TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There were hundred of manuscripts copied - each with a translation to the writers prerogative.
As I said in OP
"In fact, when the books of the bible were finally gathered together into one printable volume, starting with Johann Gutenberg back in the 1500's, publishing houses began to compete with one another. One of the sales points they used in pushing their particular product was to say, "Our bible is the word of God" (as opposed to what our competition is printing). As time went by people simply accepted that as fact, rather than understanding that the bible is simply words about God that the Church collected together and declared "sacred scripture," even though even the main branches of Christianity haven't even agreed upon a single list of books that should be included to this very day!"

---

The canon was assembled and recognized as the word of God more than 1,000 years before Gutenberg.

---

All assembled (NT), recognized and written as the words of God 100's of years later by politically appointed men. Seems to me to be the words of men from the minds of men.

---

They were written 20 to 50 years after Christ's death, give or take a few years in some cases.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There were hundred of manuscripts copied - each with a translation to the writers prerogative.
As I said in OP
"In fact, when the books of the bible were finally gathered together into one printable volume, starting with Johann Gutenberg back in the 1500's, publishing houses began to compete with one another. One of the sales points they used in pushing their particular product was to say, "Our bible is the word of God" (as opposed to what our competition is printing). As time went by people simply accepted that as fact, rather than understanding that the bible is simply words about God that the Church collected together and declared "sacred scripture," even though even the main branches of Christianity haven't even agreed upon a single list of books that should be included to this very day!"

---

The canon was assembled and recognized as the word of God more than 1,000 years before Gutenberg.

---

All assembled (NT), recognized and written as the words of God 100's of years later by politically appointed men. Seems to me to be the words of men from the minds of men.

---

Words of men from the minds of men..... led by the spirit of God.

Even if we assume what you say is true, that the words of God were not recognized as so until 100's of years later by politically appointed men- does it make it untrue? John Keats, Emily Dickinson, Henry David Thoreau, Herman Melville.... all weren't recognized as being true literary geniuses until many, many years after their deaths. Were they great only after being recognized as so by appointed critics, or were they great all along?

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There were hundred of manuscripts copied - each with a translation to the writers prerogative.
As I said in OP
"In fact, when the books of the bible were finally gathered together into one printable volume, starting with Johann Gutenberg back in the 1500's, publishing houses began to compete with one another. One of the sales points they used in pushing their particular product was to say, "Our bible is the word of God" (as opposed to what our competition is printing). As time went by people simply accepted that as fact, rather than understanding that the bible is simply words about God that the Church collected together and declared "sacred scripture," even though even the main branches of Christianity haven't even agreed upon a single list of books that should be included to this very day!"

---

The canon was assembled and recognized as the word of God more than 1,000 years before Gutenberg.

---

All assembled (NT), recognized and written as the words of God 100's of years later by politically appointed men. Seems to me to be the words of men from the minds of men.

---

They were written 20 to 50 years after Christ's death, give or take a few years in some cases.

---

Only pieces and fragments of writings by unknown authors, except for some of Paul's letters, with no complete versions until late second century at best.

TexasScientist said:

---

According to John (the latest written Gospel to make canon) the Word was with God in the beginning, and all things came into existence through the Word. When the Word became flesh, Jesus came into existence as the incarnation of God's Word as his only son. This is a completely different view who Jesus was from Paul's writings. According to Paul, Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who was in the form of God but was not equal with God, and did not regard being equal with God something to be sought after.

---

Paul did not say that Jesus was "not equal with God". I believe the verse you are referencing is Phillipians 2:6, where he says that Jesus' equality with God was "not a thing to be grasped" or "not something to be used to his advantage" (ESV vs. NIV), not that Jesus wasn't equal with God. Paul does state that Jesus then "emptied himself" by taking the form of a human, which could mean that he believed at least in human form, Jesus was not equal with God because he took on sinful flesh. But in all of Paul's writings, he proclaimed Jesus as the son of God and incarnation of God, not just an apocalyptic preacher. This is NOT in contradiction to the prologue of John's gospel. In fact, it's stating the same thing. Jesus and God were one, then Jesus became flesh.

An HONEST reading would not find these to be different views.

TexasScientist said:

---

According to John (the latest written Gospel to make canon) the Word was with God in the beginning, and all things came into existence through the Word. When the Word became flesh, Jesus came into existence as the incarnation of God's Word as his only son. This is a completely different view who Jesus was from Paul's writings. According to Paul, Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who was in the form of God but was not equal with God, and did not regard being equal with God something to be sought after.

---

Not quite. You're thinking of Philippians 2:8ff, which reads as follows:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

V.6 says He was equal with God. However, He "took on the form of a servant" and "was made in the likeness of man" - He voluntarily gave up the trappings of God and was born in the form of a man, in which He could feel hunger, thirst, etc. Every knee will bow and declare Him Lord, plainly something more than "an apocalyptic preacher who was in the form of God but was not equal with God, and did not regard being equal with God something to be sought after."

So there is nothing inconsistent between John's account and Paul's.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Prove it. My source says different

---

Since you have established that you do not depend on Scripture for veracity Waco, I conclude your 'source' is something much more ... fallible.

---

Why, yes. Yes, I do. It's the original Greek. It's called scholarship

---

It's called straining the text beyond the limits of reasonable interpretation in order to promote an agenda.

---

Either you take each word seriously or you don't.. I take each word seriously. This is scripture and some notes scribbled in a diary or reporters notebook.
It's scripture - meaning the writers and copyists worked very, very carefully to make their understanding clear.
I feel we owe hard work and scholarship to understanding the text.

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Prove it. My source says different

---

Since you have established that you do not depend on Scripture for veracity Waco, I conclude your 'source' is something much more ... fallible.

---

Why, yes. Yes, I do. It's the original Greek. It's called scholarship

---

It's called straining the text beyond the limits of reasonable interpretation in order to promote an agenda.

