is not supported by the extensive manuscript evidence and quotations from early church fathers.
Contained within this statement are the following assumptions:
Every single one of the creators of the resultant doctrine was acting in earnest without any ulterior motives but The Truth.
The result of their efforts is The Truth, i.e., the assumption is that they got it all correct (regardless of intent)
The people who came to different conclusions than the "Church Fathers," of which there were many, were absolutely incorrect wherever they disagreed with said "Church Fathers"
That all records of what the people had to say of importance still exist today.
There are some criticisms of these assumptions:
There is substantial evidence of ulterior motives in The Church that was created as a result of their efforts .For example, the design of The Church at the end (which we call the Catholic Church today) was to control the populace and unite the Roman Empire under a god-emperor. This end result doesn't prove ulterior motives for all people through all time during the entire creation of the resultant doctrine, but it does show that ulterior motives exist for some of the people involved. There are more examples than this.
There is no way to know what the Truth is, but it is taken "on faith" that what these people created represents that Truth, even though that much was left out is not controversial. The justification for the removal of certain works is that the Church Fathers believed that evidence belonged in "the bad box." So here we rely on their assessment as "experts," not our own investigation or consideration.
Like 2, this relies on faith in the same people, not on the process of reason. Those that disagreed were silenced by the Church Fathers "expertise" and "correctness." They were also silenced by provable destruction of their work, by laws and on penalty of death.
Four is easily shown false. We have no doubts that many writings were destroyed. It is commonly justified similarly to the other assumptions, that they had good reason to destroy the "heresy." There are likely entire categories of things destroyed by The Church of which we will never know. The Vatican is notorious for control of all information regarding these things. We rely on the information we have. We know that information is controlled and has been destroyed by the same entity that gave us the bulk of today's official doctrine. This is important information in any effort to reason the truth about this development.
inconsistent with the robust historical evidence we possess.
Two things:
This suggests you have seen enough of the evidence to glean the truth, yet you have admitted that some evidence isn't worth consideration because it has been placed in "the bad box" (Gnostic e.g.).
This assumes that enough of the evidence has survived the purge that we know happened to make reasonable determinations.
Your entire argument rests on "we have enough provable history that the conclusions must be correct." This argument is provably false for certain other broadly adopted conclusions (The Empire of Scythia/Tartary e.g.), yet you assume it can't be false for this one.
Consider what Bart Ehrman (an Agnostic American scholar of religious studies, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a Textual Critic, and an author of several books on the New Testament and early Christianity - and Critic of Christianity) said regarding the accuracy of our modern biblical text:
"Essentially, most of the changes found in the manuscripts discovered in the last century affect words or phrases alone; only about one per cent involve substantial differences in meaning. Many of these are easily recognized and corrected."
"In fact, most of the changes found in the manuscripts discovered in the last hundred years affect words or phrases alone. Many of these variants are so minor that they have no impact whatsoever on the meaning of the text."
"The essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament."
These quotes are from Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why."
What is this intended to be evidence of? None of this addresses a single thing I said, indeed, it is a restatement of the same assumptions.
Also, the post you are responding to had some formatting errors which erased some of the points. I fixed them if you want to see what I actually said, though I don't think you are reading what I'm saying in full since you aren't addressing what I'm saying directly, so it may not matter.
I am reading your posts, Slyver. Im responding to the specific point the first commenter is making while responding to you in general.
The example of Bart Ehrman presents an intriguing perspective, particularly given your cautious approach to historical narratives and the history of the Bible.
Ehrman, renowned as both a textual scholar and a critic of Christianity, reaches the conclusion that our modern Biblical text is fundamentally accurate, despite variations and changes over time. His unique position underscores the credibility of his assessment, as he lacks any motivation to deceive or misrepresent the truth regarding the transmission of the Bible.
Ehrman's dual role as a scholar and a critic adds depth to his analysis and underscores the robustness of his conclusions about the reliability of the biblical text.
