Three Gods

[visionary]

If they say the following: If God the Father is really a "Person" then he is a God in his own right (having the characteristics of being divine). He would count as "one" God. The same could be said about the Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, there would be three separate Gods.

Christian scholar Emery Bancroft described it in his book Christian Theology, pages 87-88:

The Father is not God as such; for God is not only Father, but also Son and Holy Spirit. The term Father designates that personal distinction in the divine nature in virtue of which God is related to the Son and, through the Son and the Spirit, to the church.

The Son is not God as such; for God is not only Son, but also Father and Holy Spirit. The Son designates that distinction in virtue of which God is related to the Father, and is sent by the Father to redeem the world, and with the Father sends the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is not God as such; for God is not only Holy Spirit, but also Father and Son. The Holy Spirit designates that distinction in virtue of which God is related to the Father and the Son, and is sent by them to accomplish the work of renewing the ungodly and sanctifying the church.

Millard Erickson, a highly respected theologian and professor of theology, also admits this limitation. He refers in his book, God in Three Persons, to another scholar’s admission of "ignorance" and his own on page 258:

[Stephen] Davis has examined the major contemporary explanations [of the Trinity], and, having found them not to accomplish what they claim to do, has been honest in acknowledging that he feels he is dealing with a mystery. In so doing, he has perhaps been more candid than many of us, who when pressed may have to admit that we really do not know in what way God is one and in what different way he is three.

The Trinity Demystified
By Pastor Jim Feeney, Ph.D.

Sermon Summary: Scholarly theological definitions of the “Holy Trinity” (or “Blessed Trinity”) sometimes, unfortunately, leave Christians bewildered. In this sermon, Pastor Jim Feeney's aim is to demystify the doctrine of the Trinity in simple bible language.

One good, time-tested definition of the Trinity reads like this: There is one God, eternally existent in three Persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

http://www.jimfeeney.org/trinity.html

1 John 5:7, King James Version (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

•• “Three are one.” Three divine Persons — the Father, the Word [Jesus], and the Holy Ghost. Yet they are said to be “one”.

[ChazakEmunah]

Hmm.... A trinity debate... I'd like to see how this one develops..

[muffler dragon]

Hmm.... A trinity debate... I'd like to see how this one develops..

*from the PA*

"Leettttttt'sssss Gggggeeeetttttttt RedddddddddddEEEEEEEE to RRRRUUUMMMBBBBLLLLEEEE!!!!"

:D

[A_Pioneer]

God is not a man that he should lie.
If he is a person? How is he not a man? Unless he is a woman. If a woman, how is he a father?
I'll take God at his word and he said he is one.
If he is dishonest, then why should I trust in him?
BTW. Yeshua never says in no uncertain terms "I am God."
God, 1!
Holy Spirit, the way God gets things done. 0!
The "word of God" is not a person, but the voice of God. 0!
Yeshua, the word of God made flesh. The Son of God, if God is holy then his son is holy. 1, man.
Resurected as the "King of Kings and Lord of Lords."
Sits at the right hand of God.
There is only one God!
Beware of false teachings!!!!! Teach what is written in your bible! that is the safe thing to do.
I say if God wanted to be a "Trillion" he could be. But he says in no uncertain terms, "Besides me there is no other god." Vaya con Dios."
Shalom

[visionary]

This came from another thread where Ger said that chirstians do not believe three gods, and I thought I would just quote a few. ... knowing how controversial it is, I placed it in the debate.

Personally, I am of the opinion that God is one, Yeshua is His newly acquired flesh and His Spirit has been with us from the beginning.

[BereanTodd]

I believe in the orthodox, historic position of the trinity, and anything else is rank heresy in my book. I'm not going to say that understanding and accepting the trinity is a salvific issue, but I do believe that the deity of Yeshua is.

John 1:1
1εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

In begining was the Word, and the Word was with God

A_Pioneer, if the "Word of God" was God's voice as you say, how was it "with God"? I have never heard a person say "my voice was with me." That is a statement that makes no sense. Especially when we look at the ending clause of this verse

and the Word WAS God.

We are told in no uncertain terms that this Word was not a part of God, it was not the voice of God, but it literally WAS God. The word ην in the Greek there is merely the past tense version of ειμι which means "to be".

We could spend all day tracing the other verses. Yeshua taking the name of God when he says "before Abraham was born IAM". In the Greek He says εγω ειμι. Well go back to when Moses is standing before the burning bush and he asks God who he should say sent him ... in the LXX God's response is εγω ειμι.

Yeshua accepted worship from Thomas, when we know that the Bible is clear that God does not accept contenders, and only He is worthy of worship. He even said "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father."

The Jews of that day did not mistake these sayings of His, they attempted to stone him for them for blasphemy, because He was making Himself equal with God.

[A_Pioneer]

Trinity is RANK Heresy! "Precepts of man."
The only benefit derived by accepting trinity is to be accepted as a Christian!
Teach it and be least in the kingdom.
You are in effect calling God a liar!
If it were a salvation issue, it would have been designated as such and it is no where except in Christian literature! What does that scream? Heresy!
Not one of the Talmidim ever addressed the Holy Spirit!
Why don't you change "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." To "He is the invisible God."? In effect that is what you say!
It is your reward that is at stake, no skin off my nose!
Teach away! I stand on solid, high ground. I am not in the least afraid to meet Yeshua. I do not expect him to admonish me for not teaching something he himself did not teach. You may be convinced, but being convinced is not infallable. You could be right, but there is not one word of caution for me in scripture, on the otherhand, remember the "Millstone."

Shalom

[BereanTodd]

Explain John 1 to me if Jesus is not God. Explain his accepting worship. Explain Phillipians 2 which tells us that Jesus is EXACTLY in all ways God. Explain "Before Abraham was born IAM". Explain "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father."

And do go allegorizing any of these, because that is lazy, and poor hermeneutics.

John 1:1
1εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

In begining the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God

[ChazakEmunah]

*from the PA*

"Leettttttt'sssss Gggggeeeetttttttt RedddddddddddEEEEEEEE to RRRRUUUMMMBBBBLLLLEEEE!!!!"

:D
**** Grabs popcorn and soda **** :cool:

[A_Pioneer]

Explain John 1 to me if Jesus is not God. Explain his accepting worship. Explain Phillipians 2 which tells us that Jesus is EXACTLY in all ways God. Explain "Before Abraham was born IAM". Explain "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father."

And do go allegorizing any of these, because that is lazy, and poor hermeneutics.

John 1:1
1εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

In begining the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God
Jesus did not appear until around 4 BC, the Word
was before Abraham was! Yeshua said he was sent!!!
Who sent him? If he was god he came on his own volition! Something is wrong with this scene.
Yeshua is/was flesh and blood human sent by God.
He is the same character as God, made in the image of God, the second man Adam, perfect in every way, able to take away the sins of the world.
Another thing if Jesus is God then God played a dirty trick on the Children of Israel! Gave them a mountain to high to climb and said you go straight to hell if you can't climb it! Only I can climb it! My god is not a false God giving his chosen people an impossible job and when they fail give their promises to Christians for free, they don't have to do anything... When pigs can fly!!!
God has not forsaken the people he forknew!
If it is important you that all know the trinity, the burden of proof is yours.
I teach what is "p'sh't"/simple in scripture.
No additions.

Shalom

[BereanTodd]

Jesus did not appear until around 4 BC, the Word
was before Abraham was! Yeshua said he was sent!!!

So is it your contention then that the Word of John 1:1 is not Yeshua?

[GerTzedek]

Remember what the word "heresy" means: a doctrine purporting to be Christian doctrine which is not. A heretic is a person who is a Christian but who believes in heretical ideas.

For example, let's say someone say that in Christianity men have the capacity to become gods of their own worlds. That would be heresy because it is claimed that it is Christianity when in fact Christianity teaches this is false.

Now lets say someone says the LDS church teaches that men have the capacity to become gods of their own worlds. We can say this is false, untrue, bizarre, and nutso crazy... But we cannot say this is heresy, because it is not being claimed to be Christian.

Sometimes Scripture has more than one interpretation. It is the Christian church which gets to determine which views are orthodox and which are heretical.

The Christian church has decided that Trinitarian doctrine is orthodoxy. Every other position held by any Christian or Christian group is by default a heresy.

Now that that is out of the way, let's turn to Messianic Judaism. MJ is NOT CHRISTIANITY, but Judaism. The authority system in effect in the gentile Christian church is not binding in the Messianic community.

This is why I can say that the non-denominational Christian church down the street which is modalist is heretical, but why I believe it is perfectly acceptable for the MJ rabbinical councils to revisit the Creeds and rework them.

While I have great appreciation for Trinitarian doctrine, I have one thing against it: It can't even be articulated by the average person without them slipping into one heresy or another. Even scholars have difficulty discussing it without slipping into heretical phrases.

In the past, because I was Christian, my attitude towards the Trinity was "This is what the church teaches, and I am part of the church. I will respect those who have been placed in teaching authority over me, and I'm not going to question this."

At this point in my life, I do not believe myself part of the gentile church any longer. Whatever still held me, broke on Yom Kippur. Therefore I feel free to say: I think early Christians sensed a unique relationship of Yeshua to the Father, a relationship difficult to put a finger on. Words were hard to come by, and insufficient when used. I am in the process of rethinking Trinitarianism. I can tell you in advance that moving to modalism is NOT an option -- to me that is just outright idolatry. I am not going to rush this. And I will certainly be waiting to see what the MJ Rabbinical Council has to say on the matter when they revisit the Creed and the Trinity; I am under different authority--I will never be the "I am my own pope" kind of person.

