The Relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

Mike 555;


Mike555; So, I assume, since you did not disagree with any of the eight points that I made, that you and I are in agreement with these eight points? If so, we do not need to re-visit your claim to know what the original biblical text was.

In addition to our agreement on these eight points, You and I also agree on the core biblical message that Jesus IS the Christ.

You and I agree that the major points of the biblical message are relatively clear though the two millennia-long arguments between Christians demonstrates that much is unclear and disputable.

At least we, both as christians agree on these few, specific, things.

Clear






TO FORUM READERS;

It has been obvious that Mike555 never knew what the original text was, nor was he ever able to give us the original text, else he would have at least attempted it (I believe he IS that diligent enough to try).



I am NOT simply “beating up on” Mike555. And it is not just Mike555 who cannot answer any of these simple critical textual questions. Mike555 cannot tell us what the text said, I cannot do it; none of the forum members can do it and none of the worlds best biblical critics can do it.



I gave Mike555 the chance to demonstrate his claim using the first 8 verses of Mark simply because Mark represents the source material for all other biblical Gospels. The same example could have been made from any other gospel.

If we consider just the first three verses in mark, it becomes clear WHY MIKE555 cannot tell you what the original words to these verses (or any other verses) are.


The picture below shows the first few verses of Mark in a popular Greek Biblical text.








If we consider JUST THE FIRST VERSE : any bible with a critical apparatus will tell you different versions of the text you are reading; what the important differences are, and what manuscripts the differences are in. This critical text includes all major Uncials, all major families, important papyral examples, church fathers, syriac versions, etc.


A picture of what a popular critical apparatus in my Nestle-Aland critical text looks like is below :






All of these symbols indicate variations from the given text. Almost all of the letters indicate different Manuscripts and manuscript families, lectionaries, important church fathers, papyri and other witnesses to various versions.


In the current edition of the Nestle-aland , the critical apparatus discusses different versions of verse ONE.


For example : Though some popular modern bibles have the words 6&7 in verse one υιου Θεου (son [of] God), this phrase is omitted by the original writer of codex sinaiticus (one of the five most important early 4-5th century manuscripts in existence). Is the phrase original or not original? Which manuscript is correct or are they both wrong and the phrase was added later? Right now, we are we are simply considering these two words… The actual issue is more complicated than this.

The apparatus tells us that the phrase is omitted by BOTH uncials in the Greek Codex Koridethi. It is omitted by the miniscule MS28 and it’s omitted by lectionary 2211. Thus, some of the lectionaries are involved (some including a text, some leaving out a text, and some witnessing different words in the place of a specific text)

A very early Sahidic translation leaves the phrase out of their text. The early Church Father Origen in his quotation of this verse leaves out these words.

The question, at present is a simple one : Are these eminent early texts (sinaiticus is 4th -5th century….) correct in leaving “son [of] god” out? Or were these words IN the original text?

Once we move beyond these two words, if becomes more complicated. For example, if we consider words number 4&5, the Church Fathers, Irenaeus and Epiphanius , not only leave out 6&7, but they ALSO leave out “Ιησου Χριστου” (Jesus Christ) in their quotes of this scripture. Thus, one cannot turn to early church fathers to show us a consistent version of ANY greek text. So, we now have a fairly standard Greek Text with at least two variations just in the first 6 words (the title of Mark also has it’s variant versions as well…)

Is the current text correct, or are is Sinaiticus and the other manuscripts correct. Are the Fathers correct in their disagreement with BOTH the original text and the group represented by Sinaiticus and others?

Some versions, such as Manuscript 1241 leaves out all four words (4-7) of verse one as do Irenaeus and Epiphanius, but then inserts “υιου του κυριου” instead. Now we have yet another variant to consider.

MULTIPLE INFLUENCES UPON MANUSCRIPTS -

Most early manuscripts had “correctors” who looked over what a scribe had written and then made changes to the manuscript so as to “correct” the manuscript to have the reading which the corrector himself thought was correct. The problem is that the correctors often did not agree on what WAS the correct reading.



For example, the wonderful scholar Bart Erman provides a picture of the first chapter of Hebrews from the eminent New Testament manuscript, codex Vaticanus (in the Vatican library)






Erman comments on the marginal note between the first and second columns. One textual corrector had erased a word in verse 3 and substituded another word in it’s place. A later, second corrector erased the first correction; reinserted the original word, and then wrote an indignant note in the margin, which reads : “Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don’t change it!”.

The point is that Correctors themselves produce changes to texts that are driven by their own biases as to what they think the text should read. Corrections themselves, produce variations in manuscripts. Is the first corrector correct? The second? The third or fourth? What about correctors that are separated by centuries of evolving doctrines?

