It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: tetra50
You should, by this point in the thread, understand that the cannon has not been edited in councils, and that the council of Nicaea had NOTHING to do with the cannon whatsoever. This crap is all coming from anti-christian propaganda. If the bible is so edited, how can we go back to the writings of the early church fathers, some of whom personally knew the apostles, and read their quotes from the same scripture that we have today? There are over 1 million such quotes in the writings of the Church fathers, enough to reconstruct the bible just from their quotes.
originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: Entreri06
There are more existing copies and fragments of the New Testament of the Bible then any other ancient book, and they match up surprisingly well. This idea that this was some sort of game of telephone is nonsense from Bart Ehrman to sell his controversial book, and of course the more controversial the more sales. Its not like originals disappeared after they were copied, as he claims (which would be required for it to be a game of 'telephone').
originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: tetra50
I honestly don't recall what that thread was about, there have been so many over the years, but they all develop individually based on interactions in the thread. I guarantee that there is nothing different in my beliefs between then and now. If I do recall anything correctly, I suspect you were more concerned with doctrinal issues, while this is more about the historical order of how things happen.
originally posted by: Entreri06
No they don't match up well
“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.”
Tertullian: De Praescriptione Haereticorum chapter 36
originally posted by: Entreri06
and Bart erhman isn't the athiest historian you made him out to be
The facts are no real historians or archeologists think of the bible as anything resembling a history book
There's no global conspiracy to make Christians feel dumb. It just honestly doesn't all add up.
originally posted by: defcon5
originally posted by: Entreri06
No they don't match up well
there are 400,00 variants across roughly 24,000 manuscripts and fragments (not including over 1 million quotes form the early church fathers writings) out of which 75% are spelling errors, 15% are variations in Greek synonyms and transpositions, 9% are late changes, and only 1% of variations have any effect on the actual meaning of the text. That's a FAR better track record then any other ancient document in existence.
As I already quoted above from Erhman's own writings:
“essential Christian beliefs are NOT called into question by textual variants”
As for the existence of the original writings:
“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.”
Tertullian: De Praescriptione Haereticorum chapter 36
Apparently they were still being used in 197AD.
originally posted by: Entreri06
and Bart erhman isn't the athiest historian you made him out to be
I never said he was anything, all I stated is he is making controversial statements to sell books. You might want to check who said what in the thread.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Entreri06
The facts are no real historians or archeologists think of the bible as anything resembling a history book
Wiki:
"There is no scholarly controversy on the historicity of the events recounted after the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BCE, but there is great controversy concerning earlier data"
There's no global conspiracy to make Christians feel dumb. It just honestly doesn't all add up.
What makes you think Christians feel dumb? I don't feel like my world view is any less intellectual than yours. The Jews didn't just orally pass down those stories. The basically wrote them in the stars before they wrote them on paper. Its called the Hebrew Mazzaroth, which the Babylonians perverted and made the Zodiac. Each star of the constellations of the Zodiac had a Hebrew name and those names told the stories.
Why don't you try telling me that no historian believes the Gospels are accurate portrayals of Jesus life.
originally posted by: thedeadtruth
a reply to: Krazysh0t
" Where are the records of Pilate signing off on Jesus' execution?
He didn't. He washed his hands and stated this man had broken no council by-laws.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Entreri06
So you want to advocate making an assumption so we can postulate on what Rome may or may not have done given that said assumption is correct? Meaning that if the assumption is incorrect, then the whole conversation is irrelevant? To me, I'd rather determine the event happened first before determining guilt.
originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: tetra50
“Did Rome make up the crucifixion story to justify murder”, and “did God send his son to die to make shame us into a certain style of life” are two entirely different topics, presented by two different people, in two different ways. The first a historical matter, where you presented yours as a doctrinal one. However, besides this being completely off topic, I have a feeling this is more about having a personal axe to grind?