do this and not for your cowardly Christianity of convenience. I know your emotionally crippled ass will lie and front. It's what your type does. You are not unique and its what people like you do. We have gone down the checklist and you meet the criteria.

You are absolutely the most ridiculous and vapid bag it has ever been my displeasure to run up against. 1) The truth is learned one of two ways: direct revelation, which Paul had, or through an Apostle (teacher). Paul said Christ taught him everything and I believe it. Divine inspiration is an amazing thing. 2) Biblical canon did not begin nor end with Constantine so get off his nuts already. 3) The "Constantine Influence" has much in it that defies scripture, even in the current, non-BMT translations, so looks like his plans backfired any way. You're just too stupid to see it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are absolutely the most ridiculous and vapid bag it has ever been my displeasure to run up against. 1) The truth is learned one of two ways: direct revelation, which Paul had, or through an Apostle (teacher). Paul said Christ taught him everything and I believe it. Divine inspiration is an amazing thing. 2) Biblical canon did not begin nor end with Constantine so get off his nuts already. 3) The "Constantine Influence" has much in it that defies scripture, even in the current, non-BMT translations, so looks like his plans backfired any way. You're just too stupid to see it.

If you are going to insult me and actually have me care I would recommend actually referring to reality and applying it to me and not just mindless flails. For example coming up with a list of symptoms of a severe mental disorder and identifying traits and how your behavior specificly matches them. All you are doing is make me laugh at you at this point because you are acting like an angry 12 year old. You see this behavior in middle school.

Of course you don't like me. I imagine that given your disorder, my questioning you probably downright infuriates you. As I said you are not unique or novel in your behavior.

You can believe whatever you like there is still no objective basis for said belief and as you continually refuse to even address: Jesus was still dead.

So lets just be clear here though: are you so stupid that you believe dead people talk to the living?

[Skull-1]

The conclusion that should be drawn from this is that none of them can be trusted. Seeing how these were put together in the first place I would take from it that they were all doctored and untrustworthy and not that one of them is good even though they all are dissimilar. That is just my assumtion though and there is no basis for that. In the end who the knows.

Two things we can somewhat agree upon, at least. Finally. Although I have more trust in the BMT than any other. (And yet, not matter how any of them are translated, one with spiritual eyes still can connect and align all the dots. One who can't see can't see. Simple as that. There are simply too many correlating passages to fool everyone. The TR is garbage. Most modern translations do not lean at all on the BMT. Yet even with that, the truth is still in there--although translational bias creates errors that aren't even in the Alexandrian/Egyptian Texts.)

[Skull-1]

Of course you don't like me. I imagine that given your disorder, my questioning you probably downright infuriates you. As I said you are not unique or novel in your behavior.

You can believe whatever you like there is still no objective basis for said belief and as you continually refuse to even address: Jesus was still dead.

So lets just be clear here though: are you so stupid that you believe dead people talk to the living?

I believe Christ is alive. I believe He is alive in every generation to those who are IN CHRIST. I believe His spirit, combined with God's is the Holy Spirit. And I believe that He revealed all of the mysteries to Paul who wrote them in a form few understand--even when he wrote plainly. Call it stupid. I call it faith. And to quote you (EDIT IN: To borrow a phrase from you : "Who the knows?" We will all find out one day--or be worm food and it would obviously be irrelevant at that point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I believe Christ is alive. I believe He is alive in every generation to those who are IN CHRIST. I believe His spirit, combined with God's is the Holy Spirit. And I believe that He revealed all of the mysteries to Paul who wrote them in a form few understand--even when he wrote plainly. Call it stupid. I call it faith. And to quote you: "Who the knows?" We will all find out one day--or be worm food and it would obviously be irrelevant at that point.

I said who the knows in regards to the formation of canon. Pauls teaching and constnat denunciation of pretty much everything external is a far cry of the suppers of Jesus but who cares. He was just an early leader of the church and if you want to say he was closer to God so you can act like what he said is the word of God then that is your thing. The only basis for that is because Paul says so.

I don't really care what you want to take literally and what you choose to take figuratively. My contempt for that approach remains the same. You are a Christian of convenience.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Two things we can somewhat agree upon, at least. Finally. Although I have more trust in the BMT than any other. (And yet, not matter how any of them are translated, one with spiritual eyes still can connect and align all the dots. One who can't see can't see. Simple as that. There are simply too many correlating passages to fool everyone. The TR is garbage. Most modern translations do not lean at all on the BMT. Yet even with that, the truth is still in there--although translational bias creates errors that aren't even in the Alexandrian/Egyptian Texts.)

