Christians only: Does the existence of a "godly remnant" prove the Church never fell into apostasy?

Clear said:

The fact that a "godly remnant" of individuals existed, who were trying to do their best, doesn't constitute the original organization as the original, historical εκκλεσια.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%

Regarding the claim that God would never allow apostasy to occur.

The fear underlying the terrible question “What am I to believe if God doesn’t keep my church or my texts (or my pastor, or my interpretation, etc.) from error?” is an inadequate defense for claiming the correctness of any religious position.

Interestingly, in discussing Judaic doctrinal apostasy with a Jewish friend, he also denied that the Jews ever lost Gods favor (since I had pointed out that the Jews no longer had prophetic revelation as the basic characteristic of their religion anciently; they no longer had the ability to create scriptures ; they no longer had their levitical priesthood ; they no longer had their temple, etc). HIS defense also centered on this same claim that “God would never have permitted his chosen people to believe in errors and apostatize away from revealed, true religion”.


REGARDING THE TENDENCY TO APOSTATIZE FROM ORIGINAL RELIGION

When discussing Jewish’s motives to “turn away” from the gospel, another Christian posters’ similar insightful question for Christians was : “Do you really think we do any better?” .

I think this self-admission that we ALL tend, as individuals, to accumulate some degree of errors, IS an appropriate and profound observation if Christianities are to ever gain insight into why Christians also “turn away” from truths, since, only a small portion of the many conflicting Christian theories on a specific doctrine CAN be correct and the rest must represent some degree of error.

Yet Christianities continue to innovate and develop new and different theological theories and move away (or “turn away”) from the more ancient christian traditions. It is as though Christianity has not avoided making the same mistakes as the Jews (in terms of abandoning and innovating away from early, original, revealed religion.)

Christians rarely flirt with this admission (which is so obvious to other religions as they correctly criticize Christians for having so many conflicting theories), yet occasionally we’ll have the tacit admission that Christians are “not above guessing at those traditions, adding to them, misunderstanding them, or even altering them.” (as another poster correctly pointed out in another thread). Such words remind me of Pseudo-Hecateus when he says “We throngs of men go astray in our hearts when, to gain solace from misery, we set up as statues of gods figures worked from wood, or images of copper, gold or ivory. We imagine we are religious when we enjoin in their honor sacrifices and evil festivals. (#2 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 5.113)

This principle that man innovates and then adopts changed religion has ALWAYS been true whether speaking of Jews or Christians. Prophets reveal authentic religion. Men then go astray. Other prophets attempt to reform them to authentic religion to mankind, which correction men then apostatize from, which other prophets attempt to reform them, ad nauseum.

This is one of the great lessons that God seems to be trying to teach mankind from the beginning, that is, that none of us; neither Jews nor Christians are immune to this specific weakness. ALL mankind tend to apostatize to some extent. We innovate, we imagine, we theorize. And as we do, we get certain things wrong. And, as we repetitively adopt increasing numbers of errors, the errors both accumulate and further magnify the tendency to evolve away from original religion.

Clear
εινεφυω

metis said:

Two questions: when exactly did the early church of the apostles fall into apostasy, and what exactly did they supposedly decide that specifically was apostasy? However, since this is a "same faith debate" thread, I'll not get involved discussing this.

Click to expand...

Well, if it did, it could theoretically have happened at any time after Christ's death. Jehovah's Witnesses (if I'm not mistaken) and Mormons both hold that it took place within the first couple of centuries after Jesus' death and resurrection. The Protestant Reformers obviously believed the Church they set about to "reform" had changed enough since Christ established it that it was no longer what it was back in the first century. The OP of the 10-year-old thread that prompted me to start this one claimed that as long as there were true Christians ("a godly remnant"), that alone proved that there never was an apostasy.

It's my contention that the existence of a "godly remnant" proves nothing of the sort. I suppose that ties directly to your second question as to what exactly an apostasy even is. From my perspective, an apostasy has occurred when the doctrines being taught have been altered and are no longer the doctrines Jesus Christ and His Apostles taught. They may have some basis in scripture but have been largely influenced and modified
by the philosophies of men.

Katzpur said:

Well, if it did, it could theoretically have happened at any time after Christ's death. Jehovah's Witnesses (if I'm not mistaken) and Mormons both hold that it took place within the first couple of centuries after Jesus' death and resurrection. The Protestant Reformers obviously believed the Church they set about to "reform" had changed enough since Christ established it that it was no longer what it was back in the first century. The OP of the 10-year-old thread that prompted me to start this one claimed that as long as there were true Christians ("a godly remnant"), that alone proved that there never was an apostasy.

It's my contention that the existence of a "godly remnant" proves nothing of the sort. I suppose that ties directly to your second question as to what exactly an apostasy even is. From my perspective, an apostasy has occurred when the doctrines being taught have been altered and are no longer the doctrines Jesus Christ and His Apostles taught. They may have some basis in scripture but have been largely influenced and modified
by the philosophies of men.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi Metis - I hope your journey in life has been good

The non-Christian Metis asked : “Two questions: when exactly did the early church of the apostles fall into apostasy, and what exactly did they supposedly decide that specifically was apostasy? However, since this is a "same faith debate" thread, I'll not get involved discussing this.”

I think your questions are very insightful and profound. The order of discussion I'd like to take is :
#1 - The concept of evolution and change of doctrine and practice, that is, apostasy away from a position.
#2 - When did/does evolution and change of doctrine occur?
#3 - What are specific types of evolutions of doctrine/texts and religious practice that occurred / occur?
#4 - What are the effects of evolutions and changes in doctrines / texts / and religious practices that occurred / occur?

Regarding the first two points :

APOSTASY HAS ALWAYS OCCURRED - (It is part of the nature of imperfect man to misunderstand and make mistakes.)
When the Christian John Chrysostom was involved in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chrysostom reminded Trypho the Jew that because the Jews had failed to follow God’s commands and had misinterpreted scriptures and had apostatized from the gospel they were given, God had removed Prophets and Prophetic gifts from them and that such gifts had passed over to the Christians who still had revelation and prophets among them. That is, the Jews WERE already an apostate religion, teaching apostate doctrines with apostate practices. In this early context the Prophet John and Jesus were trying to teach the Jews to repent and learn to correct their religious errors in both doctrine and practice.


APOSTASY AMONG THE JEWS
For example, Moses understood this tendency for constant innovation and apostasy when he said “...for what I command them will not be to their liking, .... I declare to you that they will abandon me and choose to follow the idols of the gentiles and their abominations and their filthy deeds, and they will worship the false gods, which will become a trap and snare, and they will violate every sacred assembly and covenant Sabbath the very ones I am commanding them today to observe. (THE WORDS OF MOSES 1Q22 Col. 1:6-9)

The text described that “...the boundary-shifters appeared and led Israel astray and the land was devastated, for they had spoken rebellion against the commandments of God through Moses and also through the anointed of the spirit; and they prophesied falsehood to turn Israel from following God “. (The Damascus Document 4Q)

“all the boundary shifters and all of it will be done in the age of evil...and they did not obey the voice of Moses ...they went about spreading lies about His laws and from God’s covenant they strayed... “ (THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT – Geniza A+B 4Q266)

“In the time of destruction of the land the boundary-shifters appeared and led Israel astray…for they had spoken rebellion against the commandments of God…“ (The Damascus Document 4Q)

Indeed the manner of corruption of early authentic religion was NOT through refusal of the Pagans to accept authentic religion, but rather it was a contamination of authentic prophetic religion by counterfeit innovations; a warping of religion, not by the irreligious, but by the religious themselves. The boundaries of authentic religion have always tended to “shift”.

For example, When Levi prophesies to his son’s that Israel will someday lose the rights associated with authentic religion, he reaffirms that it was partly because of contamination of authentic religion with counterfeit commandments and having pride in their claim to authority :

“You will bring down a curse on our nation, because you want to destroy the light of the Law which was granted to you for the enlightenment of every man, teaching commandments which are opposed to God’s just ordinances. .... You will be inflated with pride over your priesthood, exalting yourselves not merely by human standards but contrary to the commands of God”. (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs- Levi 14:1-8)

It is clear that it was not merely commandments and doctrines that were corrupted, but the authentic ordinances were corrupted as well.

