Comments on: Colbert’s Original Interview… http://philliphigley.com/2010/02/18/colberts-original-challenge/ Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:04:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: J.R. Diener http://philliphigley.com/2010/02/18/colberts-original-challenge/comment-page-1/#comment-1284 J.R. Diener Sat, 20 Feb 2010 03:11:09 +0000 http://philliphigley.com/?p=1522#comment-1284 When Jesus read from Isaiah he wasn't reading from the original manuscript penned by Isaiah, he was reading from a copy. If Jesus had confidence in reading from a copy shouldn't we? When Jesus read from Isaiah he wasn’t reading from the original manuscript penned by Isaiah, he was reading from a copy. If Jesus had confidence in reading from a copy shouldn’t we?

]]> By: Wyatt Houtz http://philliphigley.com/2010/02/18/colberts-original-challenge/comment-page-1/#comment-1283 Wyatt Houtz Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:44:30 +0000 http://philliphigley.com/?p=1522#comment-1283 N.T. Wright says that many modern scholars look for jesus at the bottom of a deep dark well and only see vague reflections of their own faces. N.T. Wright says that many modern scholars look for jesus at the bottom of a deep dark well and only see vague reflections of their own faces.

]]> By: Phil http://philliphigley.com/2010/02/18/colberts-original-challenge/comment-page-1/#comment-1282 Phil Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:19:10 +0000 http://philliphigley.com/?p=1522#comment-1282 Ya, I totally agree with you. All one needs to do to get an idea of the "differences" (which are usually only word order) of the oldest relative to the newest manuscripts is get a Nestle Aland Greek NT. But this guy already knows that and thus he's being absolutely disingenuous and even nefarious the way he's presenting it. That crap wouldn't go over at Princeton--and that's where he from!!! Bruce Metzger is rolling over in his grave:-) There are no substantive debatable variants which dispute any area of Orthodox Christian doctrine (e.g., the Trinity, Divinity of Christ, etc.). If they did, then we'd hear about it in the early church. Rather, it was people just not wanting to believe that Jesus is the Christ that drove them to deny that he actually was; thus, they came up with a heretical and anti-historical view of Jesus. People do it today as well--look at Elton John! haha. He said Jesus was gay... hmmmm... Can we say "messianic projectionism?" See my sermon on John the Baptist, hehe. Thanks for the comments Ya, I totally agree with you. All one needs to do to get an idea of the “differences” (which are usually only word order) of the oldest relative to the newest manuscripts is get a Nestle Aland Greek NT. But this guy already knows that and thus he’s being absolutely disingenuous and even nefarious the way he’s presenting it. That crap wouldn’t go over at Princeton–and that’s where he from!!! Bruce Metzger is rolling over in his grave:-)

There are no substantive debatable variants which dispute any area of Orthodox Christian doctrine (e.g., the Trinity, Divinity of Christ, etc.). If they did, then we’d hear about it in the early church. Rather, it was people just not wanting to believe that Jesus is the Christ that drove them to deny that he actually was; thus, they came up with a heretical and anti-historical view of Jesus. People do it today as well–look at Elton John! haha. He said Jesus was gay… hmmmm… Can we say “messianic projectionism?” See my sermon on John the Baptist, hehe.

Thanks for the comments

]]> By: Wyatt Houtz http://philliphigley.com/2010/02/18/colberts-original-challenge/comment-page-1/#comment-1233 Wyatt Houtz Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:03:58 +0000 http://philliphigley.com/?p=1522#comment-1233 A scribal mistake and intentionally changing the manuscripts is a significant different situation. If he studied underneath metzger it is a blatant lie to present these copies as this flawed and this altered. Variants have ratings, and i'd like to see some examples of these variations that completely change the gospel. Whether the johannie or markan pericopes were part of the original manuscripts do not even matter, because in our bibles they say... these are probably not part of the originals, and even within those extra texts, like cobert said, they really arent that radically different... especially to say that the present any significant change to doctrine. combining those two stories at the worst case has caused a few people to dance with snakes, but no one ever took that serious. A scribal mistake and intentionally changing the manuscripts is a significant different situation. If he studied underneath metzger it is a blatant lie to present these copies as this flawed and this altered. Variants have ratings, and i’d like to see some examples of these variations that completely change the gospel. Whether the johannie or markan pericopes were part of the original manuscripts do not even matter, because in our bibles they say… these are probably not part of the originals, and even within those extra texts, like cobert said, they really arent that radically different… especially to say that the present any significant change to doctrine. combining those two stories at the worst case has caused a few people to dance with snakes, but no one ever took that serious.

]]>