Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 631 of 1000 (728026)
05-22-2014 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 630 by Faith
05-22-2014 1:41 PM


Re: History versus Myth
Surely you don't believe that just believing that you are Saved is enough to be Saved ? Or that it isn't necessary to try to avoid sinning, or that it's possible for even a Saved human to completely avoid sin ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 630 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 1:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


(4)
Message 632 of 1000 (728031)
05-22-2014 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 596 by Pressie
05-20-2014 5:04 AM


Re: History versus Myth
Favourite Protestant catchphrases
Faith Only / Faith Alone
Grace Only / Grace Alone
Scripture Only
Free Gift
These are the terms we tend to encounter here.
Pressie writes:
From what I can gather you're telling us that those phrases did not occur in the 'original 'copies, but were added later, for example during and after the reformation?
The catchphrases do not occur in the original texts. You're not likely to find them even in translations. See for yourself.
A few post-Reformation versions do slip in one or two. Luther's German NT of 1522 had 'faith alone' in one passage. When pressed, Luther himself admitted that the word 'alone' didn't appear in the original. The concession made him rather testy, as you can imagine. Some translations and paraphrases since then have done as he did.*
The early Christians didn't talk in Reformation-era catchphrases. The early Christians didn't talk like Protestants. They were not Protestants.
The canon shows early Christians talking about many things. We find them talking about healing and baptism and grace and salvation and faith and forgiveness and good deeds and generosity and rejoicing and resurrection and feasting and Greek customs and mystic visions and marital fidelity and animal sacrifice and atonement and ancient Hebrew narratives and unequal incomes and laying on hands and the end times and slavery and repentance and circumcision and prophecy and haircuts and groceries. And plenty more besides.
What we don't find them doing is obsessing in Protestant-fundy fashion over a handful of items on the above list, inserting exclusionary words around those items--'only' and 'alone' and 'completely'--and declaring that the test of a 'true' Christian.
The obsessions and exclusionary terms are a Protestant thing. The catchphrases reflect that later era's hangups, battle lines, and shibboleths.
'Scriptura' had little to do with it.
__________
* Interestingly, two Catholic translations of the Latin text had 'faith alone' in that spot a couple of generations before Luther. Those would be the Geneva Bible (Italian, 1476) and the Nuremberg Bible (German, 1483). So much for Catholic theologians being a bunch of 'work'aholics!
CatholicScientist described the view this way in Message 32: 'Salvation comes from the grace of God.' When asked if faith itself was enough to get a person out of jail, he replied: 'No, there's no such thing as "enough", you don't earn salvation by having a belief.'
History supports that affirmation as orthodox--not only for Catholicism, but for all major traditions in Christianity worldwide.
________________
Edited by Archer Opteryx, : detail
Edited by Archer Opteryx, : typo
Edited by Archer Opteryx, : detail

Archer O
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 596 by Pressie, posted 05-20-2014 5:04 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 633 of 1000 (728038)
05-22-2014 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 621 by Faith
05-22-2014 12:33 PM


Re: Bible Translations
Faith writes:
Sinaiticus is now regarded as the oldest and therefore the most authentic text
No. The fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus is one of the two oldest complete New Testament manuscripts extant. A number of Christian documents, including NT documents, are represented in manuscripts that are older.
The codex is hugely important to scholars because it represents a stage in history when the idea of a Christian 'Bible' was just beginning to gel--in part because the idea was only then becoming technologically feasible.
The codex contains the complete NT we have today but puts the documents in a different order. It contains about half of the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew scriptures (Apocryphal books included). It includes two early Christian documents that are not part of the NT canon ('The Shepherd' by Hermas and an epistle ascribed to Barnabas). And it includes a number of annotations.
More information about this fascinating document appears at the Codex Sanaiticus Project.
But for individual books many older manuscripts are extant. This is why translators today usually use an eclectic text (rather than one codex, as you say) for the New Testament. Sources vary for each document in the canon. Taking such an approach allows scholars to avail themselves of the most ancient sources in any given instance.
its readings, which leave out a lot of familiar passages,
Fidelity to the author has nothing to do with familiarity to you. (You have a funny idea of 'sola scriptura.')
the KJV has been criticized as having added material that wasn't in the original
The KJV translators were just creatures of their time. The year was 1611, they had only late texts to work with, and they didn't even recognise the parallel structure of Hebrew poetry. They worked by candlelight, rode around on horses, and peed into chamber pots.
We have no reason to suppose King James's team wasn't doing its best. But scholarship in every area of human endeavour has moved on. The KJV translators had no access the oldest documents on this list. Today's scholars do.
and most churches today accept this view of things although it brings the Bible itself into doubt.
Manuscript discoveries that take us closer in time to the original documents do not cast the Bible 'into doubt'. If anything they increase confidence in the text.
_____
Edited by Archer Opteryx, : detail