---

Either you take each word seriously or you don't.. I take each word seriously. This is scripture and some notes scribbled in a diary or reporters notebook.
It's scripture - meaning the writers and copyists worked very, very carefully to make their understanding clear.
I feel we owe hard work and scholarship to understanding the text.

---

Dude, just stop. You already demonstrated you do not study languages, you know nothing about exigesis, you have failed to note the rigorous analysis and criticism of Scripture compared to other ancient texts, and your SJW Jesus is a sad parody of the authentic Christ.

TexasScientist said:

---

According to John (the latest written Gospel to make canon) the Word was with God in the beginning, and all things came into existence through the Word. When the Word became flesh, Jesus came into existence as the incarnation of God's Word as his only son. This is a completely different view who Jesus was from Paul's writings. According to Paul, Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who was in the form of God but was not equal with God, and did not regard being equal with God something to be sought after.

---

Don't believe everything you read in The Da Vinci Code. Paul in fact affirms the divinity of Christ in Philippians 2, as evidenced by his reference to Isaiah (every knee shall bow). He also affirms John's theology in 1 Corinthians 8, calling Jesus the creator of all things.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There were hundred of manuscripts copied - each with a translation to the writers prerogative.
As I said in OP
"In fact, when the books of the bible were finally gathered together into one printable volume, starting with Johann Gutenberg back in the 1500's, publishing houses began to compete with one another. One of the sales points they used in pushing their particular product was to say, "Our bible is the word of God" (as opposed to what our competition is printing). As time went by people simply accepted that as fact, rather than understanding that the bible is simply words about God that the Church collected together and declared "sacred scripture," even though even the main branches of Christianity haven't even agreed upon a single list of books that should be included to this very day!"

---

The canon was assembled and recognized as the word of God more than 1,000 years before Gutenberg.

---

All assembled (NT), recognized and written as the words of God 100's of years later by politically appointed men. Seems to me to be the words of men from the minds of men.

---

They were written 20 to 50 years after Christ's death, give or take a few years in some cases.

---

Only pieces and fragments of writings by unknown authors, except for some of Paul's letters, with no complete versions until late second century at best.

---

You say second century like it's a bad thing. The earliest copy of Julius Caesar doesn't appear until a thousand years after his death. By any ordinary standard, the NT is the most reliable set of ancient texts you're going to find. Why fear using the ordinary standard?

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Prove it. My source says different

---

Since you have established that you do not depend on Scripture for veracity Waco, I conclude your 'source' is something much more ... fallible.

---

Why, yes. Yes, I do. It's the original Greek. It's called scholarship

---

It's called straining the text beyond the limits of reasonable interpretation in order to promote an agenda.

---

Either you take each word seriously or you don't.. I take each word seriously. This is scripture and some notes scribbled in a diary or reporters notebook.
It's scripture - meaning the writers and copyists worked very, very carefully to make their understanding clear.
I feel we owe hard work and scholarship to understanding the text.

---

They did make their meaning clear. You just don't want to accept it.

Waco1947 said:

---

What you can't get through your heads- is that I believe in the veracity of the scripture with regards to faith but physics.
Not once in contemporary history have physicists consulted the Bible for answer.
Nor chemistry
Nor biology

---

This is quite curious.

You claim to be a Christian, and believe the Bible concerning issues of faith. Yet you also seem to place science above the Bible in your everyday life.

If you are a Christian, then you must believe that Jesus was the Son of God (or maybe the Son about God... whatever). You must believe that he was born of a virgin. Lived for at least 3 decades. Performed many miracles. Died on the cross for the sins of all mankind throughout time. Then He rose from the grave on the 3rd day. He appeared in bodily form and taught the disciples. Then He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. Which of those statements is supported by physics, chemistry and biology? Don't you have to suspend your adherence to science, in order to believe in Jesus as your Savior? And where do you get all of this information about the life of Jesus in the first place? Aren't you, as a Christian, placing the Bible over science for all of these events? Why then do you choose to deny the rest of the Bible, and place science over the Bible in other areas? How do you know which parts of the Bible to accept over science, and which parts to reject in favor of science?

Either you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, or you don't. If you do not believe it to be the Word of God, then what do you base your Christianity upon? You can claim it is the traditions of the Church, but all of those traditions are based upon the Bible as well. Indeed most of the traditions are found in the Bible: Communion, Baptism, Confession, Tithing, Ministry to the poor, orphans & widows, etc. Either the Bible confirms the traditions, or the traditions confirm the Bible... take your pick. When it comes to a tradition which is not found in the Bible, it is hard to argue that loosing that tradition will somehow harm Christianity or spiritual growth.

Either way, it is hard to argue that radical leftists beliefs, like abortion, are in any way supported by either the Bible or the traditions of Christianity. We all believe that Jesus did actually say, "suffer the children to come unto me". No one has ever argued that Jesus wanted the kids brought to Him so that He could murder them.

Abortion clinics came from a racist, eugenicist named Margaret Sanger... who probably would have agreed with your OP.

ShooterTX said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

What you can't get through your heads- is that I believe in the veracity of the scripture with regards to faith but physics.
Not once in contemporary history have physicists consulted the Bible for answer.
Nor chemistry
Nor biology

---

Either way, it is hard to argue that radical leftists beliefs, like abortion, are in any way supported by either the Bible or the traditions of Christianity. We all believe that Jesus did actually say, "suffer the children to come unto me". No one has ever argued that Jesus wanted the kids brought to Him so that He could murder them.

---

Prideful characters like Waco47 convince themselves that Jesus does in fact condone abortion.

Of course such a view is a direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus......but somehow 47 just ignores the reality of it all .

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

According to John (the latest written Gospel to make canon) the Word was with God in the beginning, and all things came into existence through the Word. When the Word became flesh, Jesus came into existence as the incarnation of God's Word as his only son. This is a completely different view who Jesus was from Paul's writings. According to Paul, Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who was in the form of God but was not equal with God, and did not regard being equal with God something to be sought after.

