Textual Discrepancies & How They Could Impact Christianity

quote:

---

I don't see the relevance of this to your case. 1 John 5:7 was NOT the path used in the original historical formulation of the Doctrine of the Trinity. It is NOT the path used by Evangelical scholars today. Its in-authenticity does NOT impact Christianity. So why is it relevant?

---

Scholars have known about these discrepancies for centuries, but the layperson hasn't and doesn't know about them depending on how and if they actually study the Bible.I didn't say that 1 John 5:7 was used to formulate the Doctrine of the Trinity. I very clearly stated that the orthodox group of Christianity had to find a way to counter the claims that they were polytheistic, which you also supported in Message 12.In general, these discrepancies are relevant because they show that Christian Tenets and Doctrines are not based on the Bible. The New Testament writings are based on the various Christian beliefs that started developing in the first century and were adjusted at times to support the culture and orthodox group as they developed.These discrepancies also show us that early Christians had no problem changing the texts when needed and that the church gave authority to the writings in the Bible. The Bible is not the source of authority.As I showed with the Johannine Comma, the support for the Doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament is very soft without it. Does that mean that Christians are going to drop the doctrine? Of course not, because the Bible isn't the basis for the belief. That's why we have apologetics. I'm not really addressing what scholars teach and don't teach. Churches I've belonged to don't address half the stuff we do here at EvC. The arguments that are presented here at EvC are what inspired the topic.

quote:

---

Yes, a different verb is used, and it has a slightly different focus. The in-authentic end of Mark seems to combine themes from other Scriptures which ARE authentic. So again, I don't see how the in-authenticity of the end of Mark impacts Christianity.

---

From Message 1Realistically, these discrepancies can only impact individuals. These discrepancies have been known about for centuries by scholars and some Bibles have been changed accordingly. I guess it is lucky for the religion that most Christians don't actually read the Bible as a whole. Even the Trinitarian phrase in Matthew is a little suspect to some scholars, but since it is in the oldest manuscripts, the doubts are based on the actual baptizing practices found in the New Testament writings. In Acts (Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, Acts 22:16), people were baptized in the name of Jesus. We don't read of anyone being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. In Paul's writings, people were baptized in the name of Jesus, not the triune. (1Cor 1:12-15, 1Cor 6:11, Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27)The writings of Eusebius also cast some doubt. That doesn't mean that Christianity as a whole is going to change, but these discrepancies can impact individuals and their beliefs depending on where they have their faith invested.

---

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

Nearly every pastor who has studied Greek in seminary knows these things. Pastors are the normal conduit between the scholars and the laypersons.Most laypersons use modern Bible translations, such as NIV or NASB. Most of these know that their Bibles omit a few verses that are in the KJV, and many have read their footnotes explaining that these verses are not found in the oldest manuscripts. So many laypersons DO know these things. But I can also also believe that many do not. I can't say whether or not the average layperson knows these things. I don't know if any surveys of such lay knowledge have been done. No, the Doctrine of the Trinity is based on the Bible, as the participants in the Council of Nicea would strongly affirm! The Bible teaches that God is one. The Bible also teaches that three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are God. The Doctrine of the Trinity is the simultaneous affirmation of both biblical truths, stating that God is one substance or essence in three persons. I don't know what you mean by this, and suspect that I probably disagree. I agree that a number of "clarifications" were added to the so-called "Byzantine" texts, including the two examples you gave (1 Jn 5:7 and the last part of Mark). No, this does not follow. The early church recognized the Bible as its source of authority. You claimed this, but I didn't see where you showed it. To do so you would need to show that either:
1) The Bible does not clearly teach that God is one, or,
2) The Bible does not clearly teach that three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are God. No, Christians will not drop the Doctrine because it is biblical. That's not quite true; you looked to scholarship to find verses that were added later. But if you're trying to say that many lay Christians rely on poor, unscholarly reasoning and arguments, I would agree. Exactly.

quote:

---

No, the Doctrine of the Trinity is based on the Bible, as the participants in the Council of Nicea would strongly affirm! The Bible teaches that God is one. The Bible also teaches that three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are God. The Doctrine of the Trinity is the simultaneous affirmation of both biblical truths, stating that God is one substance or essence in three persons.

