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) said regarding the accuracy of our modern biblical text:

1. "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."

2. "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."

3. "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."

Wow. 3 paragraphs are an "essay" now, huh?

While I can appreciate your perspective, it's essential to distinguish between translation revisions and alterations to the biblical text itself. The changes you're referring to in newer editions of the KJV often involve updates to language, grammar, punctuation, and formatting for readability and clarity. However, these revisions do not affect the underlying meaning or content of the biblical message.

When Biblical scholars discuss the preservation of the biblical text, they focus on the accuracy and integrity of the original manuscripts and their faithful transmission over time, rather than changes made in subsequent translations or editions for linguistic or stylistic reasons.

This is faulty logic. If all (or a meaningful portion) of history has been rewritten, all that would need to be done to make the case is provide evidence that there are substantial portions that have been removed, and show that the inclusion of those purposefully removed portions shows that the overarching narrative that is presently accepted is decidedly false. I'm not sure why you have tried to continuously make this argument, but it is fundamentally flawed, at least as formed.

While uncovering omitted or suppressed historical facts can certainly challenge prevailing narratives, it does not necessarily mean that all of history has been rewritten. It may indicate selective interpretations or biases within historical accounts, but it does not automatically validate the assertion that all historical narratives are suspect or fundamentally false.

In essence, while your argument correctly underscores the significance of critically analyzing historical narratives and considering omitted evidence, it does not fully resolve the logical paradox of claiming that "all of history has been rewritten" without appealing to a privileged perspective or objective truth.

...the Bible...

The idea of an "evil cabal" manipulating and changing the canonical books of the Bible to deceive is not supported by the extensive manuscript evidence and quotations from early church fathers. The biblical text is incredibly well-preserved due to the vast number of manuscripts spanning various geographical locations and time periods. Additionally, the early church fathers extensively quoted and referenced biblical passages in their writings.

The sheer volume of manuscripts, along with the geographical spread and diverse sources, makes it virtually impossible for any secretive group to alter the text without detection. Scholars and researchers compare these manuscripts, employing rigorous methods of textual criticism to ensure the accuracy of the biblical text. If any significant alterations had been attempted, the discrepancies would have been readily apparent in the multitude of manuscripts and early citations.

In essence, the collaborative efforts of countless scribes, the geographic distribution of manuscripts, and the vigilance of early church writers make the idea of a covert manipulation of the biblical text implausible and inconsistent with the robust historical evidence we possess.

My research suggests all of history has been rewritten.

Slyver is at it again with his hyper, self defeating skepticism about all of history

The philosophical assumption behind the statement "All of history has been rewritten" suggests a form of skepticism or epistemic uncertainty about the reliability of historical narratives. This assumption implies that there is no objective or accurate account of history available to us, as all historical records have been tampered with or manipulated in some way.

However, the statement also presents a paradox or self-defeating quality because if all of history has truly been rewritten, then the claim itself could be subject to the same skepticism. If all historical narratives are suspect, then the assertion that "all of history has been rewritten" is itself a historical claim and therefore subject to the same doubts about its accuracy and reliability.

for someone to confidently claim that all of history has been rewritten would require access to some sort of privileged perspective or objective truth about history, which seems contradictory given the assumption of widespread historical manipulation.

Ty, fren.

Hmmm..interesting it was "benign" in that initial report...

Do you have sauce for this? I was wondering myself...

Amen!

The God of all creation can draw a straight line with a crooked stick.

He can also preserve His message throughout the millenniums, which is precisely what He did.

Ascension to what?

The idea of an evil cabal manipulating and changing the canonical books of the Bible to deceive is not supported by the extensive manuscript evidence and quotations from early church fathers. The biblical text is incredibly well-preserved due to the vast number of manuscripts spanning various geographical locations and time periods. Additionally, the early church fathers extensively quoted and referenced biblical passages in their writings.

The sheer volume of manuscripts, along with the geographical spread and diverse sources, makes it virtually impossible for any secretive group to alter the text without detection. Scholars and researchers compare these manuscripts, employing rigorous methods of textual criticism to ensure the accuracy of the biblical text. If any significant alterations had been attempted, the discrepancies would have been readily apparent in the multitude of manuscripts and early citations.

