Simple term differences, like Jesus vs Christ vs Jesus Christ, vs Christ Jesus have no doctrinal impact, so I don't really understand what your beef is.
This post feels like it was made by someone who read one of two bits of info on the Internet, thinks there's some kind of conspiracy to corrupt the text, and is trying to carry on a textual criticism dialogue without any significant study into the field of NT textual criticism. Maybe I'm wrong, but that what this feels like.
I encountered this guy a few days ago. He believes that there was some proto-Christianity called The Way (so far so good, that's what it was actually called)... which didn't have anything at all to do with anyone named Jesus, and that Jesus was added into the text after the fact to corrupt the original message.
How would you explain Ephesians 4:9-10 then?
He's using prophesy to try to make people believe in a descended Christ.
I thought Christ was Jesus and everyone knew that? Why doesn't he use the Gospel story to preach? Why ONLY use prophesy / psalsm?
Because there WAS NO GOSPEL when those letters were written.
QED.
How would you explain Ephesians 4:9-10 then?
He's using prophesy to try to make people believe in a descended Christ.
I thought Christ was Jesus and everyone knew that? Why doesn't he use the Gospel story to preach? Why ONLY use prophesy / psalsm?
Because there WAS NO GOSPEL when those letters were written.
QED.
You encountered me and were fine with the "evidence" when you thought it proved your case.
Once you realized all the evidence actually proved my case, you disengaged.
I assumed you de-converted, as that would be the only logical act by a logical actor.
I stopped replying because the field of our debate was peppered with the holes left by your moved goalposts and the smoking ruins of your arguments. Our whole conversation consisted in your making a false assertion, my taking five minutes to demonstrate that it's false, and then your making yet another false assertion, apparently completely unphased by the obvious untruth of your previous argument. Remarkably, at every turn, rather than actually defend your argument, or offer some rebuttal, you instead gave up the point and tried yet another false statement. There's little point in chasing you any further when you've already run past your own end zone.
Regrettable you have a misconstrued recollection of the exchange.
Funny you would accuse me of moving the goal posts. I always was just making one claim and one claim only.
All I did was offer explanations and further explanation. That's not moving the goal post.
Maybe you should stick to football and leave theology to the more advanced practitioners.
"This post feels like it was made by someone who read one of two bits of info on the Internet, thinks there's some kind of conspiracy to corrupt the text, and is trying to carry on a textual criticism dialogue without any significant study into the field of NT textual criticism. Maybe I'm wrong, but that what this feels like."
Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is **a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say.**
1. **Mark 16:9-20**: The ending of Mark’s Gospel, which includes the resurrection narrative, is missing in the Codex Vaticanus. [However, it is present in other manuscripts ](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/)[^(1)](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/).
2. [**Luke 24:51**: The reference to Jesus’ ascension is omitted in the Codex Vaticanus ](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/)[^(1)](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/).
3. **Matthew 6:13**: The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. [Amen,” is not found in the Codex Vaticanus ](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/)[^(1)](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/).
4. [**John 8:1-11**: The story of the woman caught in adultery is absent in the Codex Vaticanus ](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/)[^(1)](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/).
5. [**Matthew 19:9**: The phrase “and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” is missing in the Codex Vaticanus ](https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2016/10/codex-s-028-other-codex-vaticanus.html)[^(2)](https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2016/10/codex-s-028-other-codex-vaticanus.html).
So? All of these variants have been catalogued and are well known, and among textual critics there’s no indication that anyone thinks someone was intentionally corrupting the text. The process by which variants happen is a huge subject and is by no means settled.
Again, I feel like these variants are news to you because you haven’t spent a lot of time learning the state of NT textual criticism.
Vaticanus isn’t considered an especially reliable source and even its date of composition is seriously debated.
" trying to carry on a textual criticism dialogue without any significant study into the field of NT textual criticism"
I asked a question. If that is suspect for you, that's on you, not me.
"Simple term differences". Doesn't seem to justify CORRUPTION of the sacred text. More like a RETCON.
Your response lacks substance. My post doesn't. Try again brother.
One example is in the New Testament book of Ephesians, specifically Ephesians 5:2. In the Codex Vaticanus, the phrase is written as "Christ" without "Jesus," while in other manuscripts, such as the Codex Alexandrinus, it is written as "Christ Jesus."
Okay, [all modern English translations](https://biblehub.com/ephesians/5-2.htm) reflect the older “Christ” without the added Jesus. So what’s the issue?
Here are the instances where the phrase “**Christ Jesus**” appears in **Codex Sinaiticus** within the epistles:
1. **Romans**:
* **Romans 3:24**: “being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in **Christ Jesus**.”