His unique position underscores the credibility of his assessment
I suggest this doesn't understand the ubiquitousness of controlled opposition. A "contrary view" that agrees with a narrative does not indicate truth and indeed is a provable ploy used often by the Cabal to create beliefs. You may not believe that, or think I am being paranoid, but I have found it literally everywhere. If you read my report you can begin to get a picture of what that looks like on the world stage.
With respect to Mr. Ehrman, I am not calling him controlled opposition. I have heard some of what he has to say in the past, but I have not investigated him. The reason I have not investigated him is because I do not disagree with the statement that the Bible we have is largely the same as the Bible that existed around the time of the creation of The Church. There are very important exceptions to that (Deut. 32:8 e.g.), but by and large it is the same in what's still there. My argument has nothing to do with that. My argument, as I have stated numerous times is that history has been rewritten by leaving relevant facts out. I have noted that the leaving out is what drives the majority of revision in history, not actual lies (though those exist too, and there is evidence of that in the bible).
It is undeniable that the Bible has been rewritten by leaving out parts. The original bible that was "official" in 400 AD had ten more books than the one that exists today for example. What was encouraged scripture for many in the centuries after the life of Jesus but before the creation of The Church had numerous other works that was later forbidden. You rely exclusively on what the "Church Fathers" have allowed, despite the fact that some of them had provable conflicts of interest, and questionable methods of silencing the opposition (penalty by death e.g.). You ignore those facts because "there is so much evidence in support." But those facts are evidence against.
Just think about it for one moment. Your argument "against" is not in addressing the facts against, but in labelling them as not relevant because the Church Fathers said so, and in the amount of evidence "for," even though it is undeniable that the Church Fathers destroyed much of the evidence against. Indeed, it isn't even a question that they tried to destroy it all, and they had access to the full powers of the Roman Empire, so they did a fairly good job of it.
Your argument relies on "experts" with provable conflicts of interest, and "the amount of evidence for," even though the experts destroyed all of the evidence against.
This is not a sound argument, rather it shows exactly the fuckery I am trying to point out that should create reasonable doubts in any investigator acting in earnest.
Since you thought I wasn't being thorough enough in my previous response, I'll take another stab:
Ulterior Motives: While I think it's valid to acknowledge the potential influence of various motives among historical actors, it's important not to generalize these motives across all individuals involved in the transmission and canonization of biblical texts. While some may have had ulterior motives, it doesn't negate the sincerity and integrity of others who genuinely sought to preserve and transmit the teachings they believed to be true.
The existence of diverse motives does not invalidate the textual integrity of the Bible, especially when corroborated by extensive manuscript evidence and early citations.
Assumption of Absolute Truth: You rightly point out the complexities involved in determining absolute truth, yet this acknowledgment applies to all historical inquiry, not solely to the formation of biblical canon.
However, the process of canonization involved rigorous criteria aimed at preserving texts considered to be authoritative and divinely inspired. The consistency and coherence of the biblical narrative across multiple manuscripts and early citations provide compelling evidence for the reliability of its core teachings.
Silencing Dissent: While dissenting voices existed within early Christianity, the canonical process was not solely a matter of suppressing alternative viewpoints. Instead, it involved discerning which writings were most widely accepted, consistent with apostolic tradition, and in harmony with orthodox beliefs.
The inclusion of diverse perspectives within the New Testament, such as the Synoptic Gospels and Pauline Epistles, demonstrates a degree of theological diversity within early Christianity while maintaining essential doctrinal unity.
Selective Preservation of Evidence: While it's true that the historical record reflects selective preservation and occasional destruction of texts, it's essential to consider the robustness of manuscript evidence and early citations supporting the biblical texts.
The vast number of extant manuscripts, spanning diverse geographical regions and dating back to antiquity, attests to the widespread transmission and preservation of biblical writings. The consistent textual fidelity across these manuscripts provides strong support for the reliability and authenticity of the biblical text.
