I often attempt to remove the cover of falsehood that many leaders of Christianity appear to place over the truth surrounding various issues. One issue is the New Testament Canon. More specifically, I inform Christians that what they call the New Testament was formed during VERY turbulent times and that there is clear and irrefutable proof of scribal manipulation during its formation. There definitely were "changes" made to the texts, changes that occasionally impact crucial doctrine.
Anyone can check and will discover there are literally thousands of differences between the various New Testament manuscripts. I hasten to add that most of these differences do not impact the truth to be found in the writings; however, the differences are there and sometimes they DO impact truth. I also wish it to be known that my comments do not apply to the ORIGINAL autographed copies; however, THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED COPIES EXISTING TODAY. The available New Testament manuscripts are hand made copies of hand made copies of hand made copies of hand made copies of hand made copies of hand made copies... In short, the available manuscripts are far removed from the originals penned by whoever actually wrote them. Given all the potential for error in copying AND the fact that these copies were often done by biased scribes, it is certain what we have today is NOT what would be found in the originals. If I recall correctly from my study of this topic, no 2 manuscripts out of the thousands that exist agree completely. Even if there are some that do agree, that still does not diminish the fact that thousands of textual variations exist in a document that is naively considered by many to be the "perfect" Word of G-d. If such is the case, those that exalt the New Testament as being "infallible" or "without error" must consider G-d to be a rather scatterbrained, confused deity. It is REALLY strange how many Christian apologist present as "proof" of the New Testament's authenticity the fact that thousands of manuscripts exist. WHAT THEY HIDE IS THAT THOSE MANUSCRIPTS DIFFER IN SOME CRUCIAL PASSAGES AND VIRTUALLY NONE AGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER! So, in actuality, their "defense" of the "infallibility" of the New Testament falls apart when the entire truth is told, which of course is why they conceal it.
Why would Christian leaders be so fearful of the truth getting out, often misrepresenting the enormous "authenticity" problem that exists? Why do they implant deep distrust of scholars among Christians - scholars that are generally simply reporting the facts as they really are? If Christian leaders are truly promoting "Truth", why do they fight against truth in their representation of the New Testament as some sort of "perfect" writing? I have become increasingly alarmed at the SUPPRESSION of truth within Traditional Christianity and am forced to ask many "Why" questions, since Christianity presents itself as a champion of truth. Of course, most Christians are unaware of this and are simply trying to worship in a sincere manner. They are placing their trust in organizations and men they do not expect will deceive them.
I firmly believe the New Testament to be filled with much truth; however, those that say it is "infallible" or the "Word of God" are either ignorant of the facts, ignoring the facts, or being untruthful. I am NOT suggesting the New Testament is worthless and do not consider most potential scribal errors to be significant. I simply point out the sure fact that the New Testament is NOT perfect and CERTAINLY NOT the infallible "Word of God". Even the supposed authors of some of the New Testament books are educated guesses! This is a core reason for my opposition to groups such as the KJV-Onlyist, those that promote the King James version is the only pure Word. They strangely do not tell you that the manuscripts from which the King James version were written were few in number compared to what is now available and that even those few had thousands of textual differences. Whereas I DO feel the KJV is one of the best translations - possibly THE best - I do not think it proper to misrepresent the facts as do those promoting that the KJV is free of any error.
Conversely, the same is not the case regarding the Tanakh (Older Testament). Even though it is almost 4 times larger than the New Testament (77% of the Bible is the Tanakh), the Hebrew manuscripts show amazing similarity. One reason for this is the extraordinary care and reverence shown the Hebrew Scriptures by the HEBREW scribes. Unlike the New Testament scribes, who often looked upon the NT manuscripts as weapons to be fashioned to promote their biased views, the Hebrew Scribes considered it unthinkable to dare alter their sacred texts.
Strangely, my exposure of these facts causes many to label me a "heretic", "damned" or even a "disciple of the antichrist". It is more than a bit odd how someone that promotes the ACTUAL truth is condemned by Traditional Christian leaders. (What does that suggest regarding the true "spirit" that guides leaders of Christianity? Would the Holy Spirit lead them to lie, conceal the facts, or attack those that present these true facts?) Many that are revered as "church fathers" rejected ENTIRE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, something FAR more "destructive" than my mere suggestion that scattered crucial verses show clear signs of corruption and that the only TRUE Scripture is the Tanakh - the same Tanakh the noble Bereans used to test all they were taught (Acts 17:11)! Also, of course, the Protestant churches do not accept the Catholic apocrypha. My point being, what makes my acceptance/rejection of scattered verses "heresy" yet the acceptance/rejection of entire books and the WAR of canonization that went on in the early centuries "divine inspiration"? I say again, many of the church fathers rejected entire books of the New Testament, yet they are revered! So, if what I suggest is "heresy", then why are men that promoted greater "heresy" by rejecting large chunks of the New Testament considered "church fathers"?
A cursory study of the canonization of the New Testament confirms there was widespread disagreement as to what to include in the New Testament. Here is a brief example showing the opinions of only a few of the "church fathers" regarding what they considered scripture. I realize Marcion was condemned as a heretic; however, Marcionism continued (and continues) to deeply influence Traditional Christianity. It is my firm conviction that the historic disregard and/or reduction of importance that most Christians feel toward the Tanakh, which became known as the "Old" Testament due to Marcion's influence, is due largely to the disciples of Marcion that infested (and still infest) Traditional Christianity.