Great so you admit that the manuscripts that we have are not consistent. Way to coming around to the premise of the OP.

You can call it crap all you like but it still dates the oldest, predates constantines commission and differs the most. A valid theory is that the Byzantine aristocracy took all manner of liberties.

[Skull-1]

I said who the knows in regards to the formation of canon. Pauls teaching and constnat denunciation of pretty much everything external is a far cry of the suppers of Jesus but who cares. He was just an early leader of the church and if you want to say he was closer to God so you can act like what he said is the word of God then that is your thing. The only basis for that is because Paul says so.

I don't really care what you want to take literally and what you choose to take figuratively. My contempt for that approach remains the same. You are a Christian of convenience.

I know what you said, MORON. I just quoted it to make a totally different point. Paul is right down the line with Christ. I have no reason to disbelieve him. But there is that theory that he hijacked the faith. Oh well. If God wants me deceived then I'll be deceived.

And no, I am not a Christian of convenience. The scriptures make it quite clear to me what is literal and what is not. That you don't or can't isn't my problem, and I don't give a sh*t where it came from. It works. You are blind and that's not my concern. But the consistency is there and I see it plain as day. Also, despite my preference for the Majority Text, it is rarely, if ever, used, even to translate small passages in "modern" translations (all flawed for their own reasons and in their own ways).

I believe the Bible turned out the way it is because it was supposed to. Exodus 25 is pointed to even by blind christians as evidence of that. I don’t think Constantine was that smart.

[Skull-1]

Great so you admit that the manuscripts that we have are not consistent. Way to coming around to the premise of the OP.

You can call it crap all you like but it still dates the oldest, predates constantines commission and differs the most. A valid theory is that the Byzantine aristocracy took all manner of liberties.

We have a lot more inconsistency with the bias of the "modern" translators than we do with any damned BMT/ALEXANDRIAN differences. Also, considering all the "modern" translations effectively ignore the BMT, I won't blame anything on it. THE OP POSITED A FALSE ARGUMENT. IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE SPIRITUAL ASPECTS ADDRESSED.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know what you said, moron. I just quoted it to make a totally different point. And no, I am not a Christian of convenience. The scriptures make it quite clear to me what is literal and what is not. That you don't or can't isn't my problem, and I don't give a sh*t where it came from. It works. You are blind and that's not my concern. But the consistency is there and I see it plain as day. Also, despite my preference for the Majority Text, it is rarely, if ever, used, even to translate small passages in "modern" translations (all flawed for their own reasons and in their own ways).

You said it ws like I said. It wasn't like I said because that wasn't what I was talking about. Posture all you like.

I know Paul would have hated your picking and choosing. I imagine you would have been impaled or the like.

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Christianity of convenience.

[Skull-1]

I edited that post so you might want to look again.

[Skull-1]

You said it ws like I said. It wasn't like I said because that wasn't what I was talking about. Posture all you like.

I know Paul would have hated your picking and choosing. I imagine you would have been impaled or the like.



Christianity of convenience.

I used your words to make a different point. Are you that stupid? How about: "To borrow a phrase from you:"? Will that make you happy, D'bag?


As for that passage… What’s your point? How does that in any way point to convenience? Do you even know what those verses mean? Not the best translation, but in no way would that apply here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I edited that post so you might want to look again.

I don't really care. You are so incredibly full of and wishful thinking.

Constantine commissioned the work. He didn't do it himself. Either way making up about him is fun I guess.

But lets not lose sight that Jesus was dead when Paul was doing his thing. The works of scripture are not consistent at all and you just have one you like more than the others. That is the point of the OP. My contempt for you is just an aside.

You were wrong and you admitted it finally.

[Skull-1]

I don't really care. You are so incredibly full of and wishful thinking.

Constantine commissioned the work. He didn't do it himself. Either way making up about him is fun I guess.

But lets not lose sight that Jesus was dead when Paul was doing his thing. The works of scripture are not consistent at all and you just have one you like more than the others. That is the point of the OP. My contempt for you is just an aside.

You were wrong and you admitted it finally.