In summary, while acknowledging the complexities and challenges of historical inquiry, as you aptly do - including potential biases and motives among historical actors, it's crucial to approach the study of biblical texts with a balanced and critical perspective. The wealth of manuscript evidence, early citations, and textual consistency supports the authenticity and reliability of the biblical texts, affirming their status as authoritative sources for understanding the Christian faith.
While some may have had ulterior motives, it doesn't negate the sincerity and integrity of others who genuinely sought to preserve and transmit the teachings they believed to be true.
In today's world, the narrative is controlled by controlling just a few people at the top. The vast majority that do the actual pushing of the narrative fall into the category that I call "True Believers." This can be seen in any company, where the ultimate authority lies in the board of directors. The secondary authority is in the CEO. Everyone under that group doesn't have to be compromised at all to be compromised in their actions and beliefs. These True Believers have absolutely no idea of the controlling narrative or that the people in charge of the company have ulterior motives.
If there is a single corporation in the world (Megacorp), and a single board of directors that runs it (Megaboard), as my report shows quite well, then to compromise the output of the entire worlds economy, this control structure only needs to be compromised (in the "I know I'm compromised sense") in the single Board of Directors (Megaboard) that controls the entire world wide Megacorp, and maybe (though not necessarily) the various CEO's.
This structure and evidence of compromise, this same pattern of control can be found everywhere in history. It is just one more piece of evidence that suggests that "all" of history is compromised, and the results of events are not as organic as they appear. There are many other repeated patterns that can be found, but first you have to understand the nature and details of those patterns. That is why I wrote my report in the first place. It wasn't to show the fuckery of today, but to show how that fuckery works itself out. To show the patterns, and the Aristocracy that keeps using that same Con Pattern System to control the narrative and beliefs going back in history.
the process of canonization involved rigorous criteria aimed at preserving texts considered to be authoritative and divinely inspired.
The process of all consensus beliefs follows this same pattern. It is in the preservation of only those facts that they want people to see, and the removal of those facts that say something different. On top of that process is the addition of minimal extra stuff to drive a specific narrative (like the changing of Deut 32:8, the addition of the Johannine Comma, etc.). This allows someone to accurately say "99%+ of all texts are consistent throughout time" as "proof" of their beliefs. Because my research suggests that the fuckery doesn't lie there; because my research strongly supports the assertion that the truth is contained in the relevant context that has been left out, and the small number of changes, I'm far more interested in the <1% that is different, and the huge amount that has been removed entirely.
While dissenting voices existed within early Christianity, the canonical process was not solely a matter of suppressing alternative viewpoints. Instead, it involved discerning which writings were most widely accepted, consistent with apostolic tradition, and in harmony with orthodox beliefs.
This contains the following assumptions:
That the suppression of alternative viewpoints does not have a meaningful impact on Truth
That the most widely accepted beliefs are Truth (consensus can't be forced, but is organic and aligned with Truth).
The problems with (1) are obvious. The suppression of alternative viewpoints has been undeniably the path by which a false reality is created.
The problems with (2) are also obvious. Consensus can trivially be created when you are the entity in control of information. That is seen all over the place in our modern day. The reason that false consensus beliefs can be found all over the place is because it is provable that a single entity controls the information (or did). There are all of the necessary signs that indicate the same in regards to the creation of "Orthodox Christian beliefs." These signs (even explicit statements) of this do not prove that the resultant beliefs are false, but it absolutely falls into the same pattern that you see in all other creations of false beliefs, and thus is strong evidence that supports that conclusion.
While it's true that the historical record reflects selective preservation and occasional destruction of texts, it's essential to consider the robustness of manuscript evidence and early citations supporting the biblical texts.
I suggest it isn't nearly so robust as you suggest. There are problems with it. There are noted editions or alterations put in that support changing narratives, even though the majority is the same. There are noted removals of entire books done specifically because they clashed with the beliefs of the victors of the war.
