What is a True Christian?

Sorry. Of course you are right. Tradition has it that Moses wrote the Torah but nobody really knows.
The point remains though that Jesus says that it was Moses that commanded them to stone to death adulterers, and that Moses got it wrong.

Your point would be a lot stronger if you argued from a passage that was actually in the original manuscripts. As you probably know, the story of the woman caught in adultery is thought by most scholars to be a later addition to the text. Those who hold to inerrancy claim that it only applies to the original autographs, which did not contain this account.

I would say that motive and intention matter. When we exhort,encourage, or teach each other we either use truth as we understand it or truth as we define it. And in this context we are limiting scripture to what is found in the modern canon..(NIV,NKJV,KJV) Mark Twain can take a seat and write more about Tom and Huck. Jesus knew what the Law said but elaborated based on the premise that the truth is written on human hearts and is not found in a scroll. Or as some critics do, conclude that Jesus was a mythical character in a book...as was Moses. Their basic argument is that human wisdom,fable, and story change over time at the whims of the authors and/or storytellers. I disagree based on observation. I ask who said it. I ask to whom was it being said. I ask what the cultural context was.Of course, I believe that Jesus not only existed and was alive but that He is alive today and that the comforter---the Holy Spirit---can speak through any one of us. I weigh my answers carefully when I present them here. Consensus would suggest that there is no way that i can prove such an answer so to attempt to do so merely digs me a bigger hole to crawl out of. I also must consider my audience. If we are arguing that absolute moral truth can come through one human to another, the point of whether a manuscript is original or not only pertains to the estimated human lifespan of the purported speaker. If we conclude that the stories were and are "made up" we have a different argument.Then we have a third argument. What is truth? Is truth relative or absolute? Is the truths gleaned from the Bible any more special than Mark Twain and the Perfect Stranger?Again....what is truth?

So, in other words the Bible is inerrant except for where Jesus says it isn't. Here then is another case from Matthew 19 where Jesus says that the OT got it wrong.

quote:

---

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason? 4 Haven’t you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. 7 Why then, they asked, did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away? 8 Jesus replied, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

---

...or maybe this from Matthew 5 should not be counted as part of the canon either.

quote:

---

38 You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43 You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor  and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

---

Then there is the matter of squaring Jesus' command to love your enemy as opposed to the OT orders where Yahweh supposedly commands genocide and communal stoning to death for minor offences. It can't be done.Again, it is either Jesus as the embodiment of the Word of God, or an inerrant Bible. It is Christianity or Biblianity. You can't have both. An inerrant Bible is simply one of the false idols that the Bible itself talks about.

I agree, but just because someone says that the Holy Spirit led them does not mean that He actually did. I suggest that is also the case where the writers of the OT books claim that Yahweh told them that Yahweh commanded genocide and public stoning. There is an ultimate truth but not we can't have absolute certainty of that truth, and so we go on faith that we have it right. I have faith that the Bible is the narrative of the progressive revelation that comes from God reaching out to mankind, with it climaxing in Jesus. With Jesus as a lens we can discern what actually did come from God and what didn't. I believe that The Bible is a library of books that God uses to reach out to us for teaching, rebuking, correcting etc.

No, of course not. The Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts. Any later additions, changes, and explanatory notes are NOT inerrant.You may think that this is a "cop-out", but it is not. There is very good agreement among biblical scholars on later additions to the text. This is determined by objectively comparing the earliest manuscripts to later ones.

But there are NO original manuscripts.

Yes, 2 Peter calls Paul's epistles "scriptures" - i.e. writings. What else would they be called? But 2 Peter doesn't explicitly call Paul's epistles "inspired by God", does it? My question isn't whether the early church considered Paul's writings inspired. It's whether Paul himself considered them inspired when he wrote to Timothy.

What means are you using?

I agree with you in principle of course. I believe it quite possible to reconstruct the originals from the collection of old manuscripts available today. But not if you are working from the wrong collection of old manuscripts, and from what you are saying you do accept the wrong collection as authentic. That is, you accept the current scholarship about the history of the manuscripts that comes down from Westcott and Hort, which is understandable since the major seminaries and a lot of good teachers and preachers do also.I'm no scholar of course, and I'm sure you know tons more about these issues than I do or ever will, but I got my mind changed some years ago by reading some of Dean John Burgon's book "The Revision Revised" and some of his "Last Twelve Verses of Mark" plus some other books, mostly by KJV-onlies, although I don't consider myself one of them. I consider myself a "Burgonian" I suppose. He was a contemporary of Westcott and Hort's and their better as a scholar, who criticized them for replacing the Traditional Greek text with some Greek manuscripts known already by the Church to be corrupt, also for their lousy Greek and lousy English. The lousy English I can judge for myself, the rest requires me to trust Burgon and the others who agree with him, and Burgon himself particularly impresses me with his knowledge and integrity.I started a blog on the subject some years ago (The Great Bible Hoax of 1881) where I collected bits of information about the issue. Basically, the idea that the "Church" made additions to the text down the centuries is Westcott and Hort's own totally made-up theory without a shred of evidence for it. Their substituted Greek texts are known for what is left out of them, passages historically revered by Christians, such as the one you mention about the woman taken in adultery. There are even huge obvious gaps in the text of their preferred mss where something used to be, such as the last twelve verses of Mark in Sinaiticus. This is a huge hoax they pulled off on the Church, and it's continued to deceive for over 130 years. Consider just for starters that the accusation that the Church made additions to the text is an accusation of tampering with God's word against the very commandment of God not to add to it. It's amazing how they got away with all that. The Church must have come seriously under God's displeasure for all that to happen, and we are no doubt still under God's judgment.I wish I could be an instrument to change anyone's mind about the validity of the revision of 1881 but there's such an array of powerhouse Christian "scholars" and teachers against my point of view it would take a miracle. I do recommend the documentaries made by Chris Pinto, particularly his three lengthy documentaries about the history of the Bible, and his latest, that just came out, that I haven't even seen yet (I'm sure it's out in the mailbox, I just don't get out there very often), is titled Bridge to Babylon and is specifically focused on what Westcott and Hort did. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So I assume you think that the other examples I gave weren't supposed to be included in the Gospels either, or did those who put the canon together get it wrong?

There are no extant original manuscripts at the present time. But there WERE original manuscripts once. And there are numerous copies and fragments from various dates, some quite early.

Not just "writings", but associated with "the other Scriptures". This was a technical term for the OT, which WAS considered to be inspired by God. So yes, the early church seems to have viewed Paul's writings as divinely inspired, just like they did the OT.

Why do you assume this? Do you really think there are objective, textual reasons that your other examples were not in the original autographs?

No one questions that there were originals but I see no way we can assume to know what those originals said.