In essence, the collaborative efforts of countless scribes, the geographic distribution of manuscripts, and the vigilance of early church writers make the idea of a covert manipulation of the biblical text implausible and inconsistent with the robust historical evidence we possess.

The New Testament, through a collection of verses and teachings, lays a foundational framework for the modern understanding of the Trinity. While the specific term "Trinity" may not be explicitly mentioned, the concept emerges from the combined testimony of the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit as distinct persons within the Godhead.

Numerous passages portray Jesus as both divine and in a unique relationship with the Father. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is presented as a personal presence, involved in teaching, guiding, and interceding for believers.

The relational dynamics among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, along with the shared divine attributes ascribed to each, form the biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity, affirming the interconnectedness of these three distinct persons in one Godhead.

Furthermore, concept of the Trinity, as reflected in the New Testament, didn't suddenly emerge at a specific council but evolved within the early Christian community.

The councils, such as the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, played a role in codifying this existing doctrine rather than inventing it.

From the beginning, the biblical texts presented the Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit as distinct persons sharing a divine essence. The councils aimed to articulate and safeguard this foundational Christian belief against theological controversies, confirming and clarifying what had been part of Christian understanding since the earliest days.

Here are additional verses that highlight the personal nature of the Holy Spirit:

1. Grieving the Holy Spirit:

   • Ephesians 4:30:
     • "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption."
   • This verse implies the Holy Spirit's capacity for emotion and personal connection, as grief is a human-like response.

2. Teaching and Reminding Role of the Holy Spirit:

   • John 14:26:
     • "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."
   • The Holy Spirit is presented as a personal guide, teaching and reminding believers.

3. Intercession by the Holy Spirit:

   • Romans 8:26:
     • "Likewise, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words."
   • The Holy Spirit is depicted as interceding for believers, indicating a personal and active involvement in their lives.

4. Sending by the Father in the Name of Jesus:

   • John 14:26:
     • "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me."
   • This verse highlights the relational dynamics within the Godhead, with the Holy Spirit being sent by both the Father and the Son.

These verses provide additional insights into the personal attributes and roles of the Holy Spirit, portraying the Spirit not merely as an impersonal force but as a distinct person within the Triune Godhead.

Let's delve deeper into the concept of the Trinity in the New Testament and explore additional verses:

1. Matthew 28:19 (The Great Commission):

   • "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
   • This verse explicitly mentions the triadic formula, indicating the coexistence of the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit.

2. John 14:16-17:

   • "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth..."
   • Jesus speaks of the Father sending the Holy Spirit, portraying a relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

3. 2 Corinthians 13:14:

   • "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."
   • This verse mentions all three persons of the Trinity: the Lord Jesus Christ, God (the Father), and the Holy Spirit.

4. John 1:1-14 (Prologue of John's Gospel):

   • "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
   • The Word (understood as Jesus) being with God from the beginning implies a pre-existent relationship within the Godhead.

5. Colossians 2:9:

   • "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily."
   • Referring to Christ, this verse emphasizes the fullness of deity residing in Him, aligning with the Trinitarian understanding of Jesus as fully divine.

6. John 10:30:

   • "I and the Father are one."
   • Jesus asserts oneness with the Father, suggesting a profound unity in essence.

These verses collectively contribute to the New Testament's presentation of a triune Godhead, where the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit exist in a relational unity. While the term "Trinity" is not explicitly used, the theological implications of these passages formed the foundation for later doctrinal developments and the articulation of the Trinity in Christian creeds.

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.

A lot to unpack here but I’ll address each assertion you make:

1. Johannine Comma: This refers to a disputed passage in 1 John 5:7-8 regarding the Trinity. While some manuscripts include this passage, many critical editions, including modern translations, omit it due to limited manuscript support. However, the absence of this specific passage doesn't negate the broader concept of the Trinity, which is supported by various other verses in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14).

