Questions For Those Who Attack The Bible
Randy ®
1) Which passages in the Bible, if any, are you allowing are the
true and trustworthy word of God:
_________________________
_________________________
2) If you did not answer or do not know the answer to question 1,
then how can you claim to be trusting your eternal soul to any
God the Bible proclaims, while arguing you don't know which, if
any parts of that Bible is the true and trustworthy word of God?
_________________________
_________________________
3) If you are still claiming to trust in someone you call "God"
and "Jesus", which "God" and "Jesus" are you talking about,
since, according to what you are apparently claiming, you have no
basis for trusting in the same God and Christ we know about from
the Bible?
_________________________
_________________________
4) Why do you not simply tell people you proclaim a different
"God" and "Christ" than the one taught in the Bible, and tell us
what source gave you faith in this different God you are trying
to proselyte men to?
_________________________
_________________________
--
Have you heard Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him
from the dead? Did you know God saves you from hell and
gives you eternal life through faith in this finished work alone,
not your merits (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess.
1:8-9)? This is so man cannot boast, and God alone gets the
glory (Eph. 2:8-9).
______________________________________________
www.faithguard.org
www.twitter.com/faithguard
www.facebook.com/faithguard
______________________________________________
Jude Alexander
"Randy �" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xOednbloQZSIBGjX...@giganews.com...
: Let me ask you a few questions:
:
:
: 1) Which passages in the Bible, if any, are you allowing are the
: true and trustworthy word of God:
Well, for starters, how about those that aren't contradictory or in error in
ANY way, i.e. grammar or absurd in nature, erroneous in proven truth in ANY
way, i.e. the sun does not revolve around the earth and slavery is NOT moral
and best of all God doesn't do what is evil and the bible has God doing ALL
kinds of evil. It's the biggest double standard mankind as ever accepted.
God, by his nature cannot commit evil but the "God" of the FundaMENTAList
did so a LOT according to biblical writers. The truth of the matter is that
those men thought God was doing everything around them and ALL things that
happened we directly caused by God, i.e. if they warred against a
neighboring country and won, God gave them the victory, if they lost, then
God was angry at them. Wow, what spiritual insight!
:
: 2) If you did not answer or do not know the answer to question 1,
: then how can you claim to be trusting your eternal soul to any
: God the Bible proclaims, while arguing you don't know which, if
: any parts of that Bible is the true and trustworthy word of God?
We're ALL ultimately in God's hands. So, we all have to trust in God's love
that He will carry us through as long as we don't abuse our "liberty."
: 3) If you are still claiming to trust in someone you call "God"
: and "Jesus", which "God" and "Jesus" are you talking about,
: since, according to what you are apparently claiming, you have no
: basis for trusting in the same God and Christ we know about from
: the Bible?
I have the basis of spiritual experiences and phenomenally answered prayers
that left me with more than just blind faith and hope.
:
: 4) Why do you not simply tell people you proclaim a different
: "God" and "Christ" than the one taught in the Bible, and tell us
: what source gave you faith in this different God you are trying
: to proselyte men to?
The bible is riddled with errors. People should approach it with that
understanding. They can take from it as their honest integrity sees fit.
However, THAT is not what FundaMENTALists do. They are already in the
throws of religious addiction. That is the ONLY explanation as to how they
can read the bible and see it as anything near inerrant.
Zadok
"Randy �" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message ...
> Let me ask you a few questions:
>
>
> 1) Which passages in the Bible, if any, are you allowing are the
> true and trustworthy word of God:
What you do Randy, is simply take the NT, and examine it.
One of the determining factors, of what to believe, is to get a red letter
bible.
Then look and see what Jesus actually says.
Then you look at authors.
The criteria that you should be using, is simple.
DID THEY KNOW JESUS, MEET JESUS AND STUDY WITH JESUS!!
So, then we can use Matthew, Mark (as he wrote what Peter told him),
John, and then skip to James, 1 Peter, The epistles of John, are iffy, but
can be used.
Same with Jude.
Then Revelation can be used as long as one realizes that it is
a history lesson. It all happened in 70AD!!
But to get more teachings of Jesus, one should add, The Gospels of Thomas,
Mary and Phillip.
The Gospel of Peter is again an iffy one, but it has a bit of useful
information.
As for as the OT is concerned, you can safely throw out the whole thing.
It's all myth,
and has been doctored by the Macabbees to suit their own purposes.
Thus your bible would then consist of
1) Mary, Gospel of
2) Matthew, Gospel of
3) Mark, Gospel of
4) Phillip, Gospel of
5) Thomas, Gospel of
6) John, Gospel of - Realizing that a lot of it is crap.
7) Letter of James
8) 1st Letter of Peter
9) Letters of John - Used for infomation only, not doctrine
10) Revelation - Used as a history lesson - No value for doctrine.
11) Letter of Peter to James
The beauty of this bible, is that it conatins 11 books (The letters of John
being made one).
The number of the apostles, after Judas was removed.
Smile.
Randy ®
Jude Alexander <Onec...@swampland.net> wrote:
> "Randy �"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xOednbloQZSIBGjX...@giganews.com...
> : Let me ask you a few questions:
> :
> :
> : 1) Which passages in the Bible, if any, are you allowing are the
> : true and trustworthy word of God:
> :
> Well, for starters, how about those that aren't contradictory or in error in
> ANY way,
Go ahead. Post the "real" Bible that you believe is the word of God:
_____________________________
_____________________________
Genesis 15:4-6 NIV
(4) Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be
your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir."
(5) He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and
count the stars�if indeed you can count them." Then he said to
him, "So shall your offspring be."
(6) Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as
righteousness.
Abraham didn't have some mystical relationship with God. The
word of the LORD came to him, and he believed God's "word".
Now then, for those who devote their lives to attacking the
Bible, and trying to promote doubt that it is the word of God,
what are you claiming _IS_ the word of God that men should have
faith in, as Abraham did? Put up or shut up:
_______________________
_______________________
Post the word of God between the lines.
[...]
> :
> : 2) If you did not answer or do not know the answer to question 1,
> : then how can you claim to be trusting your eternal soul to any
> : God the Bible proclaims, while arguing you don't know which, if
> : any parts of that Bible is the true and trustworthy word of God?
>
> We're ALL ultimately in God's hands. So, we all have to trust in God's love
> that He will carry us through as long as we don't abuse our "liberty."
Which "God" are you talking about? The one we know about from
the Bible, or some other God? How do you know about the God you
are claiming to trust? What is His word?
______________________________
______________________________
> : 3) If you are still claiming to trust in someone you call "God"
> : and "Jesus", which "God" and "Jesus" are you talking about,
> : since, according to what you are apparently claiming, you have no
> : basis for trusting in the same God and Christ we know about from
> : the Bible?
>
> I have the basis of spiritual experiences and phenomenally answered prayers
> that left me with more than just blind faith and hope.
Why do you claim to believe in "Jesus"? Did you have some
spiritual experience or answered prayer that revealed the name
"Jesus" to you?
> : 4) Why do you not simply tell people you proclaim a different
> : "God" and "Christ" than the one taught in the Bible, and tell us
> : what source gave you faith in this different God you are trying
> : to proselyte men to?