‘And I shall send to them witnesses so that I might witness to them, but they will not hear. And they will even kill the witnesses. And they will persecute those who search out the Law, and they will neglect everything and begin to do evil in my sight. And I shall hide my face from them, and I shall give them over to the power of the nations to be captive, and for plunder, and to be devoured. And I shall remove them from the midst of the land, and I shall scatter them among the nations. And they will forget all of my laws and all of my commandments and all of my judgments, and they will err concerning new moons, Sabbaths, festivals, jubilees, and ordinances.” Jubilees (the book of division) 1:12-14;

New testament Barnabas reminds the christians of this same warning and it’s fulfillment among the Jews : “Now concerning the water, it is written with reference to Israel that they would never accept the baptism that brings forgiveness of sins, but would create a substitute for themselves.” (Barnabas 11:1)

Thus the book of Jubilees reminds us : “And this testimony will be heard as a testimony against them, for they will forget all of my commandments, everything which I shall command them, and they will walk after the gentiles and after their defilement and shame. And they will serve their gods, …. because they have forsaken my ordinances and my commandments and the feasts of my covenant and my Sabbaths and my sacred place, which I sanctified for myself among them.“ (Jubilees (the book of division) 1:9-10)


THE CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE TO RETAIN AUTHENTIC RELIGION WAS THE LOSS OF THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF AUTHENTIC RELIGION AMONG THE JEWS

28 “Hear these words, O Israel. … you and your fathers committed iniquity and did not keep the ways which the Most High commanded you. 32 And because he is a righteous judge, in due time he took from you what he had given.“ Fourth Book of Ezra 14:28-32;

The Prophet Ezra is not merely referring to the land of Israel, but to the very loss of the Prophetic gift of Revelation which kept authentic religion on course. Prophetic revelation was so central to authentic religion that Justin martyr, reminds the Jew Trypho that prophetic religion was the key witnesses to the authenticity of the early Christian religion and it’s loss among the Jews and the appearance of Revelation and prophets among the Christians was a sign of Gods transfer of favor to the Christians.

Justin tells the Jew Trypo : “One may see among us [Christians] men and women who have received the gift of the Spirit of God...there were no longer to be prophets in your [Jewish] race as in the past...For after him [Jesus] absolutely no prophet has come among you... We have still among us, even until now, prophetic gifts, which should make you understand that which your race formerly possessed has been transferred to us. “ (Dialogue with Trypho, lxxxiii)

However, once the Christians received the gift of authentic prophetic religion, though they disdained the Jews for apostasy from the earliest religion, the Christians seemed no better at retaining authentic religion than the Jews were. The warnings given to the Jews anciently are no different in essentials than the warnings repeated to the Christians should Christians turn too far from the path or should they not accept corrections back to correct principles.


POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

POST TWO OF TWO


APOSTASY AMONG THE CHRISTIANS
Paul in speaking with the Galatians chides them because they were already corrupting the gospel which had they had recently accepted. Thus, the tendency toward doctrinal evolution and introduction of change in gospel principles happens from the time one starts making guesses and interpreting and creating their own personal religious worldviews and form their own system of beliefs. As imperfect beings, we often make incorrect guesses and come to erroneous conclusions and mistaken religious assumptions become incorporated into our religious worldviews. While some change occurs due to evil intent, the basic point need not assume evil intent, but assumes imperfection and ignorance on the part of mankind.

When Paul writes to the Galatians and the apostasy happening among them, there seems to be some moral culpability in those who are causing apostasy among them. “I am astonished that you [so] quickly desert him who called you in grace of Christ to another gospel. There is no other [gospel]. There are some who trouble you and want to pervert [change] the gospel of Christ. “ (Gal 1:6). Paul is speaking of current schisms and changes in the original gospel that are being taught in his own day among the Galatians.

Individuals quote (and often mis-use) Gal 1:6 as only regarding latter day apostasy when instead, the verse applied to the Galations themselves and apostasy among the earliest Christians themselves. However, the same pattern of innovation and apostasy that became prominent among the Jews became a pattern within Christianity.

For example : Clement discusses this same unrelenting tendency to conflict, schism and apostasy among the earliest Christians in the very early text of 1st Clement : “Why is there strife and angry outbursts and dissension and schisms and conflict among you? Do we not have one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace which was poured out upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ? Why do we tear and rip apart the members of Christ, and rebel against our own body, and reach such a level of insanity that we forget that we are members of one another? ...Your schism has perverted many; it has brought many to despair, plunged many into doubt, and caused all of us to sorrow. And yet your rebellion still continues!” (1st Clement 46:5-9)

Such schisms were not simply the hypocrites who did not live the law, but they often resulted from Christians who think they know the “real” Christianity and wanted to teach their interpretations to others. Among these were ones described as “Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.“ (1 Tim 1:6-7) Their motives were NOT necessarily to HARM the Christian religion, but instead They are trying to HELP God by offering their interpretations of religion.

This apostasy is not simply a phenomenon of our time, but it happened in the early congregations and from the earliest time Christians were given the gospel and, it is NOT the anti-Christians in the main, who changed Christianity from without, but it is the Christian disciples themselves who are changing doctrines from within the christian movement itself as the early text from the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah reminds us :

“And afterwards, at his approach, his disciples will abandon the teaching of the twelve apostles, and their faith, and their love, and their purity. And there will be much contention at his coming and at his approach. And in those days (there will be) many who will love office, although lacking wisdom. And there will be many wicked elders and shepherds who wrong their sheep, (and they will be rapacious because they do not have holy shepherds). And many will exchange the glory of the robes of the saints for the robes of those who love money; and there will be much respect of persons in those days, and lovers of the glory of this world. And there will be many slanderers and [much] vainglory at the approach of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit will withdraw from many. And in those day there will not be many prophets, nor those who speak reliable words, except one here and there in different places, because of the spirit of error and of fornication, and of vainglory, and of the love of money, which there will be among those who are said to be servants of the One, and among those who receive that One. 29 And among the shepherds and the elders there will be great hatred towards one another. 30 For there will be great jealousy in the last days, for everyone will speak whatever pleases him in his own eyes. 31 And they will neglect (gr) the prophecy of the prophets who were before me, and my visions also...they will make ineffective, in order that they may speak what bursts out of their heart.”(Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah . 3:21-31)

The difficulty for non-historian Christians is that they are often unaware of "doctrinal shifts" and "evolutions" of "orthodoxy" over time. So much so, that they are often disoriented by early Christian doctrines and traditions. Add to this, the difficulty caused by lack of insight among the religious resulting in the inability to see that all of us interpret according to our bias (myself included), AND, we all have bias, and we all teach according to our own bias. The end result is that we tend to innovate and guess and use imperfect logic in our interpretations of religion and the net result is that we move away from original and authentic religion to our own versions of it. Even if we hold to the most basic text as a "canon", we still tend to innovate and interpret and change that "canons" text to reflect our personal beliefs. It is a very difficult situation.

The centuries following the death of Christ were described by a logia of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas as follows :

“Jesus said, “The kingdom of the [father] is like a certain woman who was carrying a [jar] full of meal. While she was walking [on the] road, still some distance from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her [on] the road. She did not realize it; she had noticed no accident. When she reached her house, she set the jar down and found it empty.”

This logia is one of many sad descriptions of the failed attempt to pass on the doctrines and traditions of the early Christianities to later generations. In the last days, when one looks inside of modern Christian Churches, often, one finds that much of the substance that gave the early Church its’ value, is no longer to be found in them.

Clear
τωφισιω

The non Christian Metis replied : "Jews" is not a religion, and it's a shame you resort to a religious bigotry that paints an entire religion as being "apostate". One would think it today's day and age such bigotry would cease to exist, but it's truly unfortunate that certain people and certain groups actually believe they can speak for God."

Metis, I assume you are still angry because of the outcome of our debate on religious authority?

Metis, I had NO intention of shaming you, but YOU were the one who claimed to have taught religion and YOU who claimed to have multiple qualifications to give historical opinions. I might also remind you that as a non-christian, you are breaking forum rules by engaging in this thread, especially by playing semantics or offering silly conclusions that history is “bigotry”. You can’t rescue credibility in this way.

Now, TRY to think historically this time, and consider that the ancient Jews DID see themselves as having a religion, they saw themselves as believers in God, and as having prophets who received revelation from a living God. And they saw themselves as keepers of religious texts and traditions that originated (in their opinion) from the creator of the universe. They were religious. And, they also splintered into multiple groups of differing religious opinions in a similar manner to Christianity where many of the groups saw the many other splinter groups having different religious opinions as apostates.

