Thank you friend for defending the true word of God. Anyone that talks about the nature of mankind being the primary determinate of what went into the bible and what was left out, in my view, seem to minimize one important factor, the God Inspired part.

God inspired does not mean that God said, "I want you to put this in, and leave that out", necessarily. I could mean that over a period of time he shaped mans character, including their flaws, such that decisions would be made, even self-serving decisions, that ultimately resulted is his will be accomplished. A God that can form the universe in all it's wonder and complexity can certainly write, and direct the play of man to end the final act exactly where he intends it to end.

Scholars have dedicated their lives to studying these manuscripts and have developed rigorous methods to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the biblical text we have today.

Scholarship is controlled. Our modern day version (worldwide) was created and controlled by Rockefeller. Everything since the late 19th century has had to pass that filter. It is controlled by methods of funding. But much more important, it is controlled by methods of publishing. When you start investigating how things get published, you come to realize that all publishers have been controlled for forever. No one has a voice unless the PTB wish it. Thus all commentary that makes it "mainstream" in every stream (secular, Christian, Islam, Jewish, science, history, etc., etc.) must make it past the gatekeepers. Investigation further proves that there is only one gatekeeper, and there always has been.

You laud the similarities of the various ancient texts, but ignore the differences. If you watch the video I linked above, it talks about how the Johannine Comma was inserted through force, and was not in the original Greek texts. Other than those few verses (John 5:7-8), the entire concept of the Trinity has extremely weak support within the book we have. It does have support in Mithraism (the religion of Constantine and many other notable people of the period and region), but is completely absent in the teachings of Jesus. Without that verse, which substantial evidence suggests was inserted after the fact, it wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. Indeed, it wasn’t even a part of the doctrine until 383 AD. So yes, it was very much a “gradual” thing. I agree completely. Just because I name explicitly the 325AD event as momentous doesn’t mean I think there was nothing else that went on. What’s important is looking at the connections between events. When you look at the connections, and what was purposefully left out and/or silenced, the “organicness” of it comes into question.

Many of the books found in the NH had zero surviving copies (not counting previously displaced fragments) until they were dug up and dated to the fourth century, exactly the time when it became illegal, under penalty of death, to have such beliefs. Why is that? What happened to all the copies of say, the gospel of Mary, or Thomas, etc.. Were they all burned by the winning group who made all the rules? It's unlikely they were destroyed by the adherents. This lack of any other copies is very important evidence that is not included in the “scholarship” that is espoused by Christian apologists.

All of your arguments assume no fuckery in scholarship. On the contrary, there is nothing but evidence of control of scholarship. If the PTB want something to make it big, it gets promoted. If they don't, it gets silenced. Some things are just "obscure." Some things are lost for millennia (the DSS/NH). Some things are gone forever. We piece together history by looking at what evidence is available. We revise history based on what we want to be there. We ignore pieces of evidence as "irrelevant" if it doesn't make it to "consensus." We don't think to ask, "can consensus be created?" "Who said it wasn't relevant?"

If the scholarship agrees with our beliefs, we say, "look, everyone agrees." If it doesn't we generally ignore it. If we happen to dig deeper we find substantial evidence that the scholarship seems to have not addressed certain peices of evidence. Rather they too have relied on previous scholarship to have "figured it out." We trust in previous scholarship, assuming that it can't possibly have been controlled, even though all scholarship is controlled today.

When looking at history, there are a ton of very interesting bits that come up once you leave the mainstream. Have you investigated the Empire of Tartary for example? It is quite fascinating. As it turns out, it seems there was a concerted effort to remove Tartary from history.

As a place to begin that investigation, see Walter Kolartz, Russian and Her Colonies.,1952 (starts on page 31) where he writes about how the USSR finally eliminated all Tartarian culture and history through their alphabet revolutions.

For a specific statement on page 32 he says:

The Tartars, unlike many other peoples of Russia, produced a fairly strong merchant class which evolved a very outspoken nationalist ideology. The Tartar bourgeoisie and the Tartar intelligentsia, particularly since the 1905 revolution, considered pan-Turkism and pan-Islamism as their political ideals. After the October Revolution the Tartars felt confident that the time had come to revive in a new form the Tartar Khanate of kazan by the creation of a ‘Volga-Ural State’, or, as they themselves called it, the ‘Idel-Ural State’

It elaborates how the history of the Tartars was subsequently destroyed by burning all the Tartarian books, through the forced changing of the alphabet, and through forced “reeducation,” making any books that may have survived the purge unreadable by new generations.

From that point on, the Tartarians were wiped out of history, and thus their connection to the Scythians. There's more to it than that, because there is a lot of effort to ensure they remain disconnected and a "conspiracy theory," but it's a good start of the story.

The connection between the Scythians and the Tartarians is ubiquitous in history all the way up until the early 20th century. Looking at absolutely any historian prior to about 1850 or so, if you look up “Tartary” it says, “The Tartarians are the Scythians.”