A VERY noteworthy point is that what we today call the New Testament was largely finalized by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, who just so happened to be THE most forceful advocate of the deity of Yahshua (Athanasius was the leader of the faction) and who was not very nice to his opponents. Athanasius was "The Man" among the Trinitarians of his day. (Check out the list again, and you can see how HIS list became YOUR list of New Testament books.) So, obviously, he (THE chief Trinitarian) strongly leaned toward adopting any questionable passages or writings that supported his view against what was in the early centuries the dominant opposition to the Trinity. Yes, up to the time of the council at Nicaea, the Trinity position was NOT the majority opinion, although Athanasius actually rose to power following Nicaea. So, what Bishop Athanasius - THE most forceful Trinitarian of his day - defined as "Scripture" in the year 367 c.e., BECAME our New Testament. HE, ABOVE ALL OTHERS, IS THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF OUR NEW TESTAMENT CANON, AND HE WAS THE PRIMARY ADVOCATE OF HIS DAY FOR ADOPTION (actually forced acceptance) OF THE TRINITY THEOLOGY!
Facts like these underscore the need for Christians to learn the history - TRUE History - of the early centuries (first 4 centuries). It seems most assume the New Testament just fell from heaven one day into the laps of the early church fathers and have NO IDEA of the intense, biased, political, often bloody battles that were waged for what we now consider the New Testament. Obviously, mistakes in such a horrendously heated struggle are probable as battle lines are drawn and each faction solidifies its position and struggles for the ear of the various emperors. Of course, at the time of the Nicaean Council the Roman emperor was Constantine - a man of historically unwholesome character. The same Constantine that actually hosted the council at one of his plush estates and largely authored the creed that set Christianity on the course of ultimately abandoning the One God and accepting, instead, the pagan traditions of Rome.
Matthew 22:37-38:
And he replied to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your MIND, (intellect).
So we are COMMANDED to love Him with our MINDS. What does this mean to most people? Does it mean, that when presented with history, found misinterpretations/mistranslations, and scriptural inconsistencies we are supposed to turn our brains off? arghhhhh!!!
There is so much in your post that begs discussion, not to mention real, unbiased, research...and honest to goodness soul searching. We are COMMANDED to love Him with our heart, soul, and MIND.
Wish i could stick around for more discussion, but i will be away for most of the summer. (leaving tomorrow) I don't get online a whole lot then, but will try when possible.
I'm thinking of getting a book called Constantine's Sword for some summer reading. I've seen it in the stores, and on Amazon, but haven't purchased it yet. I think it's written by a former priest, and covers quite a bit of history. I'm pretty sure that the RCC doesn't approve of it(no surprise there). I am not singling out the RCC for discouraging the flock to seek the truth. It's just that they're the ones who put the first canon together. Everyone else in Christendom, pretty much, followed the RCC lead. And most of them invite real inquiry about as eagerly as the RCC invites it.
If acknowledging what is true makes us heretics, so be it. Hang in there.
The search for the Truth has got to be the bottom line. Without Truth, the foundation is built on shifting sand.
There are differences, when comparing the different manuscripts, but ... these differences are known (although not by all christians) ... and, only in rare cases, pertain to any of the signficant christian beliefs gleaned from the NT.
One of these differences is the text found in 1 John 5:17 ...1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.This text does not appear in all of the early manuscripts of the book (actually letter) of 1 John. Further, from my understanding, this text actually doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts. This sets up the argument that the text was added, by somebody other than John (likely a scribe - one copying the manuscript) further down the line.
So, as a Christian who has come to know to know that this text, likely, has been added to what John wrote in 1 John, ... you must determine, for yourself, if such a fact, in any way, modifies your Christian belief.
Now, 1 John 5:7 is NT text which is very likely to be used in a defense of the NT teaching of the Trinity. As a result of knowing that this text may not have been a part of John's original letter, ... it is probably wise to not attempt to use it in a defense of the doctrine of the Trinity.
The question is ... is there enough other textual support of the Trinity in the NT scriptures to survive the loss of the support of this one verse ? My studies lead me to conclude that there is.
There are a very few other texts which also are questionable because they do not appear in the earliest manuscripts (Mark 16:9-20 is another one of these).
Again, the reasonable christian response, I believe, is to study the passage in question, ... and, then, determine what, if any, impact the removal of the that text in question would have on your beliefs.
Fortunately, NT text which falls into this category is rare ... those I mentioned above are the only significant examples that I am aware of. The overwhelming majority of NT scripture proves to be verifiably and, without a doubt, authentic (i.e it is to be found in the earliest NT manuscripts).
Also, we are blessed that most, if not all, of the significant doctrines of the NT are taught in multiple texts in the NT.
Think, for a moment, about the Gospels. We have four. God, in His prescient wisdom, has given us more than enough evidence to support the NT doctrines. If one were to say ... I don't know if I trust Matthew's gospel testimony ... they still have Mark, Luke, and John to deal with. God knew that these questions would come up and has made the necessary provision for us to hold on to the faith anyway.
I also urge every christian to do their own personal research on the history of the canonization process of the NT (as I have), in order to come to their own opinion on the reliability of the process which was used to select the books which make up the NT.
And, as always, ... pray for God's guidance and the clear revelation of His truth as you continue on in your spiritual quest.