Facing the Morally Bad Future

[Godscreated]

Why?

Because they had nothing to do with the 'original' message. What does a scribe's marginal notes 200 years after the events have to do with those people said to have been writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? It's as if we were to grab your notes that you have jotted down over the course of your life as a Christian and add them to the Bible. Why not?

Because my notes are for me to use in studying scripture. Moses was not around during the events of Genesis. How do you know that some of the copies from the originals were not around, the scribes many times buried the old manuscripts and in that climate they could have lasted for many years. Once found they may have been used to fill in what had been missing, mind you I'm speculating here, but with a possibility. I know there are some small amount which has been added, and once this was confirmed it was brought to light and noted in good study Bibles which everyone needs to learn about scriptures.

[Epimethean]

Uh. Originals? What time period are we talking about here, GC?

[Godscreated]

Uh. Originals? What time period are we talking about here, GC?

Last half of the 1st century.

[FallentoReason]

Because they had nothing to do with the 'original' message. What does a scribe's marginal notes 200 years after the events have to do with those people said to have been writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? It's as if we were to grab your notes that you have jotted down over the course of your life as a Christian and add them to the Bible. Why not?

Because my notes are for me to use in studying scripture. Moses was not around during the events of Genesis. How do you know that some of the copies from the originals were not around, the scribes many times buried the old manuscripts and in that climate they could have lasted for many years. Once found they may have been used to fill in what had been missing, mind you I'm speculating here, but with a possibility. I know there are some small amount which has been added, and once this was confirmed it was brought to light and noted in good study Bibles which everyone needs to learn about scriptures.

If you're supposing that the originals were inevitably contaminated by the extra verses anyways then that doesn't really help your situation. The end result is that we still have these writings with many people's thoughts included in them.

There's definitely some work that has been done to weed out the additions, but with no surviving orinigals there's only so much one can do.

[Godscreated]

---

Because my notes are for me to use in studying scripture. Moses was not around during the events of Genesis. How do you know that some of the copies from the originals were not around, the scribes many times buried the old manuscripts and in that climate they could have lasted for many years. Once found they may have been used to fill in what had been missing, mind you I'm speculating here, but with a possibility. I know there are some small amount which has been added, and once this was confirmed it was brought to light and noted in good study Bibles which everyone needs to learn about scriptures.

---

If you're supposing that the originals were inevitably contaminated by the extra verses anyways then that doesn't really help your situation. The end result is that we still have these writings with many people's thoughts included in them.

There's definitely some work that has been done to weed out the additions, but with no surviving orinigals there's only so much one can do.

Why do you believe that the additions are a contamination to scriptures, if those few additions did not hold up to the rest of scripture they would not appear in scriptures, why, because the whole book would not have been accepted. Why do you think so many writings were not included into scripture, they contained ideas that were not supported by scripture.
There are many books written today about Jesus and they are not contamination of scriptures they are teaching aids.

[Epimethean]

Like this one?

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/book.html

[FallentoReason]

Why do you believe that the additions are a contamination to scriptures, if those few additions did not hold up to the rest of scripture they would not appear in scriptures,

An irrelevant suggestion because the matter of the fact is that they are in there.

why, because the whole book would not have been accepted.

Then why do you and I have Bibles? Clearly the individual books weren't thrown out but embraced.

Why do you think so many writings were not included into scripture, they contained ideas that were not supported by scripture.

And how would you know what scripture actually was in those times? Put yourself in their shoes: there were some 20 gospels floating around (I don't know the exact number but I came across the list once). 'Scripture' wasn't defined until the canon was made up which resulted in the Bible that you and I own. Therefore to say some gospels didn't 'support scripture' doesn't make sense.

There are many books written today about Jesus and they are not contamination of scriptures they are teaching aids.

Agreed.

[Godscreated]

Why do you believe that the additions are a contamination to scriptures, if those few additions did not hold up to the rest of scripture they would not appear in scriptures,

An irrelevant suggestion because the matter of the fact is that they are in there.

I disagree, it is relevant, they would not be there if they were considered a contamination, they would have been thrown out, they remain because they do not disagree with the rest of scripture.

why, because the whole book would not have been accepted.

Then why do you and I have Bibles? Clearly the individual books weren't thrown out but embraced.

Those that did not stand up to the scrutiny of scriptures, that were contradictions, those books were not used, like the books written by the many cults of Christianity you named earlier in this discussion.

Why do you think so many writings were not included into scripture, they contained ideas that were not supported by scripture.

And how would you know what scripture actually was in those times? Put yourself in their shoes: there were some 20 gospels floating around (I don't know the exact number but I came across the list once). 'Scripture' wasn't defined until the canon was made up which resulted in the Bible that you and I own. Therefore to say some gospels didn't 'support scripture' doesn't make sense.

The OT holds many reasons, there are many prophecies in them about Christ, they were the scriptures the Apostles used to preach about Christ. There were many men who took many books read and studied them and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit included the books we have today. I can not speak for the Holy Spirit and why He guided these men to the selection we have today. I trust they did their work well, we have found no reason to go back and add any of the rejected books over nearly two thousand years. This is strong evidence they did exactly as they were lead.

[FallentoReason]

I disagree, it is relevant, they would not be there if they were considered a contamination, they would have been thrown out, they remain because they do not disagree with the rest of scripture.

Then my previous point some posts ago still stands. Let's add your thoughts to the Bible. Surely the Holy Spirit in you won't make you go astray from what doesn't line up with scripture.