For example, the 1773 Encyclopedia Britannica:

SCYTHIA, The northern parts of Europe and Asia were anciently so called, which afterwards obtained the name of Tartary.

Petes, History of Ghengizcan the Great, 1722, page 15 (and many other places in the book):

Of the Scythians or Tartars and the ancient Moguls...

Sir Walter Raleigh, History of the World, ~1560 (page 247):

Andronicus hired the Alani that dwelt along the coast of the Euxine Sea, against the Turks: These Alani being impatient of the slavery they were in under the Scythian Tartars, repair in great multitudes to Andronicus, for some new habitations within his Dominions

Denis Petau, The History of the World, or, An Account of Time, 1659 (page 760):

The first of the great Chams or Emperours of Tartarie was Cingis or Zingis in 1162, who subduing Uncham the last King of Tenduch and Cathaia, changed the name of Scythia into Tartaria:

There are numerous other references, both within the books here presented, and other books, that show that all the way up until the 20th century, everyone considered “Tartary” to be an Empire, a continuation of the Scythian Empire. Importantly the Scythians/Tartarians were multi-ethnic, as were all Empires of large enough size (such as Rome, which was a fraction of the size of the Empire of Scythia/Tartary). It is the multi-ethnic quality, which has been noted by pretty much every historian for three millennia that allows them to remain hidden today.

The Royal Scythians were the Ruling Aristocracy of the Scythians. Their form of government was very much a “Game of Thrones” type of thing, with various tribes (all the leaders of the tribes/Khanates were related, part of the same family, just like today) paying tribute to whoever was the biggest and strongest at the time. Every once in a while, a single “Khan of Khans” would arise, uniting all the various Khanates, and would go border expanding, getting large areas under their control. A couple examples of this border expansion (getting more Tributes) that you have probably heard of were Genghis Khan, and Attila the Hun, though there were several more. Of note, I think the “Bronze Age Collapse” (around 1200BC) was exactly such a Scythian border expansion event as well. There is a fair bit of evidence that supports that, but no one can make that connection, because the Scythians have been completely disconnected, and the Tartarians completely erased.

These Royal Scythians had blonde or red hair, and blue or green eyes. Not all Scythians/Tartarians had those phenotypes, but the Ruling Class did. You can track the Scythians through history, the same people doing the same thing in the same way in the same area of the world, by following these phenotypes in the Aristocratic leadership class (mummies in royal burial mounds, genetic samples, ancient writing, etc.), For example, history separates out the “Gokturks” as such a “not Scythians” group even though they were exactly that; the exact same people doing the exact same thing in the same way in the same area as the Scythians they "replaced" (according to official history) with an aristocratic leadership class with blond/red hair, and blue/green eyes. The term “Aryan” means “Iranian.” Iran was originally under the control of the Scythians (later called Parthia, which was just a Scythian Khanate, and eventually called Iran). The term Aryan comes from the Royal Scythians, the Nordic phenotype group that ruled the Iranian region way back in the day.

In other words, the Royal Scythians were the Aryan Race. I think that is why they have been removed from history. Not because they wanted to hide them out of loathing or contempt, but because the current leadership class of the world doesn’t want people to know their own heritage. That is speculative, but it fits all the evidence.

I have written up hundreds of pages on this and will publish it at some point. I use this instead of doing the same by questioning “biblical scholarship” because I think it is an easier sell. You don’t have any particular beliefs (presumably) tied to the Tartarians/Scythians. Odds are you’ve never even heard of them, or if you have, thought it was just a “crazy conspiracy theory” or “irrelevant ancient history.” As it turns out it is a conspiracy theory. There is evidence of all sorts of injections in the the “history of Tartary” by nefarious groups (likely the CIA), adding in things like “free energy” and “giants”, etc. specifically to keep people from looking at the actual historical evidence.

This is how the world works. This is how scholarship is controlled. We base our “truth” on scholarship. We love things that agree with our beliefs, and we ignore, or “force into compliance” those things that don’t. We don’t really dig in, allowing for any possibility to be true.

I personally don’t have any horse in this race. I don’t care what the truth is. I only care that I allow myself to look at all of the evidence in earnest. In the case of Christianity, I’ve been studying it for decades. First as a theologians son and adherent, then as a questioner (reforming my belief systems), then as a curious scholar (what does everyone else have to say), then, finally and only recently, as a person who has had a Black Swan event that was forced to look at the evidence without assumption of any truth, nor belief that what I’ve found that has been hidden is the truth, nor any need for any particular thing to fit “my truth,” because I don’t have one.

I suggest unless you can let go of a need for evidence to fit your beliefs, you can never be a true investigator. That’ doesn’t mean you need to forgo all biases. I suggest that is impossible. But if you can’t entertain that you may not already know the truth, you can’t possible see, or genuinely consider evidence to the contrary.

No, I just don't like to bring honor, or credit to myself. It's not about me.