(June 9, 2018 at 3:12 am)ignoramus Wrote: Who the fuck comes up with this shite!
I like it, but only because it sounds like divine legal gobbledygook. lol!
"Yeah, I know I killed all those people your honour, because I'm a sick fuck, but hey, here, take my 90 year old father instead and we'll just call it even!
(*whispers* shhhh... don't tell anyone but the old man's got cancer and will be dead anyway soon!)
And people really believe God would come up with stuff like this? When he can make anything happen anyway? Pretty bloody convoluted isn't it?
Obviously it wasn't God as it wasn't "invented" until the middle ages (below).
As an ignoramus, I'm genuinely curious now to know what core beliefs in the current modern day bible are actually original?
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/artic...atonement/
Quote:Skeptics commonly criticize core Christian beliefs by claiming that they were not really held by the earliest Christians. Instead, we are told, these beliefs were invented post facto by the institutional church.
The classic example of such an argument has to do with the divinity of Jesus. The earliest followers of Jesus didn’t really believe that Jesus was divine, this argument goes; it was only the later institutional church, under political pressure from Emperor Constantine, that insisted Jesus must have divine status. Thus, some argue, the belief that Jesus is God is not really, well, Christian.
Quote:Substitutionary Atonement
This same sort of argument has also been applied to other doctrines, particularly the substitutionary nature of the atonement. Critical scholars, led by the classic work of Gustaf Aulén, have long argued that the earliest Christians did not believe that Christ died as a substitute for sinners. Instead, they say, these Christians believed what is known as the “Christus victor” view of the atonement—the idea that Jesus’s death on the cross (and resurrection) conquered the Devil and other forces that held people in bondage. On this view, Christ did not die in place of rebellious sinners but instead rescued victims from a fallen world
Here's you problem with your quotes.. We have 3rd century codices that teach substitutionary attonement. Meaning this can not be a 'middle age construct when the church has 2nd/3rd text that also teach this doctrine.
How the bible is constructed is from a series of codicees. a codex is a serises of hand written manuscripts derived from as close to the first century as possible but at the same time can also be verified. They must also be complete or near complete. before the dead sea scrolls some where only fragments, but now since then all books can claim 3rd century or even older source material.
Most of the codices used are of the 3rd century, as we have plenty of supporting/verifying material. we have older texts but often times they are stand alone.
There are 5 popular codices from which all "holy Bibles" are translated from. the differences are very minor, but for the more legalistic among us the differences are important. For example one of the oldest codicees used (textus Receptus) has some late writings in it meaning 8th century or later manuscripts, as when this codex was compiled these newer writtings were all that were known at the time (15th century) which when the Receptus is translated to english it gives us "the king James bible" among others.
Well in the mid twentieth century several hundred 1st century writings were found which date back as far as 4 bc. from this several new codicees were compiled.
The biggest comes in the way of one of the 10 commandments. in the original king jame translation we were told "thou shalt not Kill." which could mean the prohibition of the taking of any human life no matter the reason. And in the older version found mid twentith century it is translated "you shall not murder." meaning you can not take life without approval from your superior/governing body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus
