Is The Bible Reliable?

[Skinzo]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1286251042' post='2177913']
There are two problems with this hypothesis, one being that the earliest manuscripts we have exclude the story, and secondly none of the early Church fathers comment on it.
[/quote]

St. Jerome stated that it was present in early Latin and Greek codices , and of course it was accepted by the Council of Trent hence it is canonical.

S.

[Socrates]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1286220381' post='2177828']
We're relying on texts written by unknown authors who were not eye witnesses to the supposed events that were recorded. We don't have the original texts of these authors, all we have are copies of copies. Analysis of these copies shows that changes were made to the texts, and at times they were consciously driven by a theological motive, i.e. the scribe's bent towards a particular theological position motivated their changing the text a particular way. With this in mind, how can you consider the NT a reliable text?[/quote]
The authors did not sign their names to the text (as that was not standard practice at the time, and they were writing down the Gospel already preached by the whole Church), yet early Christian tradition, handed down from the Apostles is unanimous as to the authorship of the Gospels.

We have some very old fragments of copies, which shows that the originals were written down well within living memory of the life of Christ. Before the printing press, everything written was hand-copied, and in most cases of ancient history, we don't have the original copy, and in many cases the earliest copies we have were written centuries after the original. So, by your standards, we'd have to dismiss the reliability of [i]everything[/i] recorded in ancient history.

Can you give any specific examples of parts of the Gospels that were significantly changed from the original? Or is that pure hypothesis on the part of modernist scholars? After all, if we don't have the original copy, it's hard to prove that it said something different from the copies we have.
And I'm not sure how you (or the modernist scholars) are able to know the inner motivations of men who lived almost 2000 years ago.
Sounds like you're making some quite audacious claims based on flimsy evidence.

And if, as the modernists commonly claim, the Gospels as we know them teach things very different than what the original Christians believed about Christ (for instance, they often claim that the original Christians didn't believe in Christ's divinity or resurrection, but these were added by later Christians), wouldn't there be some rather serious conflicts between these two groups? Especially as claiming a man to be God was a huge issue in Jewish belief.
However, we have absolutely no historical record of such a conflict. (In fact, the earliest conflicts we have record of involved Gnostic heretics who denied Christ's full [i]humanity[/i].)

[quote]
What are the sources of this tradition? How reliable are those sources? [/quote]
The source is the ongoing and unbroken tradition of the Church going back to the Apostles. The Early Church Fathers were unanimous regarding the authorship of the Gospels. It wasn't until a couple centuries ago that anybody denied the truth of these traditions.

If we are to believe you, everything believed by Christians was lies and ignorance, until 200 years ago, when the truth was suddenly (miraculously?) discovered by liberal protestants.

[quote]
Virtually all biblical scholars accepted that Mark was written first and it has more to do with Matthew copying Mark than an inability to accept miraculous events.[/quote]
That's been the fashion lately, but the opinion is not unanimous. There are contemporary Biblical scholars who make a strong case for the truth of the Christian tradition of Matthew being the first Gospel to be written.

Since neither you nor the modernist scholars had a time machine and actually witnessed Matthew copying Mark, I don't know how you can say that with such certainty.
Mark being shorter or less detailed than Matthew does not prove that it was written first.

And yes, an inability to accept miraculous events has everything to do with denying the primacy of Matthew, as well as for denying the historical truth of the Gospel events. Most of the modernist scholars do in fact deny that the miraculous events in the Gospel are real historical events, and this a priori bias colors their conclusions.

Some good articles on the topic:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403fea2.asp"]PROBLEMS WITH THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM[/url]


[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403fea1.asp"]THE EVOLUTION OF THE GOSPELS[/url]

[quote]

You're assuming those primary sources were original eyewitness accounts.
[/quote]
You're assuming they're not.

Again, you have no solid evidence to prove the tradition of the Church wrong on this matter.
You can doubt and contradict til you're blue in the face, but you've still got nothing to make a positive case.

