purpledawn writes:
Ehrman's book is simply the source for the top ten most familiar verses that weren't "originally" in the New Testament. Whether one agrees with Ehrman's conclusions or not, either these verses were in the oldest manuscripts or they weren't. This discussion is about verses that aren't in the oldest manuscripts and how they impact Christianity. Address my arguments, not Ehrman's.
Ehrman is telling us nothing new here. The Greek "Textus Receptus" added a number of words, phrases, and verses that were not in the originals and are not in the Greek "critical texts." This was known since before the Reformation, at least, when Erasmus published the first critical text.
But the verses which were not in the oldest manuscripts are likewise not included in most modern translations (e.g. NASB, NIV, NET), either. (If they are included at all, it is in footnotes or in parentheses with notes that these were not original.)
So your thesis doesn't make sense to me. If these verses were not there originally, and are not in our modern texts (or are included but clearly stated to be non-original), how much can they have influenced either historic or modern Christianity?
purpledawn writes:
Didn't really read my argument did you or the links I provided? The Doctrine of the Trinity is:
Simply put, the doctrine of the Trinity states that there is:
One God in three Persons
No, I
did read your argument and links. But I don't fully agree with your sources, their implications, or your inferences. "
Bible Knowledge Ministries - Bible Teaching Website" appears to be a non-scholarly lay website, which I have never heard of before. It is hardly an accepted authority on Christianity.
The Doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in 325 AD at the council of Nicea. We have no textual evidence of the Trinitarian claim in 1 Jn 5:7 "until the 1500s"
(Wallace); it was probably added
after the formulation of the Doctrine of the Trinity in 325.
Historically, the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated to resolve the biblical claims that 1) God is one, 2) the Father is God, 3) Jesus is God, 4) the Holy Spirit is God. Each of these claims is based on undisputedly original passages of Scripture. The historical doctrine of the Trinity almost certainly did
not derive from 1 John 5:7, since the Trinitarian phrase in this passage almost certainly did
not exist at the time.
Modern Evangelical scholarship also does
not defend the doctrine of the Trinity from 1 John 5:7, since modern Evangelical scholars do not believe the Trinitarian phrase was original.
purpledawn writes:
kbertsche writes:
How does this relate to the 12 "basic tenets of Christianity" that you quoted above? I don't see this as any of them.
Again, didn't read my arguments. From Message 1: For that reason I would also like to look at how these discrepancies could also impact general Christian layperson beliefs, practices, and traditions that may or may not be the same across the sects of Christianity.
Here I apparently
misread your argument. Since you immediately followed this with the "basic tenets of Christianity" I thought you were speaking of the "basic tenets", not non-basic secondary issues over which there is significant difference of opinion.
purpledawn writes:
kbertsche writes:
1) Again, I don't see how this relates to any of the "basic tenets of Christianity" that you quoted above.
2) Essentially all of the information in the last part of Mark (which I agree is non-original) can be found at the end of Matthew, the end of Luke, or the beginning of Acts, all of which ARE original.
Mark and Matthew are different. Luke and Acts don't really address the same thing. I'd appreciate it if you would provide the verse numbers when referring to other verses. Then I know we are looking at the same verses.
Mk 16:1-8 is probably original. Mk 16:9-20 is probably a later addition, based largely on other biblical accounts.
Mk 16:9-11 speaks of Jesus' resurrection and post-resurrection appearance to Mary, and her reporting to the disciples. This seems to be based largely on Lk 24:10-11, and partly on Mt 28:9-10 and Jn 20:14-18.
Mk 16:12-13 speaks of Jesus' appearance to two men on the road to Emmaus. It seems to be a very brief summary of Lk 24:13-35.
Mk 16:14-18 contains the Great Commission and comments about handling serpents and miraculous healing. The Great Commission is similar (but not identical) to Mt 28:16-20 and Acts 1:1-11. The comments about miraculous healing and handling serpents are not at the end of any of the other gospels, but may be based on Acts 28:1-6.
Mk 16:19-20 appears to be a very brief summary of the book of Acts.
purpledawn writes:
The Matthew version of the Great Commission is the most familiar, but it isn't the same as Mark.
The task in Mark is to proclaim the "good news", not teach. The door to door Christians aren't trying to teach anyone to obey what Jesus had commanded, they are spreading the "good news" and telling people they are condemned if they don't believe and become a Christian.
Agreed. Perhaps this addition to Mark also added elements from Jesus' sending out of the his disciples (Mt 10:1-16; Mk 6:7-11; Lk 9:1-5; 10:1-12).
(Note also that the Great Commission as recorded by Matthew contains the Trinitarian phrase "baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." And this phrase
does seem to be part of the original text.)
purpledawn writes:
The addition to Mark also brings up the idea that these signs accompany those who believe: driving out demons, speaking in tongues, handling snakes, drinking poison, and healing people.
Yes, I suspect this was drawn from events in Acts, such as Acts 28:1-6.
purpledawn writes:
I still feel that the commission in Mark impacts the layperson differently than the commission in Matthew. The churches that handle snakes and drink poison probably wouldn't be doing those rituals if the text wasn't added or preachers stopped using it.
Most modern Bible translations state that Acts 16:9ff is not original, and either put it in parentheses or in a footnote. Thus many laypersons do not even read these verses. Most biblical scholars (including Evangelical scholars) believe that these verses were not original. Most Evangelical seminaries caution their students against preaching on such passages as if they were original. Few careful, scholarly Evangelical pastors would do so.
purpledawn writes:
There's a difference between teaching (mathteu) and preaching (kruss). So in Matthew, they were to gain students and teach them the commands that Jesus had taught his own students, not preach the "good news".
Yes. Again, the verb "preaching" could have come from Jesus' sending of His disciples, or from events of Acts.
™ Version 4.2
