1. The Ebionites were contemporaries with Christians. They didn't predate them. Its not as if the Christians came later, and changed what the Ebionites had written. The contention that Jesus' relatives were among the group makes sense. It was noted repeatedly in the New Testament that those who were around Jesus when he was young, had the hardest time believing in his diety. They knew him for thirty-some years before he started doing miracle.
That's cute calling Paul a fanboy, he wasn't the only. Each of the apostles (save John) met their end while preaching the Gospel. It wasn't just from the urging of Paul that the begin their missionary journeys. The apostles scattered upon the arrest and death of Jesus, but were so changed by seeing him in the flesh after his resurrection, that they went to "proselitise at all cost" (death).
Also, I think the contention that Paul taught, "that it's ok to change stuff, e.g., about half the Old Testament" is unfounded. The New Testament didn't change or revise the Old Testament. Rather, what Jesus did fulfilled it. The Old Testament--in every book--pointed to the coming of the Messiah.
2. I would partially agree with this point. It didn't take "centuries of philosophers" to define who Jesus was. He said it himself. He's the "I Am." He's God. His death shows that he was also human. However, you must notice that even according to your statements, the conflicts come from human philosophies not from the scriptures themselves.
Your example of the virgin birth is a good example. The scriptures say she was a virgin. Philosophy (Greek and later Roman) says that she was a perpetual virgin. The conflicts over the subject come not from a reading of the text, but from what other people add to it in the form of explanation. This is not a corruption of the text, but rather a corruption of religion.
3. I don't think its necessary to declare this manuscript "as heresy" just because it doesn't contain all the verses that are included in canon. This is a later manuscript, which was put together before the canon was voted on by various Christian councils (from wikipedia) the African Synod of Hippo (393 AD) Councils of Carthage (397AD & 419AD) and Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in (382AD).
The fact that this Bible misses some verses or adds some books isn't surprising or faith shattering. The business of the written word was much tougher back then. Even then they were making the Bible based upon aging manuscripts.
Some facts stand alone:
1. the New Testament stands far alone as the ancient text we have now that is closest to the original text. Other ancient texts don't even come close in the number of manuscripts, and their closeness in time of the copies we have to their autographs.
2. Different manuscripts may had different parts decayed away, omitted by a scribe, or otherwise not present. However, the parts we do have, are relatively constant across the thousands of manuscripts that the New Testament we have in our hands is based upon.
Slashdot Mirror
1. The Ebionites were contemporaries with Christians. They didn't predate them. Its not as if the Christians came later, and changed what the Ebionites had written. The contention that Jesus' relatives were among the group makes sense. It was noted repeatedly in the New Testament that those who were around Jesus when he was young, had the hardest time believing in his diety. They knew him for thirty-some years before he started doing miracle.
That's cute calling Paul a fanboy, he wasn't the only. Each of the apostles (save John) met their end while preaching the Gospel. It wasn't just from the urging of Paul that the begin their missionary journeys. The apostles scattered upon the arrest and death of Jesus, but were so changed by seeing him in the flesh after his resurrection, that they went to "proselitise at all cost" (death).
Also, I think the contention that Paul taught, "that it's ok to change stuff, e.g., about half the Old Testament" is unfounded. The New Testament didn't change or revise the Old Testament. Rather, what Jesus did fulfilled it. The Old Testament--in every book--pointed to the coming of the Messiah.
2. I would partially agree with this point. It didn't take "centuries of philosophers" to define who Jesus was. He said it himself. He's the "I Am." He's God. His death shows that he was also human. However, you must notice that even according to your statements, the conflicts come from human philosophies not from the scriptures themselves.
Your example of the virgin birth is a good example. The scriptures say she was a virgin. Philosophy (Greek and later Roman) says that she was a perpetual virgin. The conflicts over the subject come not from a reading of the text, but from what other people add to it in the form of explanation. This is not a corruption of the text, but rather a corruption of religion.
3. I don't think its necessary to declare this manuscript "as heresy" just because it doesn't contain all the verses that are included in canon. This is a later manuscript, which was put together before the canon was voted on by various Christian councils (from wikipedia) the African Synod of Hippo (393 AD) Councils of Carthage (397AD & 419AD) and Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in (382AD).
The fact that this Bible misses some verses or adds some books isn't surprising or faith shattering. The business of the written word was much tougher back then. Even then they were making the Bible based upon aging manuscripts.
Some facts stand alone:
1. the New Testament stands far alone as the ancient text we have now that is closest to the original text. Other ancient texts don't even come close in the number of manuscripts, and their closeness in time of the copies we have to their autographs.
2. Different manuscripts may had different parts decayed away, omitted by a scribe, or otherwise not present. However, the parts we do have, are relatively constant across the thousands of manuscripts that the New Testament we have in our hands is based upon.