/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>is there evidence the scripture was not corrupted

You've got it backwards; the onus is on the critic to find discrepancies between early copies

Short answer: no, there's nothing

>tfw every time some old copies of Scripture are found, turns out the Catholics are right

feels good

>>756466

There do seem to be discrepancies between what the church fathers were referencing and later canon, though. In practical terms, Papias explicitly states Matthew was written in Hebrew, while we only have the Koine version. If there was a missing textual source, this raises questions of why such a text was lost despite having been widely known among Christians at some point closer to the life of Christ. In contrast, Marcan priority is particularly problematic considering its late start and early ending compared to Matthew and Luke which gives room for much more interpretation than later narratives, which could have feasibly been written by those who were farther removed from Christ historically. As for the burden of proof, it rest upon those who make positive claims rather than negative ones (i.e. the concept of a "neutral hypothesis"), in this case that the teachings of Christ were preserved between His life and the first council. I would also say the additions of Matthew and Luke, and perhaps even Mark 16:9-20 have significantly less reliability than the rest of Mark simply due to the stronger link between Mark and Jesus, via Peter, than what can be definitively shown as to the authorship of (what we know of) as Matthew and Luke.

>>756485

St. Jerome had access to the Hebrew version of St. Matthew. As for the rest of the texts everything is fine.

vulgate master race then

>>757020

I heard Jerome only wrote the Vulgate OT.

>>757021

There was already a Latin translation of the Gospels, called the old Latin Bible.

But either Jerome improved those texts a lot or made his own.

>>756462

>How strong is the connection between Christ and the modern church, objectively?

Almost non-existent. We are in the middle of a global genocide of Christians and you could attend most churches and never have a preacher4 even mention it.

The council of Nicaea and the subsequent councils that defined scripture destroyed Christianity. For most of Christian history, the religion was just the tool of control for the ruling parties that practiced Babylonian mysticism in secret and used the bible as a cage for the minds of the flock.

The bible is great but ALL scripture is profitable, and the bible doesn't contain all scripture. The book of Enoch, which was scripture for the Children of Israel even before Moses wrote the torah, is glaring evidence that those church "fathers" were in error in their attempt to canonize a bible. T^he book of Enoch was excluded because it revealed too clearly the plans and works of the devil and the fallen angels on earth, knowledge that the church needs now in this time of destruction.

When you think about it with a rational mind, the idea that some guys a thousand years back had the right to not only provide the stamp of approval for everything God had ever said, as well as declare that God would never say anything else, was obviously ridiculous. Even Jesus didn't take that power for himself.

The bible is great, and it's important reading for Christians, but it's by no means complete nor is it infallible. Even the very concept that all the word of God could be contained in the language of men is heretical and obscene.

Not only does the idea of a complete and infallible bible attempt to silence God for the rest of man's time on earth (If you claim the bible is the complete word of God, then you necessarily claim that God will never say anything more), it places the word of God that is in the bible beyond the reach of man. There are all sorts of errors and contradictions in the bible, since it's the work of men translating the word of God into something that they can understand. The idolatry of the bible mentally castrates Christians, it makes them incapable of actually confronting the errors or perceived errors head on and learning what God actually had to say. They flee from the contradictions and inconsistencies because, in reality, their faith isn't in God, it's in the bible and if the bible is proven incorrect even once then their faith will fail them. I say this from experience, having spent many years completely accepting of Christian idolatry of the bible and having my faith destroyed when honest study of the bible turned up contradictions I couldn't reconcile. For a lot of years I wouldn't call myself Christian and would say openly that Christianity was bullshit. It took a long time to understand that my knowledge of God can't ever come from a book, but my salvation came through the experience of God revealing himself to me.

The church is in a bad spot right now. It's so far from holiness that it's hard to even identify what holiness is currently.

>>756466

>Short answer: no, there's nothing

Then why has the bible changed so many times through the years? Why did people feel the need for so many different translations? Why isn't the protestant bible and the catholic bible the same?

You need to give up your bible idolatry. The bible doesn't need to be complete and infallible in order for Jesus Christ to be Lord.

>>757331

So are you a Gnostic or SDA?

>>757331

>The book of Enoch, which was scripture for the Children of Israel even before Moses wrote the torah

>not knowing that the book of Enoch was written only a couple of years before Jesus was born.

>>757332

The Bible hasn't changed at all. There's academic debate on how to translate everything and which manuscripts to use.

> You need to give up your bible idolatry.

Thats a tall accusation buckaroo

>The bible doesn't need to be complete and infallible in order for Jesus Christ to be Lord

Never said otherwise

>>757331

Enjoy your ban, Satan.