I'm verklempt.
Posted on 10/23/2013 1:22:55 PM PDT by Renfield
A dental study of 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 hominin species shows that no known species matches the expected profile of the last common ancestor of Homo neanderthalensis and anatomically modern Homo sapiens. The study, published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, also provides evidence that the lines that led to Neanderthals and modern humans diverged about 1 million years ago – much earlier than previous studies have suggested.
“Our results call attention to the strong discrepancies between molecular and paleontological estimates of the divergence time between Neanderthals and modern humans. These discrepancies cannot be simply ignored, but they have to be somehow reconciled,” said study first author Dr Aida Gómez-Robles from the George Washington University.
Dr Gómez-Robles and colleagues use techniques of morphometric analysis and phylogenetic statistics to reconstruct the dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans.
They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match....
(Excerpt) Read more at sci-news.com ...
>>There is another option. Jesus didn’t write the gospels.
Jesus did not write the gospels. He never wrote anything, except for some symbols in the sand that no one ever saw.
But, I covered that in my third paradox. If the gospels are a hoax, then why follow the teachings of Jesus at all?
It’s called faith. You have to believe in something. I believe in Christ. If I’m wrong, it hasn’t really cost me anything because I enjoy my time in church and I like my church family. If I’m right, then I have everything to gain.
>>So was Moroni a liar, a madman, or was he what he said he was? Was the book of Mormon a hoax? Is it a great conspiracy, despite Joseph Smith Jr.’s death for his teachings?
I believe in Jesus Christ, so the Book of Mormon is a hoax and the Koran is an anti-gospel, given to Mohammed by Satan or a demon.
Smith did not passively die. He went to war in Nauvoo and was caught and killed by a mob. Not exactly the same kind of death as the apostles.
>>We know that some parts of Matthew were being added to as late as the 4th Century.
“We” don’t know that. I’d like to see proof of that claim.
43 Posts and not Helen Thomas pic posted.
Whew!
I'm verklempt.
Homo heidelbergensis - too drunk
H. erectus - too horny
H. antecessor - too puzzled by what "antecessor" might mean
I believe I will have a beer this evening.
Actually you have everything to lose, as your lack of faith in the flying spagetti monster means you will spend eternity in torment.
By contrast, faith in the flying spagetti monster means you will spend eternity at the great bowl of pasta in the sky, with extra tasty meatballs provided to you magically.
After all you have to have faith in something, why not choose something that tastes good?
I don’t need the flying spaghetti monster. I have the Never-ending Pasta Bowl at Olive Garden.
Good for you!
Best to focus on one pasta bowl at a time.
http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm
There is a verse in Matthew that very seldom is mentioned in spite of evidence that has been brought against it. There is a wealth of support in the manuscripts for it. The only problem is there are no manuscripts that contain this verse prior to the fourth century! There is absolutely NO manuscript in any language that contains it prior to the Trinitarian controversies. And the wording of this verse seems to speak in the language of this period, (4th Century) rather than from the time when Jesus spoke. Yet it seems there are few who are willing to weigh the evidence against this passage because of the weight it carries in Church tradition. The verse we will focus on is Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula!
For the sake of clarifying the above point, one can look to the listing of the Papyri’s as found in Kurt and Barbara Aland’s The Text of the New Testament, 2nd Edition, 1995, pages 96-103. This list gives a description of the verses contained in each of the 96 papyri’s listed. Matthew 26:52 (P 37) seems to be the last verse from Matthew found in the Papyri’s. So there is virtually a two chapter gap (as well as a three century gap) from the “earliest manuscripts” and the traditional rendering of the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula.
The next list given by the Aland’s is of the Uncials which begins in the fourth century with a 01 codex Sinaiticus.
Philip Comfort and David Barrett also bear out this fact in their book, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, 1999, pages 6 & 13. Page 6 contains the list of the various verses from Matthew, (with Matthew also ending at 26:52) and page 13, the comments they were providing only those manuscripts “dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300).” Needless to say, Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula is not among the verses found here!
Matthew 28:19 is the only verse in the entire Bible with the Trinity formula for baptism. This is the Trinity baptism formula the majority of “Christianity” adheres to. In spite of the numerous direct commands to baptize in Jesus Name (Acts 10:48; 2:38), what seem to be direct accounts of baptism services in Jesus Name (Acts 8:16; 19:5; 22:16), and other “types” (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 1:13) that all point to baptism being performed in the Name of Jesus by the Apostolic Church. When one examines some of the content of other disputed verses that have proven to be spurious one finds the Trinity mentioned in 1 John 5:7, as well as alluded to in the doxology from Matthew 6:13b. Such additions to Scripture can only make one wonder how such a doctrine was contrived after 4,000 years of God being viewed as absolutely One by the Jews! We will take a look at some of the facts relating to the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula and the evidence that has been brought against it for you to consider.