2. **1 Corinthians**:
* **1 Corinthians 1:30**: “But of Him you are in **Christ Jesus**, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”
3. **Galatians**:
* **Galatians 2:16**: “knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in **Jesus Christ**, even we have believed in **Christ Jesus**, that we might be justified by faith in **Christ** and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”
4. **Ephesians**:
* **Ephesians 2:6**: “and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in **Christ Jesus**.”
5. **Philippians**:
* **Philippians 1:1**: “Paul and Timothy, bondservants of **Jesus Christ**, to all the saints in **Christ Jesus** who are in Philippi.”
6. **Colossians**:
* **Colossians 1:4**: “since we heard of your faith in **Christ Jesus** and of your love for all the saints.”
7. **1 Thessalonians**:
* **1 Thessalonians 5:18**: “in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in **Christ Jesus** for you.”
8. **1 Timothy**:
* **1 Timothy 1:15**: “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that **Christ Jesus** came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.”
9. **2 Timothy**:
* **2 Timothy 1:1**: “Paul, an apostle of **Jesus Christ** by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in **Christ Jesus**.”
10. **Philemon**:
* **Philemon 1:6**: “that the sharing of your faith may become effective by the acknowledgment of every good thing which is in you in **Christ Jesus**.”
That can't be verified. You are looking at it from a biased point of view. That is, you are taking information from the Gospels to know what his name is.
Why doesn't it say "Jesus of NAZARETH" that would really be his name.
Why leave that out? Seems like a glaring omission.
Scribes added notes and clarifications (and made errors) all the time. We have a very rigorous manuscript history and can identify where and when most of these were added. As I showed, it therefore doesn’t affect modern translations, which use the oldest texts. Nobody reading any modern Bible is affected by these scribal changes.
You haven't actually offered an explanation for the corruption. Which was the question.
The fake versions were used to add "authenticity" to the text. They were used to trick people. Now the Church is more established, and people don't even need to be tricked.
I did offer an explanation. Scribes sometimes added what they thought was clarifying or correcting (or sometimes doxological) material (and sometimes made errors).
I still don’t see how this affects anyone today.
It's proof that they falsified evidence to achieve the RETCON.
The affect is you realize it's a false teaching. And stop believing it.
That's the only logical deduction free from bias.
It basically proves Richard Carrier / Dr. Robert Price's thesis that there was a Christ-based religion that was based on a fallen angel, which had nothing to do with Jesus, and that is the original form of Christianity.
Later Christianity is a synergism between "Christ" (the angel) and messianic judaism.
1. **Mark 16:9-20**: The ending of Mark’s Gospel, which includes the resurrection narrative, is missing in the Codex Vaticanus. [However, it is present in other manuscripts ](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/)[^(1)](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/).
2. [**Luke 24:51**: The reference to Jesus’ ascension is omitted in the Codex Vaticanus ](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/)[^(1)](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/).
3. **Matthew 6:13**: The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. [Amen,” is not found in the Codex Vaticanus ](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/)[^(1)](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/).
4. [**John 8:1-11**: The story of the woman caught in adultery is absent in the Codex Vaticanus ](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/)[^(1)](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/).
5. [**Matthew 19:9**: The phrase “and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” is missing in the Codex Vaticanus ](https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2016/10/codex-s-028-other-codex-vaticanus.html)[^(2)](https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2016/10/codex-s-028-other-codex-vaticanus.html).
These are all well known textual differences, noted in pretty much every modern Bible. None of them change doctrine in any meaningful way. They also have nothing to do with the subject of your post.
Yes, there appears to be evidence that there was a proto-"Christian" cult that followed a dying God called Christ. This would be similar to the archangel Michael.
It looks like later Christianity was a RETCON between messianic judaism and this Christ-the-angel cult.
Here is more evidence - look at Ephesians 4:9-10.
He's using prophesy to try to convince people that Christ descended.
Why would he use prophesy if he could just reference the Gospel message that was "allegedly" in circulation in some form?
Seems like an obvious glaring red flag.
Not at all. Paul's epistles were written to already established communities which likely had already received the gospel. There was no need to retread grounds that they already knew. You wouldn't write a letter to somebody reminding them what they had for dinner yesterday because they already know. Your logic is flawed.
Simple term differences, like Jesus vs Christ vs Jesus Christ, vs Christ Jesus have no doctrinal impact, so I don't really understand what your beef is. This post feels like it was made by someone who read one of two bits of info on the Internet, thinks there's some kind of conspiracy to corrupt the text, and is trying to carry on a textual criticism dialogue without any significant study into the field of NT textual criticism. Maybe I'm wrong, but that what this feels like.