Since you don’t have anything of historical importance to add, and since it is against forum rules for you, as a non-Christian to post in this thread, tomorrow I will continue to discuss points #3 and #4 as well as offer some additional points regarding apostasy among the Jews and their texts.

#3 - What are specific types of evolutions of doctrine/texts and religious practice that occurred / occur?
#4 - What are the effects of evolutions and changes in doctrines / texts / and religious practices that occurred / occur?

Metis, regardless of how poorly your debate went for you, I have always been serious when I said that I hope your spiritual journey is good

Clear
τωακσιω

POST ONE OF FOUR

REGARDING THE QUESTION :

#3 - What are specific types of evolutions of doctrine/texts and religious practice that occurred / occur?

In writing about Early Jewish and Early Christian History and the concept of evolution of doctrine, no one need suppose that bringing historical principles to light represents bigotry, especially since the documents describing ancient conditions have come, for the most part, from the Jews and Christians themselves. The Naïve assumption that our modern Christian experience in 2016 is exactly like the ancient Jewish or Christian or Islamic experience does not fit historical realities. The types of discussions and disagreements that we see on forums regarding religion and politics have always existed and schisms and groups have always formed relating to political and religious positions.

For example: Goodenough of Yale has shown that there existed through the centuries, two distinct types of Judaism. One followed what he calls ‘the horizontal path,” the other “The vertical path.” based on how they sought a relationship with God. “Horizontal religion” revered tradition and textual history as primary principles in seeking relationship with God. “Vertical Religion” was so designated due to their reverence for revelation from God himself as an additional primary principle in a relationship with God. The prophets and those receiving revelation characterized “vertical religion” through revelation (i.e. religion from “above”).

Horizontal religion Goodenough identifies as the forerunners of rabbinic, halachic, normative, or Talmudic Judaism. Vertical religion he has a more difficult time labeling though he says they had most in common with “Mystic” Judaism - (perhaps they are closer to the modern Messianic Jews who believe in Christ...) He feels so little is known and left of “Vertical Judaism” because the “Horizontal Judaism” had, by years of struggle, stamped its rival out entirely where they could, or forced it underground. Perhaps this struggle has a rough christian equivalent, in the victory of Catholicism over competing christian sects in the first 300 years A.D.

Describing this struggle, R. H. Charles agrees that : “Legalistic Pharisaism ... in time drove out almost wholly the apocalyptic [i.e. prophetic,] element ...and became the parent of Talmudic Judaism” whereupon Judaism became “almost wholly bereft of the apocalyptic wing which had passed over into Christianity.”

My sense of what he is trying to say is that modern “Rabbinical” (horizontal) Judaism won the struggle for dominance but “vertical” Judaism was a “forerunner” (perhaps even a type) of “christianity” just as the Dead Sea Scroll Jews are reminiscent of early Christianity in so many ways (so much that the Modern Jewish Scholars felt that they were "too Christian" for their liking).

For example, the “vertical” Judaism was characterized by a succession of heavens, thrones of triumph, blessed meals with the Messiah, etc and emphasized Messianic and prophetic teachings. Teachings which the doctors of the schools of the “horizontal” tradition opposed with all their might. Horizontal Judaism did not have to kill the Messianic Jews, all they had to do was marginalize them and control the media (written history) to quash their teachings. For example :


The loss of the doctrine of pre-mortal existence of the spirits of mankind
The early Judeo-Christian literature is literally full of the doctrine that the spirits of mankind existed before they were placed into mortality. However, the textual genre created by later, horizontal, rabbinical Judaism doesn’t speak of these profoundly important doctrines. One important reason for this shift was that the dominant rabbinic Judaism prohibited the early literature and it’s doctrines. The Talmud describes this prohibition of study.

In Gen Rabba, the rabbis describe that “It is forbidden to inquire what existed before creation, as Moses distinctly tells us (Deut. 4. 32): 'Ask now of the days that are past which were before thee, since the day God created man upon earth.' Thus the scope of inquiry is limited to the time since the Creation. “ –(Gen. Rabba 1)

This Rabbinic prohibition of any inquiry into this area of religion prevented the “orthodox” among rabbinical Judaism from further study into incredibly important principles that would have clarified and enlightened the Jews regarding profoundly important religious themes.

For example, precreation themes present what God’s original purpose were in his plan for creation; How the earth was created; the roles of important individuals; the creation of Lucifer and the origin of evil, and why this specific Archangel fell and became an enemy to God and sought to cause Adam and Eve such grief.

A study of this time period answers so many questions as to why individuals are born into different conditions in mortality under apparently arbritrary conditions. It answers to questions as to what mankind is to accomplish and how they can intelligently interact with God and each other to accomplish that purpose.

This rabbinic prohibition prevented a study of the time period and conditions which would have given base explanation to profoundly important principles concerning man’s purposes on earth and the relationship of God to man, and the need for and purpose of a redeemer for man even before the world was created.

The loss of this information contributes to many of the arguments among religionists and philosophers for almost 2000 years.

The Talmud tells us that the Rabbinic Jews justified this prohibition by an interpretation of Deuteronomy 4:32 which reads : “For inquire now regarding the early days that preceded you, from the day when God created man on the earth and from one end of heaven to the other end of heaven:...”

It is no wonder then that the earliest textual traditions which contained in early Jewish literature that discuss and describe conditions before creation are relatively unknown among later Jewish religious movements who inherited such prohibitions to knowledge about such themes. Such prohibitions to knowledge remind us of Jesus’ attempt to teach the Jews of his day regarding conditions leading to ignorance of God.

Jesus said : "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering." Luke 11:52

This same complaint against gaining knowledge existed in other Christian texts. The Gospel of Thomas also refers to this same condemnation of Jewish leaders, saying : “Jesus said, “The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to….” THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS vs 39;

Messianic Jews themselves were aware of this systematic problem among the Jewish leaders and describe it in almost the same words : “They hold back the drink of knowledge from those that thirst, and for their thirst they give them vinegar to drink, that they might observe their error, behaving madly at their festivals and getting caught in their nets.” Dead Sea Scrolls 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q Col. 12:10-11

post two of four follows

POST TWO OF FOUR

In another textual tradition, Moses is told by God that “...when the times of exposure come near and punishment arises through kings who (though) sharing their crimes yet punish them, then they themselves will be divided as to the truth. Consequently the word was fulfilled that they will avoid justice and approach iniquity; and they will pollute the house of their worship with the customs of the nations; and they will play the harlot after foreign gods. For they will not follow the truth of God, (Testament of Moses 5:1-6)

The Jewish temple had become contaminated with secular business practice. It was not merely Jesus who described the Jewish temple as having become “a den of thieves."( Mark 11:17), but the reformation espoused by Qumran Jews themselves is quite scathing in its condemnation of the Jewish priestly faction that administered in the Corrupted Jewish temple before it was destroyed by the Romans.

“Hear these words, O Israel. 29 At first our fathers dwelt as aliens in Egypt and they were delivered from there, 30 and received the Law of life, which they did not keep, which you also have transgressed after them. 31 then land was given to you for a possession in the land of Zion; but you and your fathers committed iniquity and did not keep the ways which the Most High commanded you. 32 And because he is a righteous judge, in due time he took from you what he had given. “ V1 p 544 Fourth Book of Ezra 14:28-32;

These sorts of abuse and doctrinal changes by Sadducees and Pharisees and later by rabbis as they rose to greater power may be part of why Jesus railed against certain of the Jews who “hold the tradition of men” and “reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” Mark 7:7-9. Jesus is not taking them to task for holding to the gospel they were given, but for an apostasy in traditions they had adopted and then held to.

IF, at some point, plain and simple but profoundly important principles that originally made up the Gospel of Salvation became prohibited, and clouded and increasingly contaminated by man-made traditions so that it could no longer be recognized and delivered to mankind in sufficient clarity among the Jewish traditions then it only makes sense that such truths would be cleaned up and delivered through another group (at least until the next group also abused and contaminated them in the same way the Jews did).