Archer O
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 621 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 12:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 635 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 11:29 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 634 of 1000 (728047)
05-22-2014 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 628 by Faith
05-22-2014 1:15 PM


Re: History versus Myth
Faith plus works if you want, but that's the same thing as salvation by works.
It is decidedly not the same thing. I see now that what I thought was lying is simply thinking befuddled beyond anything I could have expected.
But at least it is not lying. It is simply confusion, honestly held. I apologize for calling you a liar.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 628 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 1:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 636 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 11:36 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 635 of 1000 (728052)
05-22-2014 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 633 by Archer Opteryx
05-22-2014 3:40 PM


Re: Bible Translations
Faith writes:
Sinaiticus is now regarded as the oldest and therefore the most authentic text
No. The fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus is one of the two oldest complete New Testament manuscripts extant. A number of Christian documents, including NT documents, are represented in manuscripts that are older.
Fine, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus considered to be oldest complete mss. Both of them corrupt according to Dean Burgon.
The codex is hugely important to scholars because it represents a stage in history when the idea of a Christian 'Bible' was just beginning to gel--in part because the idea was only then becoming technologically feasible.
Unfortunately it's either a forgery or an early gnostic corruption.
The codex contains the complete NT we have today but puts the documents in a different order. It contains about half of the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew scriptures (Apocryphal books included). It includes two early Christian documents that are not part of the NT canon ('The Shepherd' by Hermas and an epistle ascribed to Barnabas). And it includes a number of annotations.
But it is sufficiently different from the Textus Receptus to call one or the rother into question, and of course since the scholars like the older one and consider it authentic they treat the KJV as the inferior.
More information about this fascinating document appears at the Codex Sanaiticus Project.
Some 30 000 corrections and errors I believe are reported to grace its forged or gnostically corrupt pages as reported at that site?
But for individual books many older manuscripts are extant. This is why translators today usually use an eclectic text (rather than one codex, as you say) for the New Testament.
I didn't say it was the only basis for today's NT, just that it is part of all the new translations, by being included in the Critical Texts.
Sources vary for each document in the canon. Taking such an approach allows scholars to avail themselves of the most ancient sources in any given instance.
Making the huge mistake of thinking most ancient means most authentic. And besides, they are just guessing at its age, they haven't even subjected it to Carbon 14.
Faith writes:
ts readings, which leave out a lot of familiar passages,
Fidelity to the author has nothing to do with familiarity to you. (You have a funny idea of 'sola scriptura.')
It's a red flag. If the passages are not in the Alexandrian texts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and others) but are in the (thousands of) Greek manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus that underlie the KJV, this becomes an excuse to say the Textus Receptus was altered and added to. I think it's the other way around, the Alexandrians left them out.
the KJV has been criticized as having added material that wasn't in the original
The KJV translators were just creatures of their time. The year was 1611, they had only late texts to work with, and they didn't even recognise the parallel structure of Hebrew poetry. They worked by candlelight, rode around on horses, and peed into chamber pots.
Which is the sort of unfair denigration those men have been subjected to, and sillier than most, thanks to the Alexandrians, which they did not deserve. Most of them had been raised from childhood learning Greek and Hebrew, which is not something you can say for today's Bible scholars; and they also had a fine grasp of English which has earned admiration for the KJV for its 400 years, swhile today's translations are often klutzy and ugly; and they were serious believers in the Bible as God's word, which you also can't say of some of today's Bible scholars, such as Bruce Metzger.
Those "late texts" amount to something like 5000 texts in various sized fragments, as compared to a paltry few for the Alexandrians, and they are "late" only in that they have survived from the tenth century, the earlier mss from which they were copied having been destroyed by the ravages of time and usage. Which is in fact an indictment of Sinaiticus. If a complete ms survived intact from the 4th century it means it wasn't used, and why might that be? Because it was recognized as corrupt most likely.
We have no reason to suppose King James's team wasn't doing its best. But scholarship in every area of human endeavour has moved on. The KJV translators had no access the oldest documents on this list. Today's scholars do.
Corrupt documents, and the KJV translators were excellent scholars, very probably superior to today's.
and most churches today accept this view of things although it brings the Bible itself into doubt.
Manuscript discoveries that take us closer in time to the original documents do not cast the Bible 'into doubt'. If anything they increase confidence in the text.
When people see the differences between the two sets of mss they naturally have doubts about the authenticity of the Bible. Bart Ehrman is one who has made a very big deal out of the unreliability of the Bible because of these differences.____
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 633 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-22-2014 3:40 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 644 by Modulous, posted 05-23-2014 4:53 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 636 of 1000 (728053)
05-22-2014 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 634 by NoNukes
05-22-2014 8:38 PM