>
> The bible is riddled with errors. People should approach it with that
> understanding. They can take from it as their honest integrity sees fit.
> However, THAT is not what FundaMENTALists do. They are already in the
> throws of religious addiction. That is the ONLY explanation as to how they
> can read the bible and see it as anything near inerrant.
If you're allowing that some of the Bible is trustworthy as being
the word of God, which Scripture are you claiming can be trusted,
and how do you know it can?
______________________________
______________________________
I
The book is NOT as important as the Exclsive One God whom Abraham knew
WITHOUT A BIBLE!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Christ does not read the Bible, the New Testament, or the Gospel. He is the
norm of the Bible, the criterion of the New Testament, the incarnation of
the Gospel. ... The person, not the book, and the life, not the text, are
decisive and constitutive for us.
John Dominic Crossan "God & Emprire: Jesus against Rome, then and now,"
(HarperOne:2007) p. 95
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The BIBLE says that God is responsible for:
- GENOCIDE (read about Noah and Joshua)
- SLAVERY (condomned in the Old and New Testament)
- SEXISM (read Paul and the Torah)
- CHILD ABUSE (read Proverbs)
- ANTI-SEMITISM (read the gospels)
THIS is the EVIL IMMORAL "GOD OF THE BIBLE" that Randy Young wants to
follow!!!
God's human CHRIST OF GOD, Jesus of Nazareth, spoke
of a God of love DIRECTLY OPPOSED TO THE ABOVE "evil immoral god of the
bible" and of Whom one DIDN'T REQUIRE A BIBLE in order to know. I quote:
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN CHRIST /
MESSIAH Jesus of Nazareth] with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
22:37-40
WHY AREN'T YOU PETITIONING THE LAWMAKERS TO DECRIMINALISE SLAVERY BECAUSE
GOD CONDONES SLAVERY - IT SAYS SO IN "GOD'S WORD"?????
--
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
(a) a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, the absence from
it of any sort of error;
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
(c) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are
not really 'true Christians' at all.
- James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1
I
version that you can supersize with added fries (in Hell).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Christ does not read the Bible, the New Testament, or the Gospel. He is the
norm of the Bible, the criterion of the New Testament, the incarnation of
the Gospel. ... The person, not the book, and the life, not the text, are
decisive and constitutive for us.
John Dominic Crossan "God & Emprire: Jesus against Rome, then and now,"
(HarperOne:2007) p. 95
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
Grand Mal
"Randy �" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xOednbloQZSIBGjX...@giganews.com...
> Let me ask you a few questions:
>
>
> 1) Which passages in the Bible, if any, are you allowing are the true and
> trustworthy word of God:
>
> _________________________
None. Zero. The whole book was written by ordinary men. (Although I kinda
like 'Ecclesiastes'. It reads like it was written by a Buddhist.)
God didn't whisper into Mohammed's ear, either.
I
>> 1) Which passages in the Bible, if any, are you allowing are the true
>> and trustworthy word of God:
>
> None. Zero. The whole book was written by ordinary men
BINGO!
God wrote NONE of the Bible. God doesn't write books.
You might also like to ask which is the ONE and ONLY true ending to Mark's
gospel. There are SEVERAL!!!!
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" - Fanny Wype (Nudist Colony
Of The Dead)
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000513> wrote:
> WHY would ANYONE want to have FAITH IN A MAN-MADE BOOK????????
Why would anyone constantly proclaim he can't trust a fallible,
man-made book, then hypocritically claim he's trusting in the
same "Jesus" and "God" that book proclaims? Which "God" are you
really trusting in? Certainly not the one we know about from the
book you say can't be trusted. What is the reliable source of
truth you are trusting in to believe in the God you claim to
worship, and why don't you admit you're not worshiping the same
God we know from the Bible, when you use the name "Jesus",
"YHWH", etc.?
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000513> wrote:
> BIBLE - the Fundamentalist Golden Calf which comes in a Trew Kristyun
> version that you can supersize with added fries (in Hell).
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Christ does not read the Bible, the New Testament, or the Gospel. He is the
> norm of the Bible, the criterion of the New Testament, the incarnation of
> the Gospel. ... The person, not the book, and the life, not the text, are
> decisive and constitutive for us.
>
> John Dominic Crossan "God& Emprire: Jesus against Rome, then and now,"
> (HarperOne:2007) p. 95
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
If you really believe that, then which "Jesus" and "God" are you
actually trusting in, and how do you know about that God? You
can't claim the Bible can't be trusted to tell us the truth about
God, then claim you're worshiping that same God the Bible told
you about.
<chuckle>
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000516> wrote:
> "Grand Mal"<iron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> >> 1) Which passages in the Bible, if any, are you allowing are the true
>>> >> and trustworthy word of God:
>> >
>> > None. Zero. The whole book was written by ordinary men
>
> BINGO!
>
> God wrote NONE of the Bible. God doesn't write books.
>
> You might also like to ask which is the ONE and ONLY true ending to Mark's
> gospel. There are SEVERAL!!!!
I want to know which "God" you're claiming to believe in, and how
he revealed himself to you, that you should hear him and trust
what he said:
_________________________
_________________________
And how is it your God just happened to refer to himself as
"Yahweh" who had a son named "Jesus" since that (just
coincidentally of course), happens to be the same name of the God
we know about from a source you insist is man-made, fallible,
makes God out to be evil, and that not "any" verse of it can be
known to be the actual word of God?
__________________________
__________________________
<chuckle>
I
>> WHY would ANYONE want to have FAITH IN A MAN-MADE BOOK????????
...
> Which "God" are you really trusting in?
Are ye daft??????
I have kept telling you that I worship the SAME Exclusie One God Yahweh whom
Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
WHY don't you follow JESUS' Greatest Commandments?????
--
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN CHRIST /
MESSIAH Jesus of Nazareth] with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
22:37-40
> What is the reliable source of truth you are trusting in to believe in the
> God you claim to worship
My source is truth. All truth is God's truth.
I
>> BIBLE - the Fundamentalist Golden Calf which comes in a Trew Kristyun
>> version that you can supersize with added fries (in Hell).
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Christ does not read the Bible, the New Testament, or the Gospel. He is
>> the
>> norm of the Bible, the criterion of the New Testament, the incarnation of
>> the Gospel. ... The person, not the book, and the life, not the text, are
>> decisive and constitutive for us.
>>
>> John Dominic Crossan "God& Emprire: Jesus against Rome, then and now,"
>> (HarperOne:2007) p. 95
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> If you really believe that, then which "Jesus" and "God" are you actually
> trusting in, and how do you know about that God?
EASY! I value truth over a man-made fallible collection of books and
man-made fundamentalist dogma that you follow.
I worship the Exclusive One God, Yahweh, the same God whom Jesus of Nazareth
worshipped.