When Jesus prophesies to the Jews that “... The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (Matthew 21:42-43) This prophecy was no different than that which the Prophet Ezra had predicted : “... You would not obey me, O Judah. I will turn to other nations and will give them my name, that they may keep my statutes. Because you have forsaken me, I also will forsake you. 25 When you beg mercy of me, I will show you no mercy. 26 When you call upon me, I will not listen to you; for you have defiled your hands with blood, and your feet are swift to commit murder. 27 It is not as though you had forsaken me; you have forsaken yourselves, ... (The Fourth Book of Ezra 1:24-37)



The concept of evolution and religious change affected early religious traditions and religious texts as well
For example, If one simply refers to Jewish Talmudic history, they will remember that the Priest Hilkiah, in finding a copy of the Torah in the temple, in 2 kings 22:8, actually found three conflicting copies of Torah in the temple. Ginsberg identifies them as the Mugah, Hilleili, and Zambuki texts based on Talmudic descriptions of some of the textual conflicts 300, 43:1428

The priests then had to decide which of the three conflicting texts was the “official version” to read to the people by King Josiah. Being unable to decide, they made a fourth version by harmonizing the texts using a rule of majority (if two agreed against the third, they used the reading of the two that did agree). This fourth version is, presumably, the actual text read to the people as described in Old testament Kings according to the Talmud.

It makes perfect historical sense then that the many differences in Old Testament biblical texts exist in definable divisions and that there are many more differences than exist in Massoretic lists (300, 6,168+). In fact, most of the lists of changes to the earlier Hebrew text, (such as the various Tikkun Sopherim) are simply lists of examples, rather than complete exhaustive lists of either textual conflicts (i.e. Massorah) or intentional changes (Tikkun Sopherim – emendation of the scribes) cf 6,177);

The Jewish historian JOSEPHUS (& others) also describe different revisions of the early Jewish texts (300, 45:1453). Certainly, many of the vast number of conflicts are not major differences, some are quite significant. For example, the Samaritans, who were using old Hebrew (as opposed to the Jews who were not reading and writing in national Hebrew upon leaving Babylon, thus were in the process of translating their bible and still needing scribes even by Jesus’ day), had a different set of 10 commandments (131, 15:621).

For example, one of the ten commandments in the samaritan bible related to the worship on mount Gezerim whereas the Palestinian bible did not contain this as one of it's ten commandments.

This is not unlike the changes Luther made to the old testament by changing his set of ten commandments in the bible he created (and which became wildly popular in protestant europe). This is the reason the ten commandments were different between Protestants and Catholics in Europe for a time.



Different Jews, having different beliefs created different biblical translations
Thus, it should come as no surprise that the Jewish movements responsible for writing the 3rd century b.c. LXX did not believe the same as the Masoretic writers creating an “official” Jewish bible (tanakh) almost 1000 years later. These two groups of Jews were not the same and differing beliefs are reflected in their translations as well. For example, though Rabbinical Judaism may have held to an interpretation that created a hermaphrodite Adam who had both male and female sex organs (and thus, did not need Eve for reproduction), the Jews who translated the LXX in 300 b.c. clearly believed that the man Adam was created in the virtual image of God (since he looks like his creator to the extent that he is mistaken FOR his creator by angels in some early Jewish texts).


Incompleteness and changes to Jewish texts has been known for millennia.
Just as recent discoveries allow for Jewish correction of missing portions of the Talmud, other continuing discoveries allow for correction of Old Testament Text.

As Justyn Martyr claimed in his Debate with the Jew Trypho, there are Jewish narratives that have changed and some of the lost or corrupted data that would have made the scriptures more clear that Jesus was the very Messiah. (Whether the Jews would have accepted Jesus if such changes had not occurred in their scriptures is another matter). The fact that much of the text is missing has been known for ages and newer discoveries are allowing us to improve biblical text that is both incorrect and / or what is missing from the text.

An example of a lost passage of scripture is from the DSS text of Samuel: The missing paragraph belongs to 1 Samuel 11:1. It presents forty nine words (49) which are missing in the Hebrew Bible as well as in other Jewish texts in this single verse. With the restoration of this passage, the final verse in Chapter 10 transitions smoothly and with a better understanding as we enter the first verse in chapter 11. With such textual restorations of the Jewish text, the entire context of the story can be put into it’s proper perspective:

Missing text in the Jewish record is NOT a rare occurrence. There are also smaller, but significant additions in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 in just the first chapter of samuel. This is partly the reason the New International Version Bible prefers the DSS textual readings over the traditional hebrew text. They are not the only bible trying to correct corruptions and deletions from the traditional Jewish text. "Today’s English version"; "Revised Standard Version", the "New Revised Standard Version", "The New English Bible", The "New American Bible", etc. are ALL using DSS corrections over the prior traditional Hebrew Text.

It is not just the "few words" that are missing, nor even just stories, but entire BOOKS that are missing from the current Jewish narratives. The Jews themselves also understood that there were versions of the text that were more authentic than the stories that ended up in their own written stories. For example,

סֵפֶר הַיׇּשׇׁר , the “authentic record”, “correct”, “upright” record or book (Jasher) is cited as source material for Biblical Narrative in both 2 Samuel and Joshua similar to how the New Testament uses Enoch for source material. The fact that jewish (and christian) texts have errors and are incomplete can account for some errors in theology as well as varying theological positions among different Jewish and Christian movements.

I think for these reasons (and more), the claim to bibilical textual inerrancy never ever had a chance to be accepted among scholars and translators who actually deal with the early texts and who have to deal with errors and conflicts on a daily basis. It is not merely a matter of changes in the text that cause religion to evolve, but evolution and changes to new interpretations continue to cause more evolution of doctrines.


post three of four to follow

POST THREE OF FOUR

INTERPRETATION OF TEXT AS ANOTHER SOURCE OF ERRORS


HYPERSPIRITUALIZATION – HYPERMETAPHORIZATION OF THE BIBILCAL TEXT
Jewish Rabbis were not priests, but they were teachers and theologians who developed Jewish doctrines and then passed these doctrines which they created, onto the Jewish populace for popular consumption. However, one tendency at one point in history is the tendency for these teachers to spiritualize and metaphorize the texts. In the Talmud, there is spiritualization of almost every verse, and often down to individual letters inside of individual words.

For example : Genesis 1:22 says of the water creatures and fowl, “God blessed them, saying “Be fruitful and multiply…”. A common The Rabbinic teaching regarding the words “God blessed them” is : “these creatures needed a special blessing because so many are intentionally reduced in number – hunted down and eaten. The land animals that were created on the sixth day needed such a blessing, too, but God did not confer one on them so as not to include the serpent, which was destined to be cursed.”

Such speculations regarding God’s intent on word choice do not represent any biblical text but is simply a speculation representing personal opinion of one or more influential rabbis. There is no evidence that such discrete traditions existed before this dominant, surviving Judaism was writing the Talmud 200-500 years after Christ died. Thus, such opinions and traditions are not even necessarily representative of the earliest Judaic traditions, but rather these personal speculations simply represent the type of Judaism that dominated after the loss of the Temple and the collapse of the Priestly order of Sadducees, and the subsequent domination of one or more types of Pharisaic Judaism.

I do not think anyone need ascribe evil intent to the various conflicting interpretations, but merely that it is human nature to seek personal meaning in a text and then incorporate than meaning into their belief system.

Part of the source of Gods anger against the Jews was not just how they persecuted prophets he sent to them, but how they treated the words he sent to them. It is an early, tentative model that seems to arise when I look at how they developed their theology as a rabbi-derived model.

For example, Deut 12:32 warns the Jews regarding Gods words given them, "....do not add to it or take away from it.".

The problem created by Jewish theology and tradition created by Rabbis and then delivered to a Jewish population is that the system not only altered the written word, but Jewish traditions created by this rabbinical system systematically added to and took away from the meanings of God’s word.

Through attempts at logic and reasoning, add to and elaborate upon very simple and fairly straight forward texts delivered from God, rather than as a tanakh-derived model. I think the Jewish traditions surrounding the creation of Man (Adam) is a good model regarding how a basic truth can be elaborated, twisted, changed to the point where the finished theology of the people is quite different than what God actually gave them. To be fair, this is similar to the problems created for Christians when they began to create theology through theologians (which theology was then delivered to and adopted by Christian populations in the later Christian movement). Both types of doctrinal evolutions by both systems of religion have close parallels.


ADAM CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD - THE EARLY CHRISTIAN TRADITION COMPARED TO THE JEWISH RABBINIC TRADITION

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him. Male and female created he them.

As you will see, the two theological models differ on whether this specific sentence “God created man in his own image” really meant “[a single man] in his own image” or if this sentence meant “God created man, and woman, and the rest of mankind in his own image”. (since other verses make clear all of mankind, are, in some way, created in his image)

Part of the Problem is that the hebrew word אדמ (Adam) means “human” (or “humanity” depending upon the context), while most Christians read “Adam” as the name of the first man. Even this base interpretation of the single word “ADAM” causes different base assumptions.



