Hoptoad, new target

[popeyespappy]

You wanted me to elaborate on what I am, what I mean by a simple Christian. A lot of ideas and concept's have been added to what Christ taught. Like a building that has been decorated with a fancy facade and as more and more decoration is added the building is lost from sight. I just try to see the original building, understand what he was saying.

The story has been embellished over time. With this as a given the question becomes how do you separate fact from fiction?

The main canonical gospels have remained the same other than translation changes since Constantine. As to changes made to the teachings by Constantine, would he have risked alienating his main supporters by producing a book that they knew was altered from what they had risked so much for?

Have they? Many, perhaps even most scholars believe that Mark 16:9-20 are later additions to the text. Later as in post Constantine. That says nothing about the origins of the Canonical Gospel, or whether they are actually what they are claimed to be. Many of those same scholars are proponents of the Two-source hypothesis. This hypothesis basically says that Mark along with another document called Q were used as sources to create Mathew and Luke. Very few Biblical scholars currently believe any of the Canonical Gospels were actually written by the people they are traditionally attributed to. If these things are true then it should cast a dark shadow of doubt as to the validity of what is contained in these documents.