[quote]The point is the Church recognizes the opinions of scholars that are at odds with you.[/quote]
It's never proclaimed such opinions infallible truth, and the Church has always maintained the Apostolic origins and literal truth of the Gospels.

I find it ironic that you're attempting to use the alleged authority of the NAB notes to discredit the authority of the Gospels themselves.

Another article on the issue:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9605scrp.asp"]DEI VERBUM AND THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS[/url]


[quote]This works for the person of faith who believes the Magisterium is divinely preserved from error, however it doesn't help the person trying to objectively ascertain the reliability of such a story. Generally speaking, if someone inserts a passage into an author's work centuries later, such an account is rendered unreliable.


Except for the fact it's not in any of the early manuscripts and that no Church father other than Augustine comments on it.
[/quote]
Others here have answered your objection. I don't think we have any solid reason to believe that this account did not exist earlier or was not apostolic in origin. Given the other deeds of Christ, there's nothing particularly unbelievable about Christ forgiving this woman. It's quite consistent with His other deeds in the Gospels.

[quote]Maybe they didn't think it a lie but really *though* He did resurrect.[/quote]
Do you mean "thought He did resurrect"?
It seems extremely unlikely to me that such large numbers of people were either hallucinating or were fooled into believing they saw the resurrected Christ, much less be willing to lay down their lives on account of this.
That people would be willing to dedicate their lives and even lay down their lives on account of a delusion or hoax is unlikely.

And if Christ was not resurrected, it seems it would be easy enough for the Jewish authorities to show Christ's body in the tomb and put and end to that nonsense.


[quote]The Church does not regard the commentary as croutons, in fact, the Hierarchy is fully aware of the textual issues associated with the Bible, and it's probably why things like "no salvation outside of the Church" aren't taken as seriously as they used to.
[/quote]
"No salvation outside the Church" is still taken quite seriously by believing Catholics. And see the article I linked to earlier.

Some more relevant articles:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0803fea1.asp"]Are the Gospels Myth?[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510clas.asp"]The Authenticity of the Gospels[/url]

[mortify]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1286281062' post='2177937']
St. Jerome stated that it was present in early Latin and Greek codices , and of course it was accepted by the Council of Trent hence it is canonical.

S.
[/quote]

No early Greek manuscript contains it, and for over a thousand years since Christ no Greek Father ever commented on the story, even though many composed verse by verse commentaries on the Gospels. The first Greek Father to touch on it was Euthymius Zigabenus in the 12th century, and he even added that accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it.

The Council of Trent canonized the version of scripture they had which included the account.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1286300309' post='2177994']
No early Greek manuscript contains it, and for over a thousand years since Christ no Greek Father ever commented on the story, even though many composed verse by verse commentaries on the Gospels. The first Greek Father to touch on it was Euthymius Zigabenus in the 12th century, and he even added that accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it.

The Council of Trent canonized the version of scripture they had which included the account.
[/quote]

You can pretty much think what you want to think. The Council of Trent has pronounced on the subject and that of course is authoritative : "But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books [b]entire with all their parts[/b], as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church."

No early Greek manuscript WHICH SURVIVES has it but as noted St. Jerome did see it in the Latin and Greek codices, (Contra Pelagium, II, xvii) Not all the Fathers wrote "verse by verse" commentaries. And we cannot be sure of what might be missing from the historical record. Origen's commentaries for example
are missing. St. Ambrose and Augustine reasoned that this pericope was missing for the cause cited in earlier posts, and that is reasonable to accept I think.

S.

[mortify]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1286301950' post='2177998']
You can pretty much think what you want to think. The Council of Trent has pronounced on the subject and that of course is authoritative[/quote]

I'm looking for objective reasons for accepting the Bible's reliability.