THE INTERPRETATIONAL PROBLEMS CAUSED BY A SINGLE WORD
If the early Christian tradition is correct then this sentence refers specifically to ADAM who is created in the virtual image of his creator. If this is correct, then the sentence as given, and the rest of Genesis and the other early Judeo-Christian textual traditions regarding Adams' appearance, make perfect sense without any elaboration, additional tradition, rationalizations, and an illogical jewish version of a hermaphrodite adam with two sets of sex organs (as are created in the Jewish rabbinic tradition). The Second sentence “Male and female created he them” is simply referring to the later creation of Eve and other mankind which occurred later (since they were NOT created at the same time)

IF the Jewish model is correct that this specific sentence refers not only to ADAM as “mankind” , but to females and all other men as well, then it makes sense that the rabbis would feel the need to create tradition to add onto the text, in order to reconcile the problems created by such an interpretation. This is, I think, part of the reason for the early Jewish teaching that Adam was created with both male and female sexual organs and was capable of having children without Eve.

However, as time passed and we entered the age of greater scientific study, I think this theory of hermaphroditism was distasteful to them, especially given their moral stance towards sexual deviancy, but they did not see a way out of the quandary their own interpretation created other than to simply not teach it widely.


From THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

Rabbinical literature knows both the mythical and the real hermaphrodite: the former in the Haggadah, the latter in the Halakah. The notion of bisexuality must have been derived from Hellenic sources, as the Greek form of the word proves. The other form, "hermaphrodite," never occurs in rabbinical writings. The principle of the sexual generation of the world is not of Greek origin: its phallic character pointing to India as its birthplace…..

In the Haggadah.

Transmitted and developed through dualistic Gnosticism in the East, the notion of an androgynous creation was adopted by the Haggadists in order to reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of the Bible. In Gen. ii. 7 and 18 et seq., the separate creations of man and of woman are described, while in chap. i. 27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," their creation is described as coincident. In connection with the latter verse the Midrash states (Gen. R. viii.): "Jeremiah, son of Eleazar, says: God created Adam androgynous, but Samuel, son of Naḥman, says, He created him 'double-faced,' then cutting him in twain and forming two backs, one to the one and the other to the second" (see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." i. 547, iii. 585). The same statement is given in Moses ha-Darshan's Bere**** Rabbati ("Pugio Fidei," p. 446, Paris, 1651).

I might point out that medically, a hermaphrodite is a single individual who has both sexual characteristics (e.g. they may have both sets of organs, male and female), whereas the “double-faced” Jewish version seems to have two individuals of different sexes, melded into in one body, but facing different directions (like the mythical Janus, whose face looks both forward and backward).

Thus, the Jewish encyclopedia explains that : according to Jeremiah's opinion, Adam had both sexes, and was thus a real hermaphrodite in the old mythical sense….

This represents ADAM as a hermaphrodite since, as Rabbi Hirsch points out, “Eve was created later”, after Adam and not at the same time.

The midrash in Stones Chumash (a printed Torah. Not a scroll) elaborates regarding the creation of Eve as a “companion” to Adam. “God knew that Adam needed a companion. Her purpose was not for reproduction, for Adam had been created with that function.”

The Jewish encyclopedia further explains that “In all the parallel passages in the Talmud, the opinion of Samuel b. Naḥman alone prevails, for we find regularly Adam (bifrons, double-fronted), as, for example: 'Er. 18a, Ber. 61a, etc. (Jastrow, "Dict." s.v., p. 304, 1). The opinion expressed by Jeremiah is, however, very old and wide-spread, for we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"; Augustine writes against it in his commentary on Genesis, ad loc. ch. 22. Strabos,agreeing with Augustine, declares this opinion to be one of the "damnatæ Judæorum fabulæ." Others revive the question, and Sixtus Senensis in his "Bibliotheca Sacra" devotes to it a special chapter (ed. Colon. 1586, fol. 344, 345). An alchemic interpretation has been given to "Adam androgynus," by Guil. Menens, "Aurei Velleris libri tres, Theatrum chemicum," vol. v., p. 275, Argent., 1660.

post four of four follows

POST FOUR OF FOUR

(The Jewish Encyclopedia - continued)
"In the halakic writings only "Androgynos" is used, never "duoprosopin" (bifrons), and always in the physiological sense of "bisexual." In the Mishnah Bikkurim, the whole of section iv. is devoted to the minute description of the legal position and abnormities of the Androgynos. In some particulars he is to be treated as a man, in others as a woman, as he partakes of both natures; not so the "ṭum-ṭum," an individual whose sex can not be determined. This Androgynos is a common figure in classical tradition. Pliny mentions him ("Historia Naturalis," vii. 34), and Gellius ("Noctes Atticæ," ix. 4, 16). Special attention was paid to the Androgynos in the old writers on physiognomy. Compare "Scriptores Physiognomonici Græci et Latini," ed. Foerster, Leipsic, 1893, under "Androgynos," in Index Græcus (ii. 368). For the further legal treatment of the Androgynos in Hebrew law, see Isaac Lampronti in his "Paḥad Yiẓḥaḳ," s.v., and Löw, "Lebensalter."

Obviously the early and widespread Jewish tradition that an "andro / gynus" (male / female) adam had organs of both sexes was a very widespread and deeply rooted tradition in orthodox Judaism. However, it does not exist in any detail in the tanakh (Hebrew bible) but is simply exegetal speculation and irrationality run wild and represents an evolution of doctrine away from the simple, base doctrine of the biblical record.

This sort of irrational and illogical speculation that creates a bisexual/two-bodied adam with a tail (the tail is in other Jewish literature) is similar to the same sort of irrational and illogic that creates similar strange metaphors out of simple words and contaminates early judeo-christian traditions with Jewish mythology.

When Christians used the words "Adam was created in the image of God", early Christians did NOT adopt a widespread tradition that Adam had both sex organs and that Adam could, by use of both sets of sex organs together, create children without eve. This may be Jewish, but it is not represented in any widespread fashion in sacred early Christian texts and, as the Jewish encyclopedia admits, "we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"

Though the examples have been Jewish, the later Judeo-Christians and then Christians made their own doctrinal assumptions and mistakes as well. (I’ve already pointed out Luthers change to the 10 commandments).


As happens with the many times I’ve discussed these points, I’ve been writing between appointment at work and so I’ve come to an end of my day. I’m going to stop here for now. I hope it makes sense just how the Rabbinical system creates theology that changes both the biblical texts meaning as well as the theology of Judaism itself. We have not even touched upon other changes that occurred because of changing interpretations and problems of changing language that came as individuals added their own interpretations to the text. I have to stop somewhere this afternoon so I’ll stop here and continue later with thoughts.


Clear
δρφιφυω

POST ONE OF THREE

TEXTUAL ERRORS AND TEXTUAL INTERPRETATIONS AND TEXTUAL CHANGES AS ANOTHER SOURCE OF MISTAKES AND DOCTRINAL EVOLUTION
Another source of doctrinal drift and change of doctrines is unclarity in the historical texts. Multiple individuals may read the same historical religious texts and come away with various interpretations of what the text meant to them. Frequently this phenomenon is due to lack of historical clarity, sometimes it is due to the bias or ignorance in the reader, sometimes it is a textual error, sometimes it is textual changes made either in the mind or on the page of a text that is being read and interpreted.

Because we are dealing with ancient historical religion and what it ought to mean, there are many unknowns. For example, we do not have any original texts of any biblical documents, whether old OR new Testaments. We cannot even say what the original languages for the Old Testament might have been or what the original texts might have looked like in their earliest stages of development. We do have models for the types of mistakes that occur with language shifts. Since the Old Testament was not originally in square script Hebrew we can see some errors that crept in as National Hebrew became the “biblical language”.

My point in discussing the shift in language is to show that the adoption of Hebrew by the Israelites brought with it a whole host of errors that resulted from a shift from one language to another language and, this must have happened multiple times as the Hebrews adopted multiple languages, AND, we are only speaking of the types of errors that have been described by the translators, redactors, writers, correctors of the text. We have not yet started into the types of errors that we know exist but for which there is no mechanism to correct them.


Omissions for example, How does one correct a text which is absent, but for which we do not have an earlier, fuller version to correct it? The many, many errors of omission in the book of Samuel are good examples. Such errors cannot BE corrected by any known means without source texts. Since no one knows what the “original” autographs of the bible said, then one cannot know what the missing text originally said. In such cases, the text may be in error without someone knowing the error even exists.