There is ONLY ONE historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ
OF God. "God was IN Christ" (2 Cor. 5:19-21) NOT "God WAS Christ"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pre-Easter Jesus / Post-Easter Jesus
4 B.C.E. to 30 C.E. / 30 C.E. to present
Corporeal, human being of flesh and blood Spiritual / non-material
reality
Finite and mortal / Infinite, eternal
Human / Divine
A Jewish peasant / King of Kings and Lord of Lords
Figure of the past / Figure of the present
Jesus of Nazareth / Jesus Christ
Monotheistic Jew / Becomes the second person of the trinity, "God with a
human face"
Galilean Jew of the first century / "The Face of God" (metaphor based on
2 Cor. 4:6 Beholding the glory of God in the face of Christ)
The ONLY AUTHENTIC human time / space historic Jesus of Nazareth is the
Pre-Easter Jesus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
>> You might also like to ask which is the ONE and ONLY true ending to
>> Mark's
>> gospel. There are SEVERAL!!!!
>
> I want to know
Answer the question first.
Which is the ONE and ONLY true ending to Mark's gospel. There are
SEVERAL!!!!
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
don't read it. Problem solved!!!
Jim
Mt 4:4 - But he answered and said, It is written,
Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
God.
Steve Hayes
> Look! If you don't believe the Bible,
> don't read it. Problem solved!!!
What problem?
And how does it solve it?
> Mt 4:4 - But he answered and said, It is written,
> Man shall not live by bread alone,
> but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
>God.
It was the industrialist capitalist period which subjected man to the power of
economics and money, and it does not become its adepts to teach communists the
evangelical truth that man does not live by bread alone. The question of bread
for myself is a material question, but the question of bread for my
neighbours, for everybody, is a spiritual and religious question. Man does not
live by bread alone, but he does live by bread and there should be bread for
all. Society should be so organized that there is bread for all, and then it
is that the spiritual question will present itself before men in all its
depth. It is not permissible to base a struggle for spiritual interests and
for a spiritual renaissance on the fact that for a considerable part of
humanity bread will not be guaranteed. Such cynicism as this justly evokes an
atheistic reaction and the denial of spirit. Christians ought to be permeated
with a sense of the religious importance of the elementary needs of men, the
vast masses of men, and not to despise these needs from the point of view of
an exalted spirituality.
Nicolas Berdyaev
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000519> wrote:
> "Randy �"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> >> WHY would ANYONE want to have FAITH IN A MAN-MADE BOOK????????
> ...
>> > Which "God" are you really trusting in?
> Are ye daft??????
>
> I have kept telling you that I worship the SAME Exclusie One God Yahweh whom
> Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
On Sat, 10/03/09, at 6:08:47PM,
In Group: alt.christnet.christianlife
Article: <4ac7d97f$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
I <me@home000000000000124> wrote:
*****************************************************************
You can't know for sure what is NOT an error in the bible.
*****************************************************************
Now, what error-free word of God do you have, that tells you
about Yahweh, so that you can believe what it says?
_____________________________
_____________________________
> WHY don't you follow JESUS' Greatest Commandments?????
Jesus said to love God is to keep His commandments. When they
asked Him what the work of God was, He said the work of God is to
believe on Him. You claim you can't be sure what is not an error
in the Bible. You cannot believe in something based on a source
you claim you can't be sure any of is not an error. Therefore,
you must either disclose what is your error-free source of truth
from God Himself, that you are believing in, or you must admit
you are not believing in the God you cite above, and are
therefore failing to keep His commandments.
What is your error-free source of truth from God you are basing
your faith in God upon?
________________________
________________________
Mordecai
Randy � wrote:
> On Sun, 11/08/09, at 8:56:32PM,
> I <me@home000000000000519> wrote:
>
> > "Randy �"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> >> WHY would ANYONE want to have FAITH IN A MAN-MADE BOOK????????
> > ...
> >> > Which "God" are you really trusting in?
> > Are ye daft??????
> >
> > I have kept telling you that I worship the SAME Exclusie One God Yahweh whom
> > Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
>
> On Sat, 10/03/09, at 6:08:47PM,
> In Group: alt.christnet.christianlife
> Article: <4ac7d97f$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
> I <me@home000000000000124> wrote:
> *****************************************************************
> You can't know for sure what is NOT an error in the bible.
> *****************************************************************
>
> Now, what error-free word of God do you have, that tells you
> about Yahweh, so that you can believe what it says?
>
> _____________________________
>
Why none - any more than I have an error free witness by anyone about anything.
Do you think that you need an error free witness in order to believe someone?
>
> _____________________________
>
> > WHY don't you follow JESUS' Greatest Commandments?????
>
> Jesus said to love God is to keep His commandments. When they
> asked Him what the work of God was, He said the work of God is to
> believe on Him. You claim you can't be sure what is not an error
> in the Bible. You cannot believe in something based on a source
> you claim you can't be sure any of is not an error. Therefore,
> you must either disclose what is your error-free source of truth
> from God Himself, that you are believing in, or you must admit
> you are not believing in the God you cite above, and are
> therefore failing to keep His commandments.
Pardon? There is no claim to being error free to keep the laws (commandments.)
In actual fact, as a christian - you ought to be aware that JC claimed that the
law of divorce given by Moses was actually not the law which should have been
given but was given because my people were evil.
Yet it is the law of Moses still.
And JC said to his followers that they should not divorce ... knowing some could
not bear it.
Later Paul allowed divorce if the partner had already committed adultery.
This shows that there is no singular perfection but an ongoing development of laws
and ideas and it is not error free.
>
>
> What is your error-free source of truth from God you are basing
> your faith in God upon?
>
> ________________________
G_d himself and the words he has spoken to me.
I presume you also have had signs and wonders, dreams and visions, insights and
the recipient of a word from the most high.
You have the same problem with these as in listening to the words of another ...
you can misunderstand (had that happen) but more often, my expectations of what he
was talking about was not what occurred. We humans are short term, he is long
term. We think for this day, this year ... and he is looking a decade or two in
the future.
Not even this direct revelation is error free because I interpret and thus I am a
place where errors come.
G_d is not about perfect beliefs of perfect words ... he is into relationships of
trust and love and obedience.
You want perfection ... we are HUMANS. We are not supposed to be perfect.
--
Mordecai!
When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is wrong,
and reality is Never wrong.
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000519> wrote:
>> If you really believe that, then which "Jesus" and "God" are you actually
>> > trusting in, and how do you know about that God?
> EASY! I value truth over a man-made fallible collection of books and
> man-made fundamentalist dogma that you follow.
>
> I worship the Exclusive One God, Yahweh, the same God whom Jesus of Nazareth
> worshipped.
>
> There is ONLY ONE historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ
> OF God. "God was IN Christ" (2 Cor. 5:19-21) NOT "God WAS Christ"
So all you, a fallible man, have to do, is say "I believe the
truth", and that constitutes proof to everyone that you have an
authoritative basis for what you claim to believe?
Meanwhile, if the Bible says "thus saith the Lord", hundreds of
times, you claim that you don't know what in the Bible is not an
error (including those claims), in the Bible, that the Bible is
error-riddled because it came through fallible men, etc.? Yet
you get to be a fallible man who makes such judgments as to
whether or not God would be good if the Bible were His word,
while simultaneously arguing the Bible can't be true because it
only came through fallible men?
By your own standards, you either have to have something you
claim is the actual, error-free truth from God himself, or you
have no basis for believing anything, and must admit you are an
agnostic, or else your basis for denying the Bible is God's word
is also discredited.
