Fawzo

One thing that really makes me happy is agitating Dan and Coolhand. I'm not happy though with the idea that those actions makes me so very happy so now I wonder if I am really happy or just confused

Dan the first link has some errors and it seems as if the guy doesn't know what he is talking about. For instance: The Vulgate was used to fill in the missing pieces of the Byzantine manuscripts to help create the Textus Receptus and the second link wasn't even worth reading when it starts off with there is Satanic attack

If I'm staying in the Now I'm estaticly happy unwrapping each present each moment brings me. When my mind wanders and takes me into dark areas of the past or shadowy areas of the future my happiness wanes. Basically overall I would say that I'm a happy person.

Would you think these people were less informed or knowledgable then the 54 learned men who worked on the King James Version or Erasmus who created the Textus Receptus? If I remember correctly all 54 learned men were Anglicans. I would say these people have access to way more knowledge regarding such things just from the sheer volue of information available to them? Unless of course you feel none where filled with the Spirit of God. Are we sure any of King James men or even if Erasmus himself was. Wy would Erasmus need 6 Byzantine manuscripts and sections of the Vulgate to do his job if he were Spirit filled. The process he used seems to be of pure human cognitive abilities just as these folks used. I actually was hoping someone would bring that up so I could make the points above.

That is not quite true Dan. One is still left with a historical human named Yeshua ben Yosepf aka Jesus, who inspired people in ways that brought about the stories. This transformation is most evident in those who like Peter who cowardly denied and abandoned Jesus but were later transformed into fearless men and women by the life and death of Jesus. Something surely happened back then but we have to dig deep to find it. For twenty years after his death until Paul wrote Corinthians the story of Christ grew and was retold orally in Jewish Synagouges where evidence was sought in the cherished scriptures to see how Jesus might fit in and these people could explain their fantastic experiences with the man Jesus. They used the only words and things they knew to try and convey that message to us. Their Scriptures retold with Jesus as the hero. It is clear Matthew and Mark turn Jesus into the new Jewish hero, a combination of Moses and Elijah. Spong does an excellent layout of how the stories in the Gospel of Mark coincide with the Jewish Liturgical calendar for 6 months and why Matthew and Luke picked up the pen to add the other 6 months worth of Sabbaths and stories. Matthew for a Jewsih Audience and Luke for Gentiles and dispersed Jews . Each chapter and story theme in the Gospel of Mark coincides with a Sabbath and Jewish Holiday of the year. He gives some pretty good evidence. Some people are seekers of truth no matter where it leads them and others are seeking for security within their adopted truth no matter what evidence comes knocking on their doors. That is why we still have folks who believe the earth is only 6000 years old and when given mountains of irrefutable contradictions and errors from within the pages of the Bible do backflips to attempt at justifying them.