In the “Nothing Short of Perfection” thread (Christianity DIR), we discussed some of these textual problems.

For example, in post # 104 I gave readers, examples of errors dealing with insertions of false text into the western bible. For example, when Erasmus and the printer Stephen Froben, created their wildly popular 1516 bible, Erasmus tried to correct his New Testament by leaving out the Johannine comma, but by that time, readers of the bible had come to expect this text and the complaints and pressure were so great that by the third edition, he restored the faulty text (though he explained in the prologue it was faulty).

In post #115 I gave examples of “minus” errors by showing how accurate text was removed from the bible, using Luthers change in the 10 commandments as an example. Luther purposefully deleted the 2nd of the ten commandments in his 1522 bible. This was different than Erasmus’ exclusion of text. Erasmus excluded erroneous text whereas Luther excluded authentic text. Luther is also a good example of how spurious, inauthentic text can be added to the biblical text as his addition of the word “allein” to romans 3:28. Both deletions and additions reflected the theological bent of whoever creates a bible for a population to read.

In post # 121 I discussed errors associated with the change in language.“ Such additions of He to the earlier text explains some of the unusual variations between the different versions of the Hebrew text. For example, In 2 Samuel 24:13 the text reads “or wilt thou flee (נסד )three months before thine enemies?”, whereas in 1 Chronicles 21:12 the quote is “or wilt thou be destroyed (נספה ) three months before thine enemies”.

The massoretes tell us that the original text in both passages was נסד without the He(ה)and this was introduced into Chronicles by the editor/redactor of that base text. The copyist in a later period, simply mistook נ for a פ. The fact that the earlier Jewish Septuagint and the Vulgate will have נסד confirms this error.” In this case, the Septuagint has the original text while the Masoretic has the erroneous text.


In post # 121 I gave a visual example of how mistakes made in reading letters was so easy to make. The visual example allowed readers to see with their own eyes how copyists could have made certain types of errors in the texts they were copying. I said : “ I have pasted a text from Joshua 1 below. I have circled (in yellow) three letters that all appear as Tavs ( ת ) except, when I first read the middle "tav", the word simply does not make sense. Finally, it only made sense when I realized the middle letter in the example was not a tav at all, but was a final nun followed by a less well formed beginning nun of the following word that were written so close that there was no space so as to separate them.

Both my wife and I mechanically read the final line (lower right corner) as starting with "Betun" with a tav (a nonsense word) initially. I had to look and think before it became clear that it was two words ("Been Nun") ("son of Nun"). This is how easily one letter can be mistaken for another. AND, this particular hebrew script is impeccable in it's appearance. Many, of the early texts are not nearly so beautiful and clear. Ancient scribes also made similar mistakes in both writing and reading. Thus, such errors crept into texts and occasionally they changed the sense and caused errors.

The same difficulties are exhibited with the texts showing the early introduction of the matris lectiones. The Aleph ( א )is occasionally left out, and occasionally added when it is improper to do so. Ocassionally this changes meanings significantly and has resulted in errors in text.

For example, in 2 Kings 7:17, the later form of the text read המלכ "the King" without the aleph of המלאכ "the messenger" (my computer doesn’t write a final Kaf form….). The primitive form that reads, “the messenger” (with aleph) appears correctly in the Septuagint and the Syriac Jewish versions, but not in the massoretic. Thus, it is not “the king” who came down in this sentence, but it should read that “the messenger” came down. The preceding chapter has it in it's correct form (6:33).

In 2 Samuel 11:1 the opposite type of error is created when an aleph is inserted into the very same word, making “the messengers” (המלאכימ) out of “the Kings” (המלכימ) (my computer doesn’t convert to final mem’s either…)”

My intent in these examples was not merely to point out mistakes, but to explain HOW such mistakes found their way into the bible.

post two follows

POST TWO OF THREE

In post # 122 I gave readers, more examples relating to the strange use of the hebrew letter Yod “י” where the primitive orthography is retained in some instances when it lacks in other instances :

For examples :
“Gen 24:35, 25:24, 40:10,
Exodus 8:12, 14:7, 15:11, 20:18, 26:24; 35:27,;
Leviticus 10:16, 17:7;
Numbers 2:12; 6:5, 33:55;

These are only a small portion of examples from the lists of this specific kind of errors. We are not even touching upon other types of errors yet at all.

Occasionally errors have little effect and in other instances, the effect can be quite important. The difference in versions caused disagreements among the various schools of Judaism and so their different versions of the scriptures were affected differently.

For example, the various Jewish Schools had varying opinions as to whether hebrew mem “מ” denoted plural or third person plural in some cases.

For example,Jeremiah 6:15originally read בנפלמ which one school read “among them that fall” and thus marked the reading with a Yod “י” to create a plural while another school rendered it “they shall utterly fall when they do fall” (as appeared in the LXX). The same case happens in vs 29 of this chapter. This sort of change happened fairly frequently and is partly why Translators feel like pulling their hair out sometimes and at other times, do not change an error unless they have reason to believe they have a better option for the text.

For example, in Jeremiah 17:25 the primitive text had ובסוסס to which they then added the later vowels to form “and on horses” while other texts followed the Jewish LXX version, reading και ιπποισ αυτων “and on THEIR horses”. In similar fashion, in ezekiel 7:24, “the strong” becomes “their strength” (c.f. the LXX, “the boasting of their strength”).

According to the sources, Ps 58:12 was “God is Judge” in one school, and was “God is THEIR JUDGE” according to another school while in the Jewish LXX it becomes “God that judgeth them” (“ο θεοσ χρινων αυτουσ”).

The differences such changes cause are, occasionally, major. The absence of the Yod plural in Job 19:18 becomes “for ever they rejected me” (“εισ τον αιωνα με απεποιησαντο”) in the Jewish LXX, while another one school renders it as “young children” and another school renders it “ever”.

The differing rules between the school regarding hebrew “yod” and pluralization resulted in multiple conflicting versions of stories. For example, In 2 Sam 5:6 says “the inhabitant” of the land (singular) while 1 Chron 11:4 renders the Jebusites as “the inhabitants” of the land (plural) despite the primitive spelling being the same. One school inserted a “vav” while the another school inserted a “yod” to create their different and conflicting words. The same principle is involved in 2 Kings 18:28 and Isa. 34:13 where the same description is rendered differently (i.e.Hear the word” -singular versus “hear the words” - plural).

Sometimes the type of errors cause minor translations changes (but there are many such conflicts) while there are fewer major translational changes (but some are very important to theology). Again, we are, so far, only speaking of the difficulties caused by single letter changes that were associated (in the main) with the addition of the matris lectiones.

Many of these sentences are obvious errors but one cannot tell what the original text intended. While the rendering “the inhabitant” is an error compared to “the inhabitants” when referring to a nation, one cannot say with equal certainty whether “on horses” is more correct than “on THEIR horses” in another text. One can say with certainly that one family of texts is in error, but who can say which since both sentences are logical and rational?


In post # 132 I explained that : “… the Massorah also provides several lists of Sopheric alterations (with original readings). For examples, the Manuscripts Orient 1397 and Orient 2349 not only ascribed the changes to the Sopherim, but declared that according to the opinion of some Schools the changes were made by Ezra Himself. Whether Ezra actually did make the changes or this claim simply represents a mechanism to increase credibility that the changes were authorized can’t really be proven.

The manuscript Orient 1425 also preserved a list of textual changes as well as containing a basic Hebrew Grammar called Maase Ephod by Prophiat Duran. The list of changes is small, only fifteen changes, but it’s evident the list is sourced from another source prior to the Massoretic recension . “

In this same post I gave readers example of changes to the text :

Gen XVIII:22: IN Genesis 22, the introduction context of the chapter is “And the Lord appeared unto him [Abraham] in the plains of Mamre…” (vs 1). The story then follows that three men came to Abraham who bowed to them (vs 2) As talk turns to the subject of Sodom and Gomorrah at least two of the men went toward Sodom. The sentence in verse 22 of the later Jewish massoretic reads "And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom,“but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.”

In all three Massoretic Rubrics in the manuscripts Orient 1379, 2349 and 2365, each emphatically states that the original reading was “but the Lord stood yet before Abraham”but that the text was altered. Other lists such as the ancient List of the Maase Ephod confirms that the text was originally “and the Lord still stood before Abraham”.

