The best way to approach reading the early church vis a vis Catholicism versus orthodoxy

Debby wrote:

The copies the scribes made of the Hebrew and Greek originals to preserve their contents. The first English translation of the New Testament manuscripts were done in 1525-1535. By Tyndale.

Hmmmm...So who are "the scribes"...And where are the originals...Not that a Greek compilation could rightly be described as an original narrative...And perhaps contemporary narratives would have been written in Aramaic...Though you do seem to be saying that the "gospels" actually weren't compiled by the four "disciples" of Jesus.

The scribes were educated people who could read and translate the original manuscripts and make copies to preserve their contents Bible. The original manuscripts were found in Russia, Vatican and according to Bart Ehrman academia.

For sure, scribes would be people who could scribe.

And Bart Ehrman doesn't actually share your beliefs...In fact he's rather akin to my way of thinking.

Bart Ehrman teaches theology and dedicated his whole life pursuing knowledge about the Bible.

He's basically an historian who specialises in Middle Eastern based religious history and the development thereof...He is an agnostic/atheist who denounced his early Christian beliefs, doesn't believe in a GOD and nor does he think that Jesus was anything more than a mortal human being...His views on the "The Bible" and it's development are very similar to mine...So yes, good old Bart.

Bart Ehrman believes Jesus was a rabbi a Jewish reform priest who was crucified, then resurrected and exalted to God. That is the same as Christian’s beliefs.

Bart like me doesn't believe anything.

Bart believes in the Bible that is why he spent his whole life researching it, more than the average Christian.

"The Bible" is a second millennium book with multiple later editions and therefore it's position on a shelf gathering dust does not require belief.

Though Bart doesn't believe the GOD tale, but does accept that there was once probably a prominent Middle Eastern character who is latterly and widely referred to as Jesus.

And would you describe yourself as an above, average or below Christian.

Bart write some 13 books on the Bible and Jesus.. in his book titled how Jesus became God. Bart claims Jesus was an ordinary Jewish rabbi who was crucified. After Jesus’s resurrection jesus was exalted to the status of God. That is exactly what Christianity is all about. Barts views are held by Christians.

Yes, he thought that there was a character relative to the biblical Jesus who was just an ordinary bloke. Though he doesn't believe in a god, and any layman will tell you that said character was latterly exalted to the status of a god after he was executed...So yes Christians obviously share this view and I also share this view...But like Bart I don't share a belief of GOD and Jesus's resurrection with Christians.

All Barts books are about God and Jesus as found in the early manuscripts that were used to compile the Bible.

Yes, that is his area of expertise...An expert in early Christian history doesn't need to be a Christian devotee...And Bart is not a Christian devotee.

Bart is helping to spread the Bible by explaining in detail what the original manuscripts quoted and the proper interpretation. He is turning more Bible enthusiasts into Christian scholars like himself.

Beyond academia I don't suppose that many people have ever heard of Bart the agnostic atheist and his interpretations of Christian folklore.

And just to put the question to you again...What, where, which are the "original manuscripts".

Like I said Bart interprets Christian folklare, within the context of human social and intellectual evolution...Which led him to conclude that there wasn't a GOD and that Jesus was just an ordinary bloke, who lived and died approximately 2000 years ago.

Bart is a "scholar" but not a Christian one...Just as most Christians are not Christian scholars, but rather just conditioned adherents.