Let's actually take this one further. Knowing that the beliefs of early Christians ranged from a spiritual Messiah to a human Messiah, what can be said about the addition to the end of Mark? It's not original and clearly from a different school of thought because they force Mark's Gospel to make it seem like Jesus was actually human and divine. Why didn't Mark include resurrection accounts?

Those that did not stand up to the scrutiny of scriptures, that were contradictions, those books were not used, like the books written by the many cults of Christianity you named earlier in this discussion.

Naturally the ones that were in line with the OT made it into the canon. I conpletely forgot about the OT by the way and I see what you mean by 'scripture'. The question, though, is do you know why they line up with scripture? Mark didn't because there was no resurrected Messiah until the addition. Maybe during this free-for-all within early Christians the Catholics got their way just like Eusebus got his way with Josephus. Maybe the Gospels are said to line up with the OT perfectly but not for the reasons you wish.

Mark used the OT as a basis for his work. It will line up.

The OT holds many reasons, there are many prophecies in them about Christ, they were the scriptures the Apostles used to preach about Christ. There were many men who took many books read and studied them and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit included the books we have today.

The sorts of men living at the time were Greek philosophers. Thanks to them you now have Mark, the first book written, which interprets the OT allegorically and blends the events Josephus talks about into an interesting book about the time of the Jews AND the superstitions of the cults of the time. Did Jesus come to earth? No, Mark never asserts that but merely uses the 'Son of God'/saviour myth as a vehicle for telling the stories of the time.

I trust they did their work well, we have found no reason to go back and add any of the rejected books over nearly two thousand years. This is strong evidence they did exactly as they were lead.

I also trust they did their job well. They clearly chose those books that engaged the OT elegantly, even if Matthew and Luke are confused interpretations of Mark.. it's the best there was.

[Godscreated]

I disagree, it is relevant, they would not be there if they were considered a contamination, they would have been thrown out, they remain because they do not disagree with the rest of scripture.

Then my previous point some posts ago still stands. Let's add your thoughts to the Bible. Surely the Holy Spirit in you won't make you go astray from what doesn't line up with scripture.

Let's actually take this one further. Knowing that the beliefs of early Christians ranged from a spiritual Messiah to a human Messiah, what can be said about the addition to the end of Mark? It's not original and clearly from a different school of thought because they force Mark's Gospel to make it seem like Jesus was actually human and divine. Why didn't Mark include resurrection accounts?

I have never claimed all my thoughts were God inspired, as a matter of fact I've stated some of the things I bring up may not be correct. The Holy Spirit would never cause me to go astray, that would be God leading me to evil and God promises He will never do that. It's I who would allow myself to go astray, not everything I say can be true and I know this, if it were so I would be perfect, and this will never be not in this life.
We do not know that the original writing did not include the resurrection, it may have, it would be nice to have the originals and a lot of argument would be put to rest, we don't so on we go.

Those that did not stand up to the scrutiny of scriptures, that were contradictions, those books were not used, like the books written by the many cults of Christianity you named earlier in this discussion.

Naturally the ones that were in line with the OT made it into the canon. I conpletely forgot about the OT by the way and I see what you mean by 'scripture'. The question, though, is do you know why they line up with scripture? Mark didn't because there was no resurrected Messiah until the addition. Maybe during this free-for-all within early Christians the Catholics got their way just like Eusebus got his way with Josephus. Maybe the Gospels are said to line up with the OT perfectly but not for the reasons you wish.

Mark used the OT as a basis for his work. It will line up.

Wait, what! In the statement above you said Mark did not know what the OT said about Christ, then at the end you say Mark based his work on the OT, I'm confused here? Please explain.
You say Mark wrote about a spiritual Christ, so let's see what history and Marks writings have to say. Josephus wrote about John the Baptist being a real person, Mark wrote about John the Baptist baptizing Jesus, so does it not follow that Mark was writing about a flesh and blood Christ. This is just from chapter one.
The reason the Gospels line up with the OT is this, the Gospels were written about the life of Christ and in that the many prophecies of Christ were revealed, remember the Jews did not believe that most of the prophecies we know today related to Christ. It was not until after Christ came and fulfilled them that people realized all these prophecies were about Christ.

The OT holds many reasons, there are many prophecies in them about Christ, they were the scriptures the Apostles used to preach about Christ. There were many men who took many books read and studied them and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit included the books we have today.

The sorts of men living at the time were Greek philosophers. Thanks to them you now have Mark, the first book written, which interprets the OT allegorically and blends the events Josephus talks about into an interesting book about the time of the Jews AND the superstitions of the cults of the time. Did Jesus come to earth? No, Mark never asserts that but merely uses the 'Son of God'/saviour myth as a vehicle for telling the stories of the time.

I'm not talking about Greek philosophers, I'm speaking of the ones who were originally chosen to put together the Bible, and they were not Greek philosophers.
I think I addressed the history of Josephus and Marks writings well enough to establish that Mark was writing about a physical Christ.

I trust they did their work well, we have found no reason to go back and add any of the rejected books over nearly two thousand years. This is strong evidence they did exactly as they were lead.

I also trust they did their job well. They clearly chose those books that engaged the OT elegantly, even if Matthew and Luke are confused interpretations of Mark.. it's the best there was.

Luke states that he got his information from different people and Marks writings could have been used as reference. Luke's book was a letter to a friend, to help the friend to confirm what he was hearing about Christ. Yes Matthew's book and Mark's book have similarities and why not they were both with Christ, Luke wrote to a friend and John wrote the story of love, Christ encompassed so much that these different ways of writing about Christ were needed to tell His story. Christ's ministry lasted three short years, and He changed the world forever, how is it you can not see who He really is.