[HaNotsri]

I believe that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But I don't necessarily believe in a trinity.

[GerTzedek]

:P Hmm.... A trinity debate... I'd like to see how this one develops..
Are you having fun yet?:wave:

[GerTzedek]

I believe that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But I don't necessarily believe in a trinity.
Of course not. A person could say the above and be in any one of three categories:

polytheism
modalism
trinitarianismYou would have to say more before we could figure out which of the three categories you fit into.

[GerTzedek]

I believe in lots of trinities. Past, present, and future. Length, width, and height. Peter, Paul, and Mary. Sugar, spice, and everything nice.

[GerTzedek]

Berean:

The was a very well written, articulate post. Thank you.

[visionary]

Remember what the word "heresy" means: a doctrine purporting to be Christian doctrine which is not. A heretic is a person who is a Christian but who believes in heretical ideas.

For example, let's say someone say that in Christianity men have the capacity to become gods of their own worlds. That would be heresy because it is claimed that it is Christianity when in fact Christianity teaches this is false.

Now lets say someone says the LDS church teaches that men have the capacity to become gods of their own worlds. We can say this is false, untrue, bizarre, and nutso crazy... But we cannot say this is heresy, because it is not being claimed to be Christian.

Sometimes Scripture has more than one interpretation. It is the Christian church which gets to determine which views are orthodox and which are heretical.

The Christian church has decided that Trinitarian doctrine is orthodoxy. Every other position held by any Christian or Christian group is by default a heresy.

Now that that is out of the way, let's turn to Messianic Judaism. MJ is NOT CHRISTIANITY, but Judaism. The authority system in effect in the gentile Christian church is not binding in the Messianic community.

This is why I can say that the non-denominational Christian church down the street which is modalist is heretical, but why I believe it is perfectly acceptable for the MJ rabbinical councils to revisit the Creeds and rework them.

While I have great appreciation for Trinitarian doctrine, I have one thing against it: It can't even be articulated by the average person without them slipping into one heresy or another. Even scholars have difficulty discussing it without slipping into heretical phrases.

In the past, because I was Christian, my attitude towards the Trinity was "This is what the church teaches, and I am part of the church. I will respect those who have been placed in teaching authority over me, and I'm not going to question this."

At this point in my life, I do not believe myself part of the gentile church any longer. Whatever still held me, broke on Yom Kippur. Therefore I feel free to say: I think early Christians sensed a unique relationship of Yeshua to the Father, a relationship difficult to put a finger on. Words were hard to come by, and insufficient when used. I am in the process of rethinking Trinitarianism. I can tell you in advance that moving to modalism is NOT an option -- to me that is just outright idolatry. I am not going to rush this. And I will certainly be waiting to see what the MJ Rabbinical Council has to say on the matter when they revisit the Creed and the Trinity; I am under different authority--I will never be the "I am my own pope" kind of person.Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after THE WAY which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Heresy is a term that persecutors use.

[BereanTodd]

[/size][/size]
Jesus did not appear until around 4 BC, the Word
was before Abraham was! Yeshua said he was sent!!!

So is it your contention then that the Word of John 1:1 is not Yeshua?

I am not trying to badger, and I understand we all have real lives outside of this board, but because the thread has advanced some, I want to reiterate this question, because I would still like to pursue this discussion with you AP. So my question stands - is the Word described in John 1:1 Yeshua or is it not in your understanding?

[visionary]

Trinity is RANK Heresy! "Precepts of man."
The only benefit derived by accepting trinity is to be accepted as a Christian!
Teach it and be least in the kingdom.
You are in effect calling God a liar!
If it were a salvation issue, it would have been designated as such and it is no where except in Christian literature! What does that scream? Heresy!
Not one of the Talmidim ever addressed the Holy Spirit!
Why don't you change "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." To "He is the invisible God."? In effect that is what you say!
It is your reward that is at stake, no skin off my nose!
Teach away! I stand on solid, high ground. I am not in the least afraid to meet Yeshua. I do not expect him to admonish me for not teaching something he himself did not teach. You may be convinced, but being convinced is not infallable. You could be right, but there is not one word of caution for me in scripture, on the otherhand, remember the "Millstone."

ShalomNow that is standing on one tall soap box... I like a man of convictions. Especially strong ones. It says a lot about him.

I think it is an important point that you made about the Holy Spirit not being addressed directly. There is not scriptural call for the Holy Spirit to be spoken to directly. In today's world where more and more are calling on angels, and praying to angels, calling on the Holy Spirit like a separate God to pray to.

Praying to the Father has been our only command. Honoring the Father with worship has been our only directive.

Understanding the sacrifice of the flesh of
Yeshua [the flesh of God] for our sins is one of the most profound mind blowing concepts that only God could make. It's far reaching impact on the soul once accepted sheds the burden of guilt from the sinner and the concept that there is a life without sin.

The Holy Spirit is how God can be everywhere and all powerful and all knowing. This is how we come to know God and His Son and His Kingdom in the spirit that He lives it. But the Spirit of God is not God. The flesh of God is not God.

It is the same as I am. My spirit is not me, and my flesh is not the real me. It takes all three to be put together and make up that which is me. I can not be separated from myself and live.

[Steve Petersen]

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

It is hard to imagine that God's existence depended on anything material. After all, He created the material world. How He could exist as a human, completely dependent on the material is a paradox.

However, you will find an opinion in Jewish literature that 'the spirit of God' which 'hovered over the face of the waters' in the Gensis account was 'the spirit of King Messiah.'

So here you have Jewish literature sort of pulling God, Messiah, and Spirit together at creation. A real head scratcher to be sure.

Then you have the Zohar and the concept of God limiting Himself in order to be able to show Himself to his creation, the so-called Sefirot.

IMO, most of the heel-digging on this issue is a result of the polemic battle between Christianity and Judaism for the last 2000 years. It would be better if both sides were less 'certain' so to speak and a little more 'que sera, sera.'

[Steve Petersen]

I am not trying to badger, and I understand we all have real lives outside of this board, but because the thread has advanced some, I want to reiterate this question, because I would still like to pursue this discussion with you AP. So my question stands - is the Word described in John 1:1 Yeshua or is it not in your understanding?

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&letter=M&search=memra

[visionary]

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

It is hard to imagine that God's existence depended on anything material. After all, He created the material world. How He could exist as a human, completely dependent on the material is a paradox.

However, you will find an opinion in Jewish literature that 'the spirit of God' which 'hovered over the face of the waters' in the Gensis account was 'the spirit of King Messiah.'

So here you have Jewish literature sort of pulling God, Messiah, and Spirit together at creation. A real head scratcher to be sure.

Then you have the Zohar and the concept of God limiting Himself in order to be able to show Himself to his creation, the so-called Sefirot.

IMO, most of the heel-digging on this issue is a result of the polemic battle between Christianity and Judaism for the last 2000 years. It would be better if both sides were less 'certain' so to speak and a little more 'que sera, sera.'Well said... wish I could rep you for it.

[A_Pioneer]

I am not trying to badger, and I understand we all have real lives outside of this board, but because the thread has advanced some, I want to reiterate this question, because I would still like to pursue this discussion with you AP. So my question stands - is the Word described in John 1:1 Yeshua or is it not in your understanding?
To quote Ronald Reagan; "There you go again."
There was no Yeshua before he was born of woman, he is the seed of the Holy Spirit/act of God, he had the perfect blood of God which never mingled with the tainted human blood of his mother.

God is "Echad" not a multitude.

Yeshua is the "word" made flesh! The only begotten son of God! If he is God, then why do you believe a liar?

Explain how a Hebrew can believe in a multi-God?

I believe what is written in the holy bible, show me where God breathed the notion he is a trinity, then you will have me convinced! I have read the bible many more times than your current president and I've not ever found even a hint of a God breathed Multi-God!

Your ball!!!


Shalom

[A_Pioneer]

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&letter=M&search=memra
Good one, Steve!

[A_Pioneer]

"But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

[ChazakEmunah]

:P
Are you having fun yet?:wave:
Loads.... :D

I'm letting this one play out as a Messianic debate. I'm just gonna be a spectator this time.

*** Sits back and chows down on popcorn. *** :)

[BereanTodd]

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&letter=M&search=memra

First off I was concerned with A_Pioneer's stand, but if you would like to get in on this that is fine ... but answer strait, not with hyperlinks. Is the "Word" in John 1:1 Yeshua or is it not?

[BereanTodd]

"But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."


I'm waiting on an answer to the question still. Is the "word", the "logos" of John 1:1 Yeshua or is it not?

[Steve Petersen]

I'm waiting on an answer to the question still. Is the "word", the "logos" of John 1:1 Yeshua or is it not?


Are you asking a theological question or a rational one?

[GerTzedek]

Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after THE WAY which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Heresy is a term that persecutors use.
The verse you quotes uses the word heresy accurately -- there were those in Judaism that were saying the new faith was a Judaic heresy.

The Jews here tell us that Jews who believe in Yeshua are apostate. I don't get bent out of shape just because they use the word apostate. There are those who bash, and yes they do use heresy and apostacy to bash with, but being bashers at heart, they bash just find even without those words. It's no the words that make for bashing and persecution.

What I, and others, are saying, is that modalism is not an orthodox Christian belief, and we have all of Church history on our side. If I say that your belief is heterodox, it is not a judgment on you personally -- I suspect we'll see each other in heaven. It's a judgment against the doctrine.