Thought I would throw this in here to stir the pot a bit from Wikipedia on the results and findings of the Jesus Seminar. Seminar proceedingsThe Jesus Seminar, like the translation committees who created the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version of the Bible and the Novum Testamentum Graece, chose voting as the most efficient means of determining consensus in an assembled group. The system also lent itself to publicity, which the Seminar actively pursued.[citation needed] The Fellows used a "bead system" to vote on the authenticity of about 500 statements and events. The color of the bead represented how sure the Fellow was that a saying or act was or was not authentic. Red beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did say the passage quoted, or something very much like the passage. (3 Points)Pink beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus probably said something like the passage. (2 Points)Grey beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage, but it contains Jesus' ideas. (1 Point)Black beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage—it comes from later admirers or a different tradition. (0 Points)The consensus position was determined by the average weighted score, rather than by simple majority. This meant that all opinions were reflected in the decisions. The voting system means that the reader can second-guess each vote. The Five Gospels defines not only the result of the vote (red, pink, gray, or black) but also how many polls were necessary to reach a conclusion (if any were necessary at all) and why various fellows chose to vote in different ways. Attendees, however, did more than vote. They met semi-annually to debate the papers presented. Some verses required extensive debate and repeated votes. [edit] Sayings of Jesus The first findings of the Jesus Seminar were published in 1993 as The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus.[3] [edit] Criteria for authenticity Like other scholars of the historical Jesus, the Jesus Seminar treats the gospels as fallible historical artifacts, containing both authentic and inauthentic material. Like their colleagues, the fellows used several criteria for determining whether a particular saying or story is authentic, including the criteria of multiple attestation and embarrassment. Among additional criteria used by the fellows are the following: Orality: According to current estimates, the gospels weren't written until decades after Jesus' death. Parables, aphorisms, and stories were passed down orally (30 - 50 CE). The fellows judged whether a saying was a short, catchy pericope that could possibly survive intact from the speaker's death until decades later when it was first written down. If so, it's more likely to be authentic. For example, "turn the other cheek". Irony: Based on several important narrative parables (such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan), the fellows decided that irony, reversal, and frustration of expectations were characteristic of Jesus' style. Does a pericope present opposites or impossibilities? If it does, it's more likely to be authentic. For example, "love your enemies". Trust in God: A long discourse attested in three gospels has Jesus telling his listeners not to fret but to trust in the Father. Fellows looked for this theme in other sayings they deemed authentic. For example, "Ask – it'll be given to you". [edit] Criteria for inauthenticity The seminar looked for several characteristics that, in their judgment, identified a saying as inauthentic, including self-reference, leadership issues, and apocalyptic themes. Self-reference: Does the text have Jesus referring to himself? For example, "I am the way, and I am the truth, and I am life" (John 14:1-14). Framing Material: Are the verses used to introduce, explain, or frame other material, which might itself be authentic? For example, in Luke, the "red" parable of the good samaritan is framed by scenes about Jesus telling the parable, and the seminar deemed Jesus' framing words in these scenes to be "black".Community Issues: Do the verses refer to the concerns of the early Christian community, such as instructions for missionaries or issues of leadership? For example, Peter as "the rock" on which Jesus builds his church (Matthew 16:17-19). Theological Agenda: Do the verses support an opinion or outlook that is unique to the gospel, possibly indicating redactor bias? For example, the prophecy of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46) was voted black because the fellows saw it as representing Matthew's agenda of speaking out against unworthy members of the Christian community. [edit] Authentic sayings, as determined by the seminar The Red sayings (with % indicating the weighted average of those in agreement), given in the Seminar's own "Scholar's Version" translation, are: 1. Turn the other cheek (92%): Mt 5:39, Lk6:29a 2. Coat & shirt: Mt5:40 (92%), Lk6:29b (90%) 3. Congratulations, poor!: Lk6:20b (91%), Th54 (90%), Mt5:3 (63%) 4. Second mile (90%): Mt5:41 5. Love your enemies: Lk6:27b (84%), Mt5:44b (77%), Lk6:32,35a (56%) (compare to black rated "Pray for your enemies": POxy1224 6:1a; Didache 1:3; Poly-Phil 12:3; and "Love one another": John 13:34-35, Romans 13:8, 1 Peter 1:22) 6. Leaven: Lk13:20–21 (83%), Mt13:33 (83%), Th96:1–2 (65%) 7. Emperor & God (82%): Th100:2b–3, Mk12:17b, Lk20:25b, Mt22:21c (also Egerton Gospel 3:1-6) 8. Give to beggars (81%): Lk6:30a, Mt5:42a, Didache1:5a 9. Good Samaritan (81%): Lk10:30–35 10. Congrats, hungry!: Lk6:21a (79%), Mt5:6 (59%), Th69:2 (53%) 11. Congrats, sad!: Lk6:21b (79%), Mt5:4 (73%) 12. Shrewd manager (77%): Lk16:1–8a 13. Vineyard laborers (77%): Mt20:1–15 14. Abba, Father (77%): Mt6:9b, Lk11:2c 15. The Mustard Seed : Th20:2–4 (76%), Mk4:30–32 (74%), Lk13:18–19 (69%), Mt13:31–32 (67%) [edit] Some probably authentic sayings, as determined by the seminar The top 15 (of 75) Pink sayings are: 16. On anxieties, don't fret (75%): Th36, Lk12:22–23, Mt6:25 17. Lost Coin (75%): Lk15:8–9 18. Foxes have dens: Lk9:58 (74%), Mt8:20 (74%), Th86 (67%) 19. No respect at home: Th31:1 (74%), Lk4:24(71%), Jn4:44 (67%), Mt13:57 (60%), Mk6:4 (58%) 20. Friend at midnight (72%): Lk11:5–8 21. Two masters : Lk16:13a, Mt6:24a (72%); Th47:2 (65%) 22. Treasure: Mt13:44 (71%), Th109 (54%) 23. Lost sheep: Lk15:4–6 (70%), Mt18:12–13 (67%), Th107 (48%) 24. What goes in: Mk7:14–15 (70%), Th14:5 (67%), Mt15:10-11 (63%) 25. Corrupt judge (70%): Lk18:2–5 26. Prodigal son (70%): Lk15:11–32 27. Leave the dead (see also But to bring a sword, Nazirite): Mt8:22 (70%), Lk9:59–60 (69%) 28. Castration for Heaven (see also Origen, Antithesis of the Law) (70%): Mt19:12a 29. By their fruit (69%) (see Antinomianism): Mt7:16b, Th45:1a, Lk6:44b (56%) 30. The dinner party, The wedding celebration: Th64:1–11 (69%), Lk14:16-23 (56%), Mt22:2-13 (26%) [edit] Overall reliability of the five gospels The Seminar concluded that of the various statements in the "five gospels" attributed to Jesus, only about 18% of them were likely uttered by Jesus himself (red or pink). The Gospel of John fared worse than the synoptic gospels, with nearly all its passages attributed to Jesus being judged inauthentic.[16] The Gospel of Thomas includes just two unique sayings that the seminar attributes to Jesus: the empty jar (97) and the assassin (98). Every other authentic or probably authentic saying has parallels in the synoptics.