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000520> wrote:
How do you not realize that in constantly pointing to things
which you gleefully think prove we can't know what in the Bible
is not an error, you
1) undermine any basis you have for using that Bible to back up
your claims when you like what it says,
_______________________
_______________________
2) undermine any basis you have for claiming to believe in the
same God that Bible proclaims to you?
_______________________
_______________________
3) Now, how is it you believe in a God who is called "Yahweh",
who has a Son named "Jesus", when you insist you can't know what
in that source you heard about that God from, is not an error?
_______________________
_______________________
4) And if you're claiming to have faith in some other source that
identified a God named "Yahweh", who has a son named "Jesus",
what is that source, and how do you know it is the authoritative
word of God, not just some man-made fallible word?
_______________________
_______________________
I
>>>> >> WHY would ANYONE want to have FAITH IN A MAN-MADE BOOK????????
>> ...
>>> > Which "God" are you really trusting in?
>> Are ye daft??????
>>
>> I have kept telling you that I worship the SAME Exclusie One God Yahweh
>> whom
>> Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
...
> Now, what error-free word of God do you have, that tells you about Yahweh,
> so that you can believe what it says?
1. NOT a man-made fallible bible that contains contradictions and forgeries
as well as truth.
2. Truth. All truth is God's truth. Truth is God's word. God's word is
truth. Truth can be found anywhere and is NOT confined to a man-made
fallible bible.
I
> There is no claim to being error free to keep the laws (commandments.)
> In actual fact, as a christian - you ought to be aware that JC claimed
> that the
> law of divorce given by Moses was actually not the law which should have
> been
> given but was given because my people were evil.
> Yet it is the law of Moses still.
>
> And JC said to his followers that they should not divorce ... knowing some
> could
> not bear it.
>
> Later Paul allowed divorce if the partner had already committed adultery.
>
> This shows that there is no singular perfection but an ongoing development
> of laws
> and ideas and it is not error free.
This is true of MANY things for Christians including food laws and slavery.
> G_d himself and the words he has spoken to me.
The answer I have also given.
God alone is to be fully trusted.
All other things are less than perfect -including the bible.
I
>>>> >> You might also like to ask which is the ONE and ONLY true ending to
>>>> >> Mark's
>>>> >> gospel. There are SEVERAL!!!!
>>> > I want to know
>> Answer the question first.
>> Which is the ONE and ONLY true ending to Mark's gospel. There are
>> SEVERAL!!!!
>
> How do you not realize that in constantly pointing to things which you
> gleefully think prove we can't know
WHY can't you tell me the ONE and ONLY true ending to Mark's gospel???
WHY is that such a problem for you???
Hasn't the Holy Spirit given you ALL KNOWLEDGE as you have claimed????
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
> "Randy �"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> >>>> >> WHY would ANYONE want to have FAITH IN A MAN-MADE BOOK????????
>>> >> ...
>>>>> >>> > Which "God" are you really trusting in?
>>> >> Are ye daft??????
>>> >>
>>> >> I have kept telling you that I worship the SAME Exclusie One God Yahweh
>>> >> whom
>>> >> Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
> ...
>> > Now, what error-free word of God do you have, that tells you about Yahweh,
>> > so that you can believe what it says?
>
> 1. NOT a man-made fallible bible that contains contradictions and forgeries
> as well as truth.
>
> 2. Truth. All truth is God's truth. Truth is God's word. God's word is
> truth. Truth can be found anywhere and is NOT confined to a man-made
> fallible bible.
>
Notice Mark still won't reveal his source of truth, after all
these exchanges:
Where's your authoritative word of God that gave you knowledge of
and faith in the "truth" about Jesus and Yahweh, since you claim
you can't know if anything in the Bible is not an error?
_______________________
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
> The answer I have also given.
>
> God alone is to be fully trusted.
>
> All other things are less than perfect -including the bible.
Where's your authoritative word of God that gave you knowledge of
and faith in the "truth" about Jesus and Yahweh, since you claim
you can't know if anything in the Bible is not an error?
_______________________
_______________________
--
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
Since you're insisting you can't be sure any of the Bible is not
an error, why don't you disclose to us what the real word of God
is that can be trusted:
________________________
________________________
Where's your authoritative word of God that gave you knowledge of
and faith in the "truth" about Jesus and Yahweh, since you claim
you can't know if anything in the Bible is not an error?
I
>> I worship the Exclusive One God, Yahweh, the same God whom Jesus of
>> Nazareth
>> worshipped.
>>
>> There is ONLY ONE historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth, who is the
>> Christ
>> OF God. "God was IN Christ" (2 Cor. 5:19-21) NOT "God WAS Christ"
..
>, the Bible says "thus saith the Lord", hundreds of times,
The Bible contains the phrase "thus says the LORD" 1,180 times.
Ignorant Randy Young says that means that the bible is "God's Word".
There are at least two problems with such a view:
1. The parts of the bible that DON'T have "thus says the LORD" prefacing it.
Everything NOT prefaced by ""thus says the LORD" must, by Randy Young's
logic, NOT be the "Word of God" even if it is said by Jesus. Likewise
statements like John 3:16 AREN'T a part of Jesus' speech. Greek has no
speech marks and it it is obvious that the text is a commentary by the
writer. That means that John 3:16 is NOT "God's Word". It also means that
the vast majority of text in the bible is not "God's Word".
2. "thus says the LORD" is found elsewhere.
The Book of Mormon states "thus says the LORD" at 1 Ne. 21: 7-8, 22, 25, 2
Ne. 6: 6, 17, Jacob 2: 23, 25, 28, Mosiah 11: 20, 25, 2 Ne. 7: 1, 2 Ne. 26:
17-18, Alma 8: 17, 29, Hel. 10: 11, 14, Hel. 13: 8, 11, 1 Ne. 20: 17, 2 Ne.
3: 7, 2 Ne. 5: 22, 2 Ne. 10: 7, 2 Ne. 17: 7, 2 Ne. 20: 24, 2 Ne. 27: 33, 2
Ne. 28: 30, Ne. 29: 4, Jacob 5: 3, Mosiah 3: 24, Mosiah 12: 2, Mosiah 23: 7,
Alma 45: 16, Hel. 7: 23, 3 Ne. 20: 38 Using Randy Young's logic one must
also consider the book of Mormon to be "God's Word".
The Koran likewise has the phrase "God says" so, by Randy Young's own
standard, the Koran must be "God's Word".
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
Where's your authoritative word of God that gave you knowledge of
and faith in the "truth" about Jesus and Yahweh, since you claim
you can't know if anything in the Bible is not an error?
_______________________
_______________________
gabriel
wrote:
: WHY would ANYONE want to have FAITH IN A MAN-MADE BOOK????????
Matthew 22:37-40 KJV
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
So you have faith that Jesus really said that, which *is* in the
Bible, yet you just got done saying:
: WHY would ANYONE want to have FAITH IN A MAN-MADE BOOK????????
So why do you have faith that Jesus really said what is quoted
out of Matthew 22:37-40? Why the selective faith on what is and
is not God's Word?
:
: WHY AREN'T YOU PETITIONING THE LAWMAKERS TO DECRIMINALISE SLAVERY BECAUSE
I
> : WHY would ANYONE want to have FAITH IN A MAN-MADE BOOK????????