[BereanTodd]

Are you asking a theological question or a rational one?

There aren't multiple possible answers. Either the Word (logos) of John 1:1 is Yeshua or it is not. It can not be him in some cases but not in others. My question stands, as worded.

[Steve Petersen]

There aren't multiple possible answers. Either the Word (logos) of John 1:1 is Yeshua or it is not. It can not be him in some cases but not in others. My question stands, as worded.

John says it is Jesus. Now what?

[BereanTodd]

John says it is Jesus. Now what?

Well then Jesus must be God. I don't know what your beliefs on this are, but that is the point I was making to A_Pioneer. John 1:1 is plain and clear that the Word, the Logos, is God (I covered this quite succintly earlier in the thread, the Greek is very unambiguous on this point). It is also clear from the whole passage that the Word is Yeshua. Therefore Yeshua, Jesus, is God, He is the eternally prexisting first cause by whom and through whom all things were made. It is very plain and simple, the only way to deny the divinity of Christ is to deny the inspiration and authority of the NT Scriptures.

[visionary]

Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.http://www.carm.org/heresy/modalism.htmI disagree... God is larger than this mindset that he is one and can not be everywhere. God is one, and he can be all three and more as need be at any given time. What is unique about Yeshua is the task God assigned Himself, the untimate sacrifice of Himself, his flesh, for his created being's sins. Yeshua has always been since the creation of the world and accepted all the responsibility as the King/Creator and Redeemer/King.

Therefore I am not a modalist.

[Steve Petersen]

Dudes and dudettes, whatever turns out to be true is OK with me. :cool:

[visionary]

So what mode is God in today?

[A_Pioneer]

I'm waiting on an answer to the question still. Is the "word", the "logos" of John 1:1 Yeshua or is it not?
It is sad you overlook my answer, #24
Yeshua is the word of God.
Western mindset will always see the form but not the function.
13 instances where the word or son of God to 1 instance where Thomas speaks "My God", 13to1 quite a ratio, strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

It is your reward that is at stake, no skin off my nose.

I'll continue to teach what is plain and simple in the bible, you go right ahead and add and subtract at will.
But since trinity is never used in scripture I'll not say it does.

Shalom

[A_Pioneer]

Dudes and dudettes, whatever turns out to be true is OK with me. :cool:
My sentiments also! When God or Yeshua says he's triune, I'll be fine with that!
I am just a "God Fearer", when he says something, I listen and do my best to comply!

In both Testaments we are warned not to add or subtract the "Word of God."

"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."

Shalom

[A_Pioneer]

I wonder! Since Yeshua is a Jew, does he think in Hebrew? Then wouldn't salvation be to him yeshua?
Wouldn't it be "Yeshua is of the Jews?" (Jn.4:22)
Judaism is a way of life, not a religion.

Isn't it strange if yeshua pre-existed and created all things, that the first mention of yeshua is found Ge. 49:18! But Ge. 1:3 we have the word/God said and it was so. God created/the word created, no mention of Yeshua creating anything, salvation/Yeshua was sent into the world to save the world.
He shall be called God is with us.
Just wondering on the web.

Shalom

[A_Pioneer]

for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

These were Jews, living in Beroea!

This is good advise for all.

[BereanTodd]

You did not directly answer my question, but since this is what you claim to be your answer let me deal with it.

There was no Yeshua before he was born of woman, he is the seed of the Holy Spirit/act of God, he had the perfect blood of God which never mingled with the tainted human blood of his mother.

This directly contradicts what you said in response just a few posts ago where you said that the Word in John 1:1 is Yeshua. John 1:1 is both explicit and clear that the 'logos' ("word") was in the begining (and thus before all creation), and that he/it (whatever it is) IS God. Not like God, not from God, but that it IS God.

If there is any ambiguity over whether this is speaking of Jesus, this should be plainly cleared up by the rest of the passage, note in particular verse 14, "Now this Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us. We saw His glory - the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth."

The Word John is speaking of pre-existed all things (1:1) and WAS God (1:1), created ALL things (1:3) and took on human flesh and lived among us (1:14).

Again, as I just quoted you said that there was no Yeshua before he was born of a woman, yet Colossians teaches that there was -

Col 1:16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him (Yeshua) - all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers - all things were created through him and for him."

But most damaging to your claim that there was no Yeshua before the incarnation is that Jesus Himself testified that He pre-existed His incarnation when He said very clearly to those gathered around him testing Him, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born IAM" ('eigo eimi', the same name of God used by God in the LXX in Exodus 3). Now whether or not you want to quibble over whether He was claiming a divine name (He was), he at the very least explicitly and unambiguously claimed to pre-exist Abraham. This was not lost on the Jews present, who tried to stone Him.

Yeshua is the "word" made flesh! The only begotten son of God! If he is God, then why do you believe a liar?

If He is not God then you must throw out most of the New Testament which explicitly claims divinity of Him. If He is God, you must refuse to hold to modalism because that makes Yeshua a liar (He claimed that He and the Father constitute 2 separate witnesses on multiple occaisions).

Explain how a Hebrew can believe in a multi-God?

God is one, but according to His revelation of Himself to man, He is also at least two (Father and Son - the Holy Spirit is less clear and I will not belabor at this point). You can choose to believe in your intellect, I choose to hold my conscience captive to the Scriptures.

[A_Pioneer]

What happens if you are wrong?
For me it's a no-brainer, there is no penalty for believing exactly what is taught in scripture, but on the other hand there is a stiff penalty for false teaching.

No doubt you are convinced you are right, I believe you are sincere about what you teach, but even the most sincere folks can be wrong, take the Muslim they are sincere!

No convincing scripture. Only your precepts of those scriptures. Equal precepts of man, I prefer the precepts of Y H V H . I love my gift, but I love the giver more.

This could go on adnauseam, but I'm done!!!

[Henaynei]

ahhh... did I miss the fireworks?? :(

[BereanTodd]

What happens if you are wrong?
For me it's a no-brainer, there is no penalty for believing exactly what is taught in scripture, but on the other hand there is a stiff penalty for false teaching.

No doubt you are convinced you are right, I believe you are sincere about what you teach, but even the most sincere folks can be wrong, take the Muslim they are sincere!

No convincing scripture. Only your precepts of those scriptures. Equal precepts of man, I prefer the precepts of Y H V H . I love my gift, but I love the giver more.

This could go on adnauseam, but I'm done!!!

You say you are done but I must say that when you say that there is no clear scripture you are plainly wrong.

You say: Jesus did not exist before the incarnation.

JESUS says: "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born IAM" (for which the Jews of His time plainly understood Him to be making Himself equal to God, and tried to kill Him for it)

Colossians says: all things were made by through, and for Christ.

You say: The Word in John 1 is Yeshua.

John 1 says: That same Word, whom you claimed earlier in this thread to be Yeshua, IS God. There is no cloudy or mirky language, it is extremely straitforward: The Word ('ha logos') WAS ('an' which is the past tense form of 'eimi' or "to be, to exist") God ('theos'). Very simple, very straitforward.

[simchat_torah]

JESUS says: "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born IAM" Unfortunately, its a horrible mistranslation. To hinge an entire theological view on one mistranslation is... scary imo.

[simchat_torah]

You are correct Todd that he was stating before moses, "i existed", but not necessarily "I AM".

[ChazakEmunah]

ahhh... did I miss the fireworks?? :(
No, just a few sparklers.

[BereanTodd]

Unfortunately, its a horrible mistranslation. To hinge an entire theological view on one mistranslation is... scary imo.

Do you know Greek? Because by what yo usay here you obviously do not. What is the proper translation of this passage if not that? Here is the Greek of John 8:58:

εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

Really only the last five words are important to my point:

πρὶν or transliterated 'prin'. It has a plain meaning of before or sooner.

Ἀβραὰμ or Abraham - self explanatory

γενέσθαι transliterated "genesthai", this is the aorist middle infinitive of "ginomai". It means to come into being or come into existence. Now yes most modern English translations render it here in this passage "was born", I don't think that is a leap, nor does it change the meaning from the fact that literally it says "before Abraham came into being".

ἐγὼ εἰμί. 'Ego eimi'. Ego is simply the first person personal pronoun ('I'), and eimi is the first person signular form of the verb "to be". Now, "eimi" means "I am" by itself, ego being added to it then just stresses the first person nature. Ego Eimi is the same phrase Jesus uses in each of the "I am" statements in John - I am the bread of life, I am the vine, etc, etc. But more instructively, when the Jewish scholars translated the OT into the LXX, they used this same exact phrase "ego simi" for God's statement of identification in Exodus 3:14.

[simchat_torah]

Ironically, the Tanakh is in Hebrew, the NT is in Greek, and Jesus spoke Aramaic... and we have an English translation. So an assumption is made between the correlation of the four languages.

The problem is that the LXX chose a poor translation to begin with. The Hebrew (Exodus 3:13) does not mean "I Am". Hayah (always emphatic) means to come to pass, or will become.

In the Greek (Mark 16:62) we have i'-mee, which is always first person, singular, present, and indicitive. i'-mee means "exist".

While Hayah is used only once in the Hebrew texts, i'-mee is used many more times in the Greek and does not soley mean the Great I AM. While the LXX did choose to use it as the translation, the word itself is used many other times in many places. It does not hold the same unique properties as hayah.