Spong doesn't just think Paul is not the word of God either. From what I've read so far he feels as if the Gospel of Mark is a Liturgical work based on 1 Cor 15 3:4 Mark then went back into Scripture and created his narrative based largely on Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. Corinthians was the earliest writing about the death of Jesus and as Paul didn't really expound more than that on it, he feels Mark took up the pen to take up the task. I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said.4 He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. 1 Cor 15:3-4 (NLT) He also feels that the birth narratives are Myth and the Miracles are not historical events either, and it is very likely that Judas never was an actual person. I can't wait to get to the rest of the book to see what he does believe about Jesus and why he still claims to be a Christian. I can't say that I agree with him 100% so far but he does make some interesting arguments that do seem plausible and gives one pause.

Done deal my friend.....I'll send her positive thoughts and energies tonight during my meditation and during my hike in the morning.

All this talk about Spong and the Youtube Video Pete posted awhile back which I enjoyed had me going to the Library today to get some of his works. I picked up 'Jesus for the Non Religious" and I must say I am titillated and enthusiastic after just reading the introduction. This portion of the intro really resonates with me: All of my professional life I have kept before me the motto of my theological seminary: "Seek the truth; come whence it may, cost what it will."

So after reading Ehrman's book and all the examples given within do you fell he is correct in any of the instances where he cites changes that scribes have made to conform to their own world views. You surely can't feel that he is dead wrong in every example that he brings up, do you? After reading his book any doubt I had that scribes purposely made alterations to the text for theological reasons vanished for good.

Dan your trust in 12th and 15th century texts as compared to 4th century text which were 1000 years closer to the actual events seems misplaced to me. Throughout written history people, organizations and Governments have had agendas and the victors have rewrote their accounts of what actually occured to fit their desired world model. This discussion shows that the same thing has happened to the detailed accounts in the Bible as well. God was not capable of or apathetic to preserving the earliest autographs of his written word so that we could avoid the confusion that has led to so many wars, deaths and confusion over HIS WORD. The voices of the earliest church fathers resonate with the same distress and problems. You'll believe this early church father here because he agrees with your model of reality when he says that the Gospel of Matthew and Mark were written by Individulas named Matthew and Mark, yet when he states contrary to scripture that Judas lived well after the events in the Bible he is an idiot that can't be trusted, as Eusebius says of Gaius who gave us the written clues of who wrote those two Anonymous Gospels. The early church fathers also thought Matthew's Gospel was written first and preceded Marks and this is only one bit of information these Holy Spirit Filled men were most assuredly wrong about!!! The reason giving by Irenaeus for there being 4 gospels in the first place is ridiculous. One would think the Holy Spirit could produce one work of publication that could successfully convey His Message of Hope and Redemption to the masses, without the resultant blood shed. The Bible is a work written and editted by man and for man whether it is inspired by belief in a supernatural deity or to further the agendas of those who controlled its formulation as are all the Holy Scriptures on our planet. There are no Gold and Silver tablets that fell from the sky written by angels.....oh wait a sec there is.....