[quote]No early Greek manuscript WHICH SURVIVES has it but as noted St. Jerome did see it in the Latin and Greek codices, (Contra Pelagium, II, xvii)[/quote]

We can consider what St Jerome said but we can't take that as the sole and infallible evidence for the story. There is substantial evidence that this story does not belong in the Gospel of John, and other than the internal and stylistic differences, it is missing numerous diverse and ancient manuscripts, and some of those manuscripts predate Sts Jerome and Augustine by over a hundred years. Furthermore, the texts that do contain the story don't agree on it's placement. Some manuscripts have it in Luke, other manuscripts have it various places of John's Gospel. Lastly, many a time scribes would warn future scribes that a particular verse or text is questionable by marking it with an asterisk, and in numerous copies containing the story we find that scribes did precisely that. For these and other reasons that a textual scholar could enumerate, the passage is considered an insertion.

[quote]Not all the Fathers wrote "verse by verse" commentaries. And we cannot be sure of what might be missing from the historical record. Origen's commentaries for example
are missing.[/quote]

==QUOTE==
[color="#0000FF"]Though the mere silence of ecclesiastical writers is no proof that they were unacquainted with a particular section, yet that silence becomes significant when they wrote expressly on the subject to which it relates, and when they wrote in such a way as to show that they could hardly by possibility have been acquainted with it. So, too, with regard to such ecclesiastical writers as wrote Commentaries.

Thus it may be held for certain, that Tertullian (2) and Cyprian knew nothing of the passage; while Origen and Chrysostom show in their Commentaries, that they were not aware of its existence. It has been indeed objected that nothing is proved by Origen's silence; because he often passes by portions of St. John's Gospel, and he had no occasion to mention this narrative: but, in reading his Commentary on this part of the Gospel, it is difficult (if not impossible) to imagine that he knew of anything between vii. 52 and viii. 12: for he cites and comments on every verse from vii. 40 to 52, and then at once continues from viii. 12 in the same manner (iv. p. 299, ed. De la Rue). The silence of Chrysostom on the subject, as well as that of Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, was long ago noticed.

The omission of this section by Nonnus, in his metrical Paraphrase of this Gospel, is worthy of notice; for though he does pass by parts, yet no narrative portion of certain genuineness, and of such length as this, is unnoticed.[/color]

==END QUOTE==

From:[b] Samuel P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London, 1854), pages 236-243.[/b]

[quote]St. Ambrose and Augustine reasoned that this pericope was missing for the cause cited in earlier posts, and that is reasonable to accept I think.
[/quote]

St Augustine was aware this passage was missing from several manuscripts in his own time and we have to recognize that his explanation for the difference is merely speculative. There are reasons to question the speculation. For one thing, why would verses 7:53, and 8:1-2 have been omitted? Why is this verse from so many ancient and diverse manuscripts? It would would be impossible for a sole scribe to accomplish such an omission.

Ultimately we are left with a section of verses recording Jesus doing and saying things he may not have done.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1286309257' post='2178031']
I'm looking for objective reasons for accepting the Bible's reliability.



We can consider what St Jerome said but we can't take that as the sole and infallible evidence for the story. There is substantial evidence that this story does not belong in the Gospel of John, and other than the internal and stylistic differences, it is missing numerous diverse and ancient manuscripts, and some of those manuscripts predate Sts Jerome and Augustine by over a hundred years. Furthermore, the texts that do contain the story don't agree on it's placement. Some manuscripts have it in Luke, other manuscripts have it various places of John's Gospel. Lastly, many a time scribes would warn future scribes that a particular verse or text is questionable by marking it with an asterisk, and in numerous copies containing the story we find that scribes did precisely that. For these and other reasons that a textual scholar could enumerate, the passage is considered an insertion.



==QUOTE==
[color="#0000FF"]Though the mere silence of ecclesiastical writers is no proof that they were unacquainted with a particular section, yet that silence becomes significant when they wrote expressly on the subject to which it relates, and when they wrote in such a way as to show that they could hardly by possibility have been acquainted with it. So, too, with regard to such ecclesiastical writers as wrote Commentaries.

