I’m just a guy asking questions.
The original words are not lost. We have the source texts from which the English translations are made.
Does this not suggest though that the oft-asked question “What do Christians believe about X?”, and the (logical) answer “This is what the bible says about X” may not be as tightly coupled as perhaps they could be?
Absolutely.
Just to add: I do however agree with FriarTed in the OP. If the question really is “What does the bible say about X?” then a reply of “It’s all just made up stuff. Neener, neener” does not seem a productive or reasonable response.
I agree with FriarTed as well. And…I think it is bad form to enter a thread with “It’s all just made up stuff. Neener, neener”.
It’s particularly bad when you’ve previously used the bible in your response. Then it simply looks like you’re running for cover.
The original source texts? Really? Not copies of copies of transcriptions of oral tradition? It’s a miracle.
Yes, FriarTed’s essential point is correct. Questions about doctrine and/or the Bible do have internally factual answers without regard to whether those doctrines or Bible are exteranlly true. I think that sometimes the way a questions phrased can be tricky or mislead readers into thinking they’re being asked historical or scientic questions when they’re not. For instance, “how many people were on Noah’s Ark?” could seem like the questioner is asking a historical question instead of a story question and draw a “no fucking body because there was no ark” type of answer, but generally, I think people can use their common sense. It’s also possible to answer it by just quoting a relevant Bible verse, and saying “this is what Genesis says.”
Sometimes it does get a little silly with the neener-ing. I mean, people ask Star Wars or LOTR questions (“what kind of creature was Gollum?” “What kind of alien was Yoda?”) without explicitly saying they don’t think those are true stories and people get it.
Those copies of copies are the source texts. We do not have autograph manuscripts, no, nor do we have preserved transcriptions of any prior oral traditions, but those prior traditions are not the Bible. While the Bible may contain some embedded oral traditions, most of it was composed or edited as written text. And the oldest copies of that written text is, in itself, the basis for what we call the Bible, and are the source texts for English translations. We don’t have to guess at what the English translations are translating from. However corrupted they may hypothetically be from the autographs makes no difference as to how well we can simply translate them.
Now, because there are so many variant manscripts (and the vast majority of variations are trivial copy errors - ancient “typos” if you will) with no perfect, definitive version, it is true that it’s not really possible to define a truly “authoritative” version, but that’s a different question from whether we can know what the manuscripts we do have say in their original languages.
The problem with the OP is that anything could be a “Biblical topic” for those who want it to be a Biblical topic. Heck, I saw an article today about how some people are worried because people worship sports instead of God. Ta dah. Biblical topic. If you don’t go into the discussion believing the Bible is true, it’s impossible to accept it as an authority for belief in X. It can be why someone believes X but it can’t be why I should believe X myself.
(For the record, I have read it. Cover to cover. And studied it. Of course, it was the Catholic version studied in a Jesuit school, so I’m guessing that wouldn’t count somehow.)
Would this not seem to count out those notable Christian figures of around 0 BC, including Jesus and the Apostles?
The Bible is NOT an authoritative source of anything. It contradicts itself. It is subject to interpretation. It is subject to translation. Both translation and interpretation are subject to society concepts at the time it was written. It is even subject to inclusion and exclusion of books according to religious differences.
About the only thing you can say is that some sentences are the same in different copies (we don’t have an “original”) – assuming scholars agree. What it means is something quite different.
I don’t take issue with anyone who says, “The Bible, in verse X:Y, says (quote) ‘I am the Lord thy God’.”
I do take issue if you say, “The Lord is our God because He said so in verse X:Y.” See the difference?
Have you read the bible cover to cover?
Well, no.
Because the basic premise is the same. Jesus was a Jew, (as were the Apostles) worshiping as a Jew. That the Jews knew their holy writings, and that that they were central to almost every facet of Jewish life (they were a theocracy after all) is well established.
Rather than ‘counting them out’, they would serve as poster children for knowing the what the holy writings say/said.
I see the difference. I also see you likely didn’t read the OP.
So you wouldn’t consider Jesus and the Apostles to be Christians? That seems to pose some problems; how do you define “Christian” such that they aren’t?
Aw c’mon. I’ve seen too many of your posts to conclude anything but you’re looking to prank me. Fess’ up. 
There was no such thing as “Christianity” at that time. The Messiah was a Jewish belief, and those Jews who came to believe Jesus was the Messiah were practicing what they considered to be Judaism.
Thats all kind of irrelevant though isn’t it? My point, then and now, is that if you’re going to subscribe to a belief system it seems evident to me that you’d have a thorough understanding of the tenets/writing/doctrines.
Clearly Jesus and his posse knew the holy writings and were well acquainted with Judaism. Does your reading indicate otherwise?
So the difference lies in what you believe you believe? Is the Messiah no longer a Jewish belief?
My point is that a thorough understanding of the contents of the tenets/writing/doctrines would seem to be necessary,too. But pointing to those particular people was an attempt to show that that knowledge that exists in one form doesn’t imply that that knowledge can only be granted through that form.
They would have been extremely surprised to hear themselves called anything but Jews, and that includes Jesus.
I most certainly did, and I am responding to it directly and exactly. If you feel otherwise, perhaps each of us is interpreting the OP differently.
See how that works?
Yes, I have. And I rely on opinions from experts with vastly more knowledge on the subject than myself. What difference does it make if I have read it cover to cover?