Within the past hundred years there have been those who brought evidence against the Mathew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula. Men such as F.C. Conybeare, K. Lake, J. Martineau, A. Harnack, A.S. Peake, H. Kosmala, etc. Conybeare is believed to have been the first to write against it, following the discovery of a variant reading of the verse, within the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. Some 17 times in his works prior to Nicea, Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 as “Go and make disciples of all nations in my name” without mentioning the Trinity baptism command. In his writings after the council of Nicea, the traditional form including the Trinity baptism formula is found 5 times, although most of these are not above question.
I might add, that whether or not Eusebius’s rendering indicates that the ending of Matthew was changed at some point or not, it certainly seems, at the least, to give us his interpretation of the passage! In The Proof of the Gospel and The Theophania Eusebius goes on to quote Philippians 2:9-11! Clearly indicating that he felt that the Name of Jesus was “the Name” referenced by this text!
This proves what? Some early papyri is missing the end of Matthew. Later editions contain the end. Do you believe that every copy of Matthew ever written is still intact?
As for the Trinity, it is true that Jews believed that God was one. Christians believe that God is three in one. John tells us about “In the beginning, the Word...” Jesus said that he would send another, a great counselor. I’m not going to go through a complete exegesis because it would be a waste of time. If you don’t believe, then don’t believe. I won’t try to evangelize to you. I have no interest in doing that for you. You are happy with your spaghetti monster and I am happy with Jesus.
My favorite bit of evidence is that one church father supported the baptism phrase "ITNOTFSAHS" but didn't use Matthew 28 to justify it, rather
http://www.godglorified.com/Ending.pdf
"First, as we suggested above, there is no early manuscript evidence of Matthew 28:19 in its longer form. "
"Second, the standard Greek text utilized today argues for or against the inclusion of specific phrases and words based upon attestation by the church fathers. (UBS) 4th edition of their Greek New Testament, (GNT) they reference 116 different Greek, and 74 Latin Church Fathers. One of the most prominent Greek Church Fathers is Eusebius of Caesarea. He is quoted or referenced 189 times in the UBS’s GNT. Eusebius is cited 116 times in the Gospels alone. The single Gospel he is cited most is Matthew, with 47 citations. But in spite of the fact that within the writings of Eusebius there is a form of Matthew 28:19 significantly different from the traditional form, it is ironic to me that Eusebius is not cited at this verse.
One may well suspect that there is a doctrinal motivation to prevent this allimportant text from being considered “disputed.” Elsewhere I argue that hermeneutically, Matthew 28:19 as it stands in its immediate context must point to a single name, the name of Jesus as being the correct hermeneutical interpretation for this passage.20 But if in fact the passage is spurious, if in fact it should be possibly disallowed, then the text should be approached tentatively for doctrinal support of Trinitarian theology. We will now look at how Eusebius cited this verse most frequently in his writings. We will provide it in Scriptural context so one may get the true feel for how it flows.
All power is given unto me in heaven and earth.
Go and make all nations disciples in my name,
Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
And behold, I am with you all the days till the consummation of the aeon.
“Scribes occasionally altered words of their sacred texts to make them more patently orthodox and to prevent their misuse by Christians who espouse aberrant views.”
And without quotes, I assert based on the available evidence such altering occured even in the 4th Century in response to the Trinitarian controversy.
In my English Standard Version, Matthew wasn’t finished until the early 21st century. It doesn’t disprove the deity of Christ.
Nor does an original Matthew phrase demanding baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, invalidate it.
If does suggest that the gospels were more mutable than usually thought, even in the Greek.
In Mark there is something called “The Freer Logion” that runs “...for this faithless age belongs to Satan...”
Again, there is significant variation in early manuscripts, and that variation continued for a longer time than usually thought.
Its a good thing for me that I’m not some sola scriptura, “inerrant bible” type of Christian. As a Methodist, I’m prima scriptura, so the kind of arguments you present don’t affect my faith in any way.
>>In Mark there is something called “The Freer Logion” that runs “...for this faithless age belongs to Satan...”
True. Satan rules this world. Jesus is playing catch-up by stealing people from Satan one at a time.
When I am found in error, I change my mind, so that I may be more correct.
I am sad to see that you seem to prefer error.
And that’s why you worship dead Roman pagan gods?? Really?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.