CNN: Passions over 'prosperity gospel': Was Jesus wealthy?

[techboy]

Thanks for the analysis.

You're welcome.

I've been considering reading the Bible, but have held off because I've questioned the validity of it.

Hold off no longer, then.

I just think that people with power have had every reason to corrupt the messages in their favor.

I'm not going to deny that over the years, scribes have altered the text for various reasons. The Johanine comma, for example, is a rather famous case where it is nearly certain that probably well-meaning people, wanting specific language about the Trinity, inserted some (it's not in the older or better lines of manuscripts).

The thing is, though, the very process by which Scriptures were shared and the Canon was formed allows scholars to detect and correct for this.

There was no centralized church in the earliest days, just individual communities which passed those writings they found to be the best (often these were letters from people like Paul) around to others, copying and recopying as needed.

What you get, then, is lines of manuscripts from all over the known world. The upshot is that if somebody in North Africa decides to add something (or makes a mistake and drops something), that mistake is not found in any of the other lines. With over 6,000 manuscripts from all over the world, scholars can go back and compare.

It also works by time period. If, for example, a certain reading is found nowhere in the earliest texts, but suddenly shows up in a line in the 8th century, we can be pretty sure that it's an error that was added in the 8th century, and it can be taken out.

The main reason your concern about the rich and powerful altering the texts to their own ends doesn't hold water is that for the first 300 or so years of its existence, Christianity was a religion of the poor and oppressed, and often illegal. The first "rich and powerful" type to come along that might have had any motivation to do something with the texts was Constantine, when he made Christianity the state religion of Rome, and not only did he not even try (Dan Brown aside), if he had, we'd know it, because the Canon was largely established by then and there are plenty of manuscripts that predate him (some by 100 or more years), as well as the writings of many church fathers who also came well before the time period in question.

The reason, by the way, that the King James is not as good as it could be is that at the time it was translated, there were far fewer manuscripts available, and the field of textual criticism hadn't really even been developed yet.

Aren't there certain religions that refuse to read from certain Bibles? If they're all pretty much the same, what's the big deal?

Cults and atheists like the King James because the language is archaic and it has some translation issues, so its easy to twist.

In general, though, I am not aware of any major denomination that rejects any particular Bible translation.

As a side note, though, as I said before, even the King James isn't that bad. It uses what's called the Textus Receptus. As Dr. Dan Wallace notes in his The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?:

In reality, to argue for the purity of the Byzantine stream, as opposed to the pollution introduced by the Alexandrian manuscripts, is to blow out of proportion what the differences between these two texts really are--both in quantity and quality. For over 250 years, New Testament scholars have argued that no textual variant affects any doctrine. Carson has gone so far as to state that "nothing we believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants. This is true for any textual tradition. The interpretation of individual passages may well be called in question; but never is a doctrine affected." 25 The remarkable thing is that this applies both to the standard critical texts of the Greek New Testament and to Hodges's and Farstad's Majority Text; doctrine is not affected by the variants between them. 26

If the quality of the text (i.e., its doctrinal purity) is not at stake, then what about the quantity? How different is the Majority Text from the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament or the Nestle-Aland text? Do they agree only 30 percent of the time? Do they agree perhaps as much as 50 percent of the time? This can be measured, in a general sort of way. There are approximately 300,000 textual variants among New Testament manuscripts. The Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus in almost 2,000 places. So the agreement is better than 99 percent. But the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text in only about 6,500 places. In other words the two texts agree almost 98 percent of the time. 27 Not only that, but the vast majority of these differences are so minor that they neither show up in translation nor affect exegesis. Consequently the majority text and modern critical texts are very much alike, in both quality and quantity.

So, the Textus Receptus (the basis of the King James) is 99% identical to the Majority Text, which is 98% in agreement with the modern critical text (the basis of most modern translations), and you'll notice again that no important doctrine is affected regardless.

