For All Hallows Eve

ANY fragments from as early as 125 AD would not be the originals but copies.And those few we have are under serious attack for being the work of early heretics or even later forgeries. For any piece of even early copies to have survived means it managed to survive the sort of wear and tear that explains why we didn't have any early copies until they were "discovered" recently, which implies the ones that survived to the present are phonies. The main bulk of the Bible manuscripts, some 5000 IIRC, make up the Textus Receptus on which the KJV was based, and none of those date earlier than the tenth century, again for the reason that earlier copies of the the true ones would have been worn out beyond recovery.Bruce Metzger is the name of the major textual critic I couldn't remember earlier. He doesn't believe in the supernatural, such as the prophec of the book of Daniel,`so his readings of the bible suffer from his bias in a way that should not be given any authority whatever. He's a fraud. Nobody should pay any attention to him.It's a mark of an unbeliever to read such textual critics. Christians are believers who read the Bible as written.Jesus spoke Aramaic, but probably also Hebrew and maybe some Latin and certainly Greek. The disciples all wrote in Greek though they probably knew other languages to some extent as well. As I recall Aramaic would have been spoken in the region of Galilee, but Greek was the universal language and all had to know it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You ask me for evidence but you've never supplied any of your own. It's all a declaration that you are the only honest person who knows how to read the Bible in the entire history of Christianity. I'm amazed that you get away with that since any "fundie" or creationist would be called on it and not only called on it but labeled with it forever after. So you produce your evidence please.Mine comes from the traditional dating I find in one of my Bibles though since I'm on someone else's computer these days I'm remembering it.

The event of 70AD so altered the way of life of the Jews there is no way it could simply have been forgotten. And of course there are no "major rewrites" of any part of the Bible because it's all inspired by God.I'm sorry, you will have to remind me of how my reading of the Bible is deficient. It's interesting however that while you find my reading deficient you let pass the utterly ridiculous claim of jar to be the only person who knows how to read the Bible even among all the best theologians since Christ.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is a boundary beyond which a person is not a Christian for denying some tenets of the faith. I don't know if denial of the supernatural and prophecy is beyond that boundary or not though I would suspect it has to be since Christianity is nothing if it is not supernatural.I saw a quote by Metzger himself saying that he dated Daniel later than Daniel himself claims to have written, (making Daniel a liar of course), because he didn't believe in prophecy. That was the reason he gave in so many words. The book is quite consistent and coherent as Daniel wrote it but to date it later destroys its coherence and consistency. Perhaps I can find the quote for you later, I think it is in a particular book but I'm in the process of moving and haven't unpacked my books yet.

Sorry you have to quote me, not following a whole thread.

Any writings that were rejected by the churches, which determined what was inspired and what wasn't, did not end up as canon. There were lots of writings that didn't make it into the canon because they were judged not to be inspired. There were phony gospels written by heretics such as the gnostics, and other heresies got their views into some early copies. Even some writings considered to be very good and probably trustworthy though not inspired, such as the book of Enoch, didn't make it into the canon in the end. Some such writings were accepted into the canon by some churches but not others, but by the time we get to the Reformation I think we have the most trustworthy collection.I never heard of the Jewish gospel so I don't know how it was regarded by the churches through the centuries, except of course that it can be inferred from the fact that it isn't canonical that the churches regarded it at least as not inspired, perhaps heretical.The Jesus Seminar is considered by conservative Christians to be far outside the pale of orthodoxy.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's very simple why I say jar claims to be the only one who rightly understands scripture. When I've pointed out that he's at odds with the entire history of Christian theology he;s actually said that's because he's honest and knows how to read the Bible, implying of course that the entire history of Christian exegesis doesn't. It's all on the thread here somewhere.

Except the Pharisees who tried to have him killed even before they succeeded at having him killed by crucifixion. The Romans executed the sentence but it was the Jewish leaders who asked for his death.