---

Not quite. You're thinking of Philippians 2:8ff, which reads as follows:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

V.6 says He was equal with God. However, He "took on the form of a servant" and "was made in the likeness of man" - He voluntarily gave up the trappings of God and was born in the form of a man, in which He could feel hunger, thirst, etc. Every knee will bow and declare Him Lord, plainly something more than "an apocalyptic preacher who was in the form of God but was not equal with God, and did not regard being equal with God something to be sought after."

So there is nothing inconsistent between John's account and Paul's.

---

I think this is the better picture of Paul's understanding:

6 Who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
7 Rather, he emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
coming in human likeness;
and found human in appearance,
8 he humbled himself,
becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.
9 Because of this, God greatly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name
that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Paul whose writing precede the Gospel of John, had clear ideas about Jesus. Paul believed he was a divine being (a great angelic demigod like being) who became human. He was in the form of God but didn't think equality with God was something to strive for. He gives up his entitlement as a divine being to serve in the likeness of a human. He began as a divine being who did not want equality with God, and became a slave to serve others and was crucified according to God's will. He lowered himself to serve others. "Because of this" once he is crucified and dies, "God greatly exalted him" This means he was exalted to a higher level than he was before and "bestowed on him the name that is above every name." Exalted to the level that every knee shall bow, tongue confess etc. He is raising him to the level of God. Jesus didn't start out equal and does not want equality with God, but wants a life of service, yet he is crucified and exalted to the level of God. He becomes incarnate and then raised to the level of God.

John 1. has a different take in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God. There we are told that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The spoken Word is the independent medium of how things came into existence. The Word became flesh and lived among humans in glory as the Father's only Son. Jesus came into being when the Word became flesh. Jesus became the incarnation of God's Word. According to John, Jesus starts off much higher than in Paul's understanding. He is not just a divine being who is raised to an exalted level, He instead is the one who created the world.

You go from a historical figure who was an apocalyptic preacher, calling for repentance, who was crucified for his efforts and exalted to a higher level in Paul's early view and writings, to John's much later writings depicting Him as always with God as his Word who created the world.

From Paul's time they went from saying he was the Messiah, which was hard to accept, to by the time of John's writings, they were saying he was the creator of the world, which was even harder to accept.

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

According to John (the latest written Gospel to make canon) the Word was with God in the beginning, and all things came into existence through the Word. When the Word became flesh, Jesus came into existence as the incarnation of God's Word as his only son. This is a completely different view who Jesus was from Paul's writings. According to Paul, Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who was in the form of God but was not equal with God, and did not regard being equal with God something to be sought after.

---

Not quite. You're thinking of Philippians 2:8ff, which reads as follows:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

V.6 says He was equal with God. However, He "took on the form of a servant" and "was made in the likeness of man" - He voluntarily gave up the trappings of God and was born in the form of a man, in which He could feel hunger, thirst, etc. Every knee will bow and declare Him Lord, plainly something more than "an apocalyptic preacher who was in the form of God but was not equal with God, and did not regard being equal with God something to be sought after."

So there is nothing inconsistent between John's account and Paul's.

---

I think this is the better picture of Paul's understanding:

6 Who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
7 Rather, he emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
coming in human likeness;
and found human in appearance,
8 he humbled himself,
becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.
9 Because of this, God greatly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name
that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Paul whose writing precede the Gospel of John, had clear ideas about Jesus. Paul believed he was a divine being (a great angelic demigod like being) who became human. He was in the form of God but didn't think equality with God was something to strive for. He gives up his entitlement as a divine being to serve in the likeness of a human. He began as a divine being who did not want equality with God, and became a slave to serve others and was crucified according to God's will. He lowered himself to serve others. "Because of this" once he is crucified and dies, "God greatly exalted him" This means he was exalted to a higher level than he was before and "bestowed on him the name that is above every name." Exalted to the level that every knee shall bow, tongue confess etc. He is raising him to the level of God. Jesus didn't start out equal and does not want equality with God, but wants a life of service, yet he is crucified and exalted to the level of God. He becomes incarnate and then raised to the level of God.

John 1. has a different take in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God. There we are told that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The spoken Word is the independent medium of how things came into existence. The Word became flesh and lived among humans in glory as the Father's only Son. Jesus came into being when the Word became flesh. Jesus became the incarnation of God's Word. According to John, Jesus starts off much higher than in Paul's understanding. He is not just a divine being who is raised to an exalted level, He instead is the one who created the world.

You go from a historical figure who was an apocalyptic preacher, calling for repentance, who was crucified for his efforts and exalted to a higher level in Paul's early view and writings, to John's much later writings depicting Him as always with God as his Word who created the world.

From Paul's time they went from saying he was the Messiah, which was hard to accept, to by the time of John's writings, they were saying he was the creator of the world, which was even harder to accept.

---

Pretty sure the Romans were not killing Christians just because they followed a faith of penitence and kindness.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There were hundred of manuscripts copied - each with a translation to the writers prerogative.
As I said in OP
"In fact, when the books of the bible were finally gathered together into one printable volume, starting with Johann Gutenberg back in the 1500's, publishing houses began to compete with one another. One of the sales points they used in pushing their particular product was to say, "Our bible is the word of God" (as opposed to what our competition is printing). As time went by people simply accepted that as fact, rather than understanding that the bible is simply words about God that the Church collected together and declared "sacred scripture," even though even the main branches of Christianity haven't even agreed upon a single list of books that should be included to this very day!"

---

The canon was assembled and recognized as the word of God more than 1,000 years before Gutenberg.

---

All assembled (NT), recognized and written as the words of God 100's of years later by politically appointed men. Seems to me to be the words of men from the minds of men.

---

They were written 20 to 50 years after Christ's death, give or take a few years in some cases.