If you want a recommendation of which translation to use, though, given your concerns about translation, I highly recommend you try the NET Bible. It's available online, as well as in print, and the best thing about it is its extensive footnotes where they talk about relevant information to the passages in question. If there's a difficult reading, they talk about it, what the various positions are, and how and why they chose to translate it as they did. See, for example, note 2 for their translation of Romans 5, which is actually one of the larger controversies in textual criticism today, and relates to your story earlier:

tc A number of important witnesses have the subjunctive ἔχωμεν (ecwmen, “let us have”) instead of ἔχομεν (ecomen, “we have”) in v. 1. Included in the subjunctive’s support are א* A B* C D K L 33 81 630 1175 1739* pm lat bo. But the indicative is not without its supporters: א1 B2 F G P Ψ 0220vid 104 365 1241 1505 1506 1739c 1881 2464 pm. If the problem were to be solved on an external basis only, the subjunctive would be preferred. Because of this, the “A” rating on behalf of the indicative in the UBS4 appears overly confident. Nevertheless, the indicative is probably correct. First, the earliest witness to Rom 5:1 has the indicative (0220vid, third century). Second, the first set of correctors is sometimes, if not often, of equal importance with the original hand. Hence, א1 might be given equal value with א*. Third, there is a good cross-section of witnesses for the indicative: Alexandrian (in 0220vid, probably א1 1241 1506 1881 al), Western (in F G), and Byzantine (noted in NA27 as pm). Thus, although the external evidence is strongly in favor of the subjunctive, the indicative is represented well enough that its ancestry could easily go back to the original. Turning to the internal evidence, the indicative gains much ground. (1) The variant may have been produced via an error of hearing (since omicron and omega were pronounced alike in ancient Greek). This, of course, does not indicate which reading was original – just that an error of hearing may have produced one of them. In light of the indecisiveness of the transcriptional evidence, intrinsic evidence could play a much larger role. This is indeed the case here. (2) The indicative fits well with the overall argument of the book to this point. Up until now, Paul has been establishing the “indicatives of the faith.” There is only one imperative (used rhetorically) and only one hortatory subjunctive (and this in a quotation within a diatribe) up till this point, while from ch. 6 on there are sixty-one imperatives and seven hortatory subjunctives. Clearly, an exhortation would be out of place in ch. 5. (3) Paul presupposes that the audience has peace with God (via reconciliation) in 5:10. This seems to assume the indicative in v. 1. (4) As C. E. B. Cranfield notes, “it would surely be strange for Paul, in such a carefully argued writing as this, to exhort his readers to enjoy or to guard a peace which he has not yet explicitly shown to be possessed by them” (Romans [iCC], 1:257). (5) The notion that εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν (eirhnhn ecwmen) can even naturally mean “enjoy peace” is problematic (ExSyn 464), yet those who embrace the subjunctive have to give the verb some such force. Thus, although the external evidence is stronger in support of the subjunctive, the internal evidence points to the indicative. Although a decision is difficult, ἔχομεν appears to be the authentic reading.

Did Paul actually write "We have peace" or was it "Let us have peace"? The controversy rages, but somehow I'm not worried.

You'll find that the vast majority of places where the wording hasn't been firmly pinned down are pretty similar to that, stuff only a geek could love.

[DRSmith]

.

There are some Christians, predominantly small, rural and poor churches that refuse to use anything of the than the King James, and I believe that the Mormons and JW's also refuse to use anything but King James, and that's because a lot of their theology hinges upon a very particular set of wording that is in the King James most of the times which ends up being translation mistakes.

Actually Jw's use the new world translation and mormons use the Joseph Smith translation, which for the most part is the KJV with some minor changes

[DRSmith]

There was no centralized church in the earliest days, just individual communities which passed those writings they found to be the best (often these were letters from people like Paul) around to others, copying and recopying as needed.

You would not consider the 12 in Jerusalem central?

It seems when there was issues it was the 12 who made the final and issued letters which were carried to congregations.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You would not consider the 12 in Jerusalem central?

It seems when there was issues it was the 12 who made the final and issued letters which were carried to congregations.

And later after the 12 there were five main regions of Christianity:

Jerusalem

Asia Minior (Turkey)

Greece

Rome

Egypt

The interesting this is that not long into the 2nd century AD (100+ AD) there are records establishing the list of canonical readings that begin to pop up in each of the major areas, such as the Muratorian Fragment as well as other lists from Irenaeus, Origen, and Tertullian. The amazing thing is just how closely each of the lists are to one another, and how similar they are to what we know as the New Testament today. Knowing this strikes a serious blow to any seeking a Conspiracy theory regarding a heavy handed Constantine at Carthage for these lists indicate that for all intents and purposes the New Testament canon had already been at least informally established about 150 years prior to the Council of Carthage.

Obviously there are some exceptions and some disagreements with different weight given to different books; Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache being among the prominent books that didn't make the final cut in 397 AD at the Council of Carthage. What is truly the most important things to note is the unequivocal use of the 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and the rejection of Marcion's redacted gospel, and the Disatessaron which sought to harmonize the 4 Gospels.