You don't care, yet here you are going around and around with me in a phone booth knifefight, getting your ass hosed left and right. Then you run back to mama and try again but you ignore all the ass kickings you've received. Your puffed up posturing just shows the empty suit you are. And, no, I am not wrong. The scriptures are veiled and the supposed "errors" are gnats that you guys strain. They're not relevant. They change NOTHING. The spiritual truth remains.

My contempt for you glows like lava. Don't think it doesn't.

The works are consistent because even the so-called "errors" were prophesied and have a purpose, which is to veil the truth and trip people like you up. That's what God does. I prefer one over the others for valid reasons, but even the versions I consider inferior--namely the Egyptian/Alexandrian Texts and their English translations (I use them any way with a critical eye because that's the majority of what I have to work with)--are remarkable in their spiritual consistency. Profound, actually. A few verses slip through the cracks here and there but I catch them. It is the modern English translators that I have a problem with, like the idiots who came out with the NIV. It just makes it that much harder for people to see the visible things...

Jesus was (physically?) dead, but His spirit most certainly wasn't, and isn't. That's the faith part. And isn't it a for sh*tstirring little worms like you that people have faith? When you don't have enough faith in yourself not to waste all your free time trying to disprove them of same? LMFAO. MORON.

"The Work?" You are such a bag. Constantine had far less influence than you think and nobody even knows if the Bibles he "commissioned" were ever even printed, much less what was contained in them. They most certainly weren't the present canon. That took centuries to develop. You really are a clueless ass. Ass being an understatement.

[Blake]

You don't care, yet here you are going around and around with me in a phone booth knifefight, getting your ass hosed left and right. Then you run back to mama and try again but you ignore all the ass kickings you've received. Your puffed up posturing just shows the empty suit you are. And, no, I am not wrong. The scriptures are veiled and the supposed "errors" are gnats that you guys strain. They're not relevant. They change NOTHING. The spiritual truth remains.

My contempt for you glows like lava. Don't think it doesn't.

The works are consistent because even the so-called "errors" were prophesied and have a purpose, which is to veil the truth and trip people like you up. That's what God does. I prefer one over the others for valid reasons, but even the versions I consider inferior--namely the Egyptian/Alexandrian Texts and their English translations (I use them any way with a critical eye because that's the majority of what I have to work with)--are remarkable in their spiritual consistency. Profound, actually. A few verses slip through the cracks here and there but I catch them. It is the modern English translators that I have a problem with, like the idiots who came out with the NIV. It just makes it that much harder for people to see the visible things...

Jesus was (physically?) dead, but His spirit most certainly wasn't, and isn't. That's the faith part. And isn't it a for sh*tstirring little worms like you that people have faith? When you don't have enough faith in yourself not to waste all your free time trying to disprove them of same? LMFAO. MORON.

"The Work?" You are such a bag. Constantine had far less influence than you think and nobody even knows if the Bibles he "commissioned" were ever even printed, much less what was contained in them. They most certainly weren't the present canon. That took centuries to develop. You really are a clueless ass. Ass being an understatement.

So what's the extra reward for you and others like you that know the truth

[Skull-1]

So what's the extra reward for you and others like you that know the truth

A lifetime of arguing with bags like you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You don't care, yet here you are going around and around with me in a phone booth knifefight, getting your ass hosed left and right. Then you run back to mama and try again but you ignore all the ass kickings you've received. Your puffed up posturing just shows the empty suit you are. And, no, I am not wrong. The scriptures are veiled and the supposed "errors" are gnats that you guys strain. They're not relevant. They change NOTHING. The spiritual truth remains.

My contempt for you glows like lava. Don't think it doesn't.

The works are consistent because even the so-called "errors" were prophesied and have a purpose, which is to veil the truth and trip people like you up. That's what God does. I prefer one over the others for valid reasons, but even the versions I consider inferior--namely the Egyptian/Alexandrian Texts and their English translations (I use them any way with a critical eye because that's the majority of what I have to work with)--are remarkable in their spiritual consistency. Profound, actually. A few verses slip through the cracks here and there but I catch them. It is the modern English translators that I have a problem with, like the idiots who came out with the NIV. It just makes it that much harder for people to see the visible things...

Jesus was (physically?) dead, but His spirit most certainly wasn't, and isn't. That's the faith part. And isn't it a for sh*tstirring little worms like you that people have faith? When you don't have enough faith in yourself not to waste all your free time trying to disprove them of same? LMFAO. MORON.