> :
> : The book is NOT as important as the Exclsive One God whom Abraham knew
> : WITHOUT A BIBLE!!!!
...
> : Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN
> CHRIST /
> : MESSIAH Jesus of Nazareth] with all your heart and with all your soul
> and
> : with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
> : commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as
> yourself.'
> : All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
> : 22:37-40
...
> So you have faith that Jesus really said that, which *is* in the
> Bible, yet you just got done saying:
> : WHY would ANYONE want to have FAITH IN A MAN-MADE BOOK????????
Correct!
The next question is WHY?
Not everything in the bible is of equal value or true.
I look at the most important bits and the true bits rather than those bits
that are not important and untrue.
Jesus' Greatest Commandments are both important and true.
Belief that, for example, Jesus walked on the water is unessential to being
a Christian and is also untrue.
> Why the selective faith on what is and is not God's Word?
Contemporary biblical scholarship - "modern theology and ... the methods,
results and implications of modern critical study of the Bible". I read
biblical scholars.
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
...
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
...
gabriel
wrote:
: "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: > : WHY would ANYONE want to have FAITH IN A MAN-MADE BOOK????????
: > :
: > : The book is NOT as important as the Exclsive One God whom Abraham knew
: > : WITHOUT A BIBLE!!!!
: ...
: > : Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN
: > CHRIST /
: > : MESSIAH Jesus of Nazareth] with all your heart and with all your soul
: > and
: > : with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
: > : commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as
: > yourself.'
: > : All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
: > : 22:37-40
: ...
: > So you have faith that Jesus really said that, which *is* in the
: > Bible, yet you just got done saying:
: > : WHY would ANYONE want to have FAITH IN A MAN-MADE BOOK????????
:
: Correct!
:
: The next question is WHY?
:
: Not everything in the bible is of equal value or true.
:
: I look at the most important bits and the true bits
How do you know what the true bits are?
What if someone else disagrees and thinks bits you think are true
are not true? Then what? Who's the final authority?
: rather than those bits
: that are not important and untrue.
How do you know they are untrue? Were you there?
:
: Jesus' Greatest Commandments are both important and true.
How do you know they were not made up as well?
:
: Belief that, for example, Jesus walked on the water is unessential to being
: a Christian and is also untrue.
So is this your measuring stick? If in your opinion something is
"unessential" to being a Christian? What if someone disagrees
with your opinion? Then what? Who's the final authority? Is it
just whatever anyone wants the truth to be, follow whatever
verses they are comfortable with, but ignore all the verses they
are not comfortable with?
:
:
: > Why the selective faith on what is and is not God's Word?
:
: Contemporary biblical scholarship - "modern theology and ... the methods,
: results and implications of modern critical study of the Bible". I read
: biblical scholars.
Countless Bible scholars have already said the Bible is the Word
of God. So how do you decide which bible scholars to believe and
which ones to dismiss?
:
: The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
:
James
Hello,
Would you want every airline pilot to follow their own personal set of
rules? Would that not be dangerous? Truth is just that; truth. The
Bible says that there is only ONE true religion. (Eph 4:5) Thus all
others are deemed false.
But what if some religions are close to the Bible truths, just not all
the way? Should they not also be accepted?
Jesus showed that such reasoning is not acceptable. The religion of
Jesus' day was Judaism. But the religious leaders of Jesus' day were
perverting some of it, but not all of it. Yet Jesus rejected them.
Mt 23:2,3,
"2. saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in
the chair of Moses;
3. therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do
according to their deeds; for they say things, and do not do them.""
(NASB)
Also:
Mt 23:27,28,
"27. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside
but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
28. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as
righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."
(NIV)
Sincerely, James
**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
do not follow ng threads
***********************************
Want a Free home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
James
>
>1. Which is the ONE and ONLY true ending to Mark's gospel? There are
>SEVERAL!!!!
>
>2. The BIBLE CONDONES SLAVERY in both the Old and New Testament.
>
>WHY AREN'T YOU PETITIONING THE LAWMAKERS TO DECRIMINALISE SLAVERY BECAUSE
>GOD CONDONES SLAVERY - IT SAYS SO IN "GOD'S WORD"?????
>
>
Hello,
Actually, the Bible also condones excessive taxation, plots by
governments to assassinate political leaders, jailing and executions
of innocent people, government backed abortions, etc, etc.
That is because the Bible does not support the overthrow of wicked
governments. God will remove them in His due time. (Dan 2:44)
Until then, real Christians are ordered to be in subjection to the
present governments, whether they permit slavery such as back in 1st
century Roman times, or other things. (see Titus 3:1)
But just for the record, the 'slavery' back in Roman times, was
different than the brutal African slave trade of more modern times.
Back then many people became slaves to pay off debts etc. Thus in
those cases it was more like indentured servitude than wicked African
slavery. Do some historical research, and you will see what I mean.
duke
>"Randy �" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><whatever>
>
>1. Which is the ONE and ONLY true ending to Mark's gospel? There are
>SEVERAL!!!!
>
>2. The BIBLE CONDONES SLAVERY in both the Old and New Testament.
>
>WHY AREN'T YOU PETITIONING THE LAWMAKERS TO DECRIMINALISE SLAVERY BECAUSE
>GOD CONDONES SLAVERY - IT SAYS SO IN "GOD'S WORD"?????
Where..............did God say he condones slavery?
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
I
>>1. Which is the ONE and ONLY true ending to Mark's gospel? There are
>>SEVERAL!!!!
>>
>>2. The BIBLE CONDONES SLAVERY in both the Old and New Testament.
>>
>>WHY AREN'T YOU PETITIONING THE LAWMAKERS TO DECRIMINALISE SLAVERY BECAUSE
>>GOD CONDONES SLAVERY - IT SAYS SO IN "GOD'S WORD"?????
>
> Where..............did God say he condones slavery?
READ THE SYLLOGISM .........
IF
the bible is "God's Word"
THEN
God must condone slavery.
The BIBLE CONDONES SLAVERY in both the Old and New Testament.
What the Bible says about Slavery
Exodus 21:2
If thou buy an Hebrew servant....
Exodus 21:7
If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant....
Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under
his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day
or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Exodus 22:3
If he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
Leviticus 22:11
If the priest buy any soul with his money....
Leviticus 25:39
And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto
thee....
Leviticus 25:44-46
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of
the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and
bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among
you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which
they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall
take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for
a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.
Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the
flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.
Colossians 3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with
eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.
1 Timothy 6:1
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy
of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
Titus 2:9-10
Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them
well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all
good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all
things.
1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good
and gentle, but also to the froward.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> "duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
1. Which is the ONE and ONLY true ending to Mark's gospel? There are
SEVERAL!!!!
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Hardcover)
~ Dean John W. Burgon (Author)
Editorial Reviews
Product Description
This present book is filled with dynamite in its impact! Dean John
William Burgon has amassed overwhelming evidence from manuscripts,
lectionaries, ancient versions, and church fathers proving the
genuineness of the last twelve verses of Mark!
In the 350 pages of this book, Dean Burgon has proved that Mark
16:9-20 (the last twelve verses of Mark), is a genuine part of Mark's
Gospel about which we should have no doubts whatsoever! A thorough
grasp of Burgon's methodology of textual criticism such as is
exhibited in these pages will convince the honest reader to reject the
false conclusions regarding these twelve verses (and other verses as
well) which have been accepted by the NASV, the NIV, the RSV, the
NRSV, the NEB, TEV, CEV, and the other modern versions!