There were also 3 major criteria that had to be met in order for a book to be eligible for inclusion in the Christian New Testament:

1. Apostolic Origin, it had to be connected to the original apostles.

2. Use within the community of believers, however usage alone was not enough to guarantee inclusion, it only served to show that the book was held in high regard.

3. The heaviest determinant was found in the "regula fidei" rule of faith, meaning that the book contains what was understood a proper Christian teaching.

As such when one brings up books like the Gospel of Thomas, its pretty clear that it simply fails to meet any of the criteria for inclusion; it was written at the very earliest 150 AD which disconnects it from the apostles, it was not highly used within the community of believers, and it did not hold true to the regula fidei as such it is really a no brainer that it and other writings never stood a chance at inclusion. Now, I know that there are some who will cry foul saying that they should have been included, and to that I say "Who are you to say that?" What makes our current petty interest in these gnostic gospels so important that it is allowed to trump the knowledge wisdom and understanding of those who were closest to the origins of the Christian faith?

For these reasons, I simply find it hard to not laugh when I hear the conspiracy theories fly regarding the development of the Christian canon, because by the very fact that they are using those arguments they are revealing that they do not understand the facts nor the history that surround the development of the New Testament instead they are infatuated with the History Channel's or worse yet a Christopher Hitchen's version of Church history in which both of them are horrendously misinformed.

[NavyDave]

So the overall point of this thread is to say that Jesus would be for a salary cap for the successful as well as wealth redistribution that the Liberals in the media and in DC are currently pushing to make those who don't pack the gears to be part of the haves or strive to bes, feel better.

[Veretax]

Actually, many Christians believe that Christ's call to help the poor was more a SPiritual than Temporal concern.

[twa]

Actually, many Christians believe that Christ's call to help the poor was more a SPiritual than Temporal concern.

I believe he called for both,a call directed to individuals and the group of believers...NOT the government.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Actually, many Christians believe that Christ's call to help the poor was more a SPiritual than Temporal concern.

I believe he called for both too, the idea of helping the poor as a Spiritual concern alone sounds a lot like an excuse for inactivity kinda like what James was talking about; James 2:15-16 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill," and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that?

I believe he called for both,a call directed to individuals and the group of believers...NOT the government.

I agree at least in part, but I also understand that a government that is an extension of the will of its people can also accomplish God's work, especially when the church as a whole is either unwilling or unable to take on the needs of the people, especially when some are satisfied with caring only for the poor's Spiritual status.

[DRSmith]

So the overall point of this thread is to say that Jesus would be for a salary cap for the successful as well as wealth redistribution that the Liberals in the media and in DC are currently pushing to make those who don't pack the gears to be part of the haves or strive to bes, feel better.

You ever read the OT?

One had to work to eat but there was a lot of provisions for helping the poor made, that people had to do.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You ever read the OT?

One had to work to eat but there was a lot of provisions for helping the poor made, that people had to do.

Don't mind NavyDave, he's just trolling, nothing to see there.

[twa]

I agree at least in part, but I also understand that a government that is an extension of the will of its people can also accomplish God's work, especially when the church as a whole is either unwilling or unable to take on the needs of the people, especially when some are satisfied with caring only for the poor's Spiritual status.

I agree the govt has a role to play,and a responsibility to it's people.

It is not to the same degree it is charged to His people though,and I feel the govt programs do nearly as much harm as good.

Better than nothing,but far from ideal or efficient.(and used as a excuse by Christians to avoid responsibilities imo)

[DRSmith]

And later after the 12 there were five main regions of Christianity:

Jerusalem

Asia Minior (Turkey)

Greece

Rome

Egypt

The interesting this is that not long into the 2nd century AD (100+ AD) there are records establishing the list of canonical readings that begin to pop up in each of the major areas, such as the Muratorian Fragment as well as other lists from Irenaeus, Origen, and Tertullian. The amazing thing is just how closely each of the lists are to one another, and how similar they are to what we know as the New Testament today. Knowing this strikes a serious blow to any seeking a Conspiracy theory regarding a heavy handed Constantine at Carthage for these lists indicate that for all intents and purposes the New Testament canon had already been at least informally established about 150 years prior to the Council of Carthage.