Because by what yo usay here you obviously do not.I don't know where you came to this conclusion. But yes, my extremely limited Greek is truly terrible. But as I started to learn Greek I came to a conclusion: it was more or less useless. Jesus did not speak in Greek, most likely the original manuscripts of the NT were not penned in Greek, and the Koine Greek texts themselves are sloppy (most classical Greek scholars thought of the NT Koine Greek as horrifying mistranslations of something else).

But whether I read Greek fluently or not is irrelevant. I can easily come to the conclusion that the Hebrew word Hayah is unique while the Greek words Ego Eimi is not unique. Not only do they mean different things, but the mere fact that Hayah is used as a very special unique term and Ego Eimi is used all over the place leads lends us some structure. Simply because Ego Eimi is used does not emphatically refer to the Great I AM. To draw a definitive conclusion is in err.

Because all lemons are yellow, and lemons are round does not mean that an apple must be yellow because it is round. That is the same leap in logic you ask us to do.

Fact: Hayah has been translated into Greek as Ego Eimi.
Fact: Hayah is unique, used only to name The Great I AM, and never used in common speech elsewhere in the Tenach.
Fact: Hayah and Ego Eimi mean different things, but unfortunately there is no better Greek substitute, so the authors of the LXX chose to use Ego Eimi in Exodus.
Fact: Ego Eimi is used multiple times, sometimes in place of Hayah, and some times in place of other Hebrew translations for states of being.
Not a Fact: Whenever Ego Eimi is used it MUST mean Hayah!

The last point is interesting. You want us to accept that this one special certain case, where the translation of Jesus' words into Greek must mean Hayah, where as in other places that the Greek Ego Eimi is used it doesn't necessarily mean Hayah.

To say it is possisble? Sure, I'll grant you that.

But in simple terms, Jesus literally stated that he existed before Abraham (something I personally believe was either a false claim by Jesus or a mistranslation by others).

Did he call himself Hayah? Conclusion: Unknown.

[BereanTodd]

Well one thing I will say is this. Your entire polemic there was about whether or not Jesus claimed the name of God in that passage. In my discourse with A_Pioneer though I was far more concerned with the fact that he claimed Yeshua did not exist before the incarnation, and that statement of His ("I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, IAM") clearly shows that He claimed to pre-exist Abraham. Now you can make Him a created being or something other than God if you want ... I think other passages show He is not ... but the fact is that it is plain and clear that Jesus claimed to pre-exist Abraham, and thus did exist prior to the incarnation.

[BereanTodd]

Ironically, the Tanakh is in Hebrew, the NT is in Greek, and Jesus spoke Aramaic... and we have an English translation. So an assumption is made between the correlation of the four languages.

Was the recording of Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit or not? According to 1 Peter and 2 Timothy, as well as all manner of other passages, the claim is clearly made that the Holy Spirit is the ultimate author of Scripture.

But as I started to learn Greek I came to a conclusion: it was more or less useless. Jesus did not speak in Greek, most likely the original manuscripts of the NT were not penned in Greek, and the Koine Greek texts themselves are sloppy (most classical Greek scholars thought of the NT Koine Greek as horrifying mistranslations of something else).

Wow. Just wow. A few thoughts:

1. So what if Jesus spoke Greek or not - the Holy Spirit still is the author of Scripture according TO Scripture. You sound as though you have a very low view of the Bible. I do not.

2. No one believes the NT to have been written in anything other than Greek with the exception of Matthew, who some traditions (which I do believe) was originally penned in Hebrew and later translated to Greek.

3. Yes, Koine Greek was not as formal as Classical Greek, however the Greek of the Bible is no better or worse than that of ANY writting at that time in history, the common tongue of the world at that time was KOINE Greek, and everyone was writting in it.

[Steve Petersen]

You sound as though you have a very low view of the Bible. I do not.

Would you expect a Jewish person to hold a high view of the NT? I don't know if you have noticed this but several of our posters in this forum are Jewish. Star of David icon you see.

[Henaynei]

BereanTodd
http://www3.foru.ms/images/userinfo/happybirthday.gif !!!

btw - it is far from accurate to state that "no one" believes the NT was penned in Hebrew (except Matthew). the fact is that this is a subject of much debate in the more scholarly circles of scripture study - a simple web search will afford you a broad view of such views, from the inane to the intelligent

b'Shalom
Henaynei

[simchat_torah]

Your entire polemic there was about whether or not Jesus claimed the name of God in that passage.Quite true.
In my discourse with A_Pioneer though I was far more concerned with the fact that he claimed Yeshua did not exist before the incarnation, and that statement of His ("I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, IAM") clearly shows that He claimed to pre-exist Abraham. Not ture. You tacked on the bit about his claime to the ittle of HaShem as the great I AM.

So I chose to address that.

In fact, I went on to admit that Jesus did claim to pre-exist Abraham (and something I stated my beliefs feel this is either an error in translation, Jesus was lying, or this was added in later, etc). As a Jew, I do not believe Jesus was anything but a mere man.

Now you can make Him a created being or something other than God if you want ... I think other passages show He is not ... Ignoring the horrific problems of John 1:1, there isn't a single passage that does, and many within the NT that show contrary.

Was the recording of Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit or not?Yes. I just don't believe the NT is "scripture".
According to 1 Peter and 2 Timothy, as well as all manner of other passages, the claim is clearly made that the Holy Spirit is the ultimate author of Scripture.
This is where Christians are generally intellectualy dishonest. 1 Peter makes no claims about whether the NT is considered scripture. And 2 Timothy refers to "the scriptures which you have known since birth." Considering the NT hadn't been written at Timothy's birth, the author explicitly could only be referring to the Tenach.1. So what if Jesus spoke Greek or not - the Holy Spirit still is the author of Scripture according TO Scripture. You sound as though you have a very low view of the Bible. I do not.
I have a very high view of my bible, which as a Jew, is the Tenach.
2. No one believes the NT to have been written in anything other than Greek with the exception of Matthew, who some traditions (which I do believe) was originally penned in Hebrew and later translated to Greek. HUGE, MASSIVE, GIGANTIC mistake there bud. Many many many scholars heavily debate the aramaic primacy of the NT. Check out www.aramaicnt.org (http://www.aramaicnt.org) to start.

3. Yes, Koine Greek was not as formal as Classical Greek, however the Greek of the Bible is no better or worse than that of ANY writting at that time in history...Actually, yeah... it is. It reads much worse than even typical Koine Greek. But I have to wonder, which set of manuscripts are you referring to? The Byzantine manuscripts (which highly differ from each other), Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, the Ethopic texts, etc etc etc? All of these vary from each other DRASTICALLY. Unlike the Torah, which was penned very carefully to even carry forward the detailed decorations on the individual letters, the NT was regarded with little care and changed drastically from generation to generation (heck, even within generations!). Entire paragraphs were added, subtracted, sentances, stories, words, etc. Which of these manuscripts do you suppose that I examine as "inspired"?

-Yafet

[simchat_torah]

btw - it is far from accurate to state that "no one" believes the NT was penned in Hebrew (except Matthew). the fact is that this is a subject of much debate in the more scholarly circles of scripture study - a simple web search will afford you a broad view of such views, from the inane to the intelligent

b'Shalom
HenayneiQuite true. Its too bad Steve-O isn't around anymore. We could use an Aramaic scholar ;)

[Steve Petersen]

Good point ST.

Which Christian canon is inspired? The Syriac, Coptic, Catholic (BTW it has a longer version of Daniel and a shorter version of Jeremiah than the Protestant bibles)?

[simchat_torah]

The Syriac, Coptic, Catholic (BTW it has a longer version of Daniel and a shorter version of Jeremiah than the Protestant bibles)?haha, yes... I haven't even touched "canon" with a 10 foot stick ;)

[ChazakEmunah]

Quite true.
Not ture. You tacked on the bit about his claime to the ittle of HaShem as the great I AM.

So I chose to address that.

In fact, I went on to admit that Jesus did claim to pre-exist Abraham (and something I stated my beliefs feel this is either an error in translation, Jesus was lying, or this was added in later, etc). As a Jew, I do not believe Jesus was anything but a mere man.

Ignoring the horrific problems of John 1:1, there isn't a single passage that does, and many within the NT that show contrary.

Yes. I just don't believe the NT is "scripture".
This is where Christians are generally intellectualy dishonest. 1 Peter makes no claims about whether the NT is considered scripture. And 2 Timothy refers to "the scriptures which you have known since birth." Considering the NT hadn't been written at Timothy's birth, the author explicitly could only be referring to the Tenach.I have a very high view of my bible, which as a Jew, is the Tenach.
HUGE, MASSIVE, GIGANTIC mistake there bud. Many many many scholars heavily debate the aramaic primacy of the NT. Check out www.aramaicnt.org (http://www.aramaicnt.org) to start.

Actually, yeah... it is. It reads much worse than even typical Koine Greek. But I have to wonder, which set of manuscripts are you referring to? The Byzantine manuscripts (which highly differ from each other), Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, the Ethopic texts, etc etc etc? All of these vary from each other DRASTICALLY. Unlike the Torah, which was penned very carefully to even carry forward the detailed decorations on the individual letters, the NT was regarded with little care and changed drastically from generation to generation (heck, even within generations!). Entire paragraphs were added, subtracted, sentances, stories, words, etc. Which of these manuscripts do you suppose that I examine as "inspired"?

-Yafet
Well said Yafet.

[TheRabbi]

I'm going to assume that someone here is familiar with the Interpreter's Dictionary of The Bible, right?

[simchat_torah]

How is it different from the dozens of other dictionaries of the bible? I have a few, but not the one you mentioned.