Re: History versus Myth
Thank you for the apology, but including works as part of salvation at all is attributing something to us rather than all of it to God, which is what salvation by grace alone means. Trent often affirms faith AND works in their denunciation of the Reformation solas
ABE: Why do you suppose the Reformers emphasized "alone" anyway? Because they objected to the addition of works to faith in the RCC. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone by scripture alone and to God be all the glory. NO works, none.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 634 by NoNukes, posted 05-22-2014 8:38 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 637 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2014 2:47 AM Faith has replied
 Message 641 by 1.61803, posted 05-23-2014 10:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 637 of 1000 (728056)
05-23-2014 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 636 by Faith
05-22-2014 11:36 PM


Re: History versus Myth
but including works as part of salvation at all is attributing something to us rather than all of it to God,
Isn't your faith attributable to you?
Given that Jesus told us both that works are expected and that he was the only path to salvation, then what you are describing is doing the will of the Father exactly as Jesus described. Surely you can recognize in the scripture Jesus and Paul imploring Christians to see that there is work to do and to put whatever talents and gifts you have to work?
I simply don't see any other way to stay out of the goat pile other than by following Jesus teachings. What I see from you arguing is exactly what Jesus would call straining at gnats. Instead of worrying about some wrinkle inside someone's head that may or may not be as you expect it, the issue ought to be whether God is glorified, whether souls are won for Christ and in the end whether Christ ignores you when you call out Lord, Lord.
It turns out that the end results from either faith produces works or faith plus works doctrines are exactly the same. You accept Christ into your life and then you get busy.
As for the reformers, they aren't the last word about what's Christian. I think their words regarding gifts are best understood in light of the abuses they saw in the Catholic Church of their day. But when the reformers pursue doctrine that is not Biblical or cannot be made to fit with scripture, then they aren't on any more solid ground than anyone else.
Certainly both Calvin and Luther are easily seen to be mere mortals as flawed as any other men and in no sense free from error.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 636 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 11:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 639 by Faith, posted 05-23-2014 9:46 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 638 of 1000 (728060)
05-23-2014 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 623 by Faith
05-22-2014 12:45 PM


Re: History versus Myth
Jesus Himself said that if we do not believe that He is God we will die in our sins.
Book, chapter, and verse, please. I've been looking for such a proof to use on Jehovah's Witnesses and now I find out that you are holding out on us.
"Feeling superior" has nothing to do with Protestant objections to Catholic or JW doctrine.
Being exclusionary and using definitions of Christian that include only one particular brand of Protestant has everything to do with it.
But if it's all being done by people who aren't saved they are sadly deceived and need to be shown the way to salvation.
Yes. But we are talking about people who do accept Christ as their savior and yet do not meet your definition of Christian. Remember that your accusation is that Catholics add an additional requirement and not that they do too little.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 623 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 12:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 640 by Faith, posted 05-23-2014 10:15 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 639 of 1000 (728062)
05-23-2014 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 637 by NoNukes
05-23-2014 2:47 AM