One specific example, as evidence of this "robustness" you cited the Patrician citations as proof of the accuracy of the resultant beliefs. There are some serious issues with that assessment (from Bart Ehrman). To cut to the chase, he says:
But here are insurmountable problems with saying that we could reconstruct the entire New Testament just from the Patristic citations:
I should stress that Origen himself is highly exceptional. He quoted lots and lots of the NT and we have tons of writings from him. So yes, we could do what we did with his quotations of John.
But we could do this because we ourselves have a Greek Gospel of John that we can compare Origen’s writings to. In other words, if we didn’t have a Greek text of John before us, in many places we would’t know that what Origien was writing actually was a quotation of John. Church fathers usually don’t say things like, “As is found in the Gospel of John”; they say something like “As we know from Scripture” or “As the Lord once said” or they just quote something without even telling us they’re quoting it.
I’m not sure if I’m explaining the problem well. But if you read a newspaper article that says, something like “As we all know, you must be born again to inherit the kingdom above” – there would be nothing in the sentence to make you think, “Oh, this author is quoting John 3:3.”
To use the quotation to see if it is an accurate quotation of John 3:3, you have to actually have a copy of the Bible with John 3:3 in it. Without that Bible, you can’t reconstruct that verse of the Bible. See what I mean? You wouldn’t know it was John 3:3 – or even from the Gospel of John, or even from the Bible.
Relatedly, the church fathers never cited passages by chapter and verse, because they didn’t have chapters and verses. So if you have a church father like Tertullian, say, who quotes the Gospels a lot, you would certainly have his quotations, and maybe most of the time (?) you could figure out they were quotations of the Gospels, but you usually would have no way of knowing how the quotations were to be arranged, in what sequence, from beginning to end.
Let me illustrate the problem. Imagine you decided to cut up a Charles Dickens novel with scissors, cutting out whole sentences sometimes (never more than two or three at once), but far more often just clauses or phrases. You then shuffle together the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of scraps you have, and then you try to figure out how to arrange them to create the novel. You could do it if you already have the novel to compare the scraps to, but you couldn’t do it (or at least know that you had done it right) if you did not have the novel. So without the novel, you couldn’t reconstruct the novel.
And what if you didn’t cut these scraps from a single book, but from hundreds of different copies of the novel, and each of the copies you used was different from each other?
That’s what we have with the patristic citations. The church fathers all quote the passages of the New Testament in different ways – either because their own manuscripts of it differed from one another, or because they were quoting it from memory and got a few words wrong (as people always do; and the church fathers absolutely did – no question about that one! Origen himself would quote the same verse in many different ways!), or because they were adjusting the quotation to the context of what they were talking about. If you’re alert, you will have noticed I did that very thing when I quoted John 3:3 above. It is not actually an accurate citation.
One of the main problem he notes s, in many cases, "what exactly is a quote?" He elaborates that well I think, but what he doesn't address is that it is entirely possible that these people were quoting works of the bible that have been removed. How would we know if those works have been destroyed? How would we know since they aren't necessarily quoting it exactly as it is written, nor are they citing it, etc.:
This reconstruction looks preferentially for what we have, and doesn't look at what disagrees with dogma or The Book. Relying on it as solid evidence in support requires ignoring these facts. Suggesting that it represents a continuance through time also ignores these facts, and the criticisms of the very people who have worked on that reconstruction.
Contained within this statement are the following assumptions:
There are some criticisms of these assumptions:
Two things:
Your entire argument rests on "we have enough provable history that the conclusions must be correct." This argument is provably false for certain other broadly adopted conclusions (The Empire of Scythia/Tartary e.g.), yet you assume it can't be false for this one.
Consider what Bart Ehrman (an Agnostic American scholar of religious studies, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a Textual Critic, and an author of several books on the New Testament and early Christianity - and Critic of Christianity) said regarding the accuracy of our modern biblical text:
These quotes are from Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why."
