Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

sheep wrecked · 10-27-2010, 03:10 PM

(10-27-2010 02:33 PM)sari83 Wrote: [quote='Rose of Shushan' pid='6478' dateline='1288191960']

Quote:Can you give me the scriptures that publicize the virgin birth?

We have discussed the huge significance of the virgin birth, and why it should have been widely known and publicized throughout the NT and early church.
The First Council of Nicea, A.D. 325, established the Nicene Creed. The creed is the profession of faith that is most widely used in Christian liturgy.

Let's compare the Nicene Creed of 325 to the Creed of 381:

There is no mention of the virgin birth of Jesus in the 325 creed.

The Nicene Creed A.D. 325 First Council of Nicea
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

Virgin birth of Jesus is added to the 381 creed.

The Nicene Creed A.D. 381 First Council of Constantinople
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

The creeds were written by men to define theology. Personally, I find them to be a great distraction. The Bible is clear enough without all the "summarizing" Th_smiley_work

Rose of Shushan · (This post was last modified: 10-27-2010 03:19 PM by Rose of Shushan.)

Quote:We have discussed the huge significance of the virgin birth, and why it should have been widely known and publicized throughout the NT and early church.

The fact that the Gospels mention the virgin birth and the circumstances surrounding it shows that it was publicised.There are probably more letters and writings around that time that perished and also included it.However we don't have them so we cannot know for sure.We do,however have the Gospels.And the fact that they mention it show that it was public knowledge.To what extent we will not know since we dont have records of conversations at the time.
What would qualify as adequate publicity for you? Other than oral and written transmission ,I don't know what else could have been done.
The fact that it wasnt mentioned in an early creed doesn't really matter in my opinion.How much information was to go into that profession of faith?And who decided anyway?
What matters is what the Scriptures said and the virgin birth is mentioned by two Gospel writers making it more than enough for us believers.

sheep wrecked · (This post was last modified: 10-27-2010 04:22 PM by sheep wrecked.)

(10-27-2010 02:33 PM)sari83 Wrote: We have discussed the huge significance of the virgin birth, and why it should have been widely known and publicized throughout the NT and early church.

And it was. The NT shows us that Paul quoted the book of Luke. The other Gospels were also well circulated. Matthew was written first, as noted by some scholars. If Paul's letters were being passed around and considered Scripture [per Peter] and the book of Luke, then we know the other Gospels were as well.

It is the Gospel that was preached - that Jesus died and rose again - that He is the Savior from sin. Jesus said that the accounts of His life and His Words were given to the disciples and through them the truth and the Gospel would be written. He said that the Holy Spirit would bring things to their remembrance and they did so perfectly, as inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Gospel was preached and was the foundational message of the NT. The virgin birth was a fulfilled prophecy, like so many that Jesus fulfilled, but the focus was on what Jesus did and ours must be too.

Date
(A.D.) ------------ New Testament Book ..................... Author

35 ---------------- Matthew.................................. Matthew

40 to 41 -------------- James ....................................James

42 ------------------Mark..........................................Mark

42 -------------------- John....................................... John

50 -----------------1Thessalonians ..........................Apostle Paul

51 ---------------- 2Thessalonians ........................Apostle Paul

53
(Spring) --------------Galatians...................................Apostle Paul

56
(Late Winter)---------1Corinthians...........................Apostle Paul

57
(Late Summer) ----------2Corinthians.......................Apostle Paul

57
(Winter)-------------- Romans .................................Apostle Paul

59 ---------------------Luke........................................Luke

61 to 63 --------Ephesians .................................Apostle Paul
---------- Philippians ..............................Apostle Paul
----------Colossians ...............................Apostle Paul
----------Philemon ................................. Apostle Paul
----------Hebrews ..................................Apostle Paul

63 -----------------Acts ...............................................Luke
--------------- 1Timothy ....................................... Apostle Paul
-----------------Titus .......................................... Apostle Paul

63 to 64 ------------1John
------------2John
-------------3John .......................................John

64 to 65 ------------1Peter .......................................Peter

65 to 66 -------------2Peter................................... Peter

66 to 67 --------------Jude .................................... Jude

67 -----------------2Timothy .................................Apostle Paul

95 -------------- Revelation .......................................John

sari83 · 10-27-2010, 04:19 PM

(10-27-2010 04:00 PM)sheep wrecked Wrote: If one believes that the NT is the inspired Word of God, then when Matthew and Luke say that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, then that is truth. Jesus said, reiterating the OT, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Would you agree to that?