Sinaiticus’ FIRST corrector (there were multiple correctors in many of the important manuscripts…) DOES use the text I gave originally (“υιου Θεου”). Vaticanus ALSO uses it. Does this mean it is original?

The very “strange” manuscript, Codex Bezae also agrees, however bezae has at least 10% more textual material than other early uncials in Acts alone. Codex Regius agrees as does Codex Washingtonianus. This leaves us with many, many versions to the text AND, We haven’t stopped considering the first seven words in the first sentence as yet. We HAVE NOT DISCUSSED minor, sub variants yet. We haven’t discussed other critical editions and there are THOUSANDS OF IMPORTANT VARIANTS for these texts.


I mentioned the great textual critic Carl Lachmann , for example, who tells us us that ALL of Verses two through three is a CONJECTURAL EMENDATION and he reminds us that there is NO Greek Manuscript support for this variant as I’ve given it. Lachman would have us remove these verses from any authentic version of the ancient bible. Is Lachmann correct in his claim?

Certainly we know of many, many, spurious additions to the bible (I’ve already referred to 1 John 5:7 as a known spurious addition that was NOT in ANY (zero, zip, nada) of the early Greek manuscripts.



The changes in Biblical texts do NOT have to occur only because of ancient bias and to ancient manuscripts.

For example : the Ten commandments were changed in Luther’s 1522 biblical translation. He purposefully left out the second commandment prohibiting the making of graven images (He split the 10th commandment so as to retain “ten” commandments rather than having only nine commandments).

This is why the ten commandments were different between protestant Germans and Catholic Germans for a time. The 4th commandment in Luther’s translation was to “Honour thy father and mother” and the 4th commandment in Calvin’s bible regarded “Remember the Sabbath day…”.


EVEN SUBTLE TEXTUAL CHANGES CREATED DIFFERENT DOCTRINES
Erasmus (who with Froben, created the FIRST Greek New Testament ever printed) rendered “metanoeite” in Matt 4:17 As “resipiscite” which meant “BE penitent” instead of the Vulgates “poenitentiam agite” which was much more easily interpreted as “do penance”.

This difference in translation allowed Luther to use the subtle difference to support his critique of the Catholic penitential system. Subtle differences supported differing doctrinal preferences.

Not only did scripture support bias, but bias affected scripture, For example, Luther shocked contemporaries by adding the word “allein” to Romans 3:28 to render the phrase “allein durch den Glauben” (i.e. "alone through faith" - "through faith alone").


Such changes were not merely ancient addition to text, but a relatively modern addition to a biblical text driven by personal bias. Thus, just as Erasmus’ change to “metanoeite” supports a specific doctrine, the addition of additional words such as “allein” creates doctrine.


I’ll leave out my comments on word order other than to repeat the example that The point is, that it of polemic importance if jesus Said : 'I never knew YOU. Away from me, you evildoers!' as in the king james or if he actually said 'YE never knew ME. Away from me, you evildoers!' (of course he knew them)


The claim to be able to know what ancient, non-existant texts said was always doomed to be proved wrong from the start.

However, I did want the forum members to understand the issues underlying WHY no one can say exactly what the words in the original text were and WHY both subtle changes AND major changes to biblical text both occur and how they create both correct, as well as incorrect bias in those who read the texts we produce.


None of this changes the truth that Jesus IS the son of God; he IS the savior; and he IS the only name to whom mankind may look for salvation.


However, Christians should NOT, and do NOT need to make up unsupportable nor incredible claims to support the christian claim, which will, when easily proven false, undermine the credibility of this profoundly important, core message of Christianity. If Christians assume that Athiests and Agnostics are gullible or stupid so as to be tempted to make erroneous claims, it does HARM to our credibility when we then make other claims which are not only TRUE, but they are SALVIFIC.

Please, I simply want to encourage forum members to be HONEST in their claims.

"Jesus IS the Savior" : YES, we as Christians may claim this is true.
"We have the original biblical text (or know exactly what it said) " : NO, we cannot claim this.


Clear
tweisesiis

As I informed you, any further comments from you would be answered with a referral back to posts 110, and 117. Your arguments are in opposition to the many experts in the field of Textual criticism who recognize that up to 99% of what was contained in the original autographs is preserved in the manuscript copies. Take your arguments up with them. I refer readers back to those posts as well.

You reveal a lack of integrity since you keep insisting that I claimed anything other than what I made clear in post #117.

And I will ask readers to go into the links provided in post #117.