Thus it may be held for certain, that Tertullian (2) and Cyprian knew nothing of the passage; while Origen and Chrysostom show in their Commentaries, that they were not aware of its existence. It has been indeed objected that nothing is proved by Origen's silence; because he often passes by portions of St. John's Gospel, and he had no occasion to mention this narrative: but, in reading his Commentary on this part of the Gospel, it is difficult (if not impossible) to imagine that he knew of anything between vii. 52 and viii. 12: for he cites and comments on every verse from vii. 40 to 52, and then at once continues from viii. 12 in the same manner (iv. p. 299, ed. De la Rue). The silence of Chrysostom on the subject, as well as that of Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, was long ago noticed.

The omission of this section by Nonnus, in his metrical Paraphrase of this Gospel, is worthy of notice; for though he does pass by parts, yet no narrative portion of certain genuineness, and of such length as this, is unnoticed.[/color]

==END QUOTE==

From:[b] Samuel P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London, 1854), pages 236-243.[/b]



St Augustine was aware this passage was missing from several manuscripts in his own time and we have to recognize that his explanation for the difference is merely speculative. There are reasons to question the speculation. For one thing, why would verses 7:53, and 8:1-2 have been omitted? Why is this verse from so many ancient and diverse manuscripts? It would would be impossible for a sole scribe to accomplish such an omission.

Ultimately we are left with a section of verses recording Jesus doing and saying things he may not have done.
[/quote]




Your point of view can be considered as speculative too. As you've skipped some of the points I made I won't bother further with this. 


Ulitmately we are left with the solemn definition of Trent which trumps everything.




S. 

[mortify]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1286297909' post='2177989']
Can you give any specific examples of parts of the Gospels that were significantly changed from the original? Or is that pure hypothesis on the part of modernist scholars?[/quote]

Yes, there are examples, one would be the changes made in response to the adoptionist controversies. Adoptionists like the Ebionites believed Jesus possessed only a human nature, was born naturally by a consumation between his father and mother (i.e. they rejected the virgin birth), but was ultimately chosen by God as His righteous servant. So what changes do we find among the manuscripts? In the Gospel of Luke there is a passage where Joseph and Mary present Jesus in the temple. Older manuscripts read,[b] "His father and mother were marveling at was said to them"[/b] (Luke 2:33) which can be taken to indicate Jesus had a human father. Later manuscripts have the verse as [b]"Joseph and his mother were marveling..."[/b]. A similar change was made in a later part of the Gospel where Luke records Joseph and Mary finding Jesus in the temple. Older manuscripts read, "His parents..." whereas the later manuscripts read "Joseph and his mother..." Another example is in the baptismal scene recorded by Luke. The Ebionites pinpointed Jesus "adoption" as the son of God at his baptism. In that scene the voice of God is heard and is recorded in older manuscripts as, "You are my son, today I have begotten you" which would lend credence to the adoptionist view. But later manuscripts have it recorded as "You are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." These are three examples of changes made to scripture to curb a particular interpretation that was regarded as heretical.

[quote]After all, if we don't have the original copy, it's hard to prove that it said something different from the copies we have.
And I'm not sure how you (or the modernist scholars) are able to know the inner motivations of men who lived almost 2000 years ago.
Sounds like you're making some quite audacious claims based on flimsy evidence.[/quote]

Perhaps if Mark's original Gospel was unearthed we would find even more differences, but we can only go off of what we have. There may be even more changes that we don't know about because we don't have the originals, thus more questions raised against the Bible's reliability.

With regards to motive, all that can be said is that if a change is made intentionally, there must be a reason for that change. If a verse was changed from "His parents..." to "Joseph and his mother..." we can reasonably infer that the motive is to counter the opinion that Jesus had a human father.