I went to the Wikipedia Greek Alphabet page and cut and paste them the hard way.

Dan if you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman you will find a host of changes and the specific reasons said changes were made. 1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinu and two other of the earliest known manuscripts have the verse reading: 16 And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: He who was manifested in flesh, was justified in spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. Some scribe changed ΘΣ to ΟΣ which look very much alike and it changed the whole meaning of the text and enhanced the divinity of Jesus. The change then was made in all four of our early manuscripts which basically now calls Jesus God and then became the accepted text of most of the Byzantine manuscripts and then was adopted by most English translations. The change was adopted by medieval manuscripts to emphasize Jesus's divinity in a text that originally was ambiguous about it at best. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. 1 Tim 3:16 (NKJV) There are instances where Joseph has been purposely editted from being mentioned as Jesus's father such as Luke 2:33 as can be seen by the differences in two modern versions And the child's father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him Luke 2:33 (NRSV) And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him Luke 2:33 (KJV) And here is another instance a few verses later in the same book but his parents did not know it. Luke 2:43 (NRSV) and Joseph and his mother knew not of it Luke 2:43 (KJV) There are many other verses that have been tweaked to add to the Divinity of Jesus and take away from his humanity. The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8) is another perfect example. http://www.bible-res....com/comma.html Many many many more are written about in "Misquoting Jesus" No matter what you still believe Dan It is a fact that theologically motivated alterationsof the text were made.

Dan the Textus Receptus was a creation of Erasmus who used a combination of 6 manuscripts and then filled in missing parts from the Latin Vulgate which in itself was created because of all the confusion of multiple variants of Latin Bibles. The first note below from Wikipedia quite clearly shows your revered Textus Receptus was altered because of peer pressure!!! Also please note the various number of editions of the Textus Receptus and how many times God's Inspired word had to changed because Holy Spirit filled men didn't get it right the first time I did some research and will add that the information for the Wikipedia Text on the Comma Johanneum comes from 4th edition of New Testament of Robert Estienne which was published one year after Erasmus died. Selected Wikipedia notes on Textus Receptus: With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum was included, because "Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy", even though he remained "convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John." Erasmus had been studying Greek New Testament manuscripts for many years, in the Netherlands, France, England and Switzerland, noting their many variants, but had only six Greek manuscripts immediately accessible to him in Basel.[5] They all dated from the 12th Century or later, and only one came from outside the mainstream Byzantine tradition. Consequently, most modern scholars consider his text to be of dubious quality. The majority of textual critical scholars since the late 19th Century, have adopted an eclectic approach to the Greek New Testament; with the most weight given to the earliest extant manuscripts which tend mainly to be Alexandrian in character; the resulting eclectic Greek text departing from the Textus Receptus in around 6,000 readings. A significant minority of textual scholars, however, maintain the priority of the Byzantine text-type; and consequently prefer the "Majority Text". No school of textual scholarship now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst the King-James-Only Movement, and other Protestant groups hostile to the whole discipline of text criticism—as applied to scripture; and suspicious of any departure from Reformation traditions

I can completely agree with those sentiments!

I knew these lofty Hermeneutical discussions would be beyond my level of understanding!

Dan if you don't consider having 100,000 early Biblical manuscripts and the fact that no two are exactly the same evidence that the Bible has been altered then I wonder about your reasoning faculties. The last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark which appear in none of the earliest manuscripts should be proof enough as well. The Johannine Comma is another, the addition of the story of the adulterous woman taken to Jesus is another. Look at the earliest known extant copy of the Bible that exists, Codex Sinaiticus, and just the listing of books as compared to the version you cherish. Dan it is basically proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt that the BIble has been altered. Please tell me which of the earliest extant manuscripts you treasure is the perfect unaltered word of God and then I can help prove the case.