---

In Message 12 you stated: The idea that the three are one substance is not in the texts. As you noted the idea was formulated to resolve the problem of three gods since Christianity was supposedly monotheist.The idea of one God in three persons argument is not supported by the text. It is derived more from Plato than the writings in the New Testament. If you want to debate it in more depth you can start another thread, but the obvious verses are questionable. As I've said earlier, not all early Christian groups believed Jesus was a god. Not all the Gospels proclaim Jesus to be a god. So the group that became mainstream had to resolve the appearace of worshiping more than one god if they claim to be monotheistic.

Long long before there was any Nicene Creed or Council the prophet Isaiah wrote that the Mighty God Yahweh would become a little child born. And he prophesied that the Son given was the Eternal Father. After the coming of Jesus Christ, well after by about 400 years, some Christians considered Christ, Isaiah's prophecy as well as many other scriptures. They considered them in light of attacks against the nature of Christ and His deity. And they came up with a word - "Trinity".Before these men were ever born the Bible already said that a little child would be called the Mighty God and the Son given would be called the Eternal Father.The Christians at Nicene just put a theological word "Trinity" on the biblical revelation that had been there for centries.There might not have ever been the need for such a word had not some opinionated teachers (probably unbelievers in Christ) had not launched attacks against the Gospels that God could not be incarnated as a man.

Except of course Jesus does not fulfill the requirements that Isaiah laid out there. It is not a prophecy of Jesus and if it were, it is a failed prophecy.It is true though that far after the time Isaiah wrote that others tried to take what was written and twist it to point to Jesus.

quote:

---

6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

​

7 Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.

---

Jesus never reigned on David's throne, or over a nation.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

From Barnes' Commentary on Isaiah 9:7:"Upon the throne of David - See the note at Acts 2:30. This was in accordance with the promise made to David; 1 Kings 8:25; 2 Samuel 7:12-13; Psalm 132:11. This promise was understood as referring to the Messiah. The primary idea is, that he should be descended in the line of David, and accordingly the New Testament writers are often at pains to show that the Lord Jesus was of that family; Luke 2:4. When it is said that he would sit upon the throne of David, it is not to be taken literally. The uniqueness of the reign of David was, that he reigned over the people of God. He was chosen for this purpose from humble life; was declared in his administration to be a man after God's own heart; and his long and prosperous reign was a reign over the people of God. To sit upon the throne of David, therefore, means to reign over the people of God; and in this sense the Messiah sat on his throne. There is also a similarity in the two administrations, in the fact that the Messiah was taken from humble life. and that his reign will be far-extended and prosperous. But the main idea of resemblance is, that the reign of each extended over the people of God.And upon his kingdom - That is, over the kingdom of the people of God. It does not mean particularly the Jews, but all those over whom the divine administration should be set up.To order it - To raise up, or confirm it. The word, also, is sometimes used to denote to found a kingdom. Here it means to confirm it, to cause it to stand."

This thread isn't about prophecy, please don't continue to take it down that path.The thread is about textual discrepancies and how they could impact Christianity.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Actually, the variant readings which significantly affect the sense of a passage are less than one-half of 1 percent of the New Testament, and none of these affect any basic doctrine of the Christian faith.

---

I know that's the line, I said it in Message 1. That is what this discussion is about. To discuss or debate whether the discrepancies individually or as a whole could impact the basic tenets, doctrines, traditions, or beliefs.

quote:

---

The textural critic has given a studied judgment on many of these significant variants, so that for all practical purposes the modern critical editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible represent, with their footnotes, exactly what the autographs contained - line for line, word for word, and even letter for letter.

---

They have discerned what the originals probably said. In reality, they can only take them back to the earliest copies. As I mentioned in Message 16, the Trinitarian phrase in Matthew is also suspect, but is still in published Bibles.Since Christianity doesn't look at the writings within the Bible as having individual purposes that may differ, there will always be a verse somewhere that can be pulled away from the context of the culture and the intent of the author to give the illusion of support.I want to look at this objectively. Getting away from the emotional devotional baggage that sways our thoughts.The basic tenet that the Bible is inspired and infallible could be impacted by these discrepancies. Since we don't have the original autographs, no one can prove whether they are true or not. These discrepancies do show us that changing what was written was not uncommon no matter the reason.Margin notes in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 has been conveniently thrown in women's faces when it suited the institutions needs. Having women keep silent was not a practice of Paul's. It may have been a later practice due to cultural laws, which I have no problem with. Religion does change with the civilization, otherwise Christians would all be dressed like first century Jews. The problem is they aren't consistent.The scholars also try to discern why a text was changed such as the verses concerning Christ's agony at Gethsemane. (Luke 22:43—44) The author of Luke didn't present Jesus as suffering and was accepted by Marcion as canonical scripture.The author of Luke doesn't really present a suffering servant.