The Solas of the Reformation
but including works as part of salvation at all is attributing something to us rather than all of it to God,
Isn't your faith attributable to you?
No, our faith too is a gift of God, it's in one of the quotes I gave back upthread somewhere.
Given that Jesus told us both that works are expected and that he was the only path to salvation, then what you are describing is doing the will of the Father exactly as Jesus described. Surely you can recognize in the scripture Jesus and Paul imploring Christians to see that there is work to do and to put whatever talents and gifts you have to work?
But only on the foundation of salvation, not as a way to salvation.
I simply don't see any other way to stay out of the goat pile other than by following Jesus teachings. What I see from you arguing is exactly what Jesus would call straining at gnats. Instead of worrying about some wrinkle inside someone's head that may or may not be as you expect it, the issue ought to be whether God is glorified, whether souls are won for Christ and in the end whether Christ ignores you when you call out Lord, Lord.
Which we do on the basis of our salvation.
It turns out that the end results from either faith produces works or faith plus works doctrines are exactly the same. You accept Christ into your life and then you get busy.
They are entirely different. One saves you and then you go to work; the other makes works part of what saves you. If they were the same the Reformers would not have gone to such lengths to emphasize that faith is "alone" and grace and Christ and the scripture.
As for the reformers, they aren't the last word about what's Christian. I think their words regarding gifts are best understood in light of the abuses they saw in the Catholic Church of their day. But when the reformers pursue doctrine that is not Biblical or cannot be made to fit with scripture, then they aren't on any more solid ground than anyone else.
No, but no commentator is, all are going to be found to have flaws. We are talking about the specific doctrines of the Reformation and on that they are unexcelled. The Council of Trent's anathemas target those doctrines on the basis of the Faith Plus Works the Reformers rejected.
Certainly both Calvin and Luther are easily seen to be mere mortals as flawed as any other men and in no sense free from error.
Oh no doubt, but remember we are talking about THE doctrines of the Refomation, not areas where they may have erred. You can read a long way in both Luther and Calvin before finding something to object to in my experience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 637 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2014 2:47 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 640 of 1000 (728063)
05-23-2014 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 638 by NoNukes
05-23-2014 7:41 AM


JWs and Jesus' Claims to be God
Jesus Himself said that if we do not believe that He is God we will die in our sins.
Book, chapter, and verse, please. I've been looking for such a proof to use on Jehovah's Witnesses and now I find out that you are holding out on us.
Oh they won't accept it, they rationalize away all the scriptures that show He is God, and actually it's possible to understand a great deal of what He says as claiming that.
In this case I'm specifically thinking of John 8:24 and 8:58 where Jesus calls himself the "I AM" which is the name for God in the OT. All the commentators say this is what He meant, but of course the JWs aren't going to accept it -- I've tried.
Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
Jhn 8:58-59 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 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.
And for reference here's the JF&B commentary on these verses:
24. if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins--They knew well enough what He meant ( Mar 13:6, Greek; compare Mat 24:5 ). But He would not, by speaking it out, give them the materials for a charge for which they were watching. At the same time, one is irresistibly reminded by such language, so far transcending what is becoming in men, of those ancient declarations of the God of Israel, "I AM HE" ( Deu 32:39 Isa 43:10, 13 46:4 48:12 ). See on JF & B for Joh 6:20.
58. Before Abraham was, I am--The words rendered "was" and "am" are quite different. The one clause means, "Abraham was brought into being"; the other, "I exist." The statement therefore is not that Christ came into existence before Abraham did (as Arians affirm is the meaning), but that He never came into being at all, but existed before Abraham had a being; in other words, existed before creation, or eternally (as Jhn 1:1 ). In that sense the Jews plainly understood Him, since "then took they up stones to cast at Him," just as they had before done when they saw that He made Himself equal with God ( Jhn 5:18 ).
I included 8:59 above which says the Jews picked up stones to throw at him, which the commentators regard as proof they knew Jesus was claiming to be God. Then they also mention John 5:18 which is another proof:
Jhn 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
You may get further with the JWs with this verse which says directly that He made himself equal with God. But they are very good at twisting the scripture in my experience.
The Jews would have understood from the OT that the Messiah was to be God in the flesh ("God our righteousness" and "Wonderful counselor Mighty God" among others) so Jesus claiming it is part of what they would expect of the Messiah, except of course they refuse to believe it of Him.
I personally like Isaiah 48:11 for dealing with JWs:
Isa 48:11 ... I will not give my glory unto another.
You can quote this and then quote John 17 where Jesus asks the Father to glorify Him "with the glory which I had with you in the beginning." If God will not give His glory to "another" and yet Jesus asks for that glory and claims to have had it, then Jesus is not "another" but God Himself.
==================
"Feeling superior" has nothing to do with Protestant objections to Catholic or JW doctrine.
Being exclusionary and using definitions of Christian that include only one particular brand of Protestant has everything to do with it.
Not if it's the truth.
But if it's all being done by people who aren't saved they are sadly deceived and need to be shown the way to salvation.
Yes. But we are talking about people who do accept Christ as their savior and yet do not meet your definition of Christian.
The only thing that matters is whether they meet the scripture's definition of a Christian. If they consider themselves to be Christians by anything other than faith alone in Christ alone they are very likely not saved.
Remember that your accusation is that Catholics add an additional requirement and not that they do too little.
But adding that requirement damns them, NN, can't you see that? Is it "feeling superior" to try to tell them they are deceived?
You say "do too little" as if that could be a problem for salvation, but as the Reformers said we have NOTHING to contribute to our salvation at ALL, quoting scripture that says "lest any man should boast." In other words, according to scripture, boasting or "feeling superior" is a product of believing you yourself contribute anything to your salvation, quite the opposite of what you are saying. Any addition of anything of ours is an affront to God. Luther said all we contribute to our salvation is our sins.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 638 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2014 7:41 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 642 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2014 11:40 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 643 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2014 11:43 AM Faith has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 641 of 1000 (728064)
05-23-2014 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 636 by Faith
05-22-2014 11:36 PM