---

Only pieces and fragments of writings by unknown authors, except for some of Paul's letters, with no complete versions until late second century at best.

---

You say second century like it's a bad thing. The earliest copy of Julius Caesar doesn't appear until a thousand years after his death. By any ordinary standard, the NT is the most reliable set of ancient texts you're going to find. Why fear using the ordinary standard?

---

I don't think you can make the statement that they are the most reliable set of ancient texts. You don't know that, and even if you could make the statement they are more reliable than other texts, that doesn't translate to them being reliable.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There were hundred of manuscripts copied - each with a translation to the writers prerogative.
As I said in OP
"In fact, when the books of the bible were finally gathered together into one printable volume, starting with Johann Gutenberg back in the 1500's, publishing houses began to compete with one another. One of the sales points they used in pushing their particular product was to say, "Our bible is the word of God" (as opposed to what our competition is printing). As time went by people simply accepted that as fact, rather than understanding that the bible is simply words about God that the Church collected together and declared "sacred scripture," even though even the main branches of Christianity haven't even agreed upon a single list of books that should be included to this very day!"

---

The canon was assembled and recognized as the word of God more than 1,000 years before Gutenberg.

---

All assembled (NT), recognized and written as the words of God 100's of years later by politically appointed men. Seems to me to be the words of men from the minds of men.

---

They were written 20 to 50 years after Christ's death, give or take a few years in some cases.

---

Only pieces and fragments of writings by unknown authors, except for some of Paul's letters, with no complete versions until late second century at best.

---

You say second century like it's a bad thing. The earliest copy of Julius Caesar doesn't appear until a thousand years after his death. By any ordinary standard, the NT is the most reliable set of ancient texts you're going to find. Why fear using the ordinary standard?

---

I don't think you can make the statement that they are the most reliable set of ancient texts. You don't know that, and even if you could make the statement they are more reliable than other texts, that doesn't translate to them being reliable.

---

Yes actually, we can say the Scriptures are the most reliable, due to centuries of scrutiny from experts from every age. Only when rejection of religion became a popular assumption, replacing objective analysis, has the authenticity of Scripture ever been doubted.

In simple terms, Scripture has been tested and examined far more rigorously than any other ancient documents, from any time or place. It therefore has earned confidence as reliable on the strength of such examination.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There were hundred of manuscripts copied - each with a translation to the writers prerogative.
As I said in OP
"In fact, when the books of the bible were finally gathered together into one printable volume, starting with Johann Gutenberg back in the 1500's, publishing houses began to compete with one another. One of the sales points they used in pushing their particular product was to say, "Our bible is the word of God" (as opposed to what our competition is printing). As time went by people simply accepted that as fact, rather than understanding that the bible is simply words about God that the Church collected together and declared "sacred scripture," even though even the main branches of Christianity haven't even agreed upon a single list of books that should be included to this very day!"

---

The canon was assembled and recognized as the word of God more than 1,000 years before Gutenberg.

---

All assembled (NT), recognized and written as the words of God 100's of years later by politically appointed men. Seems to me to be the words of men from the minds of men.

---

They were written 20 to 50 years after Christ's death, give or take a few years in some cases.

---

Only pieces and fragments of writings by unknown authors, except for some of Paul's letters, with no complete versions until late second century at best.

---

You say second century like it's a bad thing. The earliest copy of Julius Caesar doesn't appear until a thousand years after his death. By any ordinary standard, the NT is the most reliable set of ancient texts you're going to find. Why fear using the ordinary standard?

---

I don't think you can make the statement that they are the most reliable set of ancient texts. You don't know that, and even if you could make the statement they are more reliable than other texts, that doesn't translate to them being reliable.

---

I'm talking about reliable in terms of their authenticity. Whether you believe the faith claims is another issue (or at least it should be another issue). But if you don't believe the books are authentic, you don't believe in the study of history. That's not a very scientific position.

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

According to John (the latest written Gospel to make canon) the Word was with God in the beginning, and all things came into existence through the Word. When the Word became flesh, Jesus came into existence as the incarnation of God's Word as his only son. This is a completely different view who Jesus was from Paul's writings. According to Paul, Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who was in the form of God but was not equal with God, and did not regard being equal with God something to be sought after.

---

Not quite. You're thinking of Philippians 2:8ff, which reads as follows:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

V.6 says He was equal with God. However, He "took on the form of a servant" and "was made in the likeness of man" - He voluntarily gave up the trappings of God and was born in the form of a man, in which He could feel hunger, thirst, etc. Every knee will bow and declare Him Lord, plainly something more than "an apocalyptic preacher who was in the form of God but was not equal with God, and did not regard being equal with God something to be sought after."

So there is nothing inconsistent between John's account and Paul's.

---

You go from a historical figure who was an apocalyptic preacher, calling for repentance, who was crucified for his efforts and exalted to a higher level in Paul's early view and writings, to John's much later writings depicting Him as always with God as his Word who created the world.

From Paul's time they went from saying he was the Messiah, which was hard to accept, to by the time of John's writings, they were saying he was the creator of the world, which was even harder to accept.

---

Except that Paul also says he was the creator of the world.

"Reliable" in what sense?
1) Historicity
2) Physics/Mathematics
3) Chemistry
4) Biology
5) Grammatically
6). translations
In what sense is the Bible reliable?

Waco1947 said:

---

"Reliable" in what sense?

---

I will quote Sam on that:

"reliable in terms of their authenticity. Whether you believe the faith claims is another issue (or at least it should be another issue). But if you don't believe the books are authentic, you don't believe in the study of history."

You are begging the question "authenticity" is simply another word for reliable.
Try again.

Waco1947 said:

---

You are begging the question "authenticity" is simply another word for reliable.
Try again.

---

No, you are ducking the answer.

Be an adult and think it through.

You can do it, Waco!