[Clear lens]

Mike555;

Perhaps YOU ought to read the link you provided us. Your link will tell you the SAME thing AlabamaStorm and I have been telling you. Your link will ALSO tell you that we do NOT know what the original manuscript said, despite their feeling that some version of the text is 'good'.


Mike555’s link tells us :

“Alexander Souter, longtime New Testament professor at Mansfield College, Oxford, succinctly said, “Every fresh copy introduces fresh possibilities of error.”5 Kenyon observed, “Owing to the frailties of the human hand and eye and brain, it is impossible to copy large quantities of matter without making mistakes. These mistakes will be repeated by the next scribe who copies this manuscript, with additions of his own, so that as time goes on the text will tend to vary further and further from the true original.”6

Mike555's link also confirms the introduction of errors into the text at an early time period which process continues over time :

B. B. Warfield, professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology in the Theological Seminary of Princeton from 1887 to 1921, seemingly painted just as bleak a picture. He noted that each manuscript copy “was made laboriously and erroneously from a previous one, perpetuating its errors, old and new, and introducing still newer ones of its own manufacture. A long line of ancestry gradually grows up behind each copy in such circumstances, and the race gradually but inevitably degenerates, until, after a thousand years or so, the number of fixed errors becomes considerable.”7 Many manuscripts, however, bear evidence of numerous corrections by later scribes and users of the manuscript.

Mike555's link also confirms our claim that NONE of the Greek manuscripts of early date are the same but ALL HAVE VARIATION and We CANNOT always tell WHICH variation reflects the original (if any of the sample do at all) :

Gordon Fee observes that “no two of the 5340-plus Greek MSS of the NT are exactly alike. In fact the closest relationships between any two MSS in existence—even among the majority—average from six to ten variants per chapter. It is obvious therefore that no MS has escaped corruption.”8 With approximately 6,000 Greek manuscripts9 of various parts of the New Testament, it has been estimated that there are about 200,000 variant readings when each variant is counted each time that it occurs.

CONSIDER THE NAMES of the people mike is using as his references. Does ANYONE see ANY major textual critic of any note giving any opinions? For example :

Warfield also notes that Ezra Abbot, frequently reported that 95% of the New Testament’s variant readings have almost no support, and that in 95% of the rest, either reading “would cause no appreciable difference in the sense of the passages where they occur.”15 Those figures would indicate that in only one quarter of one percent would the variant readings present an appreciable difference in meaning.

The foot note reveals the background of this "expert" who Warfield quotes :


“Ezra Abbot was the assistant librarian at Harvard College in the mid 1800s


“ AND, as to Abbots background as a textual critic it says that he “helped edit Dr. William Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible” and Abbot “ also produced a number of its finest articles, including a prolific and learned article on the New Testament text, 3: 2112-43 “.


Does anyone here think that a person who assisted an author of a religious dictionary, and who wrote some "fine" articles for a religious dictionary is REALLY a good source of critical textual information regarding thousands of Greek Texts?



Abbot is not even a real textual critic having any significance. Consider Lachmann, wetstein, the alands; griesbach, Tischendorf; hort; nestle, etc and compare the these giants of textual criticism to Mike555's sort of textual experts who "helped edit a dictionary". Look at ALL of the "experts" in his article and see what degree of actual textual criticism they've done.


I DO RECOMMEND INDIVIDUALS READ THE LINK MIKE555 PROVIDED. THEN, then ask yourselves IF the data shows that anyone can say what the original biblical text said.

Though the percentage of change may be small, what if those changes are the different 10 commandments I pointed out in post #119? What if the change is a single word "allein" as I pointed out in post #119. What if it is a change in the translation of "be penitent" versus "do penance" as I pointed out in post #119? I did not point out, but should, that the Samaritan Pentateuch ALSO has it’s different set of 10 commandments as did Luthers’ 1522 bible.


Though I generally think simply "cutting and pasting" links are a cop-out, here's mike555's link that BOTH he and I recommend forum members read : www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj10d.pdf

I ALSO RECOMMEND YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT MY POST #119 SO AS TO SEE THE ACTUAL PICTURES OF THE TEXT I AM COMMENTING UPON.


Clear

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

Mike555;

Perhaps YOU ought to read the link you provided us. Your link will tell you the SAME thing AlabamaStorm and I have been telling you.

You keep trying to make it seem as if I said that we can know the correct spelling and the correct word order of every single sentence in the New Testament. I did not. Textual criticism compares the manuscript copies and through that comparison establish the meaning conveyed in the original autograph. The misspelling of words or the word order change no point of doctrine.

The link establishes the reliability of the Bible. Something you are attempting to disprove.

Your link will ALSO tell you that we do NOT know what the original manuscript said, despite their feeling that some version of the text is good.