If indeed, as Dean Burgon shows clearly, "B" (Vaticanus) and
"Aleph" (Sinaiticus) are in serious error here, they can not be
trusted elsewhere either! The manuscripts, the lectionaries, the
ancient versions, and the quotations from the church fathers all unite
to show that Mark 16:9-20 was in Mark's Gospel from the very
beginning!
The text of this Burgon Reprint is based on a complete photographic
reproduction of Burgon's 1871 Last Twelve Verses of Mark. The reprint
publisher has post-scripted Burgon's work with a Thirty-four paged
summary--"Dean John William Burgon's Vindication of the Last Twelve
Verses of Mark" written by D. A. Waite, Th.D, Ph.D. --This text refers
to the Paperback edition.
About the Author
from Who Was Dean John William Burgon? (A pamphlet compiled by Dr. and
Mrs. D. A. Waite and based on the 2-volume biography by Edward
Goulburn)] Birth And Early Education. John William Burgon, the Dean of
Chichester, was born on August 21, 1813, in Smyrna, a province of
Greece. He has been called "the champion of the impossible." His
mother, Catherine Marguerite de Cramer, of French descent, was the
daughter of an Austrian consul. Thomas Burgon, his British-born
father, was a successful London merchant connected with the commerce
of the city of London, a collector and connoisseur of ancient art.
John, one of six children, was a product of the "home school." For the
first eleven years of his life, his mother was his teacher John had
always wanted to be educated and to be a minister, but he had to
remain with his father in the family business. When that business
failed, John was free to follow his desire to study at Oxford
University. Latin And Greek Studies. While many of his contemporaries
had finished their formal education, thirty-year-old Burgon was just
beginning his university studies. Besides memorizing Latin, Burgon did
exercises in Latin and Greek history daily. He was a master of
classical Greek, studying Thucydides, Aeschylus, and the Agamemnon. He
also grappled with such classical Greek writers as Aristotle,
Aeschylus, and Herodotus. He has been quoted as saying, "Old Aristotle
I like better as I understand him more." Needless to say, John William
Burgon was a well-trained man! Besides all this advanced philosophical
study, Dean Burgon read two chapters of the Old Testament daily, and
often said, "I cannot feel satisfied." Concern For Students. When
Burgon was a pastor, he not only preached two or three times on
Sunday, but also had Bib1e Study at seven o'clock in the early morning
with the Oxford students. They came in the evening to study also.
Eight times in a term, Pastor Burgon met with young men. For four
years he taught them the book of Genesis without completing the book
during that time. Ninety-six nights of teaching! Not a word, a
sentence, or a chapter was skipped. His plan was to make the Bible its
own commentary. He was a teacher of minute details. The result was
that his students came to know other books of the Bible at the same
time. Watchdog's Bark. On all the great theological and textual
questions that arose, Burgon's trumpet gave no uncertain sound. On
every question--and there were many--he delivered himself with courage
as one who was convinced himself, and sought to convince others also.
Someone remarked: "What a splendid watchdog he is. How loud and
furiously he barks when the smallest danger threatens the church or
the Faith which is entrusted to the church's keeping. It is the
business of a watchdog to bark furiously and to even flay at the
throat of thieves." Without a doubt, Burgon, was not only a student of
the Scriptures, but also a defender of the Scriptures. Quotations Of
The Church Fathers. As a result of his research, Burgon compiled an
index of sixteen folio volumes of more than 86,000 quotations of or
allusions to Scripture which were used by the Church Fathers. These
indexes were about 12" by 18" by 3" in size. They are presently in
London's British Museum. Dean Burgon and his associates have
catalogued them. Each quotation or allusion is color-coded to show the
exact page and version of the Church Fathers from which they were
derived. These are very valuable indexes, but as yet are unpublished.
Who were some of the Church Fathers? This is another name for the
leaders of the early church, whether pro-Textus Receptus or not. They
were men such as Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, Cyprian, Clement of
Alexander, Augustine, Tertullian, and Eusebius. In the writings of the
Church Fathers whom Burgon researched, he found that these early
leaders quoted from various Greek and Latin texts of Scripture.
Remember that the purpose of researching the Church Fathers was not
necessarily to give word for word quotations of the Bible. It was to
show that a writer, in referring to the Bible in a personal letter or
document, had used a certain verse, a series of verses, or even one
word or two that he found in his copy of Scripture. In many instances,
this exact quotation or allusion showed whether the writer had before
him the Textus Receptus-type of text or a Westcott and Hort-type of
text. So, we may conclude that these early Fathers, regardless of
their individual faith or convictions, had specific New Testament
texts in their hands. This helps us immeasurably. Systematic Treatise.
At the age of seventy-three, two years before his death, Dean Burgon
began writing his systematic defense of the Traditional Text of
Scripture. It was to be a thorough-going treatise on Biblical Textual
Criticism in two volumes. He argued with himself before beginning:
"It will take a long time.
I know it.
The rest of your life.
I know it.
It will cost a great deal of money.
I know it
And you will never finish it.
I know it.
No one will ever appreciate it.
I know it.
I WILL DO IT!" He was right. Few did appreciate it. But Dean Burgon
was a determined man. He thought to himself, "Why don't I do for the
whole New Testament what I have done for the Gospel of
Mark?" [Referring to his book, Last Twelve Verses of Mark] Cause Of
Death. The doctor said the cause of Burgon's death [in 1888] was
nervous fatigue resulting in prolonged mental work produced by strain
to the nervous system. Though his labor was great, and though his days
had been shortened because of such labor, John William Burgon had
great fondness for his writings. He pondered over them from daybreak
until night. He taught what he believed and he believed what he
taught. --This text refers to the Paperback edition.
I
>> Which is the ONE and ONLY true ending to Mark's gospel? There >> are
>> SEVERAL!!!!
>
> The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Hardcover)
> ~ Dean John W. Burgon (Author)
....
> Dean John William Burgon has amassed overwhelming evidence from
> manuscripts, lectionaries, ancient versions, and church fathers proving
> the genuineness of the last twelve verses of Mark!
...
> The text of this Burgon Reprint is based on a complete photographic
> reproduction of Burgon's 1871 Last Twelve Verses of Mark.
1871 !!!!!!!!
This is hardly CONTEMPORARY.
It takes into account NONE of the findings of biblical scholars over the
past 100+ years.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Which is the ONE and ONLY true ending to Mark's gospel? There >> are
> >> SEVERAL!!!!
>
> > The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Hardcover)
> > ~ Dean John W. Burgon (Author)
> ....
> > Dean John William Burgon has amassed overwhelming evidence from
> > manuscripts, lectionaries, ancient versions, and church fathers proving
> > the genuineness of the last twelve verses of Mark!
> ...
> > The text of this Burgon Reprint is based on a complete photographic
> > reproduction of Burgon's 1871 Last Twelve Verses of Mark.
>
> 1871 !!!!!!!!
>
> This is hardly CONTEMPORARY.
>
It takes into account NONE of the findings of biblical scholars over
the
past 100+ years.