2. Support for the Trinity: While the term "Trinity" isn't explicitly used in the Bible, the concept is reflected in verses portraying Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit as distinct yet unified (e.g., John 14:16-17, 26; Matthew 28:19). Early Christian writers, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr, also alluded to this triune understanding.

3. Mithraism Influence: The assertion that the Trinity concept derives from Mithraism is debated among scholars (I know this statement will trigger you). While Mithraism and Christianity existed concurrently, drawing direct lines of influence is challenging. The development of Christian doctrine involves complex theological discussions and debates within the early Christian community.

4. Council of Constantinople (381 AD): The explicit declaration of the Nicene Creed, including the affirmation of the Trinity, took place during the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. This event solidified and clarified theological language but doesn't imply a sudden introduction of the concept. The discussions on Christ's divinity and the nature of God had been ongoing since earlier councils.

While specific verses or terms may not be universally present, the theological groundwork for the Trinity is discernible in various parts of the New Testament and evolved through early Christian theological deliberations. The intricacies of these developments require nuanced exploration within their historical and theological contexts.

However, you show all the signs of "trust". Trust is the enemy of investigation. I was addressing that specifically.

First, this is a caricature of my position. Borderline strawman. I have offered reasoned dialogue with you discussing the philosophical underpinnings on how to think about “scholarship,” or “experts.” Not simply “jUSt tRusT Da eXpeRtS.”

Second, you give us even more irony here because you’re actually accusing me of merely “trusting” the “experts” all the while expecting me to “trust” you and the “researchers” (the “new” experts) that you cite!

Tell me you see the self defeating nature of your position? You’re doing the very thing you’re accusing me of.

Your bringing up of Tartaria (of which I am familiar) is simply a red herring. However, I’d like to address some of your other points you make about the Trinity, but thought I should first address a presupposition you appear to bring to every conversation regarding the topics we are discussing:

School is controlled. Scholarship is controlled. Our modern day version was created and is 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.

There is a curious irony the lies veiled behind your main claims. The irony lies in the paradox of claiming all sources are controlled while simultaneously asserting a privileged perspective that transcends this control.

Criticizing scholars as controlled by certain entities implies a supposed immunity to such influence, creating a self-defeating loop where one claims authority while denouncing authority.

It's crucial to engage in constructive dialogue, recognizing the complexities of information dissemination, rather than dismissing entire fields based on assumptions of control.

I’ll respond to your other assertions later…

The early church fathers extensively quoted the biblical text in their writings, providing valuable insights into the state of the New Testament during their time.

While the exact number of quotations varies (some scholars report over 30,000 quotations), it is true that a substantial portion of the New Testament can be reconstructed from their quotes (minus roughly 11 verses).

These extensive quotations from the early church fathers provide a robust foundation for reconstructing the New Testament's content, doctrines, and teachings. It's a testament to the widespread dissemination and acceptance of these writings in the early Christian community. Even if I grant you the assertion (which I won’t) that the original manuscripts were lost, changed or edited, these quotations would serve as a substantial basis for understanding the core tenets of the Christian faith as transmitted by the apostles and disciples.

The consistency across these quotes reinforces the reliability of the biblical text.

While it’s true that Christianity, at times, intersected with influential figures, we mustn’t overlook its foundational years.

In the face of intense persecution, Christians flourished, often at great personal cost. The growth of Christianity wasn’t solely a product of those in power; rather, it often thrived against opposition, showcasing its resilience and appeal beyond political structures.

Early believers faced challenges, not only from external forces but also internal debates that shaped the diverse landscape of early Christian thought.

“There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda from those who had power in the community.”

While it's true that early Christian history includes theological diversity and conflicts, the assertion that non-Pauline perspectives were universally suppressed through violence is an oversimplification. Early Christian debates involved a range of theological positions, not solely those associated with Paul.

1. Diversity of Views: The early Christian community indeed grappled with diverse theological perspectives, reflecting the complexity of interpreting the teachings of Jesus. Disagreements on topics like Christology and salvation were not limited to a single faction.