I believe the original texts of the NT are the inspired Word of God. Anything added later would not fall under this authority. For example, we know the book of Mark was added to. It did not originally contain verses 16:9-20. Therefore it's also possible that the birth of Jesus in the books of Matthew and Luke may have been modified.

Here's an Exerpt from the Wikipedia article intitled: Mark 16

Mark 16 is the final chapter of the Gospel of Mark in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. It begins with the discovery of the empty tomb by Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome — there they encounter a man dressed in white who announces Jesus' resurrection.

Verse 8 ends with the women fleeing from the empty tomb, and saying "nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Many scholars take 16:8 as the original ending and believe the longer ending (16:9-20) was written later by someone else as a summary of Jesus' resurrection appearances and several miracles performed by Christians. In this 12-verse passage, the author refers to Jesus' appearances to Mary Magdalene, two disciples, and then the Eleven (the Twelve Apostles minus Judas). The text concludes with the Great Commission, declares eternal life for believers and condemnation for nonbelievers, and pictures Jesus sitting at God's right hand.[1] Most scholars, following the approach of the textual critic Bruce Metzger, hold the view that verses 9-20 were not part of the original text.[1]

Rose of Shushan · 10-27-2010, 05:27 PM

Quote:I believe the original texts of the NT are the inspired Word of God. Anything added later would not fall under this authority. For example, we know the book of Mark was added to. It did not originally contain verses 16:9-20. Therefore it's also possible that the birth of Jesus in the books of Matthew and Luke may have been modified.

Which manuscripts are you saying were original and how do you know this? Original manuscripts are the ones actually written by the writers.There are a wide variety of manuscripts available but I doubt that any of those were the original ones penned by the writers.
The problem that some see with the Mark verses is that they are not found in some of the older manuscripts and there is also doubt that they were penned by Mark himself but instead added later.Nevertheless according to the textual critic Bruce Metzger that you yourself quoted from this doesnt necessarily mean that they shouldnt be accepted as canonical and thus a legitimate part of Scripture.I will paste here what he had to say on the Mark verses

Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 269-270.

... we may find it instructive to consider the attitude of Church Fathers toward variant readings in the text of the New Testament. On the one hand, as far as certain readings involve sensitive points of doctrine, the Fathers customarily alleged that heretics had tampered with the accuracy of the text. On the other hand, however, the question of the canonicity of a document apparently did not arise in connection with discussion of such variant readings, even though they might involve quite considerable sections of text. Today we know that the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to Mark (xvi. 9-20) are absent from the oldest Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts, and that in other manuscripts asterisks or obeli mark the verses as doubtful or spurious. Eusebius and Jerome, well aware of such variation in the witnesses, discussed which form of text was to be preferred. It is noteworthy, however, that neither Father suggested that one form was canonical and the other was not. Furthermore, the perception that the canon was basically closed did not lead to a slavish fixing of the text of the canonical books. Thus, the category of 'canonical' appears to have been broad enough to include all variant readings (as well as variant renderings in early versions) that emerged during the course of the transmission of the New Testament documents while apostolic tradition was still a living entity, with an intermingling of written and oral forms of that tradition. Already in the second century, for example, the so-called long ending of Mark was known to Justin Martyr and to Tatian, who incorporated it into his Diatesseron. There seems to be good reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark.

***Vic*** · (This post was last modified: 10-27-2010 05:52 PM by Vic.)

(10-27-2010 04:19 PM)sari83 Wrote:
(10-27-2010 04:00 PM)sheep wrecked Wrote: If one believes that the NT is the inspired Word of God, then when Matthew and Luke say that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, then that is truth. Jesus said, reiterating the OT, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Would you agree to that?

