Original Sin?

Quote: Evenbob

How do you figure that. You can be
a heathen who's never heard of
god and lead a perfectly virtuous
life.

Actually this is more of a problem for you than me. I can easily explain it. A heathen is made in the image and likeness of God as well as a believer and there are certain things that are objectively morally wrong and right that even without the benefit of divine revelation he or she will know in their heart. How do you explain that the virtuous life of this heathen will be the same virtues of the Christian morality even if they have never met or influenced each other?

Quote: FrGamble

I'm surely not denying that the amount of forensic material and ancient manuscripts for the Bible give it the most scientific and sure basis for trustworthiness over any ancient text. I will deny that the Gospels were substantively edited with new content. The rest of what you described is the history of Biblical studies and hermeneutics and it is wonderful that we continue to grow in our understanding of what was originally written down and what the early Church interpreted and understood about those texts.

Those cases that I quoted are things that I consider to be substantively edited. Parts of the substance of the text changed, some important features or facts, rather than spelling or translation errors.

If “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” wasn't written down for 300 years, I say there is a pretty good chance it was never said.

If “for they know not what they are doing” does not appear in the earliest versions of his Gospel, I say there is a pretty good chance that was never said either.

If in the conclusion to Mark, the description of Jesus appearing to various disciples after his resurrection does not appear in the earliest manuscripts, I say there is a pretty good chance that it never happened.

This last one is the most interesting one, since it is often held up as evidence of all of these people saying that they saw Jesus after he supposedly came back from the dead. If Mark was one of the earlier gospels that was written, many think it was the first, and that version of the events wasn't in the original version of the gospel, how can you have any confidence in the statements being based on reality?

Is it wonderful if you discover that some of the evidence central to some of your beliefs isn't true?

Quote: FrGamble

it is wonderful that we continue to grow in our understanding of what was originally written down

It is wonderful. Bart Ehrman, a professor at N Carolina U,
is probably the best authority on the NT in the world. He's
written 27 books on the subject, like 'Forged: Writing in
the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not
Who We Think They Are' and 'How Jesus Became God'.

He started out as an evangelical Christian and ended up
an atheist/agnostic. He says, just like Joe Campbell said,
if you want to end up being an atheist, just study the
Bible with no prejudice. It will convince you.

Ehrman claims almost half of the NT's 27 books are forgeries,
done 200-400 years after Jesus died. 6 of Paul's letters,
Peter 1 and Peter 2, Titus. I can't remember the others. Forgery
was apparently quite a cottage industry in ancient times.
If you could write, and less than 3% could, you could put down
your ideas and claim it was written by somebody close to
Jesus. If you were clever about getting it into circulation,
it would be accepted as yet another 'lost' book.

Ehrman is a popular speaker and it's standing room only
at the events he speaks at. Youtube him, there are dozens
of talks he gave. He blasts holes in the NT you can drive
a cruise ship though.

Quote: FrGamble

I find it hilarious that this paragraph describes the Jesus Seminar

But it doesn't describe the JS at all.
Have you actually read it? It's hardly
a wild rumor, why would you think
that. The Jesus Seminar was a group
of 150 scholars and laymen who
worked on the historicity of the
deeds and sayings of Jesus, to determine
the veracity of what's in the NT. It's
very well done, you should read it
sometime.

Quote: FrGamble

How do you explain that the virtuous life of this heathen will be the same virtues of the Christian morality

Because morality is a human trait,
it doesn't come from some god.
You always sell humans short. The
only people who need god are
the ones selling the concept so
they can make a living at it.

Have you read the long article I
sent you on how your Church
came to be so fabulously wealthy?
It certainly had nothing to do with
some god giving it to them. It
was good old greed and avarice,
what a surprise.

Quote: Evenbob

But it doesn't describe the JS at all.
Have you actually read it? It's hardly
a wild rumor, why would you think
that. The Jesus Seminar was a group
of 150 scholars and laymen who
worked on the historicity of the
deeds and sayings of Jesus, to determine
the veracity of what's in the NT. It's
very well done, you should read it
sometime.

It's not quite a book you know, more of a development of different thoughts. As with most things there are some good parts but on the whole you should read and see what the intellectual community and various scholars think of the agenda driven pursuits and results of the Jesus Seminar movement.

Quote: Dalex64

This last one is the most interesting one, since it is often held up as evidence of all of these people saying that they saw Jesus after he supposedly came back from the dead. If Mark was one of the earlier gospels that was written, many think it was the first, and that version of the events wasn't in the original version of the gospel, how can you have any confidence in the statements being based on reality?

We have to be a little more careful in talking about these things. Remember that the oldest manuscripts we have and not considered the ones originally written by Mark. The gold standard of looking at ancient manuscripts is not set simply by the oldest date. There are many other considerations that go into determining the original. However, you are right in suggesting the older the manuscript the more weight it carries in giving us evidence of being original and true to the inspired author's intent.

Think a little bit about the Talmud and the history and fruits of that collection of notes, debates, and discussion about the Sacred Text. It is good to note what parts of Scripture are most attested to, but it does not mean that a gloss like, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." is something foreign or against the original text that led to its "inspired" addition.