The greatest scholar on the Massorah, Ginsberg himself tells us : “With such an emphatic declaration before us, both in the ancient post-biblical records and in the Massorah itself, it seems almost superfluous to point out that it would be most incomprehensible for the redactors of the text to state that they have here altered the text and also to give the original reading when they had in fact done no such thing.” The context, and the logical continuity of the original narrative is more logical and reasonable and smoothly transitions in the original as compared to the textual change. “

In this same post, I said the text tells us that “It was the Lord who came down to see and tell Abraham whether the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah had acted in accordance with the bitter cry which went up to heaven; “

I gave readers multiple examples of both error and indications of which was the “true” (original) text and which was the “false” (altered) text. I even explained the reason for the change from an original text (true text) to an altered and erroneous false (false text).

Often intentional errors were added to text to reflect the biblical creators personal bias (e.g. Luther), at other times changes were made to honor God rather than consciously attempting to corrupt a text.

For example, the phrase to “stand before another” is often a stock phrase denoting a state of inferiority and homage (comp Gen XVIII:8; XLI:16, Deut I:38; XVIII:7 etc) such as when one “stood before” a judge. Thus, it seemed derogatory to say that the Lord stood before Abraham. Hence in accordance with the Massoretic rules “to remove all indelicate expressions”, this and other phrases were altered by the Sopherim.

For example : In Numb XI:15 All four ancient records and Massoretic Lists, mark this passage as an alteration of the Sopherim. The three Yemen MSS. And the Massorah inside the Maase Ephod tell us the original text was “Kill me I pray thee out of hand if I have found favour in thy sight that I may not see thy evil”. Since the statement might be construed as ascribing evil to the Lord, the Sopherim altered it into “that I may not see my evil” (which the AV and the RV render “my wretchedness”).

I explained that : “ Changes were made not only to make the text conform to the editors interpretation of what "protected and enhanced God", but to protect and enhance the character of other individuals as well.

For example, The lists of emendations include I Sam III:13 which originally said : “because his sons cursed God”.

However, It seemed to lessen the stature of the Eli, if his own sons openly blasphemed God without Elis’ reprimand. Thus, the Sopherim altered the text by omitting the aleph and yod and changing אלהם (God) into להם (them). Thus, they cursed “THEM” in the altered texts (rather than cursing God).

Thus, the words “cursed them” are the erroneous text while the original text was “cursed God”.

Post three follows

POST THREE


The Masoretes described their reasons for making other changes (and introducing errors into the text) as well. I said :

“The early Judeo-Christian God was quite anthropomorphic (i.e. had similar characteristics to mankind). This was uncomfortable to the various later Judaisms and thus certain anthropomorphisms were to be removed as well. Following this rule explains certain changes to the text. For example :

2 Sam XVI:12 was changed so that “Lord will behold with his eye“ (the official Keri) was changed to a Kethiv, reading “on mine iniquity”, or “on mine affliction”. This was done in accordance with the recensional canon rule that anthropomorphisms are to be removed.

This same motivation (removing anthropomorphisms) was the motive underlying the change to Ezek VIII:17. Though the present version reads “and lo, they put the branch to their nose”, the ancient authorities list this as a change made by the Sopherim. The original phrase was :”and low, they put the branch to my nose”, (i.e. to my “face”)

Hosea IV:7 :is another alteration of the Sopherim. The list tell us the original text read “My glory they have changed into shame” which the Sopherim altered into “Their glory I will change into shame."

Hab I:12 currently says : “Art thou not from everlasting, O Lord my God, mine Holy One? We shall not die. “ whereas the original was “Art thou not from everlasting? O Lord my God, mine Holy One, thou diest not.”

Rashi (1040-1105) made the original text a basis of his explanation. “The prophet says why art thou silent to all this. Art thou not from everlasting my God, mine Holy One, who diest not.” This change is so well known that the RV tells us in the margin “according to an ancient Jewish tradition “thou diest not”. Like many prior examples,The reason for the alteration is that it was considered offensive to say of God, : “thou diest not”. Hence “we shall not die” was substituted.

In post #179 I explained another type of error where theThe official Masoretic reading of Isaiah 9:3 is : "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and some versions read God INCREASED the joy. Whereas other versions read that God did NOT INCREASE the joy.

These are ALL examples of pointing out errors in the text and it should be clear to all readers that such errors can be the source of evolution or changes in doctrines between one era and another and between readers. The text itself evolved in the earlier stages of composition. Personal interpretation, personal bias, language differences, lack of understanding, etc. The sources for errors in and change to original religious doctrine are multiple and affect us all.

I'm writing between appointments at work and will have to return later for mistakes and editing.

Clear
δρσινεω

The last concept of four I mentioned that I would discuss was the effects of Apostasy away from the early and more original doctrinal positions. That is :

#4 - What are the effects of evolutions and changes in doctrines / texts / and religious practices that occurred / occur?
POST ONE

While at work, I had started to consider a list of example of doctrines and practices which have evolved and changed over the years and had a quick, preliminary list. For examples :

The old doctrine of Pre-existence of spirits of mankind and how the loss of this doctrine affected Judeo-Christian religion.
The adoption of Creation of all things from “Nothing”, rather than the earlier creation from matter.
The change in nature of religious ordinances such as baptism
The adoption of “horizontal religion” through books and the Loss of “vertical religion” through revelation.
The cause and effects of Schism and arguments and multiple competing Christian movements.
The Loss of Clarity and direction of religious thought on specific points of doctrine
The tendency to the development of more new theories to support changes of doctrines

I also considered External effects to Christianity that happened because of the doctrinal evolutions away from early doctrines.
For example, the effects of the many competing Judeo-Christian Schisms, most of which claim to have the truth and how other non-Christians must view the many competing and contradictory claims to “know the truth” and the various christianities that condemn other christianities (the anti-christian christianities). Athiests and other religionists often view Christianity with increasing doubt and suspicious and then often, they seek elsewhere for answers and meaning.

I considered the Internal effects to Christianity where once an evolution occurs then those who inherit and grow up with the new set of doctrine feel that new doctrines are personal orthodoxy and prior doctrine becomes personal heresy. doctrinal shifts that occur due to inheritance are somewhat arbitrary.

I stopped there for lack of time though I think the list of loss and it’s effects should be much longer and more detailed. Perhaps I can give just a couple of examples and stop.


EFFECTS OF DOCTRINAL EVOLUTION / APOSTASY AWAY FROM AN ORIGINAL SET OF BELIEFS

Religious beliefs are personal and are affected by personal characteristics
While social religion may be a shared experience, much of religion is, at it’s basic level, a personal experience. To the extent that it is personal, then religious beliefs are affected by the person, their characteristics such as innate intelligence, curiosity, bias, emotions, degree of faith, their environment, and their level of maturity and life experiences, etc. A person who is 60 will have different concepts and beliefs than they had at 5 year of age. The conditions which cause adoption of beliefs and then evolution of those beliefs in an individual also operate on the larger level of social religion in groups. Individual beliefs evolve and change. The beliefs of groups and movements evolve and change.

I had thought to offer the effects of the loss of early doctrines that I thought were among the more important ones. For examples : 1) Pre-Existence of Spirits; 2) the abandonment of Creation of material things from matter and the adoption of creation from “nothing”; 3) Abandonment of the early Christian doctrine concerning the purpose of life; 4) Loss of doctrines concerning the origin of evil and I thought I would end with 5) the early nature of Hades (since there are two threads discussing this doctrine). Maybe I’ll get to them all, maybe not.



