Originally posted by undo
reply to post by John Matrix
this is not exactly correct, from my perspective.
as i mentioned before, if the early christians needed a book to be christians, they sure didn't know it. the book has been tinkered with an awful
lot. it wouldn't surprise me if passages were added by the rcc, simply because some of the concepts are so completely opposite of each other, it's
as if some parts were edited in. jesus didn't tell us that we should look forward to the book coming to comfort us. he said the holy spirit would do
that. the book is useful and informative, of that there is no doubt, but to cast it in the light of infallible, is dangerously close to the problems
jesus encountered with people worshipping mosaic law rather than Creator of moses. he even warns them that moses was making stuff in some of the
laws, because he knew how hard it would be for people to follow some of the concepts -- such as avoiding divorce or even the thought of sex with
someone other than your spouse. it wasn't that sex was bad, it was the idea that focus on flesh is focus off the spirit. i think the book is the
same way. focus too much on the book, and you've just removed your eyes from the holy spirit and put the worship on the book
Your objections are subjectively based on assuptions.
There is no objective evidence that the biblical text has been tampered with by the Jews or the early Church. There is no manuscript evidence, no
archaeological evidence, no eyewitness--or otherwise--testimony, no support from the writings of the early Church, nor any evidence from the study of
textual criticism to substantiate witches' or other occultist's or critics subjectively based claims of a tampered Bible.
On the other hand, there is overwhelming objective evidence to support the conclusion that the biblical text was not tampered with by the early
Church, but has been faithfully transmitted down through the centuries to us today and is indeed a reliable historical document of the first order.
The problem here is not a tampered with or corrupted biblical text or teachings of the Old or New Testaments, but with those who will not accept the
clear teaching(s) of the Bible.
The only reason people have for believing that the Bible has been tampered with by the early Church (or anyone else) is that it clearly does not teach
what they believe and practice. The Bible does not concur with their views or feelings. Therefore, they conjecture that it must have been tampered
with by the early Church. This is a textbook case of circular reasoning--assuming the very thing you are suppose to, or are, trying to prove.
Just about anyone can assert just about anything, but this does not constitute proof of the claim. Proving it is another matter. For instance, just
about anyone can file a lawsuit, but proving their case is a different issue. So it is with this charge against the historical accuracy of the Gospel
Message or the Epistles.
Therefore, in light of the evidence, in light of accepted scholarly archaeological, historical, legal, literary, logical, and textual facts and
principles, I affirm the authenticity and trustworthiness of the biblical text and acceptance of all that it teaches. Indeed, the Bible contains the
definitive counsel concerning the meaning and purpose of life.
The Gospels are needed today(not just my view). Jesus himself quoted Scripture and spend much of His early years learning Scripture before he started
His ministry. This fact alone is good enough for me. Written records were well kept in those days through professional scribes.
Without the Gospel message preserved how would we be able to Preach the Gospel to all of the world as Jesus instructed? From memory? Word of mouth
passed from generation to generation without anyone ever writing it down to preserve it?
The Gospel is the Word of Truth. If it was not preserved, Christianity would have fallen a long time ago.
God uses the written word as his mode of communicating the Gospel message to Mankind.
Please don't make me have to put all the historical evidence here to defend my position. I'm tired of having to prove my point. All it seems to do
is get people angry and then they put me on their ignore list. But if you insist, I will do it.
[edit on 15-1-2009 by John Matrix]