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.
Controlled Opposition: Your assertion that Bart Ehrman's assessment may be compromised by the concept of controlled opposition (even though in the next paragraph you say your not calling him controlled opposition - as the master of double speak you are) overlooks the robustness of scholarly inquiry and the integrity of academic discourse. I agree it's valid to remain vigilant against manipulation or biased agendas, but dismissing Ehrman's credibility based on speculative notions of controlled opposition lacks substantive evidence. Ehrman's expertise as a textual scholar and his critical analysis of biblical texts are widely respected within academic circles (something which you throw out all together with your hyper-skepticism of anything called "scholarship"), independent of any perceived alignment with particular narratives.
Historical Revisionism: Your argument about historical revisionism and the selective omission of relevant facts overlooks the complexity of historical inquiry and the rigorous methodologies employed by historians. It's true that historical narratives may be subject to interpretation and revision, but the assertion that all historical truths are deliberately suppressed or manipulated oversimplifies the multifaceted nature of historical scholarship (again, a trigger word for you).
Historians engage in a continuous process of evaluating evidence, reassessing interpretations, and refining narratives to construct more accurate understandings of the past.
Biblical Canon: Regarding the inclusion or exclusion of books in the biblical canon, it's essential to consider the historical context and criteria (something you appear to simply gloss over) used by early Christian communities and church councils. While variations in biblical canons existed in antiquity, the process of canonization involved careful deliberation and theological discernment by religious authorities. While disagreements may exist about certain texts, the canonical books were ultimately selected based on their theological coherence, widespread acceptance, and conformity to doctrinal standards established by the early church.
Church Fathers' Influence: Your critique of the influence of Church Fathers and their potential conflicts of interest fails to acknowledge the diversity of perspectives within early Christianity and the multiplicity of factors shaping doctrinal development. While it's true that certain individuals may have wielded significant influence within the church hierarchy, attributing all doctrinal decisions to their personal agendas overlooks the collective deliberation and theological consensus that characterized early Christian communities.
Additionally, the assertion that Church Fathers systematically destroyed opposing evidence ignores the complex historical realities and diverse sources of early Christian literature that have survived to the present day.
Certainly, let's delve deeper into each point with concrete examples and references to scholarship:
Relevance of Evidence: While it's true that the Church Fathers played a significant role in the process of canonization, their decisions were not made in isolation but were informed by theological criteria and communal consensus. For example, texts such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary were excluded from the canon due to concerns about their theological coherence with mainstream Christian doctrine and their perceived lack of widespread acceptance among early Christian communities. This decision-making process involved theological discernment and critical evaluation of doctrinal consistency, rather than arbitrary exclusion based solely on the authority of the Church Fathers.
Moreover, recent scholarship, such as the work of Bart Ehrman in "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament," provides valuable insights into the diverse range of early Christian writings and the complex dynamics of canon formation. Ehrman's analysis highlights the multiplicity of perspectives within early Christianity and the challenges involved in establishing a standardized biblical canon.
Destruction of Evidence: While it's true that some texts may have been subject to suppression or censorship in certain contexts, attributing all doctrinal decisions to deliberate destruction, AGAIN, oversimplifies the historical realities. For example, the suppression of Gnostic texts by orthodox Christian authorities in the early centuries of the Christian era is well-documented. However, it's essential to recognize that not all doctrinal decisions were motivated by nefarious intent, and many texts were excluded from the canon based on theological considerations rather than deliberate destruction.
Scholars such as Elaine Pagels in "The Gnostic Gospels" and Karen L. King in "What Is Gnosticism?" have explored the historical context and theological conflicts surrounding the suppression of Gnostic texts. Their research sheds light on the complex interplay of theological, political, and cultural factors shaping the formation of the biblical canon.
Conflicts of Interest: While it's important to acknowledge the diversity of perspectives within early Christianity, attributing doctrinal decisions solely to conflicts of interest overlooks the sincere commitment to faith and scholarship among many Church Fathers. For example, scholars such as Larry W. Hurtado in "The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins" and Richard Bauckham in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" have highlighted the rigorous intellectual engagement and theological reflection evident in the writings of early Christian leaders.
Additionally, the process of canonization involved extensive debate, dialogue, and theological reflection within the early Christian community, as evidenced by the writings of influential figures such as Origen, Tertullian, and Athanasius. While disagreements and conflicts certainly existed, attributing all doctrinal decisions to personal agendas fails to capture the complexity of theological discourse and the communal nature of early Christian identity.
To wrap this up, by critically engaging with historical evidence and scholarly research, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the formation of the biblical canon and the diversity of perspectives within early Christianity. I think it's essential to approach these questions with nuance and humility, recognizing the multifaceted nature of historical processes and the ongoing dialogue between faith, scholarship, and interpretation.