2. Suppression and Conflict: There were instances of theological conflicts, and some individuals or groups faced challenges to their beliefs. However, characterizing the entire process as a result of intentional suppression oversimplifies the historical context.

3. Formation of Orthodoxy: The establishment of theological orthodoxy was a gradual process and involved debates, councils, and discussions among various Christian communities. The notion of heresy developed over time as a response to theological challenges, but attributing it solely to violent suppression is an overstatement.

4. Varied Christian Movements: Gnostic and other non-Pauline traditions were not universally eradicated. Some persisted and influenced later Christian developments. The Nag Hammadi library's discovery, for instance, revealed a cache of Gnostic texts that survived burial for centuries.

Acknowledging the complexities of early Christian history helps avoid a reductionist narrative - which you are guilty of - and provides a more nuanced understanding of the dynamic interactions within the diverse Christian landscape.

Several early Christian influencers and teachers emerged from non-privileged backgrounds, embodying the diverse nature of the movement:

1. Peter: A fisherman by trade, Peter became a prominent disciple of Jesus and a key figure in the early Christian community.

2. Paul: Though educated, Paul's background as a tentmaker and his initial opposition to Christianity before his conversion offer a different perspective.

3. Lydia of Thyatira: A businesswoman, Lydia was a seller of purple goods and one of the first European converts to Christianity.

4. Priscilla and Aquila: A married couple, Priscilla and Aquila were tentmakers like Paul and played a significant role in early Christian missionary efforts.

5. Phoebe: Described as a deacon in the early Christian community, Phoebe was likely involved in various forms of ministry.

These examples illustrate the diverse social and economic backgrounds of early Christian influencers, demonstrating that the movement was not exclusively led by those from privileged classes.

We actually have a significant number of ancient manuscripts dating back to various time periods.

These manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus, provide us with a wealth of textual evidence for the New Testament.

The sheer quantity and diversity of these manuscripts make it impossible for any group to confiscate and change all of them without leaving any trace.

Moreover, the early church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, wrote extensive commentaries and references to the biblical texts.

These writings, along with the translations of the Bible into various languages, further validate the accuracy and consistency of the biblical text throughout history.

Additionally, the process of textual criticism, which involves comparing and analyzing different manuscript copies to establish the original text, ensures that any discrepancies or errors can be identified and corrected.

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.

Considering the vast number of manuscripts and the widespread dissemination of the Bible, it is highly unlikely that any group could successfully manipulate or confiscate all copies and commentaries without detection.

The evidence we have at our disposal affirms the integrity and preservation of the biblical text throughout history, enabling us to have confidence in the accuracy of the Bible we possess today.

Therefore, when considering the logical and historical evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim of a group confiscating and altering all biblical manuscripts and early church commentaries is simply not possible.

The availability of ancient manuscripts and the extensive writings of the early church fathers provide strong support for the authenticity and reliability of the Bible as we know it.

Slyver, you’re smart enough to know that the Church was around long before Constantine arrived on the scene.

As far as “proving it” goes, you’re the one making the positive claim that the Bible has been changed beyond recognition and trustworthiness. Therefore, the burden proof rests squarely upon your shoulders to provide evidence of such a claim. Give us some reputable, primary source references that we can all go to check your claims.

plenty of evidence…

fuckton of evidence…

Yet you provide or quote NONE. Just fanciful assertions under the guise of “knowledge;” Gnostic knowledge at that. Let the reader beware, this type of reasoning is what will be used to persecute those who do not conform to the New Age/Golden Age (Beast) system.

The claim that numerous books were considered canon by various Christian groups contradicts the historical reality. Early Christian communities did have some variations in their canons, but there was a gradual consensus, and many books were widely accepted across different regions.

Authorship of 2 Timothy: You suggest uncertainty about the authorship of 2 Timothy (by citing a Wiki page <eyeroll>) and assert it may have been created during the construction of a Church hierarchy. While authorship debates exist for some biblical books, attributing motives solely to the establishment of Church control oversimplifies the complex historical and theological factors involved in canonization.

Which specific council are you referring to, exactly?