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

According to John (the latest written Gospel to make canon) the Word was with God in the beginning, and all things came into existence through the Word. When the Word became flesh, Jesus came into existence as the incarnation of God's Word as his only son. This is a completely different view who Jesus was from Paul's writings. According to Paul, Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who was in the form of God but was not equal with God, and did not regard being equal with God something to be sought after.

---

Not quite. You're thinking of Philippians 2:8ff, which reads as follows:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

V.6 says He was equal with God. However, He "took on the form of a servant" and "was made in the likeness of man" - He voluntarily gave up the trappings of God and was born in the form of a man, in which He could feel hunger, thirst, etc. Every knee will bow and declare Him Lord, plainly something more than "an apocalyptic preacher who was in the form of God but was not equal with God, and did not regard being equal with God something to be sought after."

So there is nothing inconsistent between John's account and Paul's.

---

I think this is the better picture of Paul's understanding:

6 Who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
7 Rather, he emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
coming in human likeness;
and found human in appearance,
8 he humbled himself,
becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.
9 Because of this, God greatly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name
that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Paul whose writing precede the Gospel of John, had clear ideas about Jesus. Paul believed he was a divine being (a great angelic demigod like being) who became human. He was in the form of God but didn't think equality with God was something to strive for. He gives up his entitlement as a divine being to serve in the likeness of a human. He began as a divine being who did not want equality with God, and became a slave to serve others and was crucified according to God's will. He lowered himself to serve others. "Because of this" once he is crucified and dies, "God greatly exalted him" This means he was exalted to a higher level than he was before and "bestowed on him the name that is above every name." Exalted to the level that every knee shall bow, tongue confess etc. He is raising him to the level of God. Jesus didn't start out equal and does not want equality with God, but wants a life of service, yet he is crucified and exalted to the level of God. He becomes incarnate and then raised to the level of God.

John 1. has a different take in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God. There we are told that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The spoken Word is the independent medium of how things came into existence. The Word became flesh and lived among humans in glory as the Father's only Son. Jesus came into being when the Word became flesh. Jesus became the incarnation of God's Word. According to John, Jesus starts off much higher than in Paul's understanding. He is not just a divine being who is raised to an exalted level, He instead is the one who created the world.

You go from a historical figure who was an apocalyptic preacher, calling for repentance, who was crucified for his efforts and exalted to a higher level in Paul's early view and writings, to John's much later writings depicting Him as always with God as his Word who created the world.

From Paul's time they went from saying he was the Messiah, which was hard to accept, to by the time of John's writings, they were saying he was the creator of the world, which was even harder to accept.

---

You continue to misinterpret v. 6 by saying it means Jesus "did not want" equality with God. The Greek word translated as "robbery" in the KJV and Young's Literal Translation is , transliterated harpagmos, which in this context means "a thing to seized upon of to be held fast; retained."

V.6 means Jesus did not regard equality with God as something to be retained; instead, He gave it up for the Incarnation, to be born as a human, a state in which he plainly would not be equal to God the Father. This is made clear by vvs 7 and 8.

To repeat, the theologies of Paul and John are not contradictory.

Waco1947 said:

---

You are begging the question "authenticity" is simply another word for reliable.
Try again.

---

Saying that a book is authentic and that it is reliable are far from the same thing. TexasScientist's posts on Christian theology are authentic, but certainly not reliable.

"Authentic" in what sense?

1) Historicity
2) Physics/Mathematics
3) Chemistry
4) Biology
5) Grammatically
6). translations
In what sense is the Bible authentic?

Waco1947 said:

---

"Authentic" in what sense?

1) Historicity
2) Physics/Mathematics
3) Chemistry
4) Biology
5) Grammatically
6). translations
In what sense is the Bible authentic?

---

You have responded to a lot of other posts today, but not to my earlier one. So I thought I would copy & paste it here for you. Will you please respond to the follow questions:

If you are a Christian, then you must believe that Jesus was the Son of God (or maybe the Son about God... whatever). You must believe that he was born of a virgin. Lived for at least 3 decades. Performed many miracles. Died on the cross for the sins of all mankind throughout time. Then He rose from the grave on the 3rd day. He appeared in bodily form and taught the disciples. Then He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. Which of those statements is supported by physics, chemistry and biology? Don't you have to suspend your adherence to science, in order to believe in Jesus as your Savior? And where do you get all of this information about the life of Jesus in the first place? Aren't you, as a Christian, placing the Bible over science for all of these events? Why then do you choose to deny the rest of the Bible, and place science over the Bible in other areas? How do you know which parts of the Bible to accept over science, and which parts to reject in favor of science?

Either you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, or you don't. If you do not believe it to be the Word of God, then what do you base your Christianity upon? You can claim it is the traditions of the Church, but all of those traditions are based upon the Bible as well. Indeed most of the traditions are found in the Bible: Communion, Baptism, Confession, Tithing, Ministry to the poor, orphans & widows, etc. Either the Bible confirms the traditions, or the traditions confirm the Bible... take your pick. When it comes to a tradition which is not found in the Bible, it is hard to argue that loosing that tradition will somehow harm Christianity or spiritual growth.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There were hundred of manuscripts copied - each with a translation to the writers prerogative.
As I said in OP
"In fact, when the books of the bible were finally gathered together into one printable volume, starting with Johann Gutenberg back in the 1500's, publishing houses began to compete with one another. One of the sales points they used in pushing their particular product was to say, "Our bible is the word of God" (as opposed to what our competition is printing). As time went by people simply accepted that as fact, rather than understanding that the bible is simply words about God that the Church collected together and declared "sacred scripture," even though even the main branches of Christianity haven't even agreed upon a single list of books that should be included to this very day!"

---

The canon was assembled and recognized as the word of God more than 1,000 years before Gutenberg.

---

All assembled (NT), recognized and written as the words of God 100's of years later by politically appointed men. Seems to me to be the words of men from the minds of men.

---

They were written 20 to 50 years after Christ's death, give or take a few years in some cases.

