I've read some of Designs comments reference this topic more than once.
Any proof of such a claim?.....real, scholarly, proof, something other than a copy and posted Watchtower or awake please.
dc
Did any bishops or cardinals change scripture during the early church years?
by TTWSYF 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
PSacramento
I think that there started a greater focus on the role of Bishop in the 100'safter the death of the last Apostle(s).
That was not base don scriptue of course since Jesus made it clear that no one was to have more power or infulence than anyone else.
Beyond that, there were debates about the nature of Jesus, of course.
As for actual changes to scripture, no there is no real evidence of that, speculation sure and opinion of course but no real evidence.
There were attempts to change that were caught, like tha one in 1John 5:7-8 and other changes or additions that were kept such as thadultress episode in the GOJ.
But of course we know of them, so...
-
Balsam
If you want to understand how our current bible came to us read Bart H. Erhman he is a New Testament biblical scholar and I think I learned a great deal from his books. Also Robert Funk from the "Jesus Seminars" arranged by biblical scholars has been extremely helpful.
Ruth
-
Terry
I think we tend to forget how slowly information traveled back in the first thousand centuries!!
There was no printing press until the fifteenth century.
There was no telephone until 1876.
The first newspaper was in 1749.
Most of us didn't use computers before the late 1990's.
In the time of Jesus how do you think people found things out? How long did it take? How were things confirmed?
How important were facts?
Word of mouth, as unreliable as it can be, meant one on one contact with the other person.
Distances meant the slowest of slow communications.
Only the rich and powerful could hire or persuade or force others to take messages with any speed.
Roads were usually mud, rock, dirt and gravel.
People didn't carry books around. Only the rich could afford copies of important books.
The idea that the Apostles kept a lid on heresy is ludicrous. How would they find out what was being said which was wrong unless it happened in their immediate presence? Paul's epistles were handed from person to person and quickly wore out from handling.
Paraphrasing and interpreting quickly blurred specifics.
The Jesus stories were oral, verbal and hearsay.
Writing down these stories decades later would destroy exactitude. Quotes would be nigh impossible. Days, numbers, dates, details impossible to preserve or verify past nearness of time and space.
Every location had their own version of things. Local ideas, local theories, conjectures, hypothesis and imaginations flavored and colored events.
Where there was skepticism or alternate opinion----how could anything be proved?
One of the most popular christian movements was Gnostic and led by Marcion who eliminated the Old Testament God as unworthy of worship.
Facts weren't the concern of everyday people in the Old World of yesteryear.
Bottom line?
There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY we can verify, fact check, test, compare and confirm anything said in the Bible. The more specific the words the more likely they are invented.
Proof texting by Christians is a conceit born of ignorance and craving for certainty.
All our ideas about Christianity are the result of a false idea of the way things took shape and were communicated thousands of years past.
What you WANT to believe is one thing---what you can verify as True is entirely another thing altogether.
Accept it. Live with it.
Everybody changed everything many times along the way.
Why else is it so impossible to understand in terms of reasonable and logical?
-
PSacramento
There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY we can verify, fact check, test, compare and confirm anything said in the Bible.
Quite correct in theory if not in practise ( obviously names of peoples, places and events can be to a degree or another) and that goes for pretty much any other ancient book.
-
Terry
There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY we can verify, fact check, test, compare and confirm anything said in the Bible.
Quite correct in theory if not in practise ( obviously names of peoples, places and events can be to a degree or another) and that goes for pretty much any other ancient book.
Ahhhhh, but consider the fact that it is THE BIBLE which makes the supernatural claim to being something much greater and more important than any other ancient book. It is de facto another species altogether!
The way the Bible is represented historically amounts to a fraud.
For the first 1500 years a "christian" was a passive listener to Catholic interpretation. Unless you spoke Latin you weren't even aware of what your religious worship consisted of other than pageantry and ritual!
The Bible per se was entombed in incense, razzle dazzle, dead language and supernatural awe.
The idea that the COMMON FOLK would get their hands on the actual text was HORRIFYING to the Church!!
People were tortured and killed for attempting to translate and make available a readable text!
WHY? It was all about CONTROL and not about empowering the christian to knowledge of anything factual.
The Protestant "reformation" stripped 7 books from the 1500 year old Canonical Bible (from 73 down to 66) and Luther wanted to remove a few more such as Revelation, Hebrews and James (if memory serves..).
All said to make this one point:
THE BIBLE is a pious fraud.
-
PSacramento
Ahhhhh, but consider the fact that it is THE BIBLE which makes the supernatural claim to being something much greater and more important than any other ancient book. It is de facto another species altogether!
A valid point, I would agree that anyone putting "extraordinary claims" on the bible that the burden of proving those claims and their veractity, lies on THEM.
I know you've read Bart's work, but have you read Bart's teachers work?
-
freydo
The letters from Paul are suspicious, in that he makes 3 or 4 statements about law being abolished which has become the foundation of churchianity which does not hallow God's name nor observe his Sabbath and Feasts, yet nevertheless calls itself "Christian" but doesn't act like early Christians who were Jewish and who kept these things. That Yah has allowed his name to be removed and/or adulterated in most Bibles has to make one wonder about what else he has allowed to be tampered with.
-
PSacramento
Paul mentions that Gentiles are not under those laws.
The name of God is still hallowed, by that we mean all that God's name means and entails, not just some letters.
If you wanna criticize anyone for "downplaying " God's literal name ( one of them anyways) you can blame Jesus for telling the faitthful to pray to "our Father" and not some "name".
"Yah" is still there, in the one place it was always there, in the word "halleluy(j)ah", of course if you have proof of it being anywhere else, please show us, not speculation, Proof as in the case of a manuscript or parchament dated in the 1st or 2nd century.
-
Terry
Bart's teachers work?
Whenever the F.F.Bruce or Bruce Metzger books come in to Half Price Books where I work I always check them out.
They are the pillars of the Baptist theology it seems.