Kudos for engaging in such a constructive dialogue! Your commitment to maintaining a respectful and intellectually rigorous conversation is truly commendable. It's refreshing to have exchanges where ideas are exchanged without resorting to ad hominem attacks or condescending tones.
Yas the master of double speak you are) overlooks the robustness of scholarly inquiry and the integrity of academic discourse.
/sigh
I was pointing out that your argument was based on him being "opposition" while "still agreeing with your belief." I wasn't saying I didn't agree (in fact I explicitly agreed). I was pointing out a flaw in your argument. That is not "double speak," nor do I engage in such. I strongly suggest you look up these phrases before you use them. You have mischaracterized me several times in this manner. If you do not desist with these mischaracterizations and ad hominems I will be forced to disengage.
Your argument relies on "the robustness of scholarly inquiry and the integrity of academic discourse."
My entire fucking report shows explicitly and in ridiculous detail that these things are fundamentally compromised. For as long as you rely on these things, you simply will not understand why I object to them as evidence. At the least, I implore you to recognize that they are appeals to authority, which is a fallacy in formal reasoning, and thus has no place in discourse that relies on the process of reason.
Your argument about historical revisionism and the selective omission of relevant facts overlooks the complexity of historical inquiry and the rigorous methodologies employed by historians.
Sure, but my report does not. It goes into painstaking detail of why these institutions are compromised and how they are compromised. Granted, that's not in the section on the website right now. I'm finishing it up and will publish it soon, but the evidence is overwhelming and will be shown. What is there shows the level of my investigation if you are interested. I am not making these claims in a dearth of evidence, but in an overabundance of it.
I'm going to disengage. You are incapable of looking outside of the trust you have in the academic box. I used to be a part of that box which is why I investigated it so thoroughly. It is totally fubar;' compromised on the most fundamental level. Indeed, it is the epicenter for the creation of The Matrix. Until you are willing to allow for that possibility, it is impossible to get past your argument because it is the premise you rely on and you cannot accept that it might be wrong.
Indeed, it is the epicenter for the creation of The Matrix
I KNEW this is where this was headed!
I used to think this, too. But then I learned it was only half true, and that there is a bigger picture that you are being led, unawares, into. Part of the Hegelian dialectic which we are being subjected to. The "Light bearers" are unknowingly laying the ground work for the Beast system.
We must break free from these shackles (Matrix) we have been placed in before we can see the "true light." The question is: WHo is the True light??
I understand precisely where you are coming from, my friend.
Maybe I'll put a post together about this "Light vs Dark" battle and this "Matrix" mentality which has grown into a Worldview.
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.
Controlled Opposition: Your assertion that Bart Ehrman's assessment may be compromised by the concept of controlled opposition (even though in the next paragraph you say your not calling him controlled opposition - as the master of double speak you are) overlooks the robustness of scholarly inquiry and the integrity of academic discourse. I agree it's valid to remain vigilant against manipulation or biased agendas, but dismissing Ehrman's credibility based on speculative notions of controlled opposition lacks substantive evidence. Ehrman's expertise as a textual scholar and his critical analysis of biblical texts are widely respected within academic circles (something which you throw out all together with your hyper-skepticism of anything called "scholarship"), independent of any perceived alignment with particular narratives.
Historical Revisionism: Your argument about historical revisionism and the selective omission of relevant facts overlooks the complexity of historical inquiry and the rigorous methodologies employed by historians. It's true that historical narratives may be subject to interpretation and revision, but the assertion that all historical truths are deliberately suppressed or manipulated oversimplifies the multifaceted nature of historical scholarship (again, a trigger word for you).
Historians engage in a continuous process of evaluating evidence, reassessing interpretations, and refining narratives to construct more accurate understandings of the past.
Biblical Canon: Regarding the inclusion or exclusion of books in the biblical canon, it's essential to consider the historical context and criteria (something you appear to simply gloss over) used by early Christian communities and church councils. While variations in biblical canons existed in antiquity, the process of canonization involved careful deliberation and theological discernment by religious authorities. While disagreements may exist about certain texts, the canonical books were ultimately selected based on their theological coherence, widespread acceptance, and conformity to doctrinal standards established by the early church.
Church Fathers' Influence: Your critique of the influence of Church Fathers and their potential conflicts of interest fails to acknowledge the diversity of perspectives within early Christianity and the multiplicity of factors shaping doctrinal development. While it's true that certain individuals may have wielded significant influence within the church hierarchy, attributing all doctrinal decisions to their personal agendas overlooks the collective deliberation and theological consensus that characterized early Christian communities.
Additionally, the assertion that Church Fathers systematically destroyed opposing evidence ignores the complex historical realities and diverse sources of early Christian literature that have survived to the present day.