---

Only pieces and fragments of writings by unknown authors, except for some of Paul's letters, with no complete versions until late second century at best.

---

You say second century like it's a bad thing. The earliest copy of Julius Caesar doesn't appear until a thousand years after his death. By any ordinary standard, the NT is the most reliable set of ancient texts you're going to find. Why fear using the ordinary standard?

---

I don't think you can make the statement that they are the most reliable set of ancient texts. You don't know that, and even if you could make the statement they are more reliable than other texts, that doesn't translate to them being reliable.

---

I'm talking about reliable in terms of their authenticity. Whether you believe the faith claims is another issue (or at least it should be another issue). But if you don't believe the books are authentic, you don't believe in the study of history. That's not a very scientific position.

---

Authentic to what? If you are saying they are reliable as to what the original writer who first penned them wrote, then no, they cannot be by their very nature. If you are saying reliable to what actually happened in the story they are trying to relate, then no, they cannot be by their very nature. Are they reliable in the sense that an apocalyptic preacher named Jesus was wondering around with a band of followers preaching repentance, and who was crucified, then I think yes.

If you believe they are authentic in that they were dictated or inspired word for word, version by version, then that certainly is a faith claim and has no support in science. You have to view the books of the NT for what they are primarily theological treatises, as opposed to history texts.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There were hundred of manuscripts copied - each with a translation to the writers prerogative.
As I said in OP
"In fact, when the books of the bible were finally gathered together into one printable volume, starting with Johann Gutenberg back in the 1500's, publishing houses began to compete with one another. One of the sales points they used in pushing their particular product was to say, "Our bible is the word of God" (as opposed to what our competition is printing). As time went by people simply accepted that as fact, rather than understanding that the bible is simply words about God that the Church collected together and declared "sacred scripture," even though even the main branches of Christianity haven't even agreed upon a single list of books that should be included to this very day!"

---

The canon was assembled and recognized as the word of God more than 1,000 years before Gutenberg.

---

All assembled (NT), recognized and written as the words of God 100's of years later by politically appointed men. Seems to me to be the words of men from the minds of men.

---

They were written 20 to 50 years after Christ's death, give or take a few years in some cases.

---

Only pieces and fragments of writings by unknown authors, except for some of Paul's letters, with no complete versions until late second century at best.

---

You say second century like it's a bad thing. The earliest copy of Julius Caesar doesn't appear until a thousand years after his death. By any ordinary standard, the NT is the most reliable set of ancient texts you're going to find. Why fear using the ordinary standard?

---

I don't think you can make the statement that they are the most reliable set of ancient texts. You don't know that, and even if you could make the statement they are more reliable than other texts, that doesn't translate to them being reliable.

---

I'm talking about reliable in terms of their authenticity. Whether you believe the faith claims is another issue (or at least it should be another issue). But if you don't believe the books are authentic, you don't believe in the study of history. That's not a very scientific position.

---

Authentic to what? If you are saying they are reliable as to what the original writer who first penned them wrote, then no, they cannot be by their very nature. If you are saying reliable to what actually happened in the story they are trying to relate, then no, they cannot be by their very nature. Are they reliable in the sense that an apocalyptic preacher named Jesus was wondering around with a band of followers preaching repentance, and who was crucified, then I think yes.

If you believe they are authentic in that they were dictated or inspired word for word, version by version, then that certainly is a faith claim and has no support in science. You have to view the books of the NT for what they are primarily theological treatises, as opposed to history texts.

---

They are authentic in that they are reliable copies of what the original writers put on paper (or papyrus). If they cannot be authentic by their very nature, then the past is unknowable and every historian should find another job.

As for what actually happened, there's no certain way to determine that from the text itself. It has to be evaluated in light of historical corroboration, credibility of the witnesses, and so on. In this sense, when you say the text is unreliable by its very nature, you're engaging in circular reasoning. You're demanding evidence of the supernatural and then rejecting it precisely because it is evidence of the supernatural.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There were hundred of manuscripts copied - each with a translation to the writers prerogative.
As I said in OP
"In fact, when the books of the bible were finally gathered together into one printable volume, starting with Johann Gutenberg back in the 1500's, publishing houses began to compete with one another. One of the sales points they used in pushing their particular product was to say, "Our bible is the word of God" (as opposed to what our competition is printing). As time went by people simply accepted that as fact, rather than understanding that the bible is simply words about God that the Church collected together and declared "sacred scripture," even though even the main branches of Christianity haven't even agreed upon a single list of books that should be included to this very day!"

---

The canon was assembled and recognized as the word of God more than 1,000 years before Gutenberg.

---

All assembled (NT), recognized and written as the words of God 100's of years later by politically appointed men. Seems to me to be the words of men from the minds of men.

---

They were written 20 to 50 years after Christ's death, give or take a few years in some cases.

---

Only pieces and fragments of writings by unknown authors, except for some of Paul's letters, with no complete versions until late second century at best.

---

You say second century like it's a bad thing. The earliest copy of Julius Caesar doesn't appear until a thousand years after his death. By any ordinary standard, the NT is the most reliable set of ancient texts you're going to find. Why fear using the ordinary standard?

---

I don't think you can make the statement that they are the most reliable set of ancient texts. You don't know that, and even if you could make the statement they are more reliable than other texts, that doesn't translate to them being reliable.

---

Yes actually, we can say the Scriptures are the most reliable, due to centuries of scrutiny from experts from every age. Only when rejection of religion became a popular assumption, replacing objective analysis, has the authenticity of Scripture ever been doubted.

In simple terms, Scripture has been tested and examined far more rigorously than any other ancient documents, from any time or place. It therefore has earned confidence as reliable on the strength of such examination.