The intention behind such behavior, if is to avoid or deflect from giving an honest answer might bother us all!

Changes in the early manuscripts were in abundance as is noted by the follwing text from http://www.suite101.com/content/the-early-bible-manuscripts-a117994 The original Biblical autographs no longer exist. What have survived are copies which are several generations removed from the originals. Of all the surviving manuscript copies, no two are exactly the same. What Bible is This? If the original Biblical autographs do not exist and not one surviving Biblical manuscript is exactly the same, which version of the Bible are modern worshipers reading? The simple answer is that today's worshipers are reading a Bible with readings chosen from various manuscripts by a handful of scholars who have voted, not always unanimously, on the reading that's most apt to be accurate. The Bible we read is not, and can never be, the original Bible in its entirety. To assume that all the words read in the Bible are the original writings of the authors is a misleading notion. It gives caution to the old famous Protestant axiom Sola Scriptura ("scripture alone"), and it's important to note that the readings contained within the Bible do not all have apostolic authority. The original Biblical autographs no longer exist. What have survived are copies which are several generations removed from the originals. Of all the surviving manuscript copies, no two are exactly the same.

Coolhand what do you think of this article on the proof that the Scriptures were altered regarding the Trinty. http://whatwouldjesu...671420551/item/

Actually I did not avoid, just overlooked this portion of your response. With higher self esteem and the increased teachings and awareness of the effect of one's actions and thoughts I would predict a big decrease in these events. To be completely honest though there will be instances when they do occur. I don't think there can be set penalties for each case and it should be judged by a court of enlightened people who can rule according to the facts in each instance. In the future will we be able to control such negative behavior through science. I would prefer this type of action for rehabilitation in in lieu of our current penal system. Yes I've read them and while RabbiO's posted material seems plausible,it doesn't stand up to real life scenarios of war in those times and other quotes of infanticide in the Bible. To keep their purity in the sight of God it seems complete and utter genocide would have been the way to go. 1Sa 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. "The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." Hosea 13:16 I'm not 100% sure that vampires don't exist either, but the plausibility that actual vampires and not psychopaths acting the part actually exist is very low IMHO

Thanks for that information RabbiO. I also know that there is much debate about the archaeological evidence in the region and whether it confirms or raises questions about the validity of the story. As with most things regarding the scripture there are experts on both sides of the argument. At the time of the the Exodus events wasn't Egypt in control of the region? So many questions and I wonder if we will ever know all the facts. As a believer in the Bible and then as a non-believer I know my impression was clearly that non-combatants payed the priced as well for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This belief was fully reinforced by Hosea: Hosea 13:16 "The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." Also with the misogynistic outlook of the writers of the Old testament, the lives of women and children which would have been thought of as nothing more than property would have been of little note. Do you personaly feel those camps during those times were free of women and children, whether they be military outposts or full townships.

Would you think that is a plausible scenario, or is it more plausible that these accounts are purely the myths of Bronze Age man who lived in a Barbaric world and projected that back onto Deity. I think with your high level of education, if you answered the question honestly from both your heart and head the more plausible explanation would be that these accounts are those of man and the facts, if any, are rather sketchy at best. This Barbaric God is one reason why so many Early Christian groups such as the Marcionites, Manicheans and a host of others detested the Old Testament and it had no place in their Holy Scriptures.

Well if the trillions of dollars spent on the Defense of countries, entertainers, sports athletes and cosmetics were divided equally among the peoples of the world and used to educate them. It would help raise their self esteem and shed some light on the superstitious religious nonsense which bolsters low self esteem in many cases. While not totally eliminating the above mentioned vices the decline would be tremendous I do believe. Once people learn to be tolerant of others and have empathy for their life situations instead of sermonizing and condemning them the level of fear that fills most lives would subside exponentially. This is my dream and something I think might be possible in the future. In the future those who are contrary to the system would be genetically modified as there will always be those humans who try to use and abuse the system for their own egoic needs of power and control. What kind of system would Jesus approve of? That a God who is proclaimed to love humans so much that he would sacrifice his only begotten son for them, would be so cruel as to wipe the most innocent of them out as nothing more than the remnants of feces we wipe from our bottoms.