What is this intended to be evidence of? None of this addresses a single thing I said, indeed, it is a restatement of the same assumptions.
Also, the post you are responding to had some formatting errors which erased some of the points. I fixed them if you want to see what I actually said, though I don't think you are reading what I'm saying in full since you aren't addressing what I'm saying directly, so it may not matter.
I am reading your posts, Slyver. Im responding to the specific point the first commenter is making while responding to you in general.
The example of Bart Ehrman presents an intriguing perspective, particularly given your cautious approach to historical narratives and the history of the Bible.
Ehrman, renowned as both a textual scholar and a critic of Christianity, reaches the conclusion that our modern Biblical text is fundamentally accurate, despite variations and changes over time. His unique position underscores the credibility of his assessment, as he lacks any motivation to deceive or misrepresent the truth regarding the transmission of the Bible.
Ehrman's dual role as a scholar and a critic adds depth to his analysis and underscores the robustness of his conclusions about the reliability of the biblical text.
I suggest this doesn't understand the ubiquitousness of controlled opposition. A "contrary view" that agrees with a narrative does not indicate truth and indeed is a provable ploy used often by the Cabal to create beliefs. You may not believe that, or think I am being paranoid, but I have found it literally everywhere. If you read my report you can begin to get a picture of what that looks like on the world stage.
With respect to Mr. Ehrman, I am not calling him controlled opposition. I have heard some of what he has to say in the past, but I have not investigated him. The reason I have not investigated him is because I do not disagree with the statement that the Bible we have is largely the same as the Bible that existed around the time of the creation of The Church. There are very important exceptions to that (Deut. 32:8 e.g.), but by and large it is the same in what's still there. My argument has nothing to do with that. My argument, as I have stated numerous times is that history has been rewritten by leaving relevant facts out. I have noted that the leaving out is what drives the majority of revision in history, not actual lies (though those exist too, and there is evidence of that in the bible).
It is undeniable that the Bible has been rewritten by leaving out parts. The original bible that was "official" in 400 AD had ten more books than the one that exists today for example. What was encouraged scripture for many in the centuries after the life of Jesus but before the creation of The Church had numerous other works that was later forbidden. You rely exclusively on what the "Church Fathers" have allowed, despite the fact that some of them had provable conflicts of interest, and questionable methods of silencing the opposition (penalty by death e.g.). You ignore those facts because "there is so much evidence in support." But those facts are evidence against.
Just think about it for one moment. Your argument "against" is not in addressing the facts against, but in labelling them as not relevant because the Church Fathers said so, and in the amount of evidence "for," even though it is undeniable that the Church Fathers destroyed much of the evidence against. Indeed, it isn't even a question that they tried to destroy it all, and they had access to the full powers of the Roman Empire, so they did a fairly good job of it.
Your argument relies on "experts" with provable conflicts of interest, and "the amount of evidence for," even though the experts destroyed all of the evidence against.
This is not a sound argument, rather it shows exactly the fuckery I am trying to point out that should create reasonable doubts in any investigator acting in earnest.
Since you thought I wasn't being thorough enough in my previous response, I'll take another stab:
The existence of diverse motives does not invalidate the textual integrity of the Bible, especially when corroborated by extensive manuscript evidence and early citations.
However, the process of canonization involved rigorous criteria aimed at preserving texts considered to be authoritative and divinely inspired. The consistency and coherence of the biblical narrative across multiple manuscripts and early citations provide compelling evidence for the reliability of its core teachings.
The inclusion of diverse perspectives within the New Testament, such as the Synoptic Gospels and Pauline Epistles, demonstrates a degree of theological diversity within early Christianity while maintaining essential doctrinal unity.
The vast number of extant manuscripts, spanning diverse geographical regions and dating back to antiquity, attests to the widespread transmission and preservation of biblical writings. The consistent textual fidelity across these manuscripts provides strong support for the reliability and authenticity of the biblical text.