I believe the original texts of the NT are the inspired Word of God. Anything added later would not fall under this authority. For example, we know the book of Mark was added to. It did not originally contain verses 16:9-20. Therefore it's also possible that the birth of Jesus in the books of Matthew and Luke may have been modified.

Here's an Exerpt from the Wikipedia article intitled: Mark 16

Mark 16 is the final chapter of the Gospel of Mark in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. It begins with the discovery of the empty tomb by Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome — there they encounter a man dressed in white who announces Jesus' resurrection.

Verse 8 ends with the women fleeing from the empty tomb, and saying "nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Many scholars take 16:8 as the original ending and believe the longer ending (16:9-20) was written later by someone else as a summary of Jesus' resurrection appearances and several miracles performed by Christians. In this 12-verse passage, the author refers to Jesus' appearances to Mary Magdalene, two disciples, and then the Eleven (the Twelve Apostles minus Judas). The text concludes with the Great Commission, declares eternal life for believers and condemnation for nonbelievers, and pictures Jesus sitting at God's right hand.[1] Most scholars, following the approach of the textual critic Bruce Metzger, hold the view that verses 9-20 were not part of the original text.[1]

Wikipedia trumps the actual Word of God! Rouledort

Sorry.

And Bruce Metzger is the "textual critic" we should listen too?

Let's take a perusal of just some of Mr Metzgers 'activities'

http://www.seekgod.ca/ghostsociety.htm The Clapham Sect, The Ghost Society & The Word of God

"...Eugene A. Nida wrote in his book, "Bible Translations: An Analysis of Principles and Procedures, with Special Reference to Aboriginal Languages", that the revisers of the New Testament recommended the use of the Greek text edited for the British and Foreign Bible Society.

"For the New Testament, translators and revisers are recommended to follow the text of the original Greek edited for the British and Foreign Bible Society by Dr. Eberhard Nestle..." 43.

Dr Eberhard Nestle was part of the revision committee for the translation of a new Greek New Testament, following the efforts of occultists Westcott and Hort. Barbara and Kurt Aland worked alongside Dr. Nestle.

"In 1898, Eberhard Nestle published the NESTLE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, which underlies the modern versions. He followed the Hort and Westcott New Greek Text used for the English Revised Version and three other editions of the 1800’s. In 1950, Kurt Aland assumed ownership and the Nestle Text became the NESTLE/ALAND TEXT. The editing committee was comprised of Kurt Aland and Matthew Black, who were unbelievers, Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo M. Martini and two apostates, Bruce Metzger and Alan Wikgren..."

http://www.seekgod.ca/petersonecumen.htm Eugene Peterson & His Ecumenical Connections

"....The National Council of Churches (NCC) and all of its many branches is housed in this building. The NCC is the national or American branch of the World Council of Churches. The NCC holds the copyright to the Revised Standard Bible and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which was translated under Council auspices. Among the myriad of denominations housed in the Interchurch-Center is the office of World Day of Prayer International.

In presenting the Bible Room at the Interchurch-Center the promo stated:
"Opening off the Treasure Room , the Bible Room has on view a continuing religious exhibit of information and material about the translation and development of the New Revised Standard Bible.

The exhibit includes a soundbite from Dr. Bruce Metzger. Dr. Metzger was the secretary for the committee that translated the Revised Standard Bible and he chaired the committee that translated the New Revised Standard edition."

It should be noted that the Renovaré Spiritual Formation Bible was a retranslation of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which the National Council of Churches holds the copyright for, as noted above. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) was translated from the latest United Bible Societies' Greek text, UBS4, in 1989. This is the same text as the Nestle-Aland 26th Greek text, and which foundations were built from the Westcott and Hort manuscripts. Dr. Metzger was one of the main editors. Eugene Peterson also used the latest Greek Testament from the United Bible Society, meaning the above, for The Message.