1) EVOLUTION FROM PRE-EXISTENCE OF SPIRITS OF MANKIND TO CREATION OF SPIRITS AT BIRTH
Though much of the textual witnesses describing the early Judeo-Christian doctrine that the spirits of mankind existed before they were born, the doctrine is absent from much or most of later Jewish literature. This sudden shift and evolution away from this doctrine is partly explained by rabbinic prohibition. As the Talmud tell us, rabbinic Judaism came to prohibit any inquiry or study of any knowledge of what conditions were before the creation of the earth. Though early Jewish literature is full of such themes, the prohibition created complete ignorance of this area of knowledge

THE LOSS OF KNOWLEDGE OF PRE-CREATION CONDITIONS
The prohibition and abandonment of knowledge of Pre-mortal existence of Spirits has caused endless headaches, confusion and arguments among philosophers. Many of the greatest existential questions concern the pre-mortal period of time. Without a knowledge and understanding of THIS time period, one cannot understand in context many of the greatest controversies and the most profound and sublime doctrines of Christianity. For example

a) The original purposes and plans of God and conditions surrounding creation have to do with this time period. Judeo-Christian movements that have no contextual knowledge of such events will have less contextual understanding of such things. Ancient Judeo-Christianities understood more about God’s motives and more about how they were to intelligently engage in accomplishing God’s goals for their benefit.

b) The most profound considerations concerning the origin of evil relate to conditions Prior to creation of the earth. Simply put, philosophers ask "Why did God Create such Evil" and suffering if he could have accomplished the same purpose without evil? (i.e. if he is "omnipotent"). This is important since the critics of religion have legitimate curiosity regarding such issues and are unsatisfied with many modern theories regarding this subject. The critics of religion often have legitimate reason for their criticisms.

c) The nature of the devil and his fall from “heaven” has to do with the Pre-mortal time period. The origin of evil and it’s manifestations by another powerful agent having free will (lucifer) produces profound questions for anyone trying to understand why God allows Lucifer such rein on earth. Even the prophet Sedrach asked God “If you loved man, why did you not kill the devil, the artificer of all iniquity? ” (Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-7) Abraham also, asked God “How then, since he [Lucifer] is now not before you, did you establish yourself with (him)? “ (The Apocalypse of Abraham 20:5-7). Agnostics and investigators of Judeo-Christianity have a right to have authentic answers to such questions as well. The best contextual answers are to be found in pre-mortal/pre-earth creation conditions.

d) The nature of and issues underlying the “war in heaven” have to do with the pre-creation period. Virtually ALL of the facts surrounding this controversy and the reasons underlying it are found in early Judao-christian texts that describe time period in which the controversy took place (the pre-creation/pre-mortal time period).

e) The role of the Fall of man in God’s plan has much to do with events PRIOR to Adam having been placed in the Garden. Modern christianities who have little understanding of pre-mortal issues often view the atonement of Jesus as a hastily prepared “plan B”, necessitated by a crafty Lucifer who scuttles God’s “plan A” for Adam to remain in a Garden of Eden. The ancient christians, having a more complete understanding that the fall of Adam WAS part of the pre-mortal/pre-creation plan did NOT feel that God was "duped" by Lucifer, but that all had proceeded according to the original plan of God as they understood it.

f) The underlying reasons why some individuals are born into apparently arbitrary and unjust life scenarios are placed into a more understandable context by the greater data provided by conditions during the pre-mortal existence. Arbitrariness, capriciousness and unjustness are consistent complaints that some individuals make about God since the world God created is not fair (if there are no other conditions which justify it). If God creates men ex-nihilo at an instant, and places some into conditions where they live happy lives and hear of Jesus and are ultimately “saved” and yet creates other men and places them into terrible and torturous conditions where they die before hearing of Jesus and ultimately suffer eternal punishment for not living laws they were never exposed to is seen as arbitrary and unjust. Without a consideration of events PRIOR to life, then some lives cannot make proper sense. Making sense of this life without knowledge of what went on before is like coming into a movie that is more than half-over. It’s difficult to make complete sense of it.

Knowledge of the pre-existence gives us much greater insight into controversies which have plagued non-pre-existent Christianities for over 1700 years. Many of these millennia-long debates are neatly answered, simply by a return to the early doctrines. This is part of the immense value of a restoration to early Christian Salvational doctrines.

POST TWO

2) ADOPTION OF THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION FROM “NOTHING” (EX-NIHILO CREATION)

The loss of this doctrine has profound implication for religious science and philosophers
For example, The Organization of all Material things from eternally existing “matter” (which has it’s own innate eternal characteristics) rather than organizing them from “nothing” changes the locus of responsibility for evil. Thus, abandonment of this principle changes the nature of the debates regarding creation AND underlying assumptions and even the questions themselves are driven by the understanding of doctrines.

If the universe is created from eternal matter, then there are other material principles as eternal as God, and these material principles possess their own innate characteristics. This is important, since, if God does not create the conditions from which arises evil, then he is not responsible for it. Obviously there are many other philosophical implications that are just as profound.

The abandonment of creation from matter and adoption of creation from “nothing” has profound implications for scientists. Creation from matter is a type of creation that they can agree with and which can rationalize (make rational) religious creation with their scientific knowledge. Such a creation makes for better sense and for better science. The Scientific Laws of Thermodynamics which are universally applied in modern science, no longer argues with a conflicting Religious Law of Creation from “Nothing”. Religious truth and Scientific truth will stop fighting and may again dance together by the restoration of this ancient principle.

The abandonment of this principle of creation from matter has it’s most profound implications for religion. The implications seem to run deeper and are more profound than the implications for all other disciplines.

For example, the principle of Creation from eternally existing matter provides a framework for all subsequent religious considerations. If matter is eternal with it's own basic eternal characteristics, yet God uses that matter and organizes it into spirits which have some inherent characteristics, such as “intelligence” and the ability to “progress”, this forms a context for all other subsequent considerations.

If one knows this, one can predict the subsequent ancient doctrines as to WHAT God is doing with this matter; with the spirits of men; and WHY he is doing it; and HOW he going to accomplish these purposes. It provides basic logic and coherence and understanding regarding why Moral law is eternally important both outside and inside the atonement of Jesus Christ.

A return to the doctrine that God organized and created the Material universe and all other material things from eternally existing “matter” is a simple principle that acts as one of the important beacons that sets men on the path to understanding what God is doing with that matter and why.

My wife reminds me that we have plans today and, if I do not do as she says, she may put me on a lower electron lower internet diet. So, to avert this disaster, I will stop and return later with two or three more examples of the effects of the abandonment (apostasy) of early Judeo-Christian doctrines and the effects of this shift or evolution away from these early doctrines.


Good spiritual journey to all

Clear
φιεινεω

Katzpur said:

Well, if it did, it could theoretically have happened at any time after Christ's death. Jehovah's Witnesses (if I'm not mistaken) and Mormons both hold that it took place within the first couple of centuries after Jesus' death and resurrection. The Protestant Reformers obviously believed the Church they set about to "reform" had changed enough since Christ established it that it was no longer what it was back in the first century. The OP of the 10-year-old thread that prompted me to start this one claimed that as long as there were true Christians ("a godly remnant"), that alone proved that there never was an apostasy.
It's my contention that the existence of a "godly remnant" proves nothing of the sort. I suppose that ties directly to your second question as to what exactly an apostasy even is. From my perspective, an apostasy has occurred when the doctrines being taught have been altered and are no longer the doctrines Jesus Christ and His Apostles taught. They may have some basis in scripture but have been largely influenced and modified
by the philosophies of men.

Click to expand...

Didn't gospel writer Luke write forewarning us that quickly wolves in sheep's clothing would be fleecing the flock of God - Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30
That would Not mean the first-century teachings of Christ would No longer exist, but that there would be people who just want to have their ' ears tickled ' - 2 Timothy 4:3

@Katzpur, please you clue me in about this thread. Was it moved to same-faith-debates, and why are there lots of non LDS people in here posting?

Katzpur said:

This thread was started to pick up where a 10-year-old thread currently stands. I wanted to start from scratch in discussing this topic, but will approach the subject from a slightly different perspective. The original OP asked the question, "Did the Christian Church ever fall away completely?" One of the options in this poll was, "No, there has always been a Godly remnant." Personally, I don't see this option as even being relevant. When I first read it ten years ago, my first thought was, "So what if there has always been a godly remnant. What does that prove?" To me, that statement would only be relevant had the question been "Have there always been Christians since Christianity was first established?" So I'm asking now: "Does the existence of a 'godly remnant' prove the Church never fell into apostasy?" Personally, I don't see any real correlation between "a godly remnant" existing and "the true Church" never having fallen into apostasy. If this question doesn't make sense to you, then try answering this one instead: Can there be "true Christians" without a "true Christian Church"? Perhaps we need to begin by explaining what we mean when we use the phrases "a true Christian" and "the true Christian Church."

Click to expand...

I don't think you can have a true Christian Church without true Christians, nor can you have true Christians without a true Church.

I see absolutely zero reason to believe that there's even a remote possibility of a "Great Apostasy" where the entire Church falls away in the first place, so to me the question is moot. There will always be the Body of Christ, believing in the faith once delivered unto the Saints, preached by Jesus and handed down by the Apostles to proceeding generations.

Brickjectivity said:

@Katzpur, please you clue me in about this thread. Was it moved to same-faith-debates, and why are there lots of non LDS people in here posting?

Click to expand...

Yup, it got moved to Same Faith Debates apparently