Who havn't been able to refute Burgon's FACTS. After 100+
years they should give up, and admit Burgon
was right.
THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
The passage in question is contained in every extant Greek manuscript
(about 1800) except three: codices B (Vaticanus) and À (Sinaiticus)
and the twelfth century minuscule 304. It is also contained in all
extant lectionaries (compendia of the established Scripture lessons
linked to the ecclesiastical calendar). The importance of this
lectionary evidence has been explained by J. W. Burgon: "That lessons
from the New Testament were publicly read in the assemblies of the
faithful according to a definite scheme, and on an established system,
at least as early as the fourth century,—has been shown to be a plain
historical fact."[4] And again:
It is found that, from the very first, S. Mark xvi. 9-20 has been
everywhere, and by all branches of the Church Catholic, claimed for
two of the Church's greatest Festivals,—Easter and Ascension. A more
weighty or a more significant circumstance can scarcely be imagined.
To suppose that a portion of Scripture singled out for such
extraordinary honour by the Church universal is a spurious addition to
the Gospel, is purely irrational.[5]
Although after a time there came to be prescribed Scripture passages
for every day of the year, the practice evidently began with the
weekends, and most especially the most important ones. According to
Baumstark's Law the lections associated with the great festivals seem
to have been the earliest to have been adopted.[6] Since the idea was
borrowed from the Jewish synagogue the practice may well have been
generalized during the second century.
Before the Church started producing lectionaries as such, regular
manuscripts were adapted by putting symbols in the margins (or in the
text) to indicate the beginning and ending of lections. These included
the word teloV "end", either in full or abbreviated. Statements of
evidence for omitting vv. 9-20 usually mention a number of MSS that
have such symbols at the end of v. 8 (and thus at the beginning of v.
9), claiming that they were put there to indicate doubt about the
genuineness of the following verses. It happens that not only is Mark
16:9-20 itself one of the most prominent of all lections in the
liturgical calendar, but a separate lection ends precisely with v.8.
Consider what Bruce Metzger writes concerning MS 2386:
The latter, however, is only an apparent witness for the omission, for
although the last page of Mark closes with efobounto gar, the next
leaf of the manuscript is missing, and following 16:8 is the sign
indicating the close of an ecclesiastical lection . . ., a clear
implication that the manuscript originally continued with additional
material from Mark.[7]
Notice his "clear implication." Is it not obvious? One cannot read
beyond the end of a book so there is no point in putting a lection
sign there. Which makes one wonder about the intentions of the editors
of UBS3. In their apparatus, as evidence for the omission of vv. 9-20,
they include "(Lect? Lection ends with verse 8)"—this presumably
refers to lection signs in the margins since it cannot mean that the
lectionaries do not have vv. 9-20. But lection signs in the margin are
evidence for, not against! Notice that in discussing the evidence for
variant sets within vv. 9-20 UBS3 invariably cites Byz Lect, which
means that they recognize that the lectionaries contain the passage.
In fact, from the circumstance that they also list l185m it appears
that lectionary 185 is the only one that does not have the verses in
the Synaxarion (just in the Menologion).
The Syriac, Latin, Coptic and Gothic versions all massively support
the passage. Only the Armenian and Georgian versions (both fifth
century) omit it. To be more precise, every Syriac MS (about 1,000?)
except one (the Sinaitic, usually dated around 400) contains the
passage. Although the Sinaitic is the oldest extant Syriac MS,
apparently, it is not representative of the Syriac tradition. B. F.
Westcott himself, writing in 1864, assigned the Peshitta to the early
second century, in accord with the general opinion of the Scholarly
world of the time.[8] The demands of the W-H theory subsequently led
them to assign the Peshitta to the fifth century, but Vööbus
demonstrates that the Peshitta goes back to at least the mid-fourth
century and that it was not the result of an authoritative revision.
[9] The Sinaitic is a palimpsest; it was scraped off to make way for
some devotional material, which is an eloquent commentary upon the
contemporary evaluation of its quality!
Every Latin MS (8,000?) except one (Bobiensis, usually dated about
400) contains the passage. But Bobiensis (k) also seems to be the only
witness of any kind to offer us the so-called "shorter ending" by
itself—every other witness that contains the "shorter ending" also
contains the "longer ending," thereby displaying a conflation (an
incredibly stupid one!). Now then, so far as I know everyone
recognizes the "shorter ending" to be an aberration, which means that
Bobiensis is aberrant at this point and does not represent the Latin
tradition. If the Latin tradition dates to the second century here we
have second century support for the "longer ending". It appears that
the only Coptic witness that omits the passage is one Sahidic MS,
although there are a few that exhibit the conflation already mentioned
(they are thereby convicted as being aberrant).
The Diatessaron (according to the Arabic, Italian and Old Dutch
traditions) and Irenaeus clearly attest the last twelve verses in the
second century! As does Hippolytus a few years later. Then come
Vincentius, the Gospel of Nicodemus and the Apostolic Constitutions in
the third century; Eusebius, Aphraates, Ambrose and Chrysostom in the
fourth; followed by Jerome, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of
Antioch, etc.
Clement of Alexandria and Origen are usually cited as being against
these verses, but it is an argument from silence. Clement's surviving
works seem not to refer to the last chapter of Mark, but neither do
they refer to the last chapter of Matthew. So?
The main patristic source used to argue against Mark 16:9-20 is
Eusebius. It appears that he wrote a defense against four alleged
discrepancies between resurrection accounts of the Gospels put forward
by a certain "Marinus" (our knowledge is based on a tenth century
abridgement of what he presumably wrote, an abridgement that lacks
internal consistency). The first alleged discrepancy is between
Matthew 28:1 and Mark 16:9. On the face of it "Marinus" is assuming
that v. 9 is genuine "Gospel" or there would be no problem, so we may
conclude that he understood that to be the position of the Church.
That Eusebius takes the time to answer as he does points in the same
direction. Further, in answering the second alleged discrepancy
Eusebius simply assumes the genuineness of the Marcan account and
argues that Matthew's turn of phrase has been misunderstood. However,
in answering the first allegation (according to the abridgement) he
offers two options: "One might say that the passage is not contained
in all the copies of Mark's Gospel . . .; another says that both
accounts (Matthew and Mark) are genuine and must be properly
understood." With the first option he employs the optative mood,
appropriate to the genre of hypothetical rhetoric (which means that
nothing said by the hypothetical speaker is being vouched for by
Eusebius), while with the second he switches to the indicative mood,
presumably an indication of what he himself considered to be the
correct position—so much so that when he moves on to the second
"discrepancy" he does not offer the option of rejecting the passage.
However, the "canons" or "sections" of Eusebius (but not the so-called
"sections of Ammonius") may not have included vv. 9-20. In some Greek
MSS the sectional number "233" is placed in the margin beside v. 8 and
is the last such number (in Mark)—which means that section 233 started
at v.8, but since many "sections" contained more than one verse we do
not know the extent of this one. But, there is more to the story.