It should be noted that most English Bible Translations of the 20th Century, including the NRSV, NIV, etc., translate the Hebrew using the 1937 Kittel Biblia Hebraica. NKJV uses the 1967/77 Stuttgart edition which was the revised writing called the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia by Rudolph & Gerhard Kittel. The Biblia Hebraica is published by the German Bible Societies/UBS or United Bible Societies.

The ecumenical United Bible Societies history shows the joining of a myriad of Bible Societies and eventually working with the Catholic Bible Federation...."

http://www.seekgod.ca/hr/hrfaqs9.htm Frequently Asked Questions About Hebrew Roots

Hebrew Roots FAQ's and Myths > Scriptures

...Myth: Khaboris Codex Aramaic Peshitta New Testament Manuscript (Khabouris Codex) has come under harsh attack by Greek primacists because they are fearful that the authority of the Greek Scriptures may be undermined. The Khabouris Manuscript proves Aramaic primacy of the NT manuscripts.

A. The Khaburis Codex was from the 12th century or slightly earlier. So it is foolish at best to be suggested to "prove" Aramaic primacy of the NT. It was supposedly based on a claimed second century text which is not in existence. Therefore un-provable.

... Correspondence from 1986 shows that the British Library experts had dated it paleolographically to about the twelfth century, and this has now been confirmed by a research team assembled in America in 1995, as well as by carbon dating by the University of Arizona in 1999 (giving the date range 1000-1190 AD). ...debate has persisted ...

The codex has been used by a number of modern-day Christians for religious-healing or holistic purposes, and soon after 1970 MacDougald himself transcribed from the present manuscript the text of the Beatitudes in Christ's Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5.3-12), and used these to develop a course of contemplative study named "Emotional Maturity Instruction", which claimed to significantly improve the mental health of those who contemplated and recited aloud transcriptions of the present manuscript. The course met with some approval and was even used by magistrates in Atlanta in an attempt to quell anti-social prisoners (see B. Metzger, ?The Saga of the Yonan Codex?, B.M. Metzger, 1997, Reminiscences of an Octogenarian, p. 115 for fuller discussion). A revived form of this course is still taught annually by Dr M. Ryce at Heartland, a teaching centre in the Ozark Mountains of Southern Missouri..." 1

The purpose for searching for the codex, was to finding the hidden meaning in the Aramaic of Jesus' words in order to drive out demons and cure people. In other words, it was believed the words of the text carried special power in Aramaic and could be used not unlike an incantation...."

Your statement should be that today most that follow the rejection of the inspiration and protection by God of the Scriptures, would agree to eliminate verses such as listed. Metger believe that the Old Testament is a mixture of myth, legend and history. He believes the flood re Noah was exaggerated, Job is a folktale, Isaiah was written by Isiaiah and other authors, Jonah is a legend, Paul didn't write the Epistles, Peter didn't write 2 Peter....etc. Do you believe that as well Sarah?

http://www.seekgod.ca/chart2.htm

Mark 16:9-20
KJV> Appearances of Jesus after His resurrection
NASB >marginal disclaimer --verses replaced with: "And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."
NIV> parenthetical disclaimer
NKJV> Appearances of Jesus after His resurrection
RSV> The Shorter Ending included and also v.9-20 "The Longer Ending." Note explaining the variations.

***Eliminating v 9-20 eliminates His appearances and also the record of the ascension
NRSV> same as RSV for the most part

If you want to eliminate these verses then you must eliminate any mention of the verses given by Rose and Sheep in reference to Mary, the virgin birth, Immanual, prophecy and so on. That means you are eliminating far more than verses 9-20 in Mark.