"The Work?" You are such a bag. Constantine had far less influence than you think and nobody even knows if the Bibles he "commissioned" were ever even printed, much less what was contained in them. They most certainly weren't the present canon. That took centuries to develop. You really are a clueless ass. Ass being an understatement.

I said I don't care about your edit. I later said that I had contempt for you. Think about it and try again. you can characterize it as a knife fight all you like but which one of us has had people come in and say that they agree that you have not responded to my points or that they find your approach to drive them away from your positions?

And people can have faith in whatever they want. I am fine with it when they keep it to themselves. Have fun coming up to me at random and proselytizing though. I only really take issue when people try and proselytize or effect policy.

Constantine did commission the work. You keep referencing the Byzantines but wtf do you think the Byzantine empire was? No sense of history whatsoever. I get that you are going to believe what you believe but as long as you keep trying to push it on others especiallyin the way that you do, I am going to mock and deride you. It is what it is.

[Blake]

A lifetime of arguing with bags like you.

oh cool, a zinger.

Seriously, what's in it for you to know the truth compared to not knowing

[Skull-1]

I said I don't care about your edit. I later said that I had contempt for you. Think about it and try again. you can characterize it as a knife fight all you like but which one of us has had people come in and say that they agree that you have not responded to my points or that they find your approach to drive them away from your positions?

And people can have faith in whatever they want. I am fine with it when they keep it to themselves. Have fun coming up to me at random and proselytizing though. I only really take issue when people try and proselytize or effect policy.

Constantine did commission the work. You keep referencing the Byzantines but wtf do you think the Byzantine empire was? No sense of history whatsoever. I get that you are going to believe what you believe but as long as you keep trying to push it on others especiallyin the way that you do, I am going to mock and deride you. It is what it is.

I know what you said, MORON. It was just as stupid and useless as everything else you have said. I simply highlighted your Freudian slip. You don't care, yet here you are. Interesting. (And don't get too big a head because the crowd is on your side, there, Barabbas<s>. The crowd was always wrong--and that which has been is that which shall be.)

I will also note that I only commented in this thread because a question was asked. I don't proselytize. I do attempt to effect policy, but that is through the lens of the Cons ution and individual liberty.

Constantine started a process that he never completed. We wound up with a creed and some b.s. about the Trinity that defies scripture yet is to this day treated as fact.

You mock and deride, but you do not do so from a position of strength, fact, or intelligence, rather, from weakness, ill-informed opinion, and ignorance. Instead of having contempt for you I should consider pity. Make an ass of yourself mocking me all you wish. I have repeatedly made my points, and while you are free to disagree on man's flawed history of all this stuff, you are not free to disagree with the spiritual things I have laid down. You may disbelieve them, but they are ironclad, air tight, and beyond reproach. You can't see them, but that's expected. You are a carnal, ignorant beast who quotes verses he doesn't even understand--and out of context no less.........and you are not within my jurisdiction any way, so I am not concerned with what you do or disbelieve. NONE OF MY BUSINESS.

I don't care what any of your braindead friends think or say in regard to your posts, nor do I care that nobody wants to listen to what I say. That's prophecy. It is supposed to be that way, otherwise it wouldn't be "FEW" who find the truth. I wandered in the desert wilderness of "Christianity" for forty years to find even a glimpse of truth and be able to understand it. Expecting anyone to get it after ten days on a message board is a bridge too far.

[Skull-1]

oh cool, a zinger.

Seriously, what's in it for you to know the truth compared to not knowing

Don't worry about it. I know. You don't. Better yet... Go look it up. You are such a Bible critic it should be easy to find. You and lumpyfuzzyforeskins break out your Bibles and do a circle jerk.

[Blake]

Don't worry about it. I know. You don't. Better yet... Go look it up. You are such a Bible critic it should be easy to find. You and lumpyfuzzyforeskins break out your Bibles and do a circle jerk.

Right, I know what's in the Bible, but I want your opinion:

What do you believe will happen to you after you die

[Skull-1]

Right, I know what's in the Bible, but I want your opinion:

What do you believe will happen to you after you die

Don't worry about it. You don't want to know anything. Neither does your ignorant pal. (I WILL NOT WILL NOT WILL NOT be walking through pearly gates on streets of gold, any way, I'll say that much at least.)

[Blake]

Don't worry about it. (I won't be walking through pearly gates on streets of gold, any way.)

I'm not worried, just curious.

Why are you so scared to share your opinion on the after life?