Certainly, let's delve deeper into each point with concrete examples and references to scholarship:
Relevance of Evidence: While it's true that the Church Fathers played a significant role in the process of canonization, their decisions were not made in isolation but were informed by theological criteria and communal consensus. For example, texts such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary were excluded from the canon due to concerns about their theological coherence with mainstream Christian doctrine and their perceived lack of widespread acceptance among early Christian communities. This decision-making process involved theological discernment and critical evaluation of doctrinal consistency, rather than arbitrary exclusion based solely on the authority of the Church Fathers.
Moreover, recent scholarship, such as the work of Bart Ehrman in "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament," provides valuable insights into the diverse range of early Christian writings and the complex dynamics of canon formation. Ehrman's analysis highlights the multiplicity of perspectives within early Christianity and the challenges involved in establishing a standardized biblical canon.
Destruction of Evidence: While it's true that some texts may have been subject to suppression or censorship in certain contexts, attributing all doctrinal decisions to deliberate destruction, AGAIN, oversimplifies the historical realities. For example, the suppression of Gnostic texts by orthodox Christian authorities in the early centuries of the Christian era is well-documented. However, it's essential to recognize that not all doctrinal decisions were motivated by nefarious intent, and many texts were excluded from the canon based on theological considerations rather than deliberate destruction.
Scholars such as Elaine Pagels in "The Gnostic Gospels" and Karen L. King in "What Is Gnosticism?" have explored the historical context and theological conflicts surrounding the suppression of Gnostic texts. Their research sheds light on the complex interplay of theological, political, and cultural factors shaping the formation of the biblical canon.
Conflicts of Interest: While it's important to acknowledge the diversity of perspectives within early Christianity, attributing doctrinal decisions solely to conflicts of interest overlooks the sincere commitment to faith and scholarship among many Church Fathers. For example, scholars such as Larry W. Hurtado in "The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins" and Richard Bauckham in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" have highlighted the rigorous intellectual engagement and theological reflection evident in the writings of early Christian leaders.
Additionally, the process of canonization involved extensive debate, dialogue, and theological reflection within the early Christian community, as evidenced by the writings of influential figures such as Origen, Tertullian, and Athanasius. While disagreements and conflicts certainly existed, attributing all doctrinal decisions to personal agendas fails to capture the complexity of theological discourse and the communal nature of early Christian identity.
To wrap this up, by critically engaging with historical evidence and scholarly research, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the formation of the biblical canon and the diversity of perspectives within early Christianity. I think it's essential to approach these questions with nuance and humility, recognizing the multifaceted nature of historical processes and the ongoing dialogue between faith, scholarship, and interpretation.
Kudos for engaging in such a constructive dialogue! Your commitment to maintaining a respectful and intellectually rigorous conversation is truly commendable. It's refreshing to have exchanges where ideas are exchanged without resorting to ad hominem attacks or condescending tones.
Keep up the excellent discourse!
/sigh
I was pointing out that your argument was based on him being "opposition" while "still agreeing with your belief." I wasn't saying I didn't agree (in fact I explicitly agreed). I was pointing out a flaw in your argument. That is not "double speak," nor do I engage in such. I strongly suggest you look up these phrases before you use them. You have mischaracterized me several times in this manner. If you do not desist with these mischaracterizations and ad hominems I will be forced to disengage.
Your argument relies on "the robustness of scholarly inquiry and the integrity of academic discourse."
My entire fucking report shows explicitly and in ridiculous detail that these things are fundamentally compromised. For as long as you rely on these things, you simply will not understand why I object to them as evidence. At the least, I implore you to recognize that they are appeals to authority, which is a fallacy in formal reasoning, and thus has no place in discourse that relies on the process of reason.
Sure, but my report does not. It goes into painstaking detail of why these institutions are compromised and how they are compromised. Granted, that's not in the section on the website right now. I'm finishing it up and will publish it soon, but the evidence is overwhelming and will be shown. What is there shows the level of my investigation if you are interested. I am not making these claims in a dearth of evidence, but in an overabundance of it.
I'm going to disengage. You are incapable of looking outside of the trust you have in the academic box. I used to be a part of that box which is why I investigated it so thoroughly. It is totally fubar;' compromised on the most fundamental level. Indeed, it is the epicenter for the creation of The Matrix. Until you are willing to allow for that possibility, it is impossible to get past your argument because it is the premise you rely on and you cannot accept that it might be wrong.
I KNEW this is where this was headed!
I used to think this, too. But then I learned it was only half true, and that there is a bigger picture that you are being led, unawares, into. Part of the Hegelian dialectic which we are being subjected to. The "Light bearers" are unknowingly laying the ground work for the Beast system.
We must break free from these shackles (Matrix) we have been placed in before we can see the "true light." The question is: WHo is the True light??
I understand precisely where you are coming from, my friend.
Maybe I'll put a post together about this "Light vs Dark" battle and this "Matrix" mentality which has grown into a Worldview.
Red Leader 2....disengaging for now.