Mike555’s link says :

The link says the New Testament text has been preserved very well. And that is what textual criticism has determined. And that means that we know that the manuscripts copies reflect the original autographs. Not necessarily down to the way that some particular word was spelled, or to the word order - for instance, whether it said 'Jesus Christ' or 'Christ Jesus', but to the content of the message.

Everit F. Harrison, New Testament at Fuller Theology Seminary stated that the vast bulk of the word of God is not affected by variations of the text at all. That's on page 45 of the link. The link goes from page 41 to 51.

Mike555; LOOK AT THE NAMES of the people quoted in your references. Do you see ANY major textual critic of any note? For example : The foot note reveals that “Ezra Abbot was the assistant librarian at Harvard College in the mid 1800s



“ AND, as to Abbots background as a textual critic it says that he “helped edit Dr. William Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible” and he “ also produced a number of its finest articles, including a prolific and learned article on the New Testament text, 3: 2112-43 “.


Did you think that a person who assisted an author of a religious dictionary, and who wrote some "fine" articles for a religious dictionary is REALLY a good source of critical information. He's not even a textual critic. Consider Lachman, wetstein, the alands, nestle and compare them to your guy who helped edit a dictionary.

B.B Warfield was professor of theology in the Theological Seminary of Princeton from 1887 to 1921. Warfield wrote 'An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.' Warfield cited Richard Bentley who said that even the worst possible manuscript of the New Testament was competently exact.

And it was Warfield who thought enough of Ezra Abbot to note him. Abbot helped to edit Dr. William Smiths Dictionary of the Bible and produced some of its finest articles, including a prolific and learned article on the New Testament text.

There are a number of people listed in the link and their publications are listed in the footnotes.

Did you think no one was going to actually LOOK at the link you gave us?

I fully expect people to look at it. And to read it in its entirety.

I DO RECOMMEND INDIVIDUALS READ THE LINK MIKE555 PROVIDED. THEN, then ask yourselves IF the data shows that anyone can say what the original biblical text said.

Though the percentage of change may be small, what if those changes are the different 10 commandments I pointed out in post #119? What if the change is a single word "allein" as I pointed out in post #119. What if it is a change in the translation of "be penitent" versus "do penance" as I pointed out in post #119? I did not point out, but should, that the Samaritan Pentateuch ALSO has it’s different set of 10 commandments as did Luthers’ 1522 bible.




Clear

On the authority of many good textual critics, five of which I have listed from different links in post #117 including Textual critics Westcott and Hort, the reliability of the manuscript copies are very high. The word order or whether a word is misspelled is a very minor thing. And in any case where the spelling of a word might be significant it will be noted in a good translation. It will have already been researched. Despite your arguments, these experts say that no point of doctrine is affected by any of the variations in the manuscript copies.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

Mike 555;


Mike555; So, I assume, since you did not disagree with any of the eight points that I made, that you and I are in agreement with these eight points? If so, we do not need to re-visit your claim to know what the original biblical text was.

In addition to our agreement on these eight points, You and I also agree on the core biblical message that Jesus IS the Christ.

You and I agree that the major points of the biblical message are relatively clear though the two millennia-long arguments between Christians demonstrates that much is unclear and disputable.

At least we, both as christians agree on these few, specific, things.

Clear






TO FORUM READERS;

It has been obvious that Mike555 never knew what the original text was, nor was he ever able to give us the original text, else he would have at least attempted it (I believe he IS that diligent enough to try).



I am NOT simply “beating up on” Mike555. And it is not just Mike555 who cannot answer any of these simple critical textual questions. Mike555 cannot tell us what the text said, I cannot do it; none of the forum members can do it and none of the worlds best biblical critics can do it.



I gave Mike555 the chance to demonstrate his claim using the first 8 verses of Mark simply because Mark represents the source material for all other biblical Gospels. The same example could have been made from any other gospel.

If we consider just the first three verses in mark, it becomes clear WHY MIKE555 cannot tell you what the original words to these verses (or any other verses) are.


The picture below shows the first few verses of Mark in a popular Greek Biblical text.








If we consider JUST THE FIRST VERSE : any bible with a critical apparatus will tell you different versions of the text you are reading; what the important differences are, and what manuscripts the differences are in. This critical text includes all major Uncials, all major families, important papyral examples, church fathers, syriac versions, etc.


A picture of what a popular critical apparatus in my Nestle-Aland critical text looks like is below :






All of these symbols indicate variations from the given text. Almost all of the letters indicate different Manuscripts and manuscript families, lectionaries, important church fathers, papyri and other witnesses to various versions.


In the current edition of the Nestle-aland , the critical apparatus discusses different versions of verse ONE.


