No I am not. You said God made it only more obvious. Which is silly. God could have softened his heart and opened his eyes, but then the drama and theatrics would be lost. The God of the Bible could have fostered better, kinder humanity but he didn't. Because we need shock and awe, don't we?
Thus the text Erasmus put together had flaws - flaws many men have laboured hard to remove. And we have largely been successful
Yes, we have been successful in making sure our copies conform to the earliest church acceptable copies (those that were not chuch-acceptable miraculously disappeared!). It's an artificial concordance and it does not prove that this is the original or that the version we have is God-breathed.
The divinity of Jesus is clearly taught throughout the NT
No he is not. Only in John's Gospel written at the end of the century.
No, someone so clearly assumed, at the core of their being, that Jesus is divine, made an error in copying and didn’t notice it because it didn’t register as a possible error
Only in your make-believe world, it seems. I am reading Vulgate and it doesn;t have God (Deus) but who (quod) in 1 Tim 3:16
et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum quod manifestatum est in carne iustificatum est in spiritu apparuit angelis praedicatum est gentibus creditum est in mundo adsumptum est in gloria
How come no one assumed it there? I will tell you why: because forging it in Latin was not a simple dash away, as it was in Greek! That's why.
So, we have older Greek manuscripts without it and we have Latin Vulgate without it. No one knew it was 'wrong' until some anonymous zealot took it upon himself to play God and 'correct' it.
However, the divinity of Jesus doesn’t rest on that verse.
The forger obviously believed it did, especially with Gnsotcis and Arians presenintg an alternative and a competitive threat.
Jesus is God. He lived as a man. He is both Son of Man and Son of God. I believed in him and was saved
I guess that makes it true, because Mr Rogers says it's twue, it's twue...Should I quote someone by the name of Mr Rogers who says "Making an assertion does not prove the assertion"?
The main marks of a Christian, what identified him as such, were baptism and Eucharist. Many church fathers who taught ‘real presence’ also discussed it as metaphor.
Which ones? And I hope you have many.
“You said God made it only more obvious. Which is silly. God could have softened his heart and opened his eyes”
I said what scripture states - that he hardened his heart, not that he changed it. And since I don’t believe God makes us believe or not, I don’t believe God would force someone to believe.
“Yes, we have been successful in making sure our copies conform to the earliest church acceptable copies (those that were not chuch-acceptable miraculously disappeared!).”
Nice to see you know what exists, even though it has disappeared. It is much easier to make your case if you can simply claim the Church made alterations, and then got rid of the originals.
I’ve argued with MarkBsnr on the issue of the divinity of Jesus before. I say it is clearly taught, and not just in John. When Jesus said, “I AM”, the Jews wanted to stone him. I think the Epistles make it clear, as well.
I see no value in rehashing that here. Suffice it to say that until a few months ago, I had never met anyone who doubted that the NT teaches the divinity of Jesus. It seems plain to most folks I’ve met who just read the scriptures. I’m sorry it confuses the two of you.
“So, we have older Greek manuscripts without it and we have Latin Vulgate without it. No one knew it was ‘wrong’ until some anonymous zealot took it upon himself to play God and ‘correct’ it.”
The older manuscripts have it ‘he. The Vulgate has it ‘he’. Someone later than the Vulgate - which continues to be the ‘official’ version for the Catholic Church - changed it to God, by mistakenly adding a small dash. That is a copier’s error, which he didn’t catch on review because it seemed obvious that ‘God’ fit.
Modern translations and versions of the Greek text have been corrected. But if the Catholic Church had changed it in a plot to ‘make’ Jesus God, they would have changed the Vulgate as well...so your Dan Brown-like conspiracy theories don’t fit the facts.
“I guess that makes it true, because Mr Rogers says it’s twue, it’s twue...Should I quote someone by the name of Mr Rogers who says “Making an assertion does not prove the assertion”?”
The sentence you mention described my beliefs. I did not say that stating my belief was proof of them. I was describing my beliefs, and doing so accurately. Not everything is a conspiracy meant to mislead kosta50.
Concerning more than one way of looking at the Eucharist...consider:
http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html
and
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2379242/posts
Those who also taught ‘real presence’ were not quite as dogmatic about it as some would have you believe. They often taught both ideas, or maybe even more.