In regards to the specific text you mentioned above; you are right that Mark is the first Gospel written and that some of the earliest manuscripts do not have the postscript as part of the Gospel. If that was the only evidence of the Resurrection there would be a question there, but only a question answerable in many other ways besides that the Resurrection did not happen. We might also want to recall that Mark is not the earliest writing of the NT. Thessalonians is older and written by a man who also encountered the Risen Lord and heard first person testimony of the Resurrection from the Apostles themselves. The Q source that both Luke and Matthew draw from that even predates Mark has material about the Resurrection. Also the Didache, a first century non-canonical text assumes the knowledge of a Resurrection.

Quote:

Is it wonderful if you discover that some of the evidence central to some of your beliefs isn't true?

This leads us to why this statement is a non-sequiter. These things are true in the way a reflection or sermon on a text from the Bible is also true.

But I'm not talking about the inspiration or lessons or authors intent derived from the texts, or parables and stories invented and put into the texts, I'm talking about the historicity of the texts themselves.

Evidence of text being inserted into document A 300 years later casts serious doubt on the truth of those statements when written about in document B.

If everything that was factually verifiable in the bible turned out to be true, then it might be reasonable to consider that the things that are not factually verifiable might also be true.

That is not the case, though. Some of the facts have been clearly refuted, some of them have been recast as allegory and parable.

Since hardly any, if any, of the supernatural events in the bible have been factually verified, and some of them have been refuted, it is hardly unreasonable to question the accuracy of the remaining unverified and unverifiable supernatural events.

Quote:

This leads us to why this statement is a non-sequiter. These things are true in the way a reflection or sermon on a text from the Bible is also true.

Which brings us to: these things can not be proven to be actually true, therefore the reflection or sermon on a text from the bible is not based on verified fact.

As more and more of these unverified facts are in refuted, you are left with a set of lessons that aren't based on reality or real events at all.

How can you say "Jesus said this" when he didn't actually say it, or "Jesus taught us this" when he didn't actually teach it or "Jesus was the son of god" when there is no evidence to back that statement up?

that brings us back to my objection to taking things on faith, when that faith is based on no facts at all.

Quote: Dalex64

But I'm not talking about the inspiration or lessons or authors intent derived from the texts, or parables and stories invented and put into the texts, I'm talking about the historicity of the texts themselves.

Evidence of text being inserted into document A 300 years later casts serious doubt on the truth of those statements when written about in document B.

I assume we are talking again about the few textual examples that have not been attested to in the earliest manuscripts we have. Does it cast doubt on its historicity as part of the original document? Many scholars that know more about these things than I do think it does bring up questions, and I agree with them. However, does it cast doubt on the truth of the rest of either document? I don't think so.

Quote:

If everything that was factually verifiable in the bible turned out to be true, then it might be reasonable to consider that the things that are not factually verifiable might also be true.

The Bible is the most important text in understanding the history of Judaism during that period and it has been archeological verified many times in regards to the places mentioned and the people such as the Herods and Pontius Pilate, etc. On the whole the Bible is factually verifiable in its historical context, especially regarding that is not the reason it was written.

Quote:

Which brings us to: these things can not be proven to be actually true, therefore the reflection or sermon on a text from the bible is not based on verified fact.

Some of the glosses or inserted texts are indeed reflections or sermons based on verified fact. Think of Talmud and its observations, discussions, and debates based on the Sacred Text.

Quote:

How can you say "Jesus said this" when he didn't actually say it, or "Jesus taught us this" when he didn't actually teach it or "Jesus was the son of god" when there is no evidence to back that statement up?

that brings us back to my objection to taking things on faith, when that faith is based on no facts at all.

Let's get back on the same page and both use faith as it should be used, namely that it is based on evidence, facts, and reason. That blind faith or faith without anything supporting it is not faith at all.

I will acknowledge that faith in the Inspiration of the Bible is on a different level than the obvious and much more easily verified faith in the existence of God. This gets us back to the discussion about what to do when we have realized there is a God. What difference does that make and is it possible to go any further to let's say; believe that this God is the Holy Trinity of Christianity and that Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity? I believe it is not blind faith to believe this and that you are wrong in going too far to say that Christianity is based on no facts at all or to take a few examples of possible insertions in the Sacred Text to then jump to Jesus never said anything of what the Scriptures record. That is the stuff of Evenbob's favorite Jesus Seminar.

Let's also remember that faith in Jesus Christ is about a relationship with a living God who loves you. You don't come to your friends and those you most love through some type of inescapable fixed arrangement. You discover and develop a relationship based on trust and experiences that begin to verify and erase any doubts.

Quote: FrGamble

These things are true in the way a reflection or sermon on a text from the Bible is also true.

This is what's happening all through the
Christian churches. There's been an
explosion of books in the last 10-15
years and new analysis of what in the
NT is true and what isn't. Church members
read some of these books and get very
upset and want their pastor to address
it. What pastors are saying is, read the
NT in the spirit it was written. Read it
for it's message, for it's intent, and
your faith will remain unshaken.

But Christianity doesn't work that way.
The things in the NT have to be 100% true
for the religion to work. Mary had to
be a virgin, Jesus had do miracles, and
of course he had to 100% rise from the
dead or there's no point to the whole
thing. It can't be a rumor, you can't say
he 'might' have risen.

This is where the Church has backed itself
into a corner. Buddhism fully admits that
there was no Buddha, he's a mythical
character. But that doesn't change the
message of the religion a whit. For the Church,
their religion is crumbling bit by bit, as
more and more of the truth comes to light
about what really happened. FrG likes to
point to the longevity of the Church. It's
only lasted this long because you can't hide
the truth forever, it always comes out in
the end.