Obviously there are some exceptions and some disagreements with different weight given to different books; Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache being among the prominent books that didn't make the final cut in 397 AD at the Council of Carthage. What is truly the most important things to note is the unequivocal use of the 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and the rejection of Marcion's redacted gospel, and the Disatessaron which sought to harmonize the 4 Gospels.

There were also 3 major criteria that had to be met in order for a book to be eligible for inclusion in the Christian New Testament:

1. Apostolic Origin, it had to be connected to the original apostles.

2. Use within the community of believers, however usage alone was not enough to guarantee inclusion, it only served to show that the book was held in high regard.

3. The heaviest determinant was found in the "regula fidei" rule of faith, meaning that the book contains what was understood a proper Christian teaching.

As such when one brings up books like the Gospel of Thomas, its pretty clear that it simply fails to meet any of the criteria for inclusion; it was written at the very earliest 150 AD which disconnects it from the apostles, it was not highly used within the community of believers, and it did not hold true to the regula fidei as such it is really a no brainer that it and other writings never stood a chance at inclusion. Now, I know that there are some who will cry foul saying that they should have been included, and to that I say "Who are you to say that?" What makes our current petty interest in these gnostic gospels so important that it is allowed to trump the knowledge wisdom and understanding of those who were closest to the origins of the Christian faith?

For these reasons, I simply find it hard to not laugh when I hear the conspiracy theories fly regarding the development of the Christian canon, because by the very fact that they are using those arguments they are revealing that they do not understand the facts nor the history that surround the development of the New Testament instead they are infatuated with the History Channel's or worse yet a Christopher Hitchen's version of Church history in which both of them are horrendously misinformed.

The other thing I notice in the writings is the references to the OT, books that had been accepted as canon. As for those who say Constaintine had influence on the books that were selected, when it comes to God's word He can use whomever He wishes and if they make mistakes He will see to it being corrected. For instance the Catholic bible includes apocrypha, this was done in large part of spite for the Jews, much like moving the commemoration of Jesus's. We know from the the writings of Josephus that the Jews already had established cannon and the apocrypha were not part of that canon.

[DRSmith]

I agree at least in part, but I also understand that a government that is an extension of the will of its people can also accomplish God's work, especially when the church as a whole is either unwilling or unable to take on the needs of the people, especially when some are satisfied with caring only for the poor's Spiritual status.

I look at the fact that God allows governments to stand for a reason and they serve a purpose as per Romans 13. Both Jesus and Paul spoke about the fact that love would really take a beating as things got worse, so I am starting to see gov't act as a safety net to take care of those that we as indivuals can not and to sort of offset the selfishness and lack of love that is becoming more and more evident.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I agree the govt has a role to play,and a responsibility to it's people.

It is not to the same degree it is charged to His people though, and I feel the govt programs do nearly as much harm as good.

I think any program gov't or church based can do harm if implemented poorly. And I agree that Jesus charged his people, and not governments, however if his people use the government institutions to provide for these needs it would seem at least to me to that the faithful response of disciples is active and true.

Better than nothing,but far from ideal or efficient.(and used as a excuse by Christians to avoid responsibilities imo)

Better than nothing, is the point where I am at because in looking at the scale of the need I find it hard to imagine the Christian church in America rising to the challenge, that may be my skepticism but it seems well founded.

I look at the fact that God allows governments to stand for a reason and they serve a purpose as per Romans 13. Both Jesus and Paul spoke about the fact that love would really take a beating as things got worse, so I am starting to see gov't act as a safety net to take care of those that we as indivuals can not and to sort of offset the selfishness and lack of love that is becoming more and more evident.

I agree, but I also still recognize that our government is an extension of the will of its people.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The other thing I notice in the writings is the references to the OT, books that had been accepted as canon. As for those who say Constaintine had influence on the books that were selected, when it comes to God's word He can use whomever He wishes and if they make mistakes He will see to it being corrected. For instance the Catholic bible includes apocrypha, this was done in large part of spite for the Jews, much like moving the commemoration of Jesus's. We know from the the writings of Josephus that the Jews already had established cannon and the apocrypha were not part of that canon.

You're right, the Old Testament canon was established at the Synod of Dort in 90 AD primarily in response to Christian influence in the Synagogues, in 397 the council at Carthage chose to adopt the Jewish canon as well, as for the conspiracy theorists it would have been far more to Constantine's advantage to simply eliminate the Old Testament and rid Christianity of the Jewish influence, however his order of the 50 Bibles and call for an established canon did not lead him to micro manage the canonization process as the conspiracy theorists will claim, but instead the Council of Carthage met for three years deliberating on the canon. Constantine tasked the leaders of the church with this job, he didn't do it himself.