Burgon checked out 151 Greek MSS that have "Eusebian sections" marked
in the margin and offers the following tabulation of results:
in 3 MSS the last section number is 232, set against v. 6,
in 34 MSS the last section number is 233, set against v. 8,
in 41 MSS the last section number is 234, set against v. 9 (?),
in 4 MSS the last section number is 235, set against v. 10 (?),
in 7 MSS the last section number is 236, set against v. 12 (?),
in 12 MSS the last section number is 237, set against v. 14 (?),
in 3 MSS the last section number is 238, set against v. 15,
in 1 MS the last section number is 239, set against v. 17,
in 10 MSS the last section number is 240, set against v. 19,
in 36 MSS the last section number is 241, set against v. 20.
Added to this, the following information may be of interest:
the oldest MS that stops with 232 is A of the 5th century,
the oldest MS that stops with 233 is L of the 8th century,
the oldest MS that stops with 234 is D of the 9th century,
the oldest MS that stops with 237 is L of the 9th century,
the oldest MS that stops with 239 is G of the 9th century,
the oldest MS that stops with 240 is H of the 9th century,
the oldest MS that stops with 241 is C of the 5th century.[10]
For sections 235, 236 and 238, the earliest MS is 10th century or
later. So, in three-fourths of these MSS the section numbers overtly
go beyond v. 8, and the two oldest ones (A and C) do not aid the case
for omission.
Jerome is cited as being against the passage because he put Marinus'
questions in a certain "Hebidia's" mouth and used an abridgement of
Eusebius' answers in reply. However, Jerome's own evaluation is clear
from the fact that he included Mark 16:9-20 in his Latin Vulgate; he
also quotes verses 9 and 14 in his writings. Hesychius of Jerusalem
(not Severus of Antioch, nor Gregory of Nyssa) reproduces Eusebius in
his own words in a treatise about the familiar "problems". However,
since he quotes Mark 16:19 and expressly states that St. Mark wrote
the words, his own position is clear. Victor of Antioch repeats
Eusebius yet again, and acknowledges that "very many" copies of Mark
lack vv. 9-20 (it is not clear whether he had verified this to be true
or was just quoting Eusebius). Then he affirms that he himself has
verified that "very many" contain them, and appeals to "accurate
copies" and most especially to "the Palestinian exemplar of Mark which
exhibits the Gospel verity" in support of his own contention that the
passage is genuine. He even blames the omission on individuals who
thought the verses to be spurious.[11]
Unfortunately, commentaries can still be found that reproduce certain
misstatements of yesteryear about "scholia" and "catenae". The
"catenae" may not be adduced for the omission, as demonstrated by
Burgon (pp. 135-157). As for the "scholia" (critical notes), the
situation seems to be something like this: at least 22 MSS simply
repeat Victor of Antioch's statement, which includes the affirmation
that he himself had verified that "very many" copies, including
"accurate" ones and most especially the "true Palestinian exemplar,"
contained vv. 9-20; several have footnotes defending the verses on the
basis of "ancient copies at Jerusalem" (attention is directed to the
footnote by a "+" or "*" in the text which is repeated before the
footnote—much as we do today); two MSS say the passage is missing in
"some" copies but present in "many"; four MSS say it is missing in
"some" copies while present in "others"; three say it is missing in
"many" and present in "many".[12] Now the earliest of these MSS is
from the 10th century (most are later), so the copyists were repeating
the "scholia" blindly, with no way of knowing if they were true or
not. The fact remains that of the extant MSS only three lack the
passage.
Codices L, Y, 099, 0112 and 579 are sometimes claimed as being against
the genuineness of vv. 9-20 because they also contain the so-called
"shorter ending." Metzger's comment (p. 126) is misleading—these five
MSS did not "replace" one ending with another, they conflated both. A
conflation condemns the MSS that contain it, at that point, but says
nothing about the relative merits of the component parts.
We must return to codices B and À, both of the 4th century and both
from Egypt (presumably, see Farmer, p. 37), being generally regarded
as the two most important MSS of the New Testament (frequently
referred to as the "oldest and best"). Their agreement in omitting vv.
9-20 has been an important factor in the thinking of those who reject
the passage (since they generally regard the "Alexandrian text-type"
as superior to all others). However, the evidence is not quite
straightforward. Codex B is written in three columns and upon
completing a book it normally begins the next book at the top of the
next column. But between Mark and Luke there is a completely vacant
column, the only such column in the codex. Considering that parchment
was expensive, the "wasting" of such a space would be quite unusual.
Why did the copyist do it?
As for Codex À, the folded sheet containing the end of Mark and
beginning of Luke is, quite frankly, a forgery. Tischendorf, who
discovered the codex, warned that those four pages appeared to be
written by a different hand and with different ink than the rest of
the manuscript. However that may be, a careful scrutiny reveals the
following: the end of Mark and beginning of Luke occur on page 3 (of
the four); pages 1 and 4 contain an average of 17 lines of printed
Greek text per column (there are four columns per page), just like the
rest of the codex; page 2 contains an average of 15.5 lines of printed
text per column (four columns); the first column of page 3 contains
only twelve lines of printed text and in this way v. 8 occupies the
top of the second column, the rest of which is blank (except for some
designs); Luke begins at the top of column 3, which contains 16 lines
of printed text while column 4 is back up to 17 lines. On page 2 the
forger began to spread the letters, displacing six lines of printed
text; in the first column of page 3 he got desperate and displaced
five lines of printed text, just in one column! In this way he managed
to get two lines of v. 8 over onto the second column, avoiding the
telltale vacant column (as in B). That second column would accommodate
15 more lines of printed text, which with the other 11 make 26. Verses
9-20 occupy 23.5 such lines, so there is plenty of room for them. It
really does seem that there has been foul play, and there would have
been no need for it unless the first hand did in fact display the
disputed verses. In any event, À as it stands is a forgery and
therefore may not legitimately be alleged as evidence against them.
To sum up: every extant Greek MS (about 1,800) except two (B and 304—À
is not "extant" because it is a forgery at this point) contains vv.
9-20. Every extant Greek lectionary (about 2,000?) contains them (one
of them, 185, doing so only in the Menologion). Every extant Syriac MS
(about 1,000?) except one (Sinaitic) contains them. Every extant Latin
MS (8,000?) except one (k) contains them. Every extant Coptic MS
except one contains them. We have hard evidence for the "inclusion"
from the 2nd century (Irenaeus, Diatessaron?). We have no such hard
evidence for the "exclusion".
It would appear that sometime during the 3rd century MSS lacking the
passage began to be produced in Egypt, probably in Alexandria, of
which two (or one) from the fourth century have survived to our day.
Although the idea gained some currency in Egypt, it did not take over
even there since most Alexandrian witnesses, including the Coptic
version, contain the verses. The translators of the Armenian version
had studied in Alexandria, and the Georgian version was based on the
Armenian, which explains how the idea escaped from Egypt. The rest of
the Christian world seems not to have picked up this aberration. As
stated at the outset, with united voice, down through the centuries,
in all parts of the world (including Egypt), the Church universal has
affirmed and insisted that Mark's Gospel goes from 1:1 to 16:20. Since
that is so, how can someone who denies the authenticity of Mark
16:9-20 still affirm the Divine Inspiration of Mark 1:1-16:8? Is he
not being inconsistent?
The Identity of the New Testament Text II
Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM PhD
http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/
Jim
Heb 12:1 -Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a
cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which
doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is
set before us,