For example : Though some popular modern bibles have the words 6&7 in verse one υιου Θεου (son [of] God), this phrase is omitted by the original writer of codex sinaiticus (one of the five most important early 4-5th century manuscripts in existence). Is the phrase original or not original? Which manuscript is correct or are they both wrong and the phrase was added later? Right now, we are we are simply considering these two words… The actual issue is more complicated than this.

The apparatus tells us that the phrase is omitted by BOTH uncials in the Greek Codex Koridethi. It is omitted by the miniscule MS28 and it’s omitted by lectionary 2211. Thus, some of the lectionaries are involved (some including a text, some leaving out a text, and some witnessing different words in the place of a specific text)

A very early Sahidic translation leaves the phrase out of their text. The early Church Father Origen in his quotation of this verse leaves out these words.

The question, at present is a simple one : Are these eminent early texts (sinaiticus is 4th -5th century….) correct in leaving “son [of] god” out? Or were these words IN the original text?

Once we move beyond these two words, if becomes more complicated. For example, if we consider words number 4&5, the Church Fathers, Irenaeus and Epiphanius , not only leave out 6&7, but they ALSO leave out “Ιησου Χριστου” (Jesus Christ) in their quotes of this scripture. Thus, one cannot turn to early church fathers to show us a consistent version of ANY greek text. So, we now have a fairly standard Greek Text with at least two variations just in the first 6 words (the title of Mark also has it’s variant versions as well…)

Is the current text correct, or are is Sinaiticus and the other manuscripts correct. Are the Fathers correct in their disagreement with BOTH the original text and the group represented by Sinaiticus and others?

Some versions, such as Manuscript 1241 leaves out all four words (4-7) of verse one as do Irenaeus and Epiphanius, but then inserts “υιου του κυριου” instead. Now we have yet another variant to consider.

MULTIPLE INFLUENCES UPON MANUSCRIPTS -

Most early manuscripts had “correctors” who looked over what a scribe had written and then made changes to the manuscript so as to “correct” the manuscript to have the reading which the corrector himself thought was correct. The problem is that the correctors often did not agree on what WAS the correct reading.



For example, the wonderful scholar Bart Erman provides a picture of the first chapter of Hebrews from the eminent New Testament manuscript, codex Vaticanus (in the Vatican library)






Erman comments on the marginal note between the first and second columns. One textual corrector had erased a word in verse 3 and substituded another word in it’s place. A later, second corrector erased the first correction; reinserted the original word, and then wrote an indignant note in the margin, which reads : “Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don’t change it!”.

The point is that Correctors themselves produce changes to texts that are driven by their own biases as to what they think the text should read. Corrections themselves, produce variations in manuscripts. Is the first corrector correct? The second? The third or fourth? What about correctors that are separated by centuries of evolving doctrines?

Sinaiticus’ FIRST corrector (there were multiple correctors in many of the important manuscripts…) DOES use the text I gave originally (“υιου Θεου”). Vaticanus ALSO uses it. Does this mean it is original?

The very “strange” manuscript, Codex Bezae also agrees, however bezae has at least 10% more textual material than other early uncials in Acts alone. Codex Regius agrees as does Codex Washingtonianus. This leaves us with many, many versions to the text AND, We haven’t stopped considering the first seven words in the first sentence as yet. We HAVE NOT DISCUSSED minor, sub variants yet. We haven’t discussed other critical editions and there are THOUSANDS OF IMPORTANT VARIANTS for these texts.


I mentioned the great textual critic Carl Lachmann , for example, who tells us us that ALL of Verses two through three is a CONJECTURAL EMENDATION and he reminds us that there is NO Greek Manuscript support for this variant as I’ve given it. Lachman would have us remove these verses from any authentic version of the ancient bible. Is Lachmann correct in his claim?

Certainly we know of many, many, spurious additions to the bible (I’ve already referred to 1 John 5:7 as a known spurious addition that was NOT in ANY (zero, zip, nada) of the early Greek manuscripts.



The changes in Biblical texts do NOT have to occur only because of ancient bias and to ancient manuscripts.

For example : the Ten commandments were changed in Luther’s 1522 biblical translation. He purposefully left out the second commandment prohibiting the making of graven images (He split the 10th commandment so as to retain “ten” commandments rather than having only nine commandments).

This is why the ten commandments were different between protestant Germans and Catholic Germans for a time. The 4th commandment in Luther’s translation was to “Honour thy father and mother” and the 4th commandment in Calvin’s bible regarded “Remember the Sabbath day…”.