---

It's through scrutiny and textual criticism their reliability is called into question. All you have is pieces and fragments of early copies until well over 100 years after the fact. And those fragments were not contemporaneous to the time they were writing about. It's not until years later that you have what's purported to be a complete copy of anything, and even those are not the same. They are copies of copies of copies etc.There are discrepancies, errors, omissions and additions. You even have other gospels and acts that are written, some of which almost made cannon. There is nothing reliable about who Jesus was or claimed to be other than possibly in broad generalities. This problem continues right on up to today, where you have the Book of Mormon claimed by some as reliable scripture.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There were hundred of manuscripts copied - each with a translation to the writers prerogative.
As I said in OP
"In fact, when the books of the bible were finally gathered together into one printable volume, starting with Johann Gutenberg back in the 1500's, publishing houses began to compete with one another. One of the sales points they used in pushing their particular product was to say, "Our bible is the word of God" (as opposed to what our competition is printing). As time went by people simply accepted that as fact, rather than understanding that the bible is simply words about God that the Church collected together and declared "sacred scripture," even though even the main branches of Christianity haven't even agreed upon a single list of books that should be included to this very day!"

---

The canon was assembled and recognized as the word of God more than 1,000 years before Gutenberg.

---

All assembled (NT), recognized and written as the words of God 100's of years later by politically appointed men. Seems to me to be the words of men from the minds of men.

---

They were written 20 to 50 years after Christ's death, give or take a few years in some cases.

---

Only pieces and fragments of writings by unknown authors, except for some of Paul's letters, with no complete versions until late second century at best.

---

You say second century like it's a bad thing. The earliest copy of Julius Caesar doesn't appear until a thousand years after his death. By any ordinary standard, the NT is the most reliable set of ancient texts you're going to find. Why fear using the ordinary standard?

---

I don't think you can make the statement that they are the most reliable set of ancient texts. You don't know that, and even if you could make the statement they are more reliable than other texts, that doesn't translate to them being reliable.

---

Yes actually, we can say the Scriptures are the most reliable, due to centuries of scrutiny from experts from every age. Only when rejection of religion became a popular assumption, replacing objective analysis, has the authenticity of Scripture ever been doubted.

In simple terms, Scripture has been tested and examined far more rigorously than any other ancient documents, from any time or place. It therefore has earned confidence as reliable on the strength of such examination.

---

It's through scrutiny and textual criticism their reliability is called into question. All you have is pieces and fragments of early copies until well over 100 years after the fact. And those fragments were not contemporaneous to the time they were writing about. It's not until years later that you have what's purported to be a complete copy of anything, and even those are not the same. They are copies of copies of copies etc.There are discrepancies, errors, omissions and additions. You even have other gospels and acts that are written, some of which almost made cannon. There is nothing reliable about who Jesus was or claimed to be other than possibly in broad generalities. This problem continues right on up to today, where you have the Book of Mormon claimed by some as reliable scripture.

---

It's amazing how different your standard for evidence is, when you refuse to accept more than a thousand years of it just because you don't want to accept it.

Lies, equivocation, denial, verging on hysteria.

Hypocrisy in a lab coat right there.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There were hundred of manuscripts copied - each with a translation to the writers prerogative.
As I said in OP
"In fact, when the books of the bible were finally gathered together into one printable volume, starting with Johann Gutenberg back in the 1500's, publishing houses began to compete with one another. One of the sales points they used in pushing their particular product was to say, "Our bible is the word of God" (as opposed to what our competition is printing). As time went by people simply accepted that as fact, rather than understanding that the bible is simply words about God that the Church collected together and declared "sacred scripture," even though even the main branches of Christianity haven't even agreed upon a single list of books that should be included to this very day!"

---

The canon was assembled and recognized as the word of God more than 1,000 years before Gutenberg.

---

All assembled (NT), recognized and written as the words of God 100's of years later by politically appointed men. Seems to me to be the words of men from the minds of men.

---

They were written 20 to 50 years after Christ's death, give or take a few years in some cases.

---

Only pieces and fragments of writings by unknown authors, except for some of Paul's letters, with no complete versions until late second century at best.

---

You say second century like it's a bad thing. The earliest copy of Julius Caesar doesn't appear until a thousand years after his death. By any ordinary standard, the NT is the most reliable set of ancient texts you're going to find. Why fear using the ordinary standard?

---

I don't think you can make the statement that they are the most reliable set of ancient texts. You don't know that, and even if you could make the statement they are more reliable than other texts, that doesn't translate to them being reliable.

---

Yes actually, we can say the Scriptures are the most reliable, due to centuries of scrutiny from experts from every age. Only when rejection of religion became a popular assumption, replacing objective analysis, has the authenticity of Scripture ever been doubted.

In simple terms, Scripture has been tested and examined far more rigorously than any other ancient documents, from any time or place. It therefore has earned confidence as reliable on the strength of such examination.

---

It's through scrutiny and textual criticism their reliability is called into question. All you have is pieces and fragments of early copies until well over 100 years after the fact. And those fragments were not contemporaneous to the time they were writing about. It's not until years later that you have what's purported to be a complete copy of anything, and even those are not the same. They are copies of copies of copies etc.There are discrepancies, errors, omissions and additions. You even have other gospels and acts that are written, some of which almost made cannon. There is nothing reliable about who Jesus was or claimed to be other than possibly in broad generalities. This problem continues right on up to today, where you have the Book of Mormon claimed by some as reliable scripture.

---

Are you joking? It is through textual criticism that the reliability of the New Testament is solidified! Textual criticism of the NT has revealed that about 99.5% of what we have as the NT today is textually pure, meaning it is the same as the earliest original manuscripts. If you doubt that what was recorded is what actually happened, then you are questioning its accuracy, not reliability. And you are basing that on assumption, not anything scientific, I might add.

Regarding the reliability of the NT:

Copies of the original manuscripts were not done in linear fashion, where one copy was made, then a copy of the copy, and so on. In this fashion, errors can be compounded, and the reliability would definitely suffer. But what we have with the NT, rather, is that copies of the original were made geometrically: from one original, 5 copies were made, then 5 copies of each of those 5 were made, etc.