---

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

Maybe it is "the line" simply because it is the real case. That's more than being just "the line". That's the situation.Present your statistics which lead you to another view of the proportion of variant texts to the whole, which you find serious or devastating to major orthodox Christian teachings.I presented percentages by experts in the other thread. Present your alternative percentages.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This is an old arguement " No one has ever seen one of these infallible autographs."True. But no one has ever seen a fallible one either. I think there is a difference in the abuse of a passage and the mistake in the text.An accurate text is not free from twisting, abuse, exageration. Practically any text, even one more favorable to Christian sisters, might be somehow made to argue someone's spiritually destructive agenda.All things considered, it is hard to fault Paul for male chauvinism of the bigotted and oppressive type, ie. Moslem style.He did also say that in Christ there was not the social strata of male and female (Gal. 3:28)"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free, there cannot be male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:27,28)This is not a idealistic passage. This is not Paul saying that in Christ there SHOULD NOT BE Greek and Jew, slave and free, male and female. This is not what should not be. This is what CANNOT be. "There CANNOT BE ... male and female". The normal prevailing Christian assembly CANNOT exist if there is oppression of females by males, Gentiles by Jews or vica versa. There CANNOT be social stratification of masters opprressing slaves. There CANNOT be. Not there SHOULD NOT be. There CANNOT be.It won't work in the New Testament church. That is the Apostles word. So I think if you're serious about the whole new covenant you have to take in all that the apostles uttered.Besides, if you have a group of females whose prayers are powerful and touch the throne of God, those prayers can move the authority of God in the church and in the world.Find me any indication that the prayers of WOMEN are less significant to God then the prayers of men. Authority in prayer know no sex and no gender.There CANNOT be male and female.It would be a erroneous stretch to assume that this means the opposite sexes should loosely mix together. This error has been tried in some Pentacostal churches. They assumed that no male and female meant that believers could be sloppily inattentive to the proper distance there should remain to avoid sexual temptation.The result of these mistakes was fornication. So while Paul says there cannot be male and female he is not negating proper boundaries between unmarried people of the opposite sexes.But the context of Galatians 3:28 should indicate oppressive bigotry and abuse of classes. " ... there cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man, there cannot be male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise." Let's consider this word of Paul along with, his practice of not letting a woman exercise authority over a man. I would note that it is perhaps a personal matter because Paul says - "I do not allow ..."This might be regarded as Paul's personal practice. I have noted that Paul also commended a certain woman Junia, who he said was note among the apostles. My opinion is that this Junia who had a reputation among the apostles probably spoke some things very edifying.I don't think she was completely silent. It could be her teaching. Or it could have been the power of her prayers on behalf of the church, or both.At any rate, those words about sister Junia came from the same man who has perturbed some with his instructions for woman to be silent in the church meeting.Since Paul said that the saints may all prophesy one by one, I am not sure what this silence was that Paul requested. I am not sure about this paragraph. However, history has demonstrated that Christian woman have both been used as teachers.Mrs. Jessie Penn Lewis did very valuable research on the complete bibilcal usage of such terms as soul, heart, spirit.Mary McDonough's book "God's Plan of Redemption" I would recommend to anyone interested in the will of God with not the slightest hesitation. It is very deep and enlightening.On problem is people's misplaced confindence in the clergy / laity system. They feel "authjority" is only had by those with wierd collars. And if you do not have REVEREND before your name you have no spiritual authority.The clergy / laity system is the works of the Nicolaitans which Jesus said He hated in Revelation chapter 2. And the clerical class of meditorial priesthood is something of a throw back to the Old Testament. Women covet the hierarchical positions. Men do even more.People erroneously think these positions mean authority. The Brethren left completely the meditorial class and the clergy laity system. The exposed the clergy / laity system and unscriptural for the new testament church. I completely agree with thier presentation of the priesthood of every believer.How much of the resentment of women towards Paul is a coveting of official clerical titles of something which Christ does not want in His church to begin with ? I don't know anything about arguments over Luke 22:43-44. Is this another Bart Erhman special ?Before Luke was written we have the writing of the epistle of Hebrews. And it tells us that with strong cryings to the Father who was able to deliver Jesus out of death, He cried:Notice that this is not cries to be delivered from death but to be delivered OUT of death. That must means cries of the Son for the Father to resurrect Him once He did die. "This One, in the days of His flesh, having offered up both petitions and supplications with strong crying and tears to Him who was able to save Him out of death and having been heard because of His piety." (Hebrews 5:7) Before Luke wrote of Gethsemene we have the writer of Hebrews (probably Paul) telling us that Christ offered up tearful cries and petitions to the Father for Him to be saved out of death.I have no doubt about the agony of Jesus to be absolute for the will of His Father before the cross. He was also a man. And Luke's emphasis in the Gospel of Luke is the humanity and typical yet fine manhood of the Savior.It is totally and completely realistic that from the SAME mouth came the victorious prayer of John 17 before His crucifixion and His agonizing battle with human temptation in the Garden of Gethsemene in Luke.That ONE all-incompassing personality could react both ways to His coming trial is not a surprise to me at all. He is God / Man. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

