Originally Posted by
Al Habeshi
Hope your day was fruitiful.
What we do have in the Bible is passages and writings there are the writings that clearly indicate Jesus was a human being like me and you, this is why most people would say 100% Man.. but then they say 100% God. This second 100% is, or seems to be based on verses which could have many interpretations, some logical and some not. What I say is, those verses if taken within context of scripture show us that yes Jesus was a man like you and me, which most would agree on, but they do not show he is almighty God, those verses, if taken in context, do not neccesitate a God Jesus. Rather can mean a Man who was accredited by God to the Israel Men and through whom God done many wonders.
Are you sure? There are manuscripts which have verses which provide evidence for the Trinity, or verses of the resurrection in some Gospels which were not there before. I'll answer this within the next part:
With regards to the contradictions, if you have seen the refutation, which we I think could discuss but I don't see a need. If you have seen it then you agree that there are some genuine mistakes in the Bible. I will play along, and even if they are only copiest errors, then you'll agree that the Bible is not infallible, mistakes can creep in there.
As for the proof of it's changing, what we do have is proof of changes made, we have manuscripts which show us verses which were not in older manuscripts. We have places where the copier might have felt he needed to change the image of Jesus so he added a word or so to make Jesus look better. What does this show us? It shows us that people in charge, if they felt they needed to could make amendments to the scripture.
Furthermore, we have the fact that within the gospels, the 3 which are on common grounds, themselves the stories change and Jesus is made to look better with the later the gospel. This is again another strong sign of manupilation.
I don't think, or rather, I don't have a view on Paul alot of people blame him for things, but I'll keep quiet as for now. The history of Paul and the rest is something which in my view needs more study for me, I have not focoused on it alot.
What I will say is with regards to your statement 'I'm sure the other 11 would have reigned him in once they saw he was not representing the three years they all spent with Jesus.'
What makes you think they did not? Rather I have heard some did try, rather that there were confrontations.
But when you read the bible now, we read it as one book, as a book of men who all commonly shared a belief who all regarded each other as family. Rather, when one takes an objective look, he might find evidences for a difference.
But as I said this again is something which someone will need to dedicate time to study.
Please give me your thoughts.