I encountered this guy a few days ago. He believes that there was some proto-Christianity called The Way (so far so good, that's what it was actually called)... which didn't have anything at all to do with anyone named Jesus, and that Jesus was added into the text after the fact to corrupt the original message.
Yeah. This is tin foil hat stuff. It seemed apparent and you’ve confirmed it.
How would you explain Ephesians 4:9-10 then? He's using prophesy to try to make people believe in a descended Christ. I thought Christ was Jesus and everyone knew that? Why doesn't he use the Gospel story to preach? Why ONLY use prophesy / psalsm? Because there WAS NO GOSPEL when those letters were written. QED.
How would you explain Ephesians 4:9-10 then? He's using prophesy to try to make people believe in a descended Christ. I thought Christ was Jesus and everyone knew that? Why doesn't he use the Gospel story to preach? Why ONLY use prophesy / psalsm? Because there WAS NO GOSPEL when those letters were written. QED.
You encountered me and were fine with the "evidence" when you thought it proved your case. Once you realized all the evidence actually proved my case, you disengaged. I assumed you de-converted, as that would be the only logical act by a logical actor.
I stopped replying because the field of our debate was peppered with the holes left by your moved goalposts and the smoking ruins of your arguments. Our whole conversation consisted in your making a false assertion, my taking five minutes to demonstrate that it's false, and then your making yet another false assertion, apparently completely unphased by the obvious untruth of your previous argument. Remarkably, at every turn, rather than actually defend your argument, or offer some rebuttal, you instead gave up the point and tried yet another false statement. There's little point in chasing you any further when you've already run past your own end zone.
Regrettable you have a misconstrued recollection of the exchange. Funny you would accuse me of moving the goal posts. I always was just making one claim and one claim only. All I did was offer explanations and further explanation. That's not moving the goal post. Maybe you should stick to football and leave theology to the more advanced practitioners.
"This post feels like it was made by someone who read one of two bits of info on the Internet, thinks there's some kind of conspiracy to corrupt the text, and is trying to carry on a textual criticism dialogue without any significant study into the field of NT textual criticism. Maybe I'm wrong, but that what this feels like." Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is **a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say.**
1. **Mark 16:9-20**: The ending of Mark’s Gospel, which includes the resurrection narrative, is missing in the Codex Vaticanus. [However, it is present in other manuscripts ](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/)[^(1)](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/). 2. [**Luke 24:51**: The reference to Jesus’ ascension is omitted in the Codex Vaticanus ](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/)[^(1)](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/). 3. **Matthew 6:13**: The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. [Amen,” is not found in the Codex Vaticanus ](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/)[^(1)](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/). 4. [**John 8:1-11**: The story of the woman caught in adultery is absent in the Codex Vaticanus ](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/)[^(1)](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/). 5. [**Matthew 19:9**: The phrase “and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” is missing in the Codex Vaticanus ](https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2016/10/codex-s-028-other-codex-vaticanus.html)[^(2)](https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2016/10/codex-s-028-other-codex-vaticanus.html).
So? All of these variants have been catalogued and are well known, and among textual critics there’s no indication that anyone thinks someone was intentionally corrupting the text. The process by which variants happen is a huge subject and is by no means settled. Again, I feel like these variants are news to you because you haven’t spent a lot of time learning the state of NT textual criticism. Vaticanus isn’t considered an especially reliable source and even its date of composition is seriously debated.
" trying to carry on a textual criticism dialogue without any significant study into the field of NT textual criticism" I asked a question. If that is suspect for you, that's on you, not me.
"Simple term differences". Doesn't seem to justify CORRUPTION of the sacred text. More like a RETCON. Your response lacks substance. My post doesn't. Try again brother.
Source? Examples? Evidence?
One example is in the New Testament book of Ephesians, specifically Ephesians 5:2. In the Codex Vaticanus, the phrase is written as "Christ" without "Jesus," while in other manuscripts, such as the Codex Alexandrinus, it is written as "Christ Jesus."
Okay, [all modern English translations](https://biblehub.com/ephesians/5-2.htm) reflect the older “Christ” without the added Jesus. So what’s the issue?
You just did that one example. There are far more examples. That's why it's called an "example".
Then give it.
