The only way to make this statement, and for it to be true, is to know what the original writings said in order to know that "they've been changed." Thus becoming a self defeating statement.
I have provided substantial evidence below and you have addressed neither evidence nor the critical questions I asked. Instead you have called it "emotional diatribe" without addressing a single thing I said.
If you wish to have a dialog, or indeed, in any way provide support for your claim, you need to address the arguments given instead of ignore them or dismiss them as "irrelevant." Specific criticismscan't be irrelevant. They can only be addressed or ignored. You have chosen the latter. This does not well support your position.
Slyver, your shotgun approach to debate just isn’t conducive to a forum discussion. You have a hard time staying on topic and love to shotgun a million other links and videos in hopes your opponent gets lost.
Your task at hand is to articulate a counter argument for why the New Testament documents are not superior in both number of manuscripts and time gap between autograph and first copy.
Stay on task. No video links or someone else’s articles. Your own thoughts. Go!
AGAIN you have not addressed a single thing I said. Instead you employ ad hominem AGAIN.
Your task at hand is to articulate a counter argument for why the New Testament documents are not superior in both number of manuscripts and time gap between autograph and first copy.
No, that is not my task, and I suggest that is moving the goal posts by leaving out the OT for which I gave specific evidence of mistranslation. Nevertheless, my task is to counter the statement:
The Biblical writings have been preserved throughout the millennia
The Bibilical writings have NOT been preserved. On the contrary, most of them have been left out of the official "Bible". This is just one of the arguments I addressed, because I also was addressing what this implies.
It implies that "because the official version hasn't changed (since the ecumenical council (which is also not true btw)), that means it's divinely supported." It also implies that the tenets extracted from the official version are "true," even though what is left out tells a completely different story.
For the first, that is only one possible interpretation. It could ALSO mean that there is an agency that intends for the official version not to change, because they created it to control beliefs, and steer them in the wrong direction. I am ALSO showing evidence to support a counter argument to that implication of your claim.
For the second, I suggest the story that all of the evidence suggests is something very different than what is gleaned from the "official version."
I await your ADDRESS of my SPECIFIC criticisms that support my counter argument.
66 books, or 73. Pick your translation. They all say pretty much the same thing, and leave out a whole bunch, not to mention inconsistencies and controversial (and conflicting) translations (in the OT).
Of course the authorship of quite a few books that made it into the NT are somewhat controversial. Revelations is particularly problematic, but most of the controversial translations are in the OT. Since that seems to be what you want to focus on (though I'm not really sure why), I will concede that NT authorship and translation (in the official version) is mostly corroborated in ancient texts.
The Vatican is the most evil organization on earth and anyone on the forum that can’t address the fact that this the body that invented doctrinal Christian faith is still in denial.
Most people admit this. They all say it was taken over a few hundred years ago (Jesuits). I try to show them evidence it was taken over in the beginning and they scream bloody murder. It's kinda fascinating really.
By "Catholicism" I mean the whole thing, including The Church that existed before it split into the Catholic and Orthodox churches. I mean all of what we call "Christianity" today. The tenets that came out of the Reformation are identical to the previous Catholic tenets in the ones that matter (Trinity, separation from Source, the Bible is Divine, complete and completely true, etc.)
Yes. Exactly. Most of my investigation has been into various agencies and methods of controlled opposition. Paul absolutely screams controlled opposition. He is explicitly stated as having been a high level agent of the opposition, but he had a "change of heart." It's just like being an "ex-CIA agent whistleblower," you get out ahead of the story. It was he, through his works, who created almost all of Christian doctrine, more so than Jesus did in his words (quotes). The Christian doctrine we got comes far more from everything after the gospels and/or the rhetoric of the gospels, the narrative overlay, instead of the message contained in the quotes. If you just look at what Jesus said (as much of it as you can find), it tells a very different message.
Yes, I am just shy of convinced that Paul was an agent of the Cabal. A PR agent who sold us the Hierarchy, and a separated Source (the opposite of Jesus' message) by which The Church could later rule humanity for millennia.
I have provided substantial evidence below and you have addressed neither evidence nor the critical questions I asked. Instead you have called it "emotional diatribe" without addressing a single thing I said.
If you wish to have a dialog, or indeed, in any way provide support for your claim, you need to address the arguments given instead of ignore them or dismiss them as "irrelevant." Specific criticisms can't be irrelevant. They can only be addressed or ignored. You have chosen the latter. This does not well support your position.
Slyver, your shotgun approach to debate just isn’t conducive to a forum discussion. You have a hard time staying on topic and love to shotgun a million other links and videos in hopes your opponent gets lost.
Your task at hand is to articulate a counter argument for why the New Testament documents are not superior in both number of manuscripts and time gap between autograph and first copy.
Stay on task. No video links or someone else’s articles. Your own thoughts. Go!
AGAIN you have not addressed a single thing I said. Instead you employ ad hominem AGAIN.
No, that is not my task, and I suggest that is moving the goal posts by leaving out the OT for which I gave specific evidence of mistranslation. Nevertheless, my task is to counter the statement:
The Bibilical writings have NOT been preserved. On the contrary, most of them have been left out of the official "Bible". This is just one of the arguments I addressed, because I also was addressing what this implies.
It implies that "because the official version hasn't changed (since the ecumenical council (which is also not true btw)), that means it's divinely supported." It also implies that the tenets extracted from the official version are "true," even though what is left out tells a completely different story.
For the first, that is only one possible interpretation. It could ALSO mean that there is an agency that intends for the official version not to change, because they created it to control beliefs, and steer them in the wrong direction. I am ALSO showing evidence to support a counter argument to that implication of your claim.
For the second, I suggest the story that all of the evidence suggests is something very different than what is gleaned from the "official version."
I await your ADDRESS of my SPECIFIC criticisms that support my counter argument.
Slyver, can you please define what you mean when you say the “official version?”
66 books, or 73. Pick your translation. They all say pretty much the same thing, and leave out a whole bunch, not to mention inconsistencies and controversial (and conflicting) translations (in the OT).
Of course the authorship of quite a few books that made it into the NT are somewhat controversial. Revelations is particularly problematic, but most of the controversial translations are in the OT. Since that seems to be what you want to focus on (though I'm not really sure why), I will concede that NT authorship and translation (in the official version) is mostly corroborated in ancient texts.
Most people admit this. They all say it was taken over a few hundred years ago (Jesuits). I try to show them evidence it was taken over in the beginning and they scream bloody murder. It's kinda fascinating really.
You are correct that Catholicism was taken over from the beginning.
By "Catholicism" I mean the whole thing, including The Church that existed before it split into the Catholic and Orthodox churches. I mean all of what we call "Christianity" today. The tenets that came out of the Reformation are identical to the previous Catholic tenets in the ones that matter (Trinity, separation from Source, the Bible is Divine, complete and completely true, etc.)
Yes. Exactly. Most of my investigation has been into various agencies and methods of controlled opposition. Paul absolutely screams controlled opposition. He is explicitly stated as having been a high level agent of the opposition, but he had a "change of heart." It's just like being an "ex-CIA agent whistleblower," you get out ahead of the story. It was he, through his works, who created almost all of Christian doctrine, more so than Jesus did in his words (quotes). The Christian doctrine we got comes far more from everything after the gospels and/or the rhetoric of the gospels, the narrative overlay, instead of the message contained in the quotes. If you just look at what Jesus said (as much of it as you can find), it tells a very different message.
Yes, I am just shy of convinced that Paul was an agent of the Cabal. A PR agent who sold us the Hierarchy, and a separated Source (the opposite of Jesus' message) by which The Church could later rule humanity for millennia.