So the question to you Sarah is--do you really believe that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, born of a virgin, and the only begotten Son of Almighty God? Because if you start eliminating any verses, you eliminate these truths. So which is it? So far, in reading your posts, you are doing everything you can to cast doubt upon CHrist and the validity of the Word of God and specifically the Truth within the New Testament aka New Covenant.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

sari83 · 10-27-2010, 11:35 PM

Vic,
With all due respect, you opened this topic up for discussion. I assumed this meant you were willing to seriously examine through discussion the facts surrounding this subject. You didn't refute the facts I presented, instead you only used condenscending words to try to attack my character. Is your mission with this website to promote the truth to fellow believers? If so, let me assure you I'm a believer who only intends to build my house on the rock.
Thanks for your time,
Sarah
Matt 7:24-25
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
(KJV)

2 Cor 10:5
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
(KJV)

(Today 05:35 PM)Vic Wrote:
[color=#1E90FF]Your statement should be that today most that follow the rejection of the inspiration and protection by God of the Scriptures, would agree to eliminate verses such as listed.

Credible scholars affirm that Mark 16:9-20 may not have appeared in the original text.

[b]The Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1948).
vv. 9-20. This section is a later addition; the original ending of Mark appears to have been lost. The best and oldest manuscripts of Mark end with ch. 16:8. Two endings were added very early. The shorter reads: "But they reported briefly to those with Peter all that had been commanded them. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them from the East even to the West the sacred and incorruptible message of eternal salvation." The longer addition appears in English Bibles; its origin is uncertain; a medieval source ascribes it to an elder Ariston (Aristion), perhaps the man whom Papias (c. A.D. 135) calls a disciple of the Lord. It is drawn for the most part from Luke, chapter 24, and from John, chapter 20; there is a possibility that verse 15 may come from Matthew 28:18-20. It is believed that the original ending must have contained an account of the risen Christ's meeting with the disciples in Galilee (chs. 14:28; 16:7).

A Commentary on the Holy Bible, edited by J.R. Dummelow (New York: MacMillan, 1927), pages 732-33.9-20. Conclusion of the Gospel. One uncial manuscript gives a second termination to the Gospel as follows: 'And they reported all the things that had been commanded them briefly (or immediately) to the companions of Peter. And after this Jesus himself also sent forth by them from the East even unto the West the holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal salvation.'
Internal evidence points definitely to the conclusion that the last twelve verses are not by St. Mark. For, (1) the true conclusion certainly contained a Galilean appearance (Mark 16:7, cp. 14:28), and this does not. (2) The style is that of a bare catalogue of facts, and quite unlike St. Mark's usual wealth of graphic detail. (3) The section contains numerous words and expressions never used by St. Mark. (4) Mark 16:9 makes an abrupt fresh start, and is not continuous with the preceding narrative. (5) Mary Magdalene is spoken of (16:9) as if she had not been mentioned before, although she has just been alluded to twice (15:47, 16:1). (6) The section seems to represent not a primary tradition, such as Peter's, but quite a secondary one, and in particular to be dependent upon the conclusion of St. Matthew, and upon Luke 24:23f.

(Today 05:35 PM)Vic Wrote:
If you want to eliminate these verses then you must eliminate any mention of the verses given by Rose and Sheep in reference to Mary, the virgin birth, Immanual, prophecy and so on. That means you are eliminating far more than verses 9-20 in Mark.

Mark does not mention the virgin birth of Jesus.

Here is a list a NT book that do mention the virgin birth of Jesus:

1.Matthew 2.Luke

Here is a list of NT books that do not mention the virgin birth of Jesus:

1. Mark 2. John 3. Acts 4. Romans 5. 1 Corinthians 6. 2 Corinthians 7. Galatians 8. Ephesians 9. Phillipians 10. Collossians 11. 1 Thessalonians 12. 2 Thessalonians 13. 1 Timothy 14. 2 Timothy 15. Titus 16. Philemon 17. Hebrews 18. James 19. 1 Peter 20. 2 Peter 21. 1 John 22. 2 John 23. 3 John 24. Jude 25. Revelation

Are we to assume that the sinful nature of mankind is only carried through the seed of man and not the woman?

(Before the NT canon, the Nicene creed, and the Catholic Church)
It's interesting to note that there was a group of early Christians who believed in Jesus as the Messiah, yet that he was the natural born son of Joseph and Mary. They held the belief that because of His righteousness the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at His baptism by John the Baptist, and He became the Messiah.