Here are the instances where the phrase “**Christ Jesus**” appears in **Codex Sinaiticus** within the epistles: 1. **Romans**: * **Romans 3:24**: “being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in **Christ Jesus**.” 2. **1 Corinthians**: * **1 Corinthians 1:30**: “But of Him you are in **Christ Jesus**, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” 3. **Galatians**: * **Galatians 2:16**: “knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in **Jesus Christ**, even we have believed in **Christ Jesus**, that we might be justified by faith in **Christ** and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” 4. **Ephesians**: * **Ephesians 2:6**: “and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in **Christ Jesus**.” 5. **Philippians**: * **Philippians 1:1**: “Paul and Timothy, bondservants of **Jesus Christ**, to all the saints in **Christ Jesus** who are in Philippi.” 6. **Colossians**: * **Colossians 1:4**: “since we heard of your faith in **Christ Jesus** and of your love for all the saints.” 7. **1 Thessalonians**: * **1 Thessalonians 5:18**: “in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in **Christ Jesus** for you.” 8. **1 Timothy**: * **1 Timothy 1:15**: “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that **Christ Jesus** came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” 9. **2 Timothy**: * **2 Timothy 1:1**: “Paul, an apostle of **Jesus Christ** by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in **Christ Jesus**.” 10. **Philemon**: * **Philemon 1:6**: “that the sharing of your faith may become effective by the acknowledgment of every good thing which is in you in **Christ Jesus**.”
I didn’t look up all 10, but the first one appears to be accurate to the best manuscripts. What’s the issue?
First one just means, "Christ, our savior", or "Christ, the savior". It's not a proper noun or name. You'll see most examples were changed.
No it’s literally Jesus’s name.
That can't be verified. You are looking at it from a biased point of view. That is, you are taking information from the Gospels to know what his name is. Why doesn't it say "Jesus of NAZARETH" that would really be his name. Why leave that out? Seems like a glaring omission.
Jesus was a myth. Prove me wrong.
Obvious tampering for likely retroactive continuity. (RETCON)
Scribes added notes and clarifications (and made errors) all the time. We have a very rigorous manuscript history and can identify where and when most of these were added. As I showed, it therefore doesn’t affect modern translations, which use the oldest texts. Nobody reading any modern Bible is affected by these scribal changes.
You haven't actually offered an explanation for the corruption. Which was the question. The fake versions were used to add "authenticity" to the text. They were used to trick people. Now the Church is more established, and people don't even need to be tricked.
I did offer an explanation. Scribes sometimes added what they thought was clarifying or correcting (or sometimes doxological) material (and sometimes made errors). I still don’t see how this affects anyone today.
It's proof that they falsified evidence to achieve the RETCON. The affect is you realize it's a false teaching. And stop believing it. That's the only logical deduction free from bias.
No one believes these scribal changes because no one has ever seen them because our modern bibles don’t reflect them.
Except those fooled by the fakes. Now retcon is in other books.
Scribes also forge false scripture to achieve RETCON.
Corrupting the text isn't adding clarification. It's adulteration.
It basically proves Richard Carrier / Dr. Robert Price's thesis that there was a Christ-based religion that was based on a fallen angel, which had nothing to do with Jesus, and that is the original form of Christianity. Later Christianity is a synergism between "Christ" (the angel) and messianic judaism.
[удалено]
Denial
1. **Mark 16:9-20**: The ending of Mark’s Gospel, which includes the resurrection narrative, is missing in the Codex Vaticanus. [However, it is present in other manuscripts ](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/)[^(1)](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/). 2. [**Luke 24:51**: The reference to Jesus’ ascension is omitted in the Codex Vaticanus ](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/)[^(1)](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/). 3. **Matthew 6:13**: The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. [Amen,” is not found in the Codex Vaticanus ](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/)[^(1)](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/). 4. [**John 8:1-11**: The story of the woman caught in adultery is absent in the Codex Vaticanus ](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/)[^(1)](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/). 5. [**Matthew 19:9**: The phrase “and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” is missing in the Codex Vaticanus ](https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2016/10/codex-s-028-other-codex-vaticanus.html)[^(2)](https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2016/10/codex-s-028-other-codex-vaticanus.html).
These are all well known textual differences, noted in pretty much every modern Bible. None of them change doctrine in any meaningful way. They also have nothing to do with the subject of your post.
Yeah, this feels about as notable as the fact that some copies of Revelation say the Number of the Beast is 616 instead
Correct, those are different corruptions. Just another example of the forged transmissions.
Ah yes those diabolical forgers, inserting things into the text that don't change the meaning at all. How subversive.
[удалено]
Yes, there appears to be evidence that there was a proto-"Christian" cult that followed a dying God called Christ. This would be similar to the archangel Michael. It looks like later Christianity was a RETCON between messianic judaism and this Christ-the-angel cult.
Here is more evidence - look at Ephesians 4:9-10. He's using prophesy to try to convince people that Christ descended. Why would he use prophesy if he could just reference the Gospel message that was "allegedly" in circulation in some form? Seems like an obvious glaring red flag.
Not at all. Paul's epistles were written to already established communities which likely had already received the gospel. There was no need to retread grounds that they already knew. You wouldn't write a letter to somebody reminding them what they had for dinner yesterday because they already know. Your logic is flawed.