EVEN SUBTLE TEXTUAL CHANGES CREATED DIFFERENT DOCTRINES
Erasmus (who with Froben, created the FIRST Greek New Testament ever printed) rendered “metanoeite” in Matt 4:17 As “resipiscite” which meant “BE penitent” instead of the Vulgates “poenitentiam agite” which was much more easily interpreted as “do penance”.

This difference in translation allowed Luther to use the subtle difference to support his critique of the Catholic penitential system. Subtle differences supported differing doctrinal preferences.

Not only did scripture support bias, but bias affected scripture, For example, Luther shocked contemporaries by adding the word “allein” to Romans 3:28 to render the phrase “allein durch den Glauben” (i.e. "alone through faith" - "through faith alone").


Such changes were not merely ancient addition to text, but a relatively modern addition to a biblical text driven by personal bias. Thus, just as Erasmus’ change to “metanoeite” supports a specific doctrine, the addition of additional words such as “allein” creates doctrine.


I’ll leave out my comments on word order other than to repeat the example that The point is, that it of polemic importance if jesus Said : 'I never knew YOU. Away from me, you evildoers!' as in the king james or if he actually said 'YE never knew ME. Away from me, you evildoers!' (of course he knew them)


The claim to be able to know what ancient, non-existant texts said was always doomed to be proved wrong from the start.

However, I did want the forum members to understand the issues underlying WHY no one can say exactly what the words in the original text were and WHY both subtle changes AND major changes to biblical text both occur and how they create both correct, as well as incorrect bias in those who read the texts we produce.


None of this changes the truth that Jesus IS the son of God; he IS the savior; and he IS the only name to whom mankind may look for salvation.


However, Christians should NOT, and do NOT need to make up unsupportable nor incredible claims to support the christian claim, which will, when easily proven false, undermine the credibility of this profoundly important, core message of Christianity. If Christians assume that Athiests and Agnostics are gullible or stupid so as to be tempted to make erroneous claims, it does HARM to our credibility when we then make other claims which are not only TRUE, but they are SALVIFIC.

Please, I simply want to encourage forum members to be HONEST in their claims.

"Jesus IS the Savior" : YES, we as Christians may claim this is true.
"We have the original biblical text (or know exactly what it said) " : NO, we cannot claim this.


Clear
tweisesiis

The only one being dishonest here is you. I have made it clear what I said and what I meant and you continue to twist my original statement and you ignore everything that I have said.

[pcamps]

This relationship is so clear from the scriptures it's hard to miss. Jesus said i and the Father are one, what was Jesus saying by this ?.........If you have seen me you have seen the Father(oneness in expression).

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.Hebrews 1 :3.

God impresses this express image of himself through his son into our deepest being and we believe.

He is the day star that arises in our hearts(our deepest being) 2 Peter 1:19.

[kids in america_]

In my opinion, one of the succinct and lucid summaries of the relationship between ‘god’ and Jesus is found in 1 Tim. 2:5:

“There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”.

So there is this ONE 'god' and there is the mediator, the man Christ Jesus. As Jesus is the “mediator” it means that he is a go-between. The word “and” in 1 Tim. 2:5 indicates a difference between Christ and 'god'.

[Clear lens]

AlabamaStorm said in post #116 : One of the things that came out of my own personal studies regarding all this was that the Nicene Creed (325 ad) most likely had a significant effect on the Byzantine family of Greek texts that in-turn influenced Stephanus' Textus Receptus and the many translations that emerged during the Protestant Reformation.
It seems that depending on which text-type family one is prone to agree with (be it Alexandrian, Western or Byzantine), specific doctrines will emerge with more (or less) weight and authority than the other branches will offer. Particularly with regards to the divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity.”

Wow, You HAVE considered these things deeply. I believe that you are certainly correct in this principle that bias influenced text. This is profoundly important since most of us develop our doctrinal bias BASED UPON the text; and upon our interpretations OF the various versions of sacred text we read. There is a great deal of evidence that you are correct in this view. For examples :



TEXTUAL TRANSLATIONS INFLUENCES BIAS


In the great “Faith versus Works” debate, the various sides often create important doctrines (up which our very salvation may rest) upon subtle differences in the text and their interpretation of those words. Take 1 John 3:6 as an example : “πας ο εν αυτω μενων ουχ αμαρτανει….” (approx. lit : “anyone who in him abides [not sins]…”- sins not). The translation affects us differently based on our personal bias.


1 - The NASB says : “No one who abides in Him sins…”
2 - The ESV and NIV says : “No one who abides [lives] in him keeps on sinning…”


It matters if one translates “sin” in a perfect tense, or in an aorist (or continuing sense) since the first translation appeals to the doctrine that simply accepting Jesus wipes out all old sins AND any new and continuing sin and supports a “grace only” bias. However the second translation appeals to the doctrinal bias that supports a role of repentance and abstinence from further actions which are morally “sinful” and thus repentance is of greater importance in the second translation. In both translations, the underlying Greek words are the same.