John 1:32-33
And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
(KJV)

Luke 3:22
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
(KJV)

Compare these verses:

Ps 2:7
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
(KJV)

Acts 13:33
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
(KJV)

Heb 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
(KJV)

sheep wrecked · (This post was last modified: 10-28-2010 11:33 AM by sheep wrecked.)

(10-27-2010 04:19 PM)sari83 Wrote: I believe the original texts of the NT are the inspired Word of God. Anything added later would not fall under this authority. For example, we know the book of Mark was added to. It did not originally contain verses 16:9-20. Therefore it's also possible that the birth of Jesus in the books of Matthew and Luke may have been modified.

As we do not have the "original" texts, then we must rely on the manuscripts available. This is now God preserved His Word.

The issue then becomes, which set of manuscripts are credible and which are not. On the one hand we have 5,000+ witnesses which are very compatible, and on the other hand we have 3 witnesses which are older that do not agree with each other. It is this second set which is labeled as "oldest and best" now that it has been more recently discovered.

Interestingly, the ones who support the second set have spurious backgrounds, as Vic referred to in her response to you. Yet you appear to trust that stream of bias over a set of manuscripts that have been available for almost 2000 years.

Getting back to the concept of preservation - either God did or did not preserve His Word. Which makes Him a liar if we do not have His pure Word in a form that He chose. Or, we have that pure Word preserved and another "force" has engineered a way to shift the focus from the truth to a lie.

It appears that you have chosen to put all of your proverbial eggs in the wrong basket, as Vic pointed out. But you have not received that information graciously.

My suggestion is that you do further research because you have been sold a bill of goods that is biased unbelief and error, which is the product of a corrupt and evil source: Westcott and Hort.

I have added bolding to the following article:

Quote:Irenaeus (c AD 140-202), Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 5:

<quote begins> Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;" [Mark 16:19] confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." [Psalm 110:1] Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.(3:10:5) <quote ends>

If you pick up modern translations of the New Testament, including the New World Translation, you will find footnotes on Mark 16:9-20 which read something like this:

"Verses 9-20 are bracketed in NU [the UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament] as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them." (footnote: NKJV)

It is universally agreed that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, displaying the Alexandrian text, were written in the fourth century, and yet Irenaeus quotes from Mark 16:19 at the end of the second century.

In short, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, the "original" (?) text, are proven by Irenaeus to be deficient here.

Vindication of the Byzantine text, or what?

This testimony from Irenaeus (AD 140 – 202) should not be ignored. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who, in turn, was a disciple of the apostle John,

Irenaeus, who had moved out from Asia Minor to Lyons, France, by AD 177, was a bold defender of the Christian gospel as taught by the apostle John. He was also a bold defender of the Holy Scriptures.

Irenaeus records that a disputed reading of Revelation 13:18 had been settled by examining "all the most approved and ancient copies" and by consulting men who had personally spoken about the disputed reading with the apostle John in Ephesus.

Irenaeus, wrote: "Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic which they themselves have shortened." (Ante-Nicene Fathers; Vol. I; pp 434-435)

Likewise Tertullian (about AD 208) is on record challenging Alexandrian Gnostic heretics to examine the original writings of the apostles and specifically states that they were still available for examination in such places as Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus, etc.

Greek scholar Wilbur N Pickering has researched the issue of the authentic Greek New Testament and reveals that: "Byzantine readings are recognised (most notably) by the Didache, Diognetus, and Justin Martyr in the first half of the second century [AD 100-150]; by the Gospel of Peter, Athenagorus, Hegesippus, and Irenaeus (heavily) in the second half [AD 150-199]; by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Clementines, Hippolytus, and Origen (all heavily) in the first half of the third century [AD 200-250]; by Gregory of Thaumaturgus, Novatian, Cyprian (heavily), Dionysius of Alexandria, and Archelaus in the second half [AD 250-299]".("The Identity of the New Testament Text"; Wilbur N Pickering; Nelson; 1980; p 75)