[TheRabbi]

It was written by the "Preacher to the University and professor of Christian morals at Harvard" The Right Reverend George Arthur Buttrick. It is considered to be one of the most comprehensive works of its kind.

In it, the good Reverend tells us that "A study of 150 greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke reveals more than 30,000 different readings."

That's just one book!

The Right Reverend further states that "It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the manuscript is wholly uniform."

This is from a New Testament apologist! IMHO, that's pretty damning.

[simchat_torah]

The Right Reverend further states that "It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the manuscript is wholly uniform."
Yes, this is well known. Not a single sentance in the Greek NT has remained unchanged through all of the various manuscripts in the first few centuries.

[A_Pioneer]

The dictionary for the B'rt HaDashah is the Tanach.
www.wildbranch.org (http://www.wildbranch.org)

The end is told in the B'RESHEET.

[TheRabbi]

That made no sense to me. Can someone explain it?

[simchat_torah]

I think he's saying that the NT is the fulfillment of the Tenach.

I think...???

[A_Pioneer]

No! Go to the website they give you the meaning.

In a nutshell, the words of the NT find the meaning in the Tanach. Backward Theology to try understand the Greek of the NT then understand the Tanach.

They explain the fourth word in Torah. Aleph Tav. (et)
The word became flesh, then there was Yeshua!
Wildbranch can explain better that an old man who can only hunt and peck. The Holy Spirit made this known to me before I ever knew of Wildbranch.
BT is very busy trying to push a rope, if he would just take hold of it and start walking the rope will tag along behind him.

[TheRabbi]

Sorry, I don't do "discussion by link". If "You" have something to say, I'd love to hear it.

[simchat_torah]

haha, I agree ;)

[Henaynei]

Torah/T'NaKah stands complete standing alone

Ketuvim Natzrim is nothing, useless, vanity seperated from T'NaKah... "it hasn't a leg to stand on"

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

It was written by the "Preacher to the University and professor of Christian morals at Harvard" The Right Reverend George Arthur Buttrick. It is considered to be one of the most comprehensive works of its kind.

In it, the good Reverend tells us that "A study of 150 greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke reveals more than 30,000 different readings."

That's just one book!

The Right Reverend further states that "It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the manuscript is wholly uniform."

This is from a New Testament apologist! IMHO, that's pretty damning. It was the Catholic Church that CANonized scripture. Most of all, the Trinitarian doctrine was added. Although scripture has been tampered with, it still does not mean that God,s words are not true; it just means that men are evil.

[TheRabbi]

Although scripture has been tampered with, it still does not mean that God,s words are not true;
What "words"?
If you admit that it's been tampered with and that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the manuscript is uniform, then how can you assume to know what these words are?

[visionary]

Hence the debate...

[TheRabbi]

I don't see what's to debate. If Christians admit this, then they have no message to bring. They have an admittedly corrupt set of writings.

[ContraMundum]

Remember what the word "heresy" means: a doctrine purporting to be Christian doctrine which is not. A heretic is a person who is a Christian but who believes in heretical ideas.

For example, let's say someone say that in Christianity men have the capacity to become gods of their own worlds. That would be heresy because it is claimed that it is Christianity when in fact Christianity teaches this is false.

Now lets say someone says the LDS church teaches that men have the capacity to become gods of their own worlds. We can say this is false, untrue, bizarre, and nutso crazy... But we cannot say this is heresy, because it is not being claimed to be Christian.

Sometimes Scripture has more than one interpretation. It is the Christian church which gets to determine which views are orthodox and which are heretical.

The Christian church has decided that Trinitarian doctrine is orthodoxy. Every other position held by any Christian or Christian group is by default a heresy.

Now that that is out of the way, let's turn to Messianic Judaism. MJ is NOT CHRISTIANITY, but Judaism. The authority system in effect in the gentile Christian church is not binding in the Messianic community.

This is why I can say that the non-denominational Christian church down the street which is modalist is heretical, but why I believe it is perfectly acceptable for the MJ rabbinical councils to revisit the Creeds and rework them.

While I have great appreciation for Trinitarian doctrine, I have one thing against it: It can't even be articulated by the average person without them slipping into one heresy or another. Even scholars have difficulty discussing it without slipping into heretical phrases.

In the past, because I was Christian, my attitude towards the Trinity was "This is what the church teaches, and I am part of the church. I will respect those who have been placed in teaching authority over me, and I'm not going to question this."

At this point in my life, I do not believe myself part of the gentile church any longer. Whatever still held me, broke on Yom Kippur. Therefore I feel free to say: I think early Christians sensed a unique relationship of Yeshua to the Father, a relationship difficult to put a finger on. Words were hard to come by, and insufficient when used. I am in the process of rethinking Trinitarianism. I can tell you in advance that moving to modalism is NOT an option -- to me that is just outright idolatry. I am not going to rush this. And I will certainly be waiting to see what the MJ Rabbinical Council has to say on the matter when they revisit the Creed and the Trinity; I am under different authority--I will never be the "I am my own pope" kind of person.

Literally, the word translated "heresy" come from the word "to choose".

That's all a heresy is: those who knowingly choose another Path.

For example: According to the vast majority of Christians, throughout all ages- those who deny the One God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are by definition heretics simply because they have chosen to challenge the unity of God or the divinity of each person in the Godhead.

On another point:


I wish I had time to debate here- there's a lot of really, really bad teaching going on in this thread and very little of it which claims to represents orthodox Christianity.

[ContraMundum]

I don't see what's to debate. If Christians admit this, then they have no message to bring. They have an admittedly corrupt set of writings.


Believe me when I tell you that no orthodox, genuine and well informed Christian would ever say that the Sacred scriptures, which include the New Testament, have any flaws or corruption. Only those who have been misled, or have a secret sin, or have a grudge to bear against Christ and His Body (the Church) would ever entertain such an outrageous and unwarranted claim.

Wouldn't you like to see this debate in another forum, say, over at the TAW or OBOB or the Reformed or Lutheran forums? The answers would be far, far better, IMHO, and I honestly think they would easily give excellent account for their beliefs.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I don't see what's to debate. If Christians admit this, then they have no message to bring. They have an admittedly corrupt set of writings.Truth can be found by reason, the bible is self correcting. When scripture disagrees, either it is not correctly understood, or it has been tampered with. These lies began with Pagan Jewish priest, and ended with Pagans claiming to be head of the Christian Church. The word of God is self correcting, for those who know Gods word and history. From the Holman Bible Dictionary.


The Seleucid king Antiochus refounded Jerusalem as “Antioch” in Judea with the status of polis in 175 B.C. The Sanhedrin served as the city's boule; the Mosaic law, as its constitution. The Hellenized high priest Jason displaced his more conservative brother Onias III and functioned as archon. Jason constructed a gymnasium and introduced Greek secondary education, training the elite youths as ephebes or citizens in training. Jason was succeeded as high priest by the even more radical Hellenists: Menelaus, Lysimachus, and Simon. Resistance to Hellenism resulted in Antiocus' reducing Jerusalem's status to katoikia (garrison town), with Syrian troops stationed in the city in 169 or 168 B.C.

The Maccabean revolt was in part a class struggle of the pious poor who clung to the traditional ways and the aristocracy who embraced Hellenism as a means to get ahead. Though the Maccabees succeeded in gaining political autonomy for Palestine, they were unable to stem the tide of Hellenism. The new rulers (called Hasmoneans) grew increasingly Hellenized. Jonathan was recognized by the Seleucids as king and high priest (150 B.C.) becoming in effect a Seleucid official. The Maccabees opposed the religious syncretism of Hellenism but succumbed to the broader culture of Hellenism. Holman Bible Dictionary: http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/

[ContraMundum]

It was written by the "Preacher to the University and professor of Christian morals at Harvard" The Right Reverend George Arthur Buttrick. It is considered to be one of the most comprehensive works of its kind.

In it, the good Reverend tells us that "A study of 150 greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke reveals more than 30,000 different readings."

That's just one book!

The Right Reverend further states that "It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the manuscript is wholly uniform."

This is from a New Testament apologist! IMHO, that's pretty damning.


Buttrick was refuted ages ago and no one with a brain agrees with him. Everyone knows that.

The truth about G. A. Buttrick. (http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/buttrick.htm)

BTW- if the same types of criticism are levelled at the Tanach that liberals level at the NT, guess what happens? There's been accusations of redaction, tampering, contradictions and political bullying surrounding the Tanach for years- but who chooses to believe it among the Orthodox Christians and Jews? Not many!

[Steve Petersen]

Buttrick was refuted ages ago and no one with a brain agrees with him. Everyone knows that.

The truth about G. A. Buttrick. (http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/buttrick.htm)

BTW- if the same types of criticism are levelled at the Tanach that liberals level at the NT, guess what happens? There's been accusations of redaction, tampering, contradictions and political bullying surrounding the Tanach for years- but who chooses to believe it among the Orthodox Christians and Jews? Not many!

A point I tried to make on another thread. We are being disingenuous if we don't apply the same textual critical method to the OT as we do to the NT.

[TheRabbi]

A point I tried to make on another thread. We are being disingenuous if we don't apply the same textual critical method to the OT as we do to the NT.

Apply away friend. I've done it to death.

[TheRabbi]

Buttrick was refuted ages ago and no one with a brain agrees with him. Everyone knows that.

The truth about G. A. Buttrick. (http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/buttrick.htm)
I didn't see any refutation of what he said. The charges were mainly that it was blasphemous for him to say these things.