What would you call His experience of resisting temptation in the wilderness in Luke 4:1-13 ?Was that no suffering on His part to fulfill His service to His Father ? Of course it was.In Luke 19:41-44 we read of Christ lamenting with visible tears for Jerusalem. He suffered their rejection as thier Savior once again. He "wept over it" (19:41)This is a stronger word for wept then in John 11 at the resurrection of Lazarus. This is not simply the trickle of a tear down His cheek. This is strong crying out loud in suffering sorrow for Jerusalem.And in Luke 20 He tells the parable about Himself as the vinyard master's son. He is rejected and killed in the parable (Luke 20:9-19) And when the vineyard owner sent his son, they said "This is the heir; let us kill him that the inheritance may be ours." (v.14) That surely indicates the suffering of the Son of God for the service of His Father and for the nation of Israel. And for His suffering the Father takes up retribution against His murderers: "And they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the master of the vineyard do to them?

​

He will come and destroy these vinedressors and will give the vineyard to others. And when they heard this, they said, May it never happen!" Jesus explains to them that the Old Testament said the the stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner.This all indicates the rejected and suffering servant Messiah whom is cast out of the city and crucified by jealous religionists. This of course is an intense suffering to the faithful Messiah Jesus.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Your claim is disingenuous (or perhaps just confused). Geisler & Nix are speaking of the critical texts ("modern critical editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible"). The variants that you showed in the OP, from Ehrman, are from Byzantine texts. These are two different things.Geisler & Nix are correct that the critical texts have no variations that affect major Christian doctrines, and that they allow us to work back toward the original text with fairly high confidence.You (and Ehrman) are correct that the later Byzantine texts have a number of changes. These are primarily expansions and clarifications to the text, for a good reason. The culture had changed, and some clarification of the original setting was deemed necessary. BUT precisely because the Byzantine texts are later, their changes are irrelevant to the critical texts, to the claims of Geisler & Nix, and to modern Bible translations such as NASB and NIV, which are translated from the critical texts.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Present your statistics which lead you to another view of the proportion of variant texts to the whole, which you find serious or devastating to major orthodox Christian teachings.

---

I'm not looking at statistics. I'm looking at the actual discrepancies and how they could impact Christian tenets, beliefs, traditions, practices, etc.

quote:

---

I think there is a difference in the abuse of a passage and the mistake in the text.

​

An accurate text is not free from twisting, abuse, exageration. Practically any text, even one more favorable to Christian sisters, might be somehow made to argue someone's spiritually destructive agenda.

​

All things considered, it is hard to fault Paul for male chauvinism of the bigotted and oppressive type, ie. Moslem style.

---

But it is a discrepancy that has impacted women in Christianity. If the verse wasn't there it couldn't be abused.Galatians 3:28 simply says that all are equal in Christ, which is consistent with what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians. The "margin note" doesn't fit.

quote:

---

Let's consider this word of Paul along with, his practice of not letting a woman exercise authority over a man. I would note that it is perhaps a personal matter because Paul says - "I do not allow ..."

---

I assume you're referring to 1 Timothy. 1 Timothy is not considered to be written by Paul. It was written about 100-150CE. Early Christian Writings

quote:

---

Before Luke wrote of Gethsemene we have the writer of Hebrews (probably Paul) telling us that Christ offered up tearful cries and petitions to the Father for Him to be saved out of death.

---

It doesn't matter what another writer says. The author's story in Luke was changed to support one view of Christ and not be used by another view of Christ. Luke does not present Jesus as suffering. That's why the gospel was favored by the Marcion group.Like I said earlier, there were many beliefs concerning whether Jesus was human, divine, or half and half.