I said.....

Christian teachings derive their richness from a tapestry of diverse sources, including an array of biblical manuscripts, early translations, and theological writings.

To which you aptly retort: "Prove it."

Okay. here's a brief defense for the statement:

1. Biblical Manuscripts: The richness of Christian teachings stems from various biblical manuscripts representing different textual traditions. For instance, comparing the Greek New Testament manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus with later versions, such as the Textus Receptus, reveals variations that contributed to different theological interpretations. This textual diversity allows for scholarly analysis and deeper understanding of the texts. Sources like "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman's "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" discuss the wealth of biblical manuscripts and textual variants.

2. Early Translations: The translation of biblical texts into various languages, such as the Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, or Coptic versions, brought diverse interpretations and theological nuances. These translations reflect cultural contexts, linguistic differences, and theological emphases of different Christian communities. Books like "The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions" by Bruce Metzger explore the significance of these translations in shaping Christian thought and practice.

3. Theological Writings: Beyond the canonical scriptures, early Christian theologians like Origen, Augustine, Irenaeus, and others produced a wide array of writings that contributed to the richness of Christian teachings. These writings include commentaries, theological treatises, and letters addressing theological controversies, doctrines, and interpretations of scripture. Sources like "The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction" edited by Hubertus R. Drobner cover the diverse theological insights of early Christian thinkers.

This evidence demonstrates that the richness of Christian teachings indeed arises from a mosaic of biblical manuscripts, translations, and theological writings that offer diverse perspectives, interpretations, and insights into the development of Christian thought. Hopefully that satisfies your request.

he oldest versions of texts known prior to the Latin Vulgate are, as you note, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. They were not available to scholars until more recently. They have been edited, and/or written over (a palimpsest, altering the original work at some point after their original creation) and yet still deviate in some very important ways from the Latin Vulgate in the new testament (notably Matthew and Mark regarding the resurrection story, and the self-proclaimed divinity of Jesus). More importantly perhaps, in these deviations the modern bible agrees with the Latin Vulgate, not the earlier works. So your suggestion that these works “changed the dogma” are not warranted in some very important pieces of evidence to the contrary. The Latin Vulgate itself deviates a fair bit from the modern bible, but the changes didn’t come from other period works, because there were no other period works that existed in the hands of the scholars (at least not provably so). They came from papal decree or other “scholarship” (as you yourself note) created from where ever it was created from (not older works) that changed the story over time. The oldest version of the Masoretic texts was first created in the 11th century, influenced by (or possibly even derived from) the Latin Vulgate (or the same source material for both works). In other words, at least by the timing of events, you have the listing backwards. The oldest Latin Vulgate is older than the oldest Masoretic texts. That is almost certainly why the Masoretic texts and modern bibles agree on certain key points where the Nag Hammadi and DSS disagree with both.

There are a few additional, historical and textual nuances to consider in addressing your claims:

1. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus: While these manuscripts, indeed among the oldest known, have variations from the Latin Vulgate in some sections, their discrepancies do not uniformly align with the Latin Vulgate. The differences are not solely in favor of the Latin Vulgate; rather, they present a complex picture of textual variations across different manuscripts. They contribute to the understanding of textual transmission and variations but don't unilaterally support the Latin Vulgate over other texts. Scholars like Bart Ehrman's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" discuss these manuscript variations.

2. Deviation in Resurrection Stories: Variations in the resurrection narratives aren't confined to comparisons between the Latin Vulgate and older manuscripts like Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These differences exist among various ancient manuscripts and textual traditions. The variations in biblical narratives have been studied extensively, contributing to the field of textual criticism.

3. Latin Vulgate's Influence: The Latin Vulgate indeed had significant influence, especially in Western Christianity. However, attributing all changes or discrepancies solely to the Latin Vulgate overlooks the complexity of textual transmission. The evolution of biblical texts involved various factors, including manuscript traditions, translation practices, theological influences, and textual interpolations or modifications across different regions and time periods.

4. Masoretic Texts: While the oldest complete Masoretic texts date to the Middle Ages, their textual basis has earlier roots. The Dead Sea Scrolls and other discoveries, such as the Nash Papyrus, showcase Hebrew biblical texts from earlier periods. The relationship between the Masoretic texts, Septuagint, and other ancient versions is a subject of ongoing scholarly discussion.

In essence, the history of biblical texts involves a complex interplay of manuscripts, translations, textual variations, and scholarly traditions. The relationship between different versions isn't a straightforward progression, and attributing all changes to a linear influence from one source overlooks the intricate nature of textual transmission and development. Multiple factors contributed to the formation of biblical texts as we know them today.

The creeds are continual restatements of beliefs designed specifically to align thought with the dictates of the Church. (Of note: In any other system, such repetition of beliefs is called brainwashing). The creeds were created specifically to be aligned with Roman Law (see the Codex Theodosianus). The creeds, repeated weekly, biweekly, or monthly (depending on sect) are a restatement of those laws, designed to end debate on things like “the divinity of Jesus” (as it is currently understood within the Traditional Christian Teachings) the “trinity” (which wasn’t actually dogma until 383 AD), etc.. These things were made into law to end the huge amount of debate that was occurring, specifically to unite the Roman Empire, as previously stated. THAT is where the creeds come from. THAT was the purpose of the scholarship at the time. I suggest that that is also why there is some very important disagreements between what we have today, and what we have found in older works, found recently (relatively speaking).

There are several onion layers to address in these claims:

1. Creeds as Brainwashing: The analogy between creeds and brainwashing oversimplifies (term of the day!) the purpose and function of creeds within religious contexts. Creeds were formulated to articulate essential beliefs and doctrines, fostering unity and providing clarity amidst theological debates. While they were used to define orthodoxy, calling this brainwashing overlooks their historical, theological, and communal significance.

2. Alignment with Roman Law: The connection between creeds and Roman law, particularly the Codex Theodosianus, is complex. While the codex reflected Christian influence in later Roman law, the specific influence of creeds on legal texts like the Theodosian Code is not straightforward. The codex addressed various aspects of Roman life, including religion, but it's not solely a reflection of creeds or religious dogma.

3. Purpose of Creeds in Ending Debate: Creeds indeed aimed to provide doctrinal formulations to resolve theological disputes. However, attributing their formulation solely to ending debates for political unity overlooks their theological intent in defining essential Christian beliefs. The Councils that produced creeds, like the Nicene Creed, aimed to articulate beliefs that Christians held as foundational rather than solely serving political unification.

4. Disagreements between Ancient and Modern Works: Variations between older manuscripts or works and contemporary versions of creeds or doctrines exist. However, these differences don't always indicate a deliberate effort to control thought or align with political agendas. Textual variations arise from a complex history of manuscript transmission, translation, theological interpretation, and cultural contexts across centuries.

In summary, while there are correlations between creeds and historical contexts, attributing the creation of creeds solely to political unity or "brainwashing" oversimplifies their significance in articulating foundational beliefs and fostering doctrinal unity within Christianity. The complexities of historical, cultural, and theological factors influence the development and transmission of creeds and religious doctrines.