[quote]And if, as the modernists commonly claim, the Gospels as we know them teach things very different than what the original Christians believed about Christ (for instance, they often claim that the original Christians didn't believe in Christ's divinity or resurrection, but these were added by later Christians), wouldn't there be some rather serious conflicts between these two groups? Especially as claiming a man to be God was a huge issue in Jewish belief.
However, we have absolutely no historical record of such a conflict. (In fact, the earliest conflicts we have record of involved Gnostic heretics who denied Christ's full [i]humanity[/i].)
[/quote]

Well, you're simply uninformed on this issue.

The Ebionites mentioned above were a very early Jewish-Christian group that fit precisely the description you mention above. They rejected the virgin birth, rejected the Divinity of Christ, believed him to be only a man, and firmly held on to Jewish Law. St Ireneus mentions them in his, "Against the Heresies," and so there most certainly was an early theological conflict with them.
[quote]
The source is the ongoing and unbroken tradition of the Church going back to the Apostles. The Early Church Fathers were unanimous regarding the authorship of the Gospels. It wasn't until a couple centuries ago that anybody denied the truth of these traditions.[/quote]

How can you be certain there is such an unbroken tradition that goes back to the Apostles?

[mortify]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1286311915' post='2178042']
Ulitmately we are left with the solemn definition of Trent which trumps everything.
[/quote]

I think it's vital to conform our minds to reality, i.e. objective truth.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1286329127' post='2178097']
I think it's vital to conform our minds to reality, i.e. objective truth.
[/quote]

Quite right. And that is why the teachings of Trent must be accepted. 


S. 

[OraProMe]

Mortify,

Awesome reading. Do you have a reference for the stuff you've said about the ebionites changing the old manuscripts?

[rkwright]

Mortify - If it was a later insertion, why did St. Jerome include it? He had access to far more manuscripts than we have today.

Just looking at wikipedia makes me think you have some of your facts off...

[quote]The pericope is not found in its canonical place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, [b]although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot[/b]. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the late 4th or early 5th century. [b]It is also the earliest surviving Latin manuscript to contain it; 17 of the 23 Old Latin manuscripts of John 7-8 contain at least part of the Pericope. [/b]Papias (circa AD 125) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which may well refer to this passage; [b]there is a very certain quotation of the pericope adulterae in the 3rd Century Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum; though without indicating John's Gospel[/b]. The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book II.24 refers to the passage “And when the elders had set another woman who had sinned before Him, and had left the sentence to Him, and were gone out, our Lord, the Searcher of the hearts, inquiring of her whether the elders had condemned her, and being answered No, He said unto her: “Go thy way therefore, for neither do I condemn thee.” Book II is generally dated to the late third century (Von Drey, Krabbe, Bunsen, Funk).[6] Codex Fuldensis, which is positively dated to AD 546 contains the adulterae pericope. The Second Epistle of Pope Callistus section 6[7] contains a quote that may be from John 8:11 - "Let him see to it that he sin no more, that the sentence of the Gospel may abide in him: “Go, and sin no more.”" However the epistle quotes from eighth century writings and is not thought to be genuine.[8]

[b]Until recently, it was not thought that any Greek Church Father had taken note of the passage before the 12th Century; but in 1941 a large collection of the writings of Didymus the Blind (ca. 313- 398) was discovered in Egypt, including a reference to the pericope adulterae as being found in "several copies"; and it is now considered established that this passage was present in its canonical place in many Greek manuscripts known in Alexandria and elsewhere from the 4th Century onwards. [/b]In support of this it is noted that the 4th century Codex Vaticanus, which was written in Egypt, marks the end of John chapter 7 with an "umlaut", indicating that an alternative reading was known at this point.

[b]Jerome reports that the pericope adulterae was to be found in its canonical place in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the Latin West in the late 4th Century. This is confirmed by the consensus of Latin Fathers of the 4th and 5th Centuries CE; including Ambrose, and Augustine. [/b]The latter claimed that the passage may have been improperly excluded from some manuscripts in order to avoid the impression that Christ had sanctioned adultery:

"Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin."[9]
[/quote]

For me, this more than satisfies any curiosity in the matter.