[ContraMundum]

I didn't see any refutation of what he said. The charges were mainly that it was blasphemous for him to say these things.

I posted that because you made the claim that he was somehow an "apologist" for the NT, which of course, he wasn't.

As for refuting his points, go to any serious study of NT textual criticism and there's your answer. The guy simply used a biased approach, which when deconstructed looks absurd (eg. it completely ignores majority texts). The whole liberal paradigm to criticism is so old hat these days no one believes it anymore. The 60's are over. Incidentaly, if you think Buttrick was a friend to the Tanach, you've got a little surprise coming. Like most of his peers back in the day, he regarded the whole of the OT as mere historic literature with a sprinkling of divine inspiration. I'm sure you know about this kind of thing.

Like I hinted at before (as did Steve P), if you approach the NT with these glasses don't be surprised to find your own texts collapse with ease under this highly biased way of looking at the world.

[TheRabbi]

Like I hinted at before (as did Steve P), if you approach the NT with these glasses don't be surprised to find your own texts collapse with ease under this highly biased way of looking at the world.
I have. They don't. Care to have a go?

[ContraMundum]

I have. They don't. Care to have a go?


You are missing the point The Rabbi- I don't care to have a go at the Tanach because I also hold it as the as you do- sacred, reliable and divinely inspired.

You seem to be anxious for a debate, but you'd have to find someone who doesn't hold to an orthodox view of scripture for that one. Leave me out of that.

Our point, again, in case it hasn't been made clear, is that the same rubbish approach from higher textual criticism works equally well against both the Tanach and the NT. If you use the same method that the critics use against the NT on the Tanach you get the same results- it's actually the only result you could possibly ever get.

However, one thing becomes obvious- it is apparent that some will take the time to disprove the critics of the Tanach but use those same tired old arguments against the NT- a bias I find somewhat inconsistant and dishonest (and I'm being nice here).

The NT is a well documented, reliable, accurate and divinely inspired text, just as is the Tanach. Hence, we put both in the bindings of our Bibles.

[simchat_torah]

is that the same rubbish approach from higher textual criticism works equally well against both the Tanach and the NT.I think it highly depends on what type of textual criticism you're speaking of.

For example, the NT can clearly be shown (imho) that the Greek was not the original language due to many obivous mistranslations from Aramaic to Greek. The same can't be said of the Tenach however. Another form of textual criticism, though this might be better termed "manuscript criticism", is the fact that the NT was redacted beyond belief. Again, this can not be said of the Tenach.

But if you're speaking of the textual criticism whereby one attempts to "prove" that multiple authors co-authored a book, etc... yeah... it all falls apart under closer scrutiny. Things like the Gospel of Q, or the Book of J, etc. truly have no founding in reality. This is when people with "phd" after their name play fairy tale and suddenly it becomes a "theory".

rubbish.

[TheRabbi]

You also can't show the manuscript variance in the Hebrew scriptures. It's just not there like it is in the NT.

Buttrick may have been a shmuck, but the issue is, Does a study of 150 manuscrpts of Luke really reveal 30,000 variant readings? Is it true or isn't it. If it is, can we show a similar textual variance in Hebrew Bible manuscripts?

In the case of the Hebrew Bible, the answer is a definitive, no.

[Steve Petersen]

I am an 'Occam's Razor' kinda guy. I do not believe in the inerrancy of any biblical text. You have to prove that to me. Even a variation of one letter between texts blows the concept of innerancy.

'All things being equal, the simplest answer is probably the correct one.'

What I would expect is the honesty to apply the same critical methods to both OT and NT. If the pursuit of objective truth leads to the conlusion that neither one is inerrant, then we have to learn to live with that. Does that make the texts meaningless? Of course not. They are the glue that holds cultures together. This is no small thing.

[visionary]

I believe that if you have met the God of the OT and NT then the Bible has served its purpose.

[A_Pioneer]

I believe that if you have met the God of the OT and NT then the Bible has served its purpose.Good one Vis, along with a few revelations by the Holy Spirit.

When I started studying the bible on my own, I was at a loss to find the Jesus and God the preachers had preached all my life, when the Holy Spirit gave me the whole picture. The real Yeshua and his Father became apparent.

Shalom

[muffler dragon]

I believe that if you have met the God of the OT and NT then the Bible has served its purpose.

Of course, this is based on the premise that they are one in the same. ;)

I'm not saying either way; just stating the presumption beneath the statement.

[Steve Petersen]

I guess that seals it! Who can argue with an 'experience'?

[ContraMundum]

You also can't show the manuscript variance in the Hebrew scriptures. It's just not there like it is in the NT.

Have you even read up on this?

Buttrick may have been a shmuck, but the issue is, Does a study of 150 manuscrpts of Luke really reveal 30,000 variant readings? Is it true or isn't it. If it is, can we show a similar textual variance in Hebrew Bible manuscripts?

That's a fallacious argument. What if 147 of the manuscripts were in 99-100% agreement with each other and the other three were riddled with errors? (Which is the case usually).

There's just one way to prove the argument as ridiculous.

(Then we have the matter of what is defined as a "variant", but that's another topic)

In the case of the Hebrew Bible, the answer is a definitive, no.

You can't know that- ever. Why? Because the manuscript variations were settled upon long ago- as they have with the NT as well. We know they (all scriptures, Old and New) were redacted, and we give them the benefit of the doubt (eg. have faith) that they are the authentic Words of God.

Surely, they taught you this, did they not? Or- do you think the scrolls fell out of the sky or something?

[TheRabbi]

In the case of the Hebrew Bible, the answer is a definitive, no.
You can't know that- ever. Why? Because the manuscript variations were settled upon long ago- as they have with the NT as well. We know they (all scriptures, Old and New) were redacted, and we give them the benefit of the doubt (eg. have faith) that they are the authentic Words of God.

Surely, they taught you this, did they not? Or- do you think the scrolls fell out of the sky or something?
Forget redaction. We're simply talking about the homogenity of the manuscripts available to us today.

[ContraMundum]

Forget redaction. We're simply talking about the homogenity of the manuscripts available to us today.

....which is impossible to prove for any ancient text.

We know redactions had to happen. The Torah was not written after the same fashion (things like the aleph-bet have/had changed, spelling, even grammar- all developed over time) as we have it today. The original manuscripts (if they were ever one whole, which is debated) would not look like they do today. They had to be changed, compiled and preserved. This is Judaism 101, so I have no idea why I'm telling you this.

You should merely acknowledge that it is faith, not fact, that makes you believe the scriptures are exactly as they were centuries ago.

This is the same for my (completed) Bible. I believe there are a minority of NT manuscripts with textual variants, but I also know that not one variant changes Christian theology, that variant texts are in a small minority and that God has kept it all together rather nicely. I also know that when the compilation was complete, so was the text- the same as the Tanach.

We're BOTH talking faith here. Neither of us was there when Bereshis was written, were we? We might believe that Moses wrote it, but we could never "prove" it.

We could on and on about what constitutes a "variant text", or how final versions of texts came about, but who's got the time? You really didn't even address my last post at all, so why invest any more time? It's about faith at the end of the day.

[simchat_torah]

Have you even read up on this?
I have. And the Rabbi is correct sir.
That's a fallacious argument. What if 147 of the manuscripts were in 99-100% agreement with each other and the other three were riddled with errors? (Which is the case usually).
It would be nice if it were true. But unfortunately massive changes were made. It wasn't simple small changes. Entire paragraphs, stories, sentances, etc. were added & deleted. The point the Rabbi was making is that the same can't be said of the Tenach.
....which is impossible to prove for any ancient text.
We know redactions had to happen. The Torah was not written after the same fashion (things like the aleph-bet have/had changed, spelling, even grammar- all developed over time) as we have it today. The original manuscripts (if they were ever one whole, which is debated) would not look like they do today.Now you're the one bringing strawmen into the argument. The Rabbi clearly stated "of the manuscripts available to us today." Creating an entirely new basis for evaluating the manuscripts is fine, but that doesn't nullify the Rabbi's comments in the slightest.

[ContraMundum]

I have. And the Rabbi is correct sir.

Actually, you are both wrong then.

It would be nice if it were true. But unfortunately massive changes were made. It wasn't simple small changes. Entire paragraphs, stories, sentances, etc. were added & deleted. The point the Rabbi was making is that the same can't be said of the Tenach.

Absolute complete utter rubbish. This is just a statement of faith on your behalf. If we were to propel ourselves to a time before the completion of the Tanach, you'd see bits being added, deleted, the spellings changed, the grammar altered etc. It's a *collection* of writings over centuries, after all. While no one educated disputes that this happened during the formative years of the ancient texts, only a fundie would look back and think it fell out of the sky as we find it today.

The problem the anti-missionaries have is this- you presuppose fundamentalist assumptions like "any alterations disprove inspiration", which of course it a statement that begs proof and is a logical fallacy.

Now you're the one bringing strawmen into the argument. The Rabbi clearly stated "of the manuscripts available to us today." Creating an entirely new basis for evaluating the manuscripts is fine, but that doesn't nullify the Rabbi's comments in the slightest.

...the whole "of the manuscripts available today" argument is flawed and ridiculous- why? The most used manuscripts do not survive. The least used ones do. It's a matter of physics.

Just face it- you reject the NT because want and choose to. You found people (liberals) that help you in this decision. What you speak of now is all a matter of faith not fact. You choose to believe all this stuff about the NT, but not about the Tanach. You and The Rabbi are just too afraid to admit that.