[DRSmith]

I agree, but I also still recognize that our government is an extension of the will of its people.

Yes and no. Sometimes the courts have had to intervene for good. Also as I have watched the health care debate go on, the attitudes of some who think it would be okay to let others die for lack of coverage is not a will I think is good. The problem with the will of the people is people can be manipulated and the heart can be treacherous.

[Bang]

So the overall point of this thread is to say that Jesus would be for a salary cap for the successful as well as wealth redistribution that the Liberals in the media and in DC are currently pushing to make those who don't pack the gears to be part of the haves or strive to bes, feel better.

Funny, the point I got from it is that there's people trying to re-write the gospel so they don't have to feel as guilty for their greed and exploitation of those who's station is lower than them.

I wonder how we can be so completely different in our interpretation?

~Bang

[twa]

The problem with the will of the people is people can be manipulated and the heart can be treacherous.

That's very true.

Off topic,but what of those that wish to prevent death at all cost?

For some reason Jesus didn't heal all the sick,nor raise all the dead.

[DRSmith]

You're right, the Old Testament canon was established at the Synod of Dort in 90 AD primarily in response to Christian influence in the Synagogues, in 397 the council at Carthage chose to adopt the Jewish canon as well, as for the conspiracy theorists it would have been far more to Constantine's advantage to simply eliminate the Old Testament and rid Christianity of the Jewish influence, however his order of the 50 Bibles and call for an established canon did not lead him to micro manage the canonization process as the conspiracy theorists will claim, but instead the Council of Carthage met for three years deliberating on the canon. Constantine tasked the leaders of the church with this job, he didn't do it himself.

Actually OT canon would have been set about 500 years before hand by the time Jesus walked the Earth the books making up the OT were already cataolouged and were referenced in by Jesus and the apostles as the Holy Writings or as Jesus referred to them the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes and no. Sometimes the courts have had to intervene for good. Also as I have watched the health care debate go on, the attitudes of some who think it would be okay to let others die for lack of coverage is not a will I think is good. The problem with the will of the people is people can be manipulated and the heart can be treacherous.

You're right, but I find it hard to believe that it is from a treacherous heart that people are fed and health care provided through gov't systems.

That's very true.

Off topic,but what of those that wish to prevent death at all cost?

For some reason Jesus didn't heal all the sick,nor raise all the dead.

You are right here as well, John the Baptist wasn't saved, and Jesus didn't wipe his hand across all of Israel healing everyone in one instant, it would seem that Jesus sees the bigger picture where we tend to view the short term.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Actually OT canon would have been set about 500 years before hand by the time Jesus walked the Earth the books making up the OT were already cataolouged and were referenced in by Jesus and the apostles as the Holy Writings or as Jesus referred to them the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms.

You're right, but it wasn't until the Synod of Dort that the Jewish canon was closed in order to exclude any Christian writings that were beginning to circulate.

[LaxBuddy21]

The ultimate point is that none of this really matters. The Bible has a message on how to be a good person. How to help your fellow man and not focus so much on yourself. It teaches us to be a community. All lessons we should learn regardless of our belief. We spend so much time fighting over the semantics that we miss the message. Focus on the message of what Jesus was trying to teach regardless of whether you believe he was the son of God or just some man. It doesnt matter if he was rich or poor. Its a good message and we would all be better off if more of us could learn to follow the message.

[DRSmith]

You're right, but I find it hard to believe that it is from a treacherous heart that people are fed and health care provided through gov't systems.

That is why I said it was a safety net at times, I would hate to see a vote take place on things like welfare, one of the constant complaints I have heard lately was why should I have to help provide someone else with healthcare. The sad thing in a few cases this statement has been made by preachers I have been speaking to in the US.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Focus on the message of what Jesus was trying to teach regardless of whether you believe he was the son of God or just some man.

I couldn't disagree with you more on this, for by my understanding and the understanding of church throughout its history is that it is of the utmost importance whether Jesus was just a man or the Son of God, there cannot be anything more important to understand about Jesus than this.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That is why I said it was a safety net at times, I would hate to see a vote take place on things like welfare, one of the constant complaints I have heard lately was why should I have to help provide someone else with healthcare. The sad thing in a few cases this statement has been made by preachers I have been speaking to in the US.

I agree and I believe that it shames the church when Christians say and believe such things, because it reveals much about the compassion in their hearts.