Re: History versus Myth
Faith writes:
Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone by scripture alone and to God be all the glory. NO works, none.
Keep thinking that cuz you is WRONG.
You have to do right to be right wit da Lord.
Thats why wrinklie Holy rollers are entrenched in this:
All I got to do is BELIEVE. cuz most have done evil they're whole life and now they think it is by faith alone they can get past St.Peter. lol!! Having faith and being a evil son of bitch is not the same thing as having faith and being a good person.
Which one do you think will be more acceptable in the eyes of God who sits in judgement.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 636 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 11:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 642 of 1000 (728067)
05-23-2014 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 640 by Faith
05-23-2014 10:15 AM


Re: JWs and Jesus' Claims to be God
In this case I'm specifically thinking of John 8:24 and 8:58 where Jesus calls himself the "I AM" which is the name for God in the OT. All the commentators say this is what He meant, but of course the JWs aren't going to accept it -- I've tried.
The words are not I am 'I AM', but 'I am he'. Can you make a case based on the original Greek that Jesus was using an expression reserved for the Great 'I AM'?
Small wonder you have not convinced anyone. 8:24 is just a few verses down from Jesus telling us that he was sent by the Father (8:16 and 8:18). And when asked directly who he was, Jesus replies in 8:26 that he was sent by the father.
Similarly in verse 54 Jesus again references being sent by the Father. So unless Yahweh had a Father, what Jesus seems to be saying is that he is the Messiah. I agree that many Jehovah witnesses to under value these verses. But your reading of the Bible seems as poor as your recollection of civil war history and early American history.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 640 by Faith, posted 05-23-2014 10:15 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 643 of 1000 (728068)
05-23-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 640 by Faith
05-23-2014 10:15 AM


But adding that requirement damns them, NN, can't you see that? Is it "feeling superior" to try to tell them they are deceived?
They are not deceived. They are in fact following words from Jesus that you yourself set at naught. And in the end their works are no more than Jesus himself expected.
I accept that you believe otherwise. But your claim to know better than they is completely unjustified by the Bible.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 640 by Faith, posted 05-23-2014 10:15 AM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 644 of 1000 (728092)
05-23-2014 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 635 by Faith
05-22-2014 11:29 PM


Re: Bible Translations
Some 30 000 corrections and errors I believe are reported to grace its forged or gnostically corrupt pages as reported at that site?
Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener writes:
The Codex is covered with alterations of an obviously correctional characterbrought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional, or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century.
So evidence that Christians who copied the Bible gradually added more and more corrections and insertions is reason to suppose that older texts are less reliable than a Bible produced under the orders of a dictator with strict instructions that it comport with a church founded by his mother's father's uncle (who was also his father's mother's uncle) designed to emphasize the divine right of kings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 635 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 11:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 645 by Faith, posted 05-23-2014 4:59 PM Modulous has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 645 of 1000 (728096)
05-23-2014 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 644 by Modulous
05-23-2014 4:53 PM


Re: Bible Translations
I think you may be confused. The Codex is the one that's corrupted, in lots of ways including all those corrections.
If you are slamming King James, most of what is said about him is lies. He was a good Christian king, that's no doubt why. People who have researched him have found out he's been smeared ferociously. Yes he believed in the divine right of kings, wrongly I believe, but he had next to nothing to do with the KJV.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 644 by Modulous, posted 05-23-2014 4:53 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 646 by Modulous, posted 05-23-2014 6:01 PM Faith has replied
 Message 649 by Theodoric, posted 05-23-2014 10:55 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024