More details here:
http://greeknewtestament.blogspot.com/

***Vic*** · 10-28-2010, 05:35 PM

(10-27-2010 11:35 PM)sari83 Wrote: Vic,
With all due respect, you opened this topic up for discussion. I assumed this meant you were willing to seriously examine through discussion the facts surrounding this subject. You didn't refute the facts I presented, instead you only used condenscending words to try to attack my character. Is your mission with this website to promote the truth to fellow believers? If so, let me assure you I'm a believer who only intends to build my house on the rock.
Thanks for your time,
Sarah

Scholars are only credible if they fully believe the Word of God to be true and it is the standard for their beliefs. People can say they believe but then they start saying, well, that part isn't true, or that part is legend, and the texts were corrupted by some unknown at an unknown time because those 'facts' can't be true. The flood wasn't worldwide and we know that much of the Bible "history" is merely legend and stories to learn from. Get the idea Sarah. Just because someone claims credentials, does not mean they are Biblically sound or belong to Jesus Christ, or know Him as Savior and Lord.

To clarify, when discussing the elimination of verses--I am quite aware of the verses re the virgin birth. I was stating that when you start elimination with those specific verses, it carries on and topically will include elimination of the other things I listed and much much more. You can't seem to grasp that the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures and in fact the prophecies concerning Christ and being born of a virgin are found in the OT as well as the NT. The problem is you don't wish to believe them. So you want 500 verses, all talking about one thing--the virgin birth. However the Scriptures are clear. It's already proven. You just lack the understanding and faith to believe them. 2 NT writers mention it plus, the issues describing Joseph wanting to put Mary away and God telling him in dream that it was ok; there wasn't foul play. And that's not good enough for you? And the downward slide of that lack of belief leads to doubting all sorts of Scriptures. Because then you can pick and choose which ones you think are real and true versus ones to be discarded. Pretty soon, you have nothing left because you get to decide which ones are the "real" ones versus ones corrupted or added in? God's Word is protected by God Himself. Otherwise these verses mean nothing and can be discarded.

Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Rom 10:17 [b] So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

There are all manner of those over the years who have tried to destroy God's Word, through just such means as you are trying to do. Casting doubt on the authenticity of the truth they hold. And it will not stop with 'just' the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Because you already deny His divinity. The downward spiral Sarah. What other topic do you have listed that are only found referenced in a few books instead of all 66 books? Let's see:

> the birth of Jesus is only mentioned twice, and in Matthew and Luke, not Mark and John. No one else mentions it. Should we discount it as having happened?
>Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. --------- only John says it
> Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. >>>said twice but do you see these verses elsewhere?

>Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. >only found in Matthew
>The description of creation is not found in the detail in Genesis, through every book of the Bible. Does that mean we should discard it as not true?
>Story of the Good Samaritan only found in Matthew
>the earthquake at time of Uziah found only in Zech 14:5 and not mentioned on Kings or Chronicles etc

Scripture is not meant to be an all inclusive historical record. Things found in one book may not discussed in another book. That does not mean they are missing information or have had extra information inserted by someone with an agenda.

Sarah, you have totally ignored the facts and Scriptures given by Rose and Sheep and not just in this topic. You have an agenda and that is to spam your beliefs. You can easily see that by how you avoid answering most things put to you, except the ones that further the line you want to follow. And you can tell by how you attempted to start threads in the SeekGod.ca article section---and never quoted or discussed the actual article but simply spewed the HR mantra of "under the law." Seriously discussing something from a believers standpoint means BELIEVING that the Word of God stands true. It means Believing that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. It's knowing Who He IS. By your sidestepping and not answering specific statements and verses and not even validating that you believe that God very much protected His Word contained in the Scriptures so we would have the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God in order to prove all things to it. You are taking mans opinions and ideas OVER what exists in the Word of God which became a closed canon many years ago. You are in fact adding to and taking away from it. That's your choice. But on here, when we discuss the Scriptures, it's knowing and believing that they are true. Don't try and pull the antisemitic card---which you already tried, or the trying to stifle conversation--which you already tried; or trying to keep readers from the 'real' truth, which you are trying to suggest. The reality is, you have doubts about the validity of the Scriptures and wish to promote those ideas. Bad idea. You don't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Really bad idea.