BIAS INFLUENCES TEXTUAL TRANSLATIONS
I have already given examples in post #119 (under the pictures of the greek texts)


1 - Erasmus who rendered “metanoeite” in Matt 4:17 As “resipiscite” which was easily interpreted to meant “BE penitent” instead of the Catholic Vulgates “poenitentiam agite” which was easily interpreted to mean “DO penance” and have discussed the importance of the difference in this one word to the protestant movement itself.


2 – I've mentioned the affect of Luthers change in the ten commandments in his 1522 bible which results in a different set of ten commandments for protestant and catholics in Germany for a time.



I also mentioned the effect of Luther having added the word “allein” to faith so as to support his “faith alone” doctrine.






BIAS INFLUENCES THE CANON IN THE SAME WAY IT AFFECTED THE TEXT
Bias not only influenced individual interpretation of words; and the versions of text, but on a larger scale, bias affected the various canons that various christianities have inherited.

Bias affects our personal opinion as to what is “authoritative”.
Texts containing “proof texts” or phrases in agreement with specific theology tended to be viewed as “authoritative”, whereas texts containing phrases that do NOT support doctrines were viewed as LESS “authoritative” by ancient readers and groups. However, what we view as “authoritative” is affected by bias just as interpretation is affected by our bias.

Just as Luther wanted to exclude James from the canon since it disagreed with his bias toward “allein glauben” or “faith alone”, and spoke of the importance of “works” in early Christianity, the desire of different groups of Christians include or exclude certain books from the various canon’s was influenced by their group bias.

I believe that this is, for example, one of the main reason underlying the varying canons between eastern and western christianities. The modern eastern canon (e.g. ethiopic) includesexcludes ancient texts such as Enoch and Barnabas, whereas the modern western (roman) canon such books from it’s canon.



Thus, if I am grow up with a “western” canon, my views may be quite different than if I grow up with an “eastern” canon. Not only do texts and doctrines differ from location to location, but Christian doctrine differs between the ancient Christianities and the modern Christianities in it’s various forms. This was my point in my original post in the threads regarding the relationship between God the Father and his Son Jesus. For example :



EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE FROM EARY JUDAO-CHRISTIAN TEXTS
Not only are Christian doctrines different from east to west , but they are different in the earliest christianities than they are in later, evolving christianities.


For example, in early Texts (before the 4th Century Western N.T. Canon existed) the descriptions of the relationship between God the Father and his son are more clear and they are separate individuals in most descriptions.


Consider what early Christians themselves wrote from the time period when the apostles are still alive or the writers lived during the lives of the apostles :

Ignatius speaks of a christian named Crocus who had “refreshed” him and says “...may the Father of Jesus Christ likewise refresh him” (Ignatius to the Ephesians 2:1) Bishop Ignatius is referring to the Father as an individual. Polycarp uses the same context :
Quote:
“Now, may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth and in all gentleness...” (The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 12:2)


Not only do they teach of them as individuals, but place them on different levels, it is clear that it is the Father who raised Jesus (jesus does NOT “raise himself). Quote: “...may he give to you a share and a place among his saints,...and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.” (The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 12:2)


These are Bishops and orthodox teachers in period of the early apostolic fathers. Even the earlier sacred texts make it clear that The Father is separate from the Son. Enoch, speaking of his vision of pre-earth “heaven” makes this clear. Quote: ; “1 At that place, I saw the One to whom belongs the “chief of days.” (A euphamism for the Lord of Spirits, or God the Father). And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. 2 And I asked the one–from among the angels–who was going with me, and who had revealed to me all the secrets regarding the One who was born of human beings, “Who is this, and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?”. 3 And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. (1st Enoch 46:1-6)



It was not just clear in the earlier Judao-Christian texts, that they were individuals but it is also clear that they were not equals. The Father was always the LORD God, over all other, including the son. Consider the principle of Authority and knowledge of the Father versus the authority and knowledge of Jesus.