In summary, while acknowledging the complexities and challenges of historical inquiry, as you aptly do - including potential biases and motives among historical actors, it's crucial to approach the study of biblical texts with a balanced and critical perspective. The wealth of manuscript evidence, early citations, and textual consistency supports the authenticity and reliability of the biblical texts, affirming their status as authoritative sources for understanding the Christian faith.
In today's world, the narrative is controlled by controlling just a few people at the top. The vast majority that do the actual pushing of the narrative fall into the category that I call "True Believers." This can be seen in any company, where the ultimate authority lies in the board of directors. The secondary authority is in the CEO. Everyone under that group doesn't have to be compromised at all to be compromised in their actions and beliefs. These True Believers have absolutely no idea of the controlling narrative or that the people in charge of the company have ulterior motives.
If there is a single corporation in the world (Megacorp), and a single board of directors that runs it (Megaboard), as my report shows quite well, then to compromise the output of the entire worlds economy, this control structure only needs to be compromised (in the "I know I'm compromised sense") in the single Board of Directors (Megaboard) that controls the entire world wide Megacorp, and maybe (though not necessarily) the various CEO's.
This structure and evidence of compromise, this same pattern of control can be found everywhere in history. It is just one more piece of evidence that suggests that "all" of history is compromised, and the results of events are not as organic as they appear. There are many other repeated patterns that can be found, but first you have to understand the nature and details of those patterns. That is why I wrote my report in the first place. It wasn't to show the fuckery of today, but to show how that fuckery works itself out. To show the patterns, and the Aristocracy that keeps using that same Con Pattern System to control the narrative and beliefs going back in history.
The process of all consensus beliefs follows this same pattern. It is in the preservation of only those facts that they want people to see, and the removal of those facts that say something different. On top of that process is the addition of minimal extra stuff to drive a specific narrative (like the changing of Deut 32:8, the addition of the Johannine Comma, etc.). This allows someone to accurately say "99%+ of all texts are consistent throughout time" as "proof" of their beliefs. Because my research suggests that the fuckery doesn't lie there; because my research strongly supports the assertion that the truth is contained in the relevant context that has been left out, and the small number of changes, I'm far more interested in the <1% that is different, and the huge amount that has been removed entirely.
This contains the following assumptions:
The problems with (1) are obvious. The suppression of alternative viewpoints has been undeniably the path by which a false reality is created.
The problems with (2) are also obvious. Consensus can trivially be created when you are the entity in control of information. That is seen all over the place in our modern day. The reason that false consensus beliefs can be found all over the place is because it is provable that a single entity controls the information (or did). There are all of the necessary signs that indicate the same in regards to the creation of "Orthodox Christian beliefs." These signs (even explicit statements) of this do not prove that the resultant beliefs are false, but it absolutely falls into the same pattern that you see in all other creations of false beliefs, and thus is strong evidence that supports that conclusion.
I suggest it isn't nearly so robust as you suggest. There are problems with it. There are noted editions or alterations put in that support changing narratives, even though the majority is the same. There are noted removals of entire books done specifically because they clashed with the beliefs of the victors of the war.
One specific example, as evidence of this "robustness" you cited the Patrician citations as proof of the accuracy of the resultant beliefs. There are some serious issues with that assessment (from Bart Ehrman). To cut to the chase, he says:
One of the main problem he notes s, in many cases, "what exactly is a quote?" He elaborates that well I think, but what he doesn't address is that it is entirely possible that these people were quoting works of the bible that have been removed. How would we know if those works have been destroyed? How would we know since they aren't necessarily quoting it exactly as it is written, nor are they citing it, etc.:
This reconstruction looks preferentially for what we have, and doesn't look at what disagrees with dogma or The Book. Relying on it as solid evidence in support requires ignoring these facts. Suggesting that it represents a continuance through time also ignores these facts, and the criticisms of the very people who have worked on that reconstruction.