there is a paper trail for the manuscripts, there are so many which can be checked and cross checked that we can be 100 % sure that what we have is correct today.
But interpretation of this paper trail is...up to interpretation.
We have Bibles like the Sinaiticus that included the Shepherd of Hermas. We have Church Fathers that accepted it as Inspired. The Muratorian fragment merely says that it should not be read "Among the Apostles and prophets", which by no means says it isn't Inspired, which could be saying to include it as a "writing".
This "paper trail" is virtually meaningless. This paper trail includes what was widely considered "Antilegemona", books that were disputed and not universally accepted until much later. Do we just assume that the paper trail after the 400-600s assumes what is correct? Why should we reject the books that the "orthodox" Church rejected? Why should we assume that just because certain books got rejected like the Gospel of Mary Magdalene that they should not be canonical? Why should we reject Paul's supposed third letter to the Corinthians? The Armenian church accepted it.
The modern scholarly paper trail seems to think several of Paul's letters were inauthentic.
Just because the gentile anti-Judaizers thought Paul's epistles were scripture, does that mean they were? What of the paper trail of works like the Clementine Literature in which the Ebionites, who were likely among the closest to the original Jewish Christians at the time, flatly used code to call Paul a false apostle?
The Paper trail seems to indicate Enoch was considered prophetic and Inspired, especially so by Jude, as well as the Assumption of Moses, the Latin Copy we have many scholars agree was corresponded to the same writ that Jude was referring to. The "Paper Trail" is not so much a trail. It's a series of footprints leading in different directions, of which there are conflicting beliefs about where they lead to and come from.
But besides that, you have to ask yourself is you really believe that God would leave mankind without knowledge of him
.
I'd rather ask why God would not want us to try to piece together the clues and blindly believe in some official document that not all the Christians agreed on until centuries after the disputes. Why would God leave us with different manuscript versions, especially with textual issues in critical places, assuming he even left us an official Canon? Why would he leave the entire Ethiopian Population in the dark with false beliefs like that 1 and 2 Clement were canonical, or that Enoch was? Why would he lead Christianity to believe the Apocrypha was legitimate if it wasn't?
Would he really have rules that he wants us to follow, but not inform us of them?
Why not? Perhaps he figured that the gift of prophecy would solve the issue created by untrustworthy scribes and compilers of canon. It seems Josephus had a different version of Exodus than what we know today, what else was different in the Jewish texts back then? Why would he allow critical issues in the Manuscript of the NT to have different versions so we would not know what exactly is being said?
And if his prophets really wrote his message to us, then do you not believe an allpowerful God has the ability to preserve his word???
This is a very common fallacy especially used by KJV-onlyists. The "ability" to is much different than the willingness to. I hold that he has given prophets the means to understand among those who are close to the truth, and they have been very rare, far and few in between, and rather isolated and in between the cracks. I believe there's a similar situation as what happened with the Babylonian exile, where the scripture was not known and had to be completely redictated.
Its like when the muslims claim that the bible has been changed and is not authentic anymore.
I believe they have a point, and any scholar would agree.
What they are really saying is that God has no power to keep his message pure and available!
Again, this is confusing ability with willingness.
The All-Mighty can't put a few words together and keep them circulating without some imperfect little people ruining his word.
Apparently he had this problem before during the Babylonian exile when the knowledge of the scripture got lost. I also believe he has kept "70 books hidden for the wise". I also believe he will let those know what he wants to be known for those He wishes to know it.
Do you seriously believe that??? If you do, then you need to start putting a little more faith in God.
I have plenty of faith in God. What I have little faith in is man's doctrine and reasoning when it comes to such things. I have so much faith in God that I believe he'll tell Prophets what His word actually is and where things went wrong. Apparently this faith in God doesn't apply in places like Ethiopia?
If there was evidence that the Apostles rejected Paul as a Christian teacher, then we should 100% reject his letters.
There may in fact be evidence that the Book of Revelation and the Epistle of James were reactions against Paul. This boils down to interpretation. There may be evidence that the Council of Jerusalem episode was entirely forged. How do we determine this evidence to be valid or not?
But this is not the case.
What's not the case is that we have a clear cut answer either way.
The Apostles NEVER rejected Paul or his writings... they spoke of Paul very highly and knew of his letters, read them, agreed with them and it was they who even commissioned Paul and supported his teachings.
See, you are using 2 Peter, a hugely disputed book, that was classified as Antilegemona even among the 4th century Christians, as the basis for your evidence. You are also acting as if the Council of Jerusalem is completely verified and authentic as if we can brush off all the claims of scholars who say otherwise. Just because you say so? Who determines if they are wrong?
To Reject Paul as a false teacher, i would also have to reject Luke who recorded Pauls missionary work and his acts, and i would have to reject the writings of the apostle John too because John speaks of Paul as a beloved fellow worker.
You'll have to remind me where John specifically speaks of Paul this way. Luke also records some of the most Pro-Law sentiment of Jesus. There has been increasing belief in the 20th century that Luke did NOT write Acts. The "We" passage issue is loaded, and the defenses are shaky.
There is no reason whatsoever to reject Paul or his writings.
Because you said so? Because the dubious 2 Peter says he was simply misunderstood? Because he agrees with your Theology?
It seems a lot of people reject those writings simply because they have an agenda when it comes to the mosaic law...
It seems a lot of people accept Paul because they have an agenda when it comes to Mosaic Law.
they push for adherence to the mosaic law and that is a 'pre-defined' belief... its not based on the scriptures.
Ah, and what evidence would you accept that this "pre-defined" belief is in fact based on the scriptures? Would Acts 21 do? (The issue of 21:25 being an interpolation not withstanding here)?
See, you're demonstrating exactly the kind of circular reasoning and interpretative issues at stake here.
do his teachings contradict Jesus? According to you they do because Jesus said 'the law will not pass away'
Correct.
But what if you are wrong on what Jesus meant by that? What if Jesus actually meant the mosaic 'covenant'?
A perfect example of where we can twist the text to mean what we want to escape what the evidence directly indicates.
scholars are not prophets are they? Is their word more valuable then the word of one of Gods prophets??
More circular reasoning, you are assuming the issue in question is written by prophets. I think the evidence squarely indicates it was NOT. The Council of Jerusalem episode and 2 Peter were clearly forged. A blind belief that they weren't doesn't defeat the scholar's arguments.
I dont think so. I think you need to be very careful in how much attention you give to scholars.
I think you need to be careful with circular reasoning.
Tell me this, if scholars know it all, then why did the scholars of Jesus day get the law so wrong?
Are you seriously trying to compare the two?
Jesus had to correct them over and over again.
The "scholars" in Jesus's day were not referring to textual issues but interpretative issues of the Law itself. Interpreting Jesus's words, even if its related to interpreting the Law, is a much different ballgame. Whose translation is correct now that the language is dead? Without scholars, we wouldn't know where to begin on looking at manuscript versions for textual and higher criticism issues. Are you basically attempting to dismiss the entire idea of scholarship? Weren't the people who assembled the Roman NT Canon "Scholars"?
So why are the scholars of today any different?
Because those "Scholars" were not anything close to the type of "scholars" we are looking at here. Your comparison of the scribes and Pharisees is an example of the problematic reasoning when dealing with issues of "evidence". We're talking about historians and grammarians and people who have examined the evidence and the "paper trail", not people who were debating whether Shammai or Hillel had it right. Besides, how to interpret Jesus's words requires someone like Jesus to tell us in your view. So where is this Jesus in modern day to tell us what Jesus meant? Where is the modern Jesus to even tell us which manuscript version got it right?