There are many other forums and all under the guise of "Christian" or Hebrew Roots or Messianic who believe as you do, including many religious leaders, scholars and textual critics. That doesn't make them a good source, it merely means they have a bigger sphere of disseminating their beliefs. I would recommend you find the myriad of those who are likeminded and who agree that Jesus was not God manifest in the flesh, was not divine, was the human son of Joseph, and not the Son of God, God's only begotten Son, etc. You see there's a difference in allowing and encouraging discussion and allowing what we believe is, according to the Scriptures, heresy. We allow people to discuss their beliefs to a point and then they are shut down for that reason. Because that's what the Scriptures tell us to do. 2Th_3:14; 1Ti_6:3-5; 2Ti_3:5; Tit_3:10; 2Jo_1:10-11

You don't want to discuss, you want to indoctrinate. It's that simple. Regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ

Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

the form of God> appearance of>>> >the likeness of men> image of >>> in fashion > everything about a man is what Jesus was

He did not cease to be God

John 1:1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

"He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." John 14:9

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Mt 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Luke 1:68-70 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69. And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70. As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

Luk 1:76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
Luk 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
Luk 1:78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
Luk 1:79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. > Isa_9:2, Isa_42:6-7 Isa_49:6, Isa_60:1-3, Isa_60:19; Mat_4:16;

John 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1 John 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

1Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Some say Jesus denied his divinity

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one. Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

godhead> theoetis= deity

Isa 48:16 "Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit Have sent Me."

Proverbs 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his Son's name, if thou canst tell?

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I... 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. 28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. 29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

John 20:27-31 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

sari83 · 10-28-2010, 11:04 PM

Vic, Many of the points you've made have been well taken. I'm still not sure why you gave heed to this topic on your forum? You knew in advance you were going to ostrecize anyone who even remotely tried to view the subject from an outsiders perspective.

(10-28-2010 05:35 PM)Vic Wrote:
Quote:Sarah, you have totally ignored the facts and Scriptures given by Rose and Sheep and not just in this topic. You have an agenda and that is to spam your beliefs. You can easily see that by how you avoid answering most things put to you, except the ones that further the line you want to follow.

I did not intentionally ignore facts and avoid questions. I answered everything I could to the best of my ability. I affirm most of my posts by making good use of the scriptures.

[quote]And you can tell by how you attempted to start threads in the SeekGod.ca article section---and never quoted or discussed the actual article but simply spewed the HR mantra of "under the law."

I thought I was posting a link to an article intitled, under the law. I'm new to this site, and I didn't realize there were categories and sub-categories.

Quote:Seriously discussing something from a believers standpoint means BELIEVING that the Word of God stands true. It means Believing that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. It's knowing Who He IS.

Jesus said that God is Spirit. John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (KJV) I believe that Jesus is, the anointed Son of God, the physical manifestation of God, according to the flesh, the fruit of David's loins. Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; (KJV) Rom 1:3-4 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
(KJV)

Quote:By your sidestepping and not answering specific statements and verses and not even validating that you believe that God very much protected His Word contained in the Scriptures so we would have the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God in order to prove all things to it.

When I started researching the lost books of the bible, and realized that the early Christians read these books (until about A.D. 300), yet they aren't found in our bibles today because a group of men didn't canonize them. This sparked a curiosity in my mind as to who this council of men were, and why did they attempt to destroy these extra-biblical books. Why couldn't it be left to the individual believer to make an informed decision about what we choose to read? Did they themselves seek not to indoctrinate?

Quote:There are many other forums and all under the guise of "Christian" or Hebrew Roots or Messianic who believe as you do, including many religious leaders, scholars and textual critics. That doesn't make them a good source, it merely means they have a bigger sphere of disseminating their beliefs.

I followed some of your links to messianic leaders. Many of the ones you called false prophets fully affirm the virgin birth.