Because of this, the amount of manuscript evidence for the NT dwarfs that of other ancient, historical texts, and so its textual criticism can be very rigorous and precise. There are over 5300 manuscripts of the NT, compared to the closest non-biblical ancient text, Homer's Illiad, which has only 647 existing copies. Also, to your point about the earliest biblical manuscripts being 100's of years after the fact- this is the closest compared to all other ancient texts. Caesar's Gallic Wars and Herodotus' History exist in only a handful of manuscripts that date over a 1000 years after the fact. Josephus and Tacitus survive in only a handful of manuscripts 500 years or so after the fact.

The results of NT textual criticism has revealed that only 2% of the New Testament manuscript evidence have discrepancies. And it is important to note, that most all of these errors are simple spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors. And even more importantly, NONE of the errors have any doctrinal significance.

So... we can most certainly say that the New Testament we have today is reliable.

"we can most certainly say that the New Testament we have today is reliable."

TS knows this. He simply cannot accept the message.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There were hundred of manuscripts copied - each with a translation to the writers prerogative.
As I said in OP
"In fact, when the books of the bible were finally gathered together into one printable volume, starting with Johann Gutenberg back in the 1500's, publishing houses began to compete with one another. One of the sales points they used in pushing their particular product was to say, "Our bible is the word of God" (as opposed to what our competition is printing). As time went by people simply accepted that as fact, rather than understanding that the bible is simply words about God that the Church collected together and declared "sacred scripture," even though even the main branches of Christianity haven't even agreed upon a single list of books that should be included to this very day!"

---

The canon was assembled and recognized as the word of God more than 1,000 years before Gutenberg.

---

All assembled (NT), recognized and written as the words of God 100's of years later by politically appointed men. Seems to me to be the words of men from the minds of men.

---

They were written 20 to 50 years after Christ's death, give or take a few years in some cases.

---

Only pieces and fragments of writings by unknown authors, except for some of Paul's letters, with no complete versions until late second century at best.

---

You say second century like it's a bad thing. The earliest copy of Julius Caesar doesn't appear until a thousand years after his death. By any ordinary standard, the NT is the most reliable set of ancient texts you're going to find. Why fear using the ordinary standard?

---

I don't think you can make the statement that they are the most reliable set of ancient texts. You don't know that, and even if you could make the statement they are more reliable than other texts, that doesn't translate to them being reliable.

---

I'm talking about reliable in terms of their authenticity. Whether you believe the faith claims is another issue (or at least it should be another issue). But if you don't believe the books are authentic, you don't believe in the study of history. That's not a very scientific position.

---

Authentic to what? If you are saying they are reliable as to what the original writer who first penned them wrote, then no, they cannot be by their very nature. If you are saying reliable to what actually happened in the story they are trying to relate, then no, they cannot be by their very nature. Are they reliable in the sense that an apocalyptic preacher named Jesus was wondering around with a band of followers preaching repentance, and who was crucified, then I think yes.

If you believe they are authentic in that they were dictated or inspired word for word, version by version, then that certainly is a faith claim and has no support in science. You have to view the books of the NT for what they are primarily theological treatises, as opposed to history texts.

---

This a coherent answer.
I don't think that there will be a Doctrinal Test at the pearly gates.
So I don't "have to or Must" believe anything except in the power and love Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

There were hundred of manuscripts copied - each with a translation to the writers prerogative.
As I said in OP
"In fact, when the books of the bible were finally gathered together into one printable volume, starting with Johann Gutenberg back in the 1500's, publishing houses began to compete with one another. One of the sales points they used in pushing their particular product was to say, "Our bible is the word of God" (as opposed to what our competition is printing). As time went by people simply accepted that as fact, rather than understanding that the bible is simply words about God that the Church collected together and declared "sacred scripture," even though even the main branches of Christianity haven't even agreed upon a single list of books that should be included to this very day!"

---

The canon was assembled and recognized as the word of God more than 1,000 years before Gutenberg.

---

All assembled (NT), recognized and written as the words of God 100's of years later by politically appointed men. Seems to me to be the words of men from the minds of men.

---

They were written 20 to 50 years after Christ's death, give or take a few years in some cases.

---

Only pieces and fragments of writings by unknown authors, except for some of Paul's letters, with no complete versions until late second century at best.

---

You say second century like it's a bad thing. The earliest copy of Julius Caesar doesn't appear until a thousand years after his death. By any ordinary standard, the NT is the most reliable set of ancient texts you're going to find. Why fear using the ordinary standard?

---

I don't think you can make the statement that they are the most reliable set of ancient texts. You don't know that, and even if you could make the statement they are more reliable than other texts, that doesn't translate to them being reliable.

---

I'm talking about reliable in terms of their authenticity. Whether you believe the faith claims is another issue (or at least it should be another issue). But if you don't believe the books are authentic, you don't believe in the study of history. That's not a very scientific position.

---

Authentic to what? If you are saying they are reliable as to what the original writer who first penned them wrote, then no, they cannot be by their very nature. If you are saying reliable to what actually happened in the story they are trying to relate, then no, they cannot be by their very nature. Are they reliable in the sense that an apocalyptic preacher named Jesus was wondering around with a band of followers preaching repentance, and who was crucified, then I think yes.

If you believe they are authentic in that they were dictated or inspired word for word, version by version, then that certainly is a faith claim and has no support in science. You have to view the books of the NT for what they are primarily theological treatises, as opposed to history texts.

---

This a coherent answer.
I don't think that there will be a Doctrinal Test at the pearly gates.
So I don't "have to or Must" believe anything except in the power and love Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior

---

Once again, Waco stands against God when making his choice.

Never forget that, the next time he tries to sell himself as a minister.

Waco1947 said:

---

So I don't "have to or Must" believe anything except in the power and love Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior

---

Do whatever damage you please and no consequences .

How convenient.