Originally posted by rwingett
Then you argument sort of falls apart, doesn't it?
You're something else. The passage is disputed. So? Is it the only passage that is disputed?
I think God is very very wise. Little techincal issues like this expose man's propensity to miss the point. We are experts at missing the point.
The account sounds like Jesus all over. I am willing to accept that for SOME reason that record did not appear in ALL of the ancient manuscripts.
You want to make a big deal out of the possibility that it was a fiction added latter ? To what end? What does it do for you to theorize that ?
How is the character of Jesus diminished in the rest of the NT because those few verses are not certain to have been found in all manuscripts ? What basic tenet of the Christian faith is damaged by its exclusion ?
Does its absence argue against Christ being God incarnate ?
Does its absence argue for a non-sinless Savior?
Does its absence argue that He died no redemptive death ?
Does its absence argue for no resurrection ?
I take the passage as authentic. No huge loss is had by my being wrong. The issue is not an exposure of the weakness of the word of God. It is an exposure of petty man's propensity to grasp at excuses and miss the overall point of God's revelation.