[Socrates]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1286313434' post='2178051']
Yes, there are examples, one would be the changes made in response to the adoptionist controversies. Adoptionists like the Ebionites believed Jesus possessed only a human nature, was born naturally by a consumation between his father and mother (i.e. they rejected the virgin birth), but was ultimately chosen by God as His righteous servant. So what changes do we find among the manuscripts? In the Gospel of Luke there is a passage where Joseph and Mary present Jesus in the temple. Older manuscripts read,[b] "His father and mother were marveling at was said to them"[/b] (Luke 2:33) which can be taken to indicate Jesus had a human father. Later manuscripts have the verse as [b]"Joseph and his mother were marveling..."[/b]. A similar change was made in a later part of the Gospel where Luke records Joseph and Mary finding Jesus in the temple. Older manuscripts read, "His parents..." whereas the later manuscripts read "Joseph and his mother..." Another example is in the baptismal scene recorded by Luke. The Ebionites pinpointed Jesus "adoption" as the son of God at his baptism. In that scene the voice of God is heard and is recorded in older manuscripts as, "You are my son, today I have begotten you" which would lend credence to the adoptionist view. But later manuscripts have it recorded as "You are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." These are three examples of changes made to scripture to curb a particular interpretation that was regarded as heretical.[/quote]
In neither case was the meaning of the passage changed; the language was merely changed to clarify against heretical errors which later grew up.
It's clear that "Joseph" and "His father" both refer to the same person.
In both translations, God speaks from heaven to confer His favor on Jesus His son.

As the miraculous virgin conception of Jesus by the Holy Ghost is explicitly recorded in the same Gospel of Luke (1:28-38), there is no reason to believe the essential meaning of the text was changed here.
You still have no evidence of significant changes to the essential story told in the Gospels, and all are clear about the divinity of Christ.


[quote]Perhaps if Mark's original Gospel was unearthed we would find even more differences, but we can only go off of what we have. There may be even more changes that we don't know about because we don't have the originals, thus more questions raised against the Bible's reliability.[/quote]
"Perhaps . . ." "may be . . ." "don't know . . ."

In other words, a lot of idle, baseless speculation.
You're going to have to do better than that to build a case against the authenticity of the Gospels.

[quote]With regards to motive, all that can be said is that if a change is made intentionally, there must be a reason for that change. If a verse was changed from "His parents..." to "Joseph and his mother..." we can reasonably infer that the motive is to counter the opinion that Jesus had a human father. [/quote]
Again, the substantial meaning of the passage was not changed. And all the Gospels, including the Gospel according to Luke, make it clear that Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God.


[quote]Well, you're simply uninformed on this issue.

The Ebionites mentioned above were a very early Jewish-Christian group that fit precisely the description you mention above. They rejected the virgin birth, rejected the Divinity of Christ, believed him to be only a man, and firmly held on to Jewish Law. St Ireneus mentions them in his, "Against the Heresies," and so there most certainly was an early theological conflict with them.
[/quote]
The Ebionites were a heretical sect, first mentioned by St. Irenaeus - in other words a group outside of Christian orthodoxy, and are referred to as heretics by all who wrote about them. There is no evidence that they were the original Christians, as you and certain modernists maintain. Nor is there any historical evidence of a hostile takeover of the Church by orthodox Christians. The earliest Christian writings we have, including the works of the New Testament, reflect orthodox Christian theology, rather than Ebionite beliefs.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm"]Ebionites[/url]

[quote]
How can you be certain there is such an unbroken tradition that goes back to the Apostles?[/quote]
All the historical evidence certainly points to it, including the writings of the early Church Fathers. ([url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209frs.asp"]Some quotes from the Fathers regarding Apostolic Succession[/url])

That the Church dates back to the Apostles and Christ was taken for granted by Christians in the first century of the Church. There is no evidence that this was something suddenly made up at some later date, all protestant claims to the contrary.