[simchat_torah]

The problem you anti-missionaries have is thisI am going to address this first and foremost. I will address your other comments in a following post.

I am not an antimissionary. I do not care what you believe, have no intentions on persuading you from your faith, etc. No interest. None.

Nor does The Rabbi.

Please don't ever say that ridiculous accusation again.

I will also tell you this... even as a Messianic, I held to these beliefs and they did not sway my faith. Simply discussing and debating history, etc. does not imply that I am here to negate your faith in your messiah.

I've stated it before, even in threads you have read. Now I say it directly to you: I am not an antimissionary and I don't give a hoot if you believe in Muhammed, Jesus, or the tooth fairy. Your faith is personal and of no interest to me.

[simchat_torah]

you presuppose fundamentalist assumptions like "any alterations disprove inspiration", Another straw man. I have never stated anything like this. I think all scriptures take faith to believe in. Even the Torah takes faith. An invisible deity who I have never seen face to face supposedly talked to a man named Moses thousands of years ago from a burning bush? Yeah, that takes gigantic faith.

So please, don't make such assumptions or add to my words. Yes, the NT was riddled with redactions through the centuries. But it takes faith to believe in the Torah too.

I felt that was the most important point to address, now let's move on.

Actually, you are both wrong then.
If you do your studies you will find that there are over 9,000 changes (counting word changes or greater, ignoring spelling changes) between the manuscripts and at least 1 change for every verse in the entire NT.

I'm not claiming this is relevant to faith. I'm not claiming this is relevant to inspiration. It is merely a fact.

Absolute complete utter rubbish. This is just a statement of faith on your behalf. If we were to propel ourselves to a time before the completion of the Tanach, you'd see bits being added, deleted, the spellings changed, the grammar altered etc. It's a *collection* of writings over centuries, after all.
Other than spelling changes, any changes you want to imply are merely theory. Every Hebrew manuscript, dating back as far as we have physical copies (thousands of years), remains virtually unchanged. The comparison between the NT and the Tenach simply can't be made. The care given to the Torah was so high. Even the decorative markings were carried forth for generations upon generations remaining unchanged. The same can't be said for the NT. It is unfortunate, but a fact, that a general lack of care was given to the NT. The massive changes to the NT added sentances, paragraphs, parables, words, etc. It wasn't simply correcting spelling errors or typos like we see with the Torah.

Now please don't jump the gun and start putting words in my mouth. I have not taken a further step in declaring one more valid than the other. That sir, requires faith.
While no one educated disputes that this happened during the formative years of the ancient texts, only a fundie would look back and think it fell out of the sky as we find it today.
I never claimed such. But as evident, the oldest texts we have overwhelmingly agree with the most recent texts we have. Very few changes were made, at all... and overwhelmingly spelling changes, nothing more. To make any claims further is but theory.
...the whole "of the manuscripts available today" argument is flawed and ridiculous- why? The most used manuscripts do not survive. The least used ones do. It's a matter of physics.Yes, for physical manuscripts this would be true. But ironically, the "most used manuscripts" would be the ones that are carried forward by scribes. Not the least used ones. So the argument seems to have a two way street. The most used manuscripts (usually those used in liturgy) would be the ones which are copied for the next generation to use.

But that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that massive monumental changes were made to the texts through the centuries.

Just face it- you reject the NT because want and choose to.Bingo. You didn't need to act as if this was some secret you needed to thwart. This wasn't some hidden agenda. This is 100% transparent. I reject the NT because it disagrees with my personal faith and values. I reject the NT because I choose to.

By the way, back when I did "accept" the NT, it was because I made the personal decision, I choose to believe. I at least admitted and faced these changes but believed via faith despite the redactions made through the centuries. My rejection of the NT has little to do with the redactions it underwent.


But hey, thanks for trying to "expose" me. Its too bad I already exposed myself. I kinda took the steam out of that one for you... sorry.

You found people (liberals) that help you in this decision. Its funny how you call me a liberal and a fundamentalist in the same post. lol.

Maybe this wouldn't happen if you weren't so intent on speaking to me as an individual and instead focused on the issues and topic at hand?

What you speak of now is all a matter of faith not fact.Nope. I don't speak to your faith, you choose to believe or not. That's up to you. See, the difference is you are emotionally vested in this discussion. I'm purely speaking from a factual standpoint.

You choose to believe all this stuff about the NT, but not about the Tanach.What I personally believe about the Tenach is irrelevant. History shows us that it has virtually remained unchanged. period. We can play "theory" all day long and I may or may not agree with your theories. Maybe the Torah did undergo huge monumental changes, but unfortunately, that would all be theory. No manuscript shows this. None.

You and The Rabbi are just too afraid to admit thatActually, I have no fear at all. If in fact massive changes have been made to the Torah the same as the NT, then I'd still believe because of my faith (as you were quick to "expose").

The difference, however, is that there seems to have been a higher level of respect given to the OT manuscripts by the Jewish sages. So much so that an entire career is made out of scribing and copying the manuscripts. A Sofer is a Jewish sage who essentially holds the role of a copyist. Regulations, laws, and fences were put in place to carry forward such careful execution. It is sad, but a fact, that Christianity did not treat its texts in the same way. In fact, some even went so far as to change the texts to fit their own theology.

But despite all of this, at the end of the day, we both believe in our "inspired' texts because of faith.

You and I? We don't believe because of facts. All of us believe because of faith.

[simchat_torah]

So in the end, what I originally stated is true: The Rabbi was right. ;)

[visionary]

Actually, you are both wrong then.



Absolute complete utter rubbish. This is just a statement of faith on your behalf. If we were to propel ourselves to a time before the completion of the Tanach, you'd see bits being added, deleted, the spellings changed, the grammar altered etc. It's a *collection* of writings over centuries, after all. While no one educated disputes that this happened during the formative years of the ancient texts, only a fundie would look back and think it fell out of the sky as we find it today.

The problem you anti-missionaries have is this- you presuppose fundamentalist assumptions like "any alterations disprove inspiration", which of course it a statement that begs proof and is a logical fallacy.



...the whole "of the manuscripts available today" argument is flawed and ridiculous- why? The most used manuscripts do not survive. The least used ones do. It's a matter of physics.

Just face it- you reject the NT because want and choose to. You found people (liberals) that help you in this decision. What you speak of now is all a matter of faith not fact. You choose to believe all this stuff about the NT, but not about the Tanach. You and The Rabbi are just too afraid to admit that.That was uncalled for and you need to edit it.

[GerTzedek]

So in the end, what I originally stated is true: The Rabbi was right. ;)
The rabbi is ALWAYS right. ;) It's part of the job description. he he he

[simchat_torah]

lol.

Even when there's 3 opinions for 2 Rabbis, they are all right. :D

[ContraMundum]

I am going to address this first and foremost. I will address your other comments in a following post.

I am not an antimissionary. I do not care what you believe, have no intentions on persuading you from your faith, etc. No interest. None.

Nor does The Rabbi.

Well, it looks different from my perspective.

As you must know, no one is allowed to spend their time here making mis-representations and mockeries of the Christian faith, it's scriptures, it's authorities and most of all it's Founder, the Messiah Jesus.

No one should come here because they think they can say as they please and thus sow doubt into the minds of the young and weak of faith, with the perception that they are protected by the rules.

One needs to check ones motives, and display self-awareness. One wouldn't want to appear anti-missionary, would they?

Please don't ever say that ridiculous accusation again.

I just call it like it appears. I shouldn't be blamed for speaking my mind. Perhaps you should display far more care when posting. Blaming the reader is not the answer.

[ContraMundum]

So in the end, what I originally stated is true: The Rabbi was right. ;)

"The Rabbi" was right?

How so? He didn't give us anything substantial.

I know those who flirt with Rabbinical Judaism are easily convinced by things that cannot be verified, falsified or that follow normal logic, but this getting ridiculous.

How can you say someone was "right" when they didn't prove it in the first place?

[ContraMundum]

That was uncalled for and you need to edit it.

You're right- next time I won't respond, I'll just report it.

[simchat_torah]

You're right- next time I won't respond, I'll just report it.Kinda hard when there was nothing reportable.

[ContraMundum]

So please, don't make such assumptions or add to my words. Yes, the NT was riddled with redactions through the centuries. But it takes faith to believe in the Torah too.

I felt that was the most important point to address, now let's move on.

Which is what I was saying all along.

If you do your studies you will find that there are over 9,000 changes (counting word changes or greater, ignoring spelling changes) between the manuscripts and at least 1 change for every verse in the entire NT

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.

Ever looked deeper? Ever seen the textual "variants" yourself?

It's not a terribly convincing case in the end.

But then again, if you think I'm "wrong", how about giving some substance? Put something besides your opinion up for once.

But despite all of this, at the end of the day, we both believe in our "inspired' texts because of faith.

Right. I've been saying that.

[simchat_torah]

You are here because you know you can say as you please and thus sow doubt into the minds of the young and weak of faith.I was here long before you showed up in our subforum. Actually, to be honest, I was here at CF long before you even joined.
You need to check your motives, and stop displaying such a lack of self-awareness. You ARE an anti-missionary.
I'm not going to tell you what you need to do. I will let you figure that out on your own. But your harassment of me is utterly uncalled for. period.

You ARE an anti-missionary (both or you are, actually), plain and simple.
Wake up to yourself. You are doing exactly what you deny.

You might reject the label, but you perform the duties of an anti-missionary very well indeed.Nope. You see, an Antimissionary would have to care to actually sway people's minds from their faith.

I have no intent or desire to do so.