Not only does Jesus have less authority and less knowledge than God the Father, but it is Jesus, who is servant of the father. This was very clear in the earliest Christianities.
Quote: “Let all the nations know that you are the only God, “that Jesus Christ is your servant, and that “we are your people and the sheep of your pasture.” (1 Clement 59:4)

They spoke of the Father as “the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, through whom he called us from darkness to light, ....among all of them have chosen those who love you through Jesus Christ, your beloved Servant, through whom you instructed us, sanctified us, honored us. (1 Clement 59:2-3)

The earliest Judao-christian understood and spoke of “...the all-seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ,. 1 Clement 64:1;

This chosing of Jesus by the LORD GOD was a clear and consistent theme in most of the earlier texts AND the doctrine becomes clearer the older the text as one approaches the time of Christ. Enoch speaks of this time period when in vision of the pre-mortal heaven.
Quote:
...2 At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before-Time .... 3 even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4 He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall.” (1st Enoch 48:1-7)
When one understands this earliest christian model of the trinity, then Jewish Enoch and Christian Bartholomew texts correlate completely : Quote:
“Jesus said to him: “Bartholomew, the Father named me Christ, that I might come down on earth and anoint with the oil of life everyone who came to me.” The Gospel of Bartholomew CH IV


A return to the earliest doctrine of the trinity allows not only a correlation of doctrine between Jewish Enoch and christian Bartholomew and many, many, many of the earliest Judao-Christian texts, but even the later texts make greater sense. For example, the discourse given by Archbishop Timothy was able to make sense of the earliest doctrines while the early model of the trinity was used.

Referring to the Time when the pre-creation Jesus becomes “named’ or “chosen” as the savior “slain from the foundation of the world”, Jesus explains regarding the creation of Adam that God, his Father Quote:
“... took the clay from the hand of the angel, and made Adam according to Our image and likeness, and He left him lying for forty days and forty nights without putting breath into him. And he heaved sighs over him daily, saying, “If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains.” (Because of moral transgressions which God knows men will undergo)

Jesus then explained to the apostles : Quote:
“And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him.” And My Father said unto Me, “If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state.” And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfil Thy command.”
Such quotes are completely clear that Jesus is NOT the Father, but a subordinate TO the Father.



To the earliest Judao-Christians, it made sense that Jesus was the Lamb Slain from the foundation of the world since, in their theology, He WAS chosen to BE slain from the very foundation of the world.

If you remove God and Jesus from this early context, then the earliest Judao-Christian texts cannot make sense. IF you use the early Christian model for the trinity, then one can use the earliest texts to understand what the earliest Christians believed and taught and how such things made sense to THEM. In their context, it made perfect sense to refer to The Father and the Son as separate individuals “... they have denied the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah. “Blessed be the name of the Lord of the Spirits.” (1st Enoch 48:10)

In the context of the earliest christians, it made perfect sense to the ancient Judo-Christians when the Son is given orders by his Father in the pre-creation heaven. :
Quote:
... And I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, as he said to my Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus, “Go out and descend through all the heavens...12 and they shall not know that you (are) with me when with the voice of the heavens I summon you...16 This command I heard the Great Glory giving to my Lord.” (Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah . 10:6-16)



The decensus doctrine and it’s vast accompanying literature can make sense in this early christian context where the Father and the Son are separate individuals whereas taken out of context, it cannot make the same sense. In the early christian text, apocalypse of Abraham, Jesus, speaking to Abraham says : “I am sent to you to strengthen you and to bless you in the name of God, creator of heavenly and earthly things, who has loved you....8 I am Iaoel...11 I am ordered to loosen Hades and to destroy those who wondered at the dead...” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 10:5, 11,14-17)

Again, the pattern of Jesus being “sent” by the Father is clear. He is “ordered” to loosen Hades (a reference to christs descensus during the three days between death and resurrection). An entire genre of literature (the early Christian descensus literature) makes more rational sense if Jesus is a separate individual from his Father. If they are the same, this ancient christian literature cannot correlate as rationally.

The apostles understood the concept of delegation of authority from God the Father, to the Son and then to them. “For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us." The gospel of Phillip;


AlabamaStorm; Like you, I have a great deal of interest in early Christianity, however, my interest in textual criticism is simply as a secondary tool to help me understand HOW the various Christianities and their doctrines changed, and WHY they changed. Certainly, personal bias of influencial theologians in their theology and the influence of groups on the various texts Christians read have to affect this doctrinal evolution.


Clear
twtwnefuum

[Clear lens]

I noticed a mistake in my last post but the time for editing has expired. In the above post under the heading :Bias affects our personal opinion as to what is “authoritative”.

The erroneous sentence reads :
The modern eastern canon (e.g. ethiopic) includesexcludes ancient texts such as Enoch and Barnabas, whereas the modern western (roman) canon such books from it’s canon.

The sentence SHOULD read :
The modern eastern canon (e.g. ethiopic) includes ancient texts such as Enoch and Barnabas, whereas the modern western (roman) canon excludes such books from it’s canon.

I apologize if the error was confusing.

Clear