Of course, there's no way to have absolute objective certainty of anything that happened in the past without access to time travel, but the evidence is overwhelmingly for the truth of the Gospels.

Of course, if you wish, you can always doubt and speculate endlessly with "what ifs" and wild conspiracy theories. You can even write a fictional thriller about them (paid off great for Dan Brown).
However, such speculation lacks any firm basis. The actual historical evidence is on the side of the Church.

[mortify]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1286358755' post='2178132']
Mortify,

Awesome reading. Do you have a reference for the stuff you've said about the ebionites changing the old manuscripts?
[/quote]

It wasn't the Ebionites who edited the manuscripts, but the so called Orthodox. Bart Ehrman has written some decent though popular works on the subject.

[mortify]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1286374173' post='2178165']
Mortify - If it was a later insertion, why did St. Jerome include it?[/quote]

I don't know, maybe he made a mistake?

[quote]He had access to far more manuscripts than we have today.[/quote]

How do you know this? I doub't he had as many diverse and ancient sources as modern scholars have at their hands now.

[quote]Just looking at wikipedia makes me think you have some of your facts off...[/quote]

Although what you mention is interesting, it ultimately doesn't change the fact that it's an insertion into John's gospel. No one denies its an ancient story or that it's not in any manuscripts.

[mortify]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1286396135' post='2178205']
In neither case was the meaning of the passage changed; the language was merely changed to clarify against heretical errors which later grew up.[/quote]

You believe the Gospel authors were inspired, don't you? Don't you find it problematic that a scribe would take it upon themself to alter the inspired text for theological reasons? Obviously from your trinitarian viewpoint the text was clarified, however an adoptionist would say it was further obscured.

[quote]It's clear that "Joseph" and "His father" both refer to the same person.[/quote]

Yes, but that's not really the issue. The issue is that the latter can lend itself into suggesting that Joseph was Jesus' literal father.

[quote]In both translations, God speaks from heaven to confer His favor on Jesus His son.[/quote]

Yes, but in the older translation Jesus is *begotten* as God's son in a particular moment, and that moment was his baptism, hence the adoptionist belief that Jesus was "adopted" as God's son on his baptism. This is a significant change from the later variant.

[quote]You still have no evidence of significant changes to the essential story told in the Gospels, and all are clear about the divinity of Christ.[/quote]

I guess it depends on what you define as significant, but the insertion of the adulteress pericope into John's gospel and the ending inserted into Mark's are examples of significant changes that are hard to deny.

[quote]In other words, a lot of idle, baseless speculation.
You're going to have to do better than that to build a case against the authenticity of the Gospels.[/quote]

We don't have the originals, all we have are copies dated centuries later. We can compare older copies with later copies to discover changes have been made to the text. It seems reasonable to believe that changes and alterations were occurring even before the gospels were written, when the stories of Christ existed in oral tradition only. This can't be definitively proved but is it unreasonable to suggest the Bible is not reliable? Im studying the question, but unfortunately right now it seem quite unreliable.

[quote]Again, the substantial meaning of the passage was not changed. And all the Gospels, including the Gospel according to Luke, make it clear that Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God.[/quote]

The point there was to show a scribe's motive can be inferred.

[quote]The Ebionites were a heretical sect, first mentioned by St. Irenaeus - in other words a group outside of Christian orthodoxy, and are referred to as heretics by all who wrote about them. There is no evidence that they were the original Christians, as you and certain modernists maintain. Nor is there any historical evidence of a hostile takeover of the Church by orthodox Christians. The earliest Christian writings we have, including the works of the New Testament, reflect orthodox Christian theology, rather than Ebionite beliefs.[/quote]

I never said I believed the Ebionites were the original Christians, for all we know they may have been.

What early piece of non canonical writing can be used against the Ebionites?

[quote]The actual historical evidence is on the side of the Church.
[/quote]

If that were so Catholic faith would be increasing with knowledge, and not decreasing.