Moreover, I find enjoyment when someone has strong faith, even if it disagrees with mine.

However, I also love studying history, debating religion, discussing with friends, and opening my mind to new ideas. That is why I'm here.

Though lately, I can't say the same for you.

You already appologized to me via pm last time you had an outrage like this. This time, you've crossed the line and I demand an open apology.

[ContraMundum]

I was here long before you showed up in our subforum. Actually, to be honest, I was here at CF long before you even joined.

...which has no bearing on your motives. It's just means you've been carrying them out longer.

I'm not going to tell you what you need to do. I will let you figure that out on your own. But your harassment of me is utterly uncalled for. period.

I actually think you've been harrasing Christians here.

Nope. You see, an Antimissionary would have to care to actually sway people's minds from their faith.

I have no intent or desire to do so.

Intention? Desire?

How about effect? Or do the means justify the end? That's what I see here.

Though lately, I can't say the same for you.

Would you care for me to bring out your record?
You know I won't, but just think about that before you slag me off.


You already appologized to me via pm last time you had an outrage like this. This time, you've crossed the line and I demand an open apology.

Repent. No apology will be forthcoming until you stop harassing Christians and their beliefs.

[simchat_torah]

Which is what I was saying all along.
Actually... no. You said that the same comparisons can be drawn between the redactions of the NT and the OT. This would be a very incorrect assumption. You vehemently confronted with the Rabbi over this.
Ever looked deeper? Ever seen the textual "variants" yourself?
Actually, yeah, I have. Both in books and the actual physical manuscripts themselves. I have seen with my own eyes the restoration of early early documents.

But then again, if you think I'm "wrong", how about giving some substance? Put something besides your opinion up for once.

Sure, I'll step up to the plate and do what you haven't.... provide evidence. The entire story of John 7 where the adultress is about to be stoned... does not appear in earlier manuscripts. This whole story, not just a word or spelling change, but the entire story, was added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulter%C3%A6


The pericope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope) is not found in any of the earliest surviving Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus) witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus) and Codex Vaticanus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus). The first surviving Greek manuscript witness to the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae) of the fifth century.
Yet NT translations today contain this story.

One of many many many examples.

[simchat_torah]

Originally Posted by simchat_torah:
I was here long before you showed up in our subforum. Actually, to be honest, I was here at CF long before you even joined.

Reply by ContraMundum:
..which has no bearing on your motives. It's just means you've been carrying them out longer.
Oh please. Do your homework before making baseless attacks. I was a strong supporter of Jesus and argued with antimissionaries when I was a Messianic. Just do a few searches on my name and you'll easily find plenty of pro-messiah posts. In fact, you'll find several years worth of messiah loving posts by my very handle.


This is getting ridiculous.

[simchat_torah]

Ever looked deeper? Ever seen the textual "variants" yourself? I have close friends who are part of a team which was allowed to restore many of the early documents of both Christian and Essene origin. They are on loan to the U.S. and are under restoration at Princeton.

So yes... I have seen the variants with my own very eyes.


I don't think I could have "seen them for myself" any more than that.

[GerTzedek]

I have close friends who are part of a team which was allowed to restore many of the early documents of both Christian and Essene origin. They are on loan to the U.S. and are under restoration at Princeton.

So yes... I have seen the variants with my own very eyes.


I don't think I could have "seen them for myself" any more than that.
Now that is very exciting! Oh for an experience like THAT. How wonderful you had that opportunity. That certainly trumps anything I have ever done.

[GerTzedek]

The entire story of John 7 where the adultress is about to be stoned... does not appear in earlier manuscripts. This whole story, not just a word or spelling change, but the entire story, was added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulter%C3%A6

Yet NT translations today contain this story.

One of many many many examples.

ST: all of us with a modest education know about how this story in John 7 is not in the earliest manuscripts, as well as the ending of Mark. The better of the modern translations will contain a footnote to this effect. These parts are kept in the NT because basically when the Church adopted its canon, it adopted it WITH these additions, thus adopting the additions as well.

Can you offer another of the "many many examples" ?

[GerTzedek]

ST: for whatever its worth, I don't perceive you as being an anti-missionary. I've encountered anti-missionaries. No one present in the forum, yourself included, is even close to the amount of hostility and pressure they exude.

[visionary]

Of course, this is based on the premise that they are one in the same. ;)

I'm not saying either way; just stating the presumption beneath the statement.Wow.. Now that is a loaded statement.... The premise of the OP is that the God of the Old and New Testaments are one and the same. If you would like to open up another thread to discuss this further, let me know and I will take it to a new thread so that you can explain how you see different.

[ContraMundum]

Actually... no. You said that the same comparisons can be drawn between the redactions of the NT and the OT. This would be a very incorrect assumption. You vehemently confronted with the Rabbi over this.

I stand by what I've said.


Actually, yeah, I have. Both in books and the actual physical manuscripts themselves. I have seen with my own eyes the restoration of early early documents.

Yeah, right....and I suppose you did a full, complete and thorough analysis of the textual differences too, right?

Which texts have you seen? What family are they from? When are they dated, and why should we accept your word that because you saw them with your eyes you are now a scholar of them?

Sure, I'll step up to the plate and do what you haven't.... provide evidence. The entire story of John 7 where the adultress is about to be stoned... does not appear in earlier manuscripts. This whole story, not just a word or spelling change, but the entire story, was added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulter%C3%A6

Yet NT translations today contain this story.

One of many many many examples.

This is actually only one example of a few alleged(?) narrative insertions, not "many, many". Again, you overstate as usual. Why do you have to mislead the other readers?

We all know that the story of the woman is not found in earlier remaining manuscripts. What we can't prove beyond reasonable doubt is whether or not the earlier manuscripts are the most accurate (I say no, for scientific and other reasons) or whether or not the story is fabricated (again, I say no because we can reconstruct the story from extra-Biblical sources: the Eastern and Greek Church has always preached from this text on St Pelagia's Day and this goes back to the most ancient lexionaries available- many of them older than the manuscripts that do not have the account. Also, Jerome mentions it explicitly in the early 5th Century, so the early church certainly knew this story and accepted it as true).

[ContraMundum]

Oh please. Do your homework before making baseless attacks. I was a strong supporter of Jesus and argued with antimissionaries when I was a Messianic. Just do a few searches on my name and you'll easily find plenty of pro-messiah posts. In fact, you'll find several years worth of messiah loving posts by my very handle.

It appears to me, and is blatantly obvious to all, that you have dedicated a great many hours and posting to undoing this earlier conviction.

This is getting ridiculous.

Yep.

[christianmomof3]

:sigh: Where in the definition of "debate" is rudeness and personal attacks implied?

God is One. He exists as the Father, the Son and the Spirit. Yet He is only One. I don't know how He is triune, but I know why.
He is triune not only so that He could redeem us but also so that He can dwell within us.

When He is dwelling within us and we are turned to our human spirit and abiding in Him, we will live Him out and express and enjoy Him and in Him, we can be One with one another as well.

[visionary]

Please refrain from personal attacks... that is inflamatory. Just post citations, opinions on subject at hand. Please edit all personal attacks.

[GerTzedek]

lol.

Even when there's 3 opinions for 2 Rabbis, they are all right. :D
You know what? You're right!

[Ivy]

Three plus two makes five, as in "five minutes." :holy: :sorry:

Of course, the definintion of five minutes could be quite elastic.....it could be a basketball five minutes, a football five minutes, a psychiatrist's five minutes, or a forum five minutes. :D ^_^ ^_^

Go ahead, report me for posting gibberish. You know who you are :D

Fondly, Ivy :pink:

[simchat_torah]

Contra, as a moderator I expected more. I do not feel like enduring further personal attacks. Please stick to the topic at hand and not to my character. If you feel so led to attack me, make a sepeate thread.

Suffice it to say that yes, there are many documented changes. I only pointed out one which I was hoping everyone was familiar with (which I was correct, but it was received differently than I hoped). It seems that you all are aware of the change, but ambiguous towards the addition of an entire story. None the less, I shall point out several more:

When one compares one manuscript to another, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two copies agree completely in their wording. There has been an estimate of between 200,000 and 300,000 variations among all the manuscripts, which is more variations than words in the New Testament.

...

Some variations involve apparently intentional changes, which can make it more difficult for scholars to determine whether they were corrections ... or ideologically motivated.citaton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript


***Note*** The above quote perfectly mirrors the Rabbi's original statements.


Mark 16 has different endings depending on which manuscript you read from. The existence of the last 12 verses (16:9 and onward) vary depending on which 4th century manuscripts are used. Two Greek manuscripts contain these verses, but older Latin manuscripts do not contain these verses. A 12th century commentator also ends at Mark 16:8. Many have also noted the linguistic styles differ between 16:8 and the rest of the chapter.
citation: D. C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 125;


Jesus sweating blood in Luke 22:43-44 does not appear in earlier manuscripts.
citation: http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Luke&verse=22:43-44&src=!


Volum II of "Unholy" (author J.P. Green) notes over 3,000 differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the New Testament Gospels alone.


The Comma Johanneum (an explicit reference to the Trinity contained in I John) was added centuries later.
citation: ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum)

Jesus' post ressurection appearance in Galilee in John 21 was added quite late in our NT manuscripts.
citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_21


John 1:18 refers to Jesus not as the "unique G-d" but rather as the "unique Son" in later manuscripts.
citation: http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20John&verse=1:18&src=!


The list truly does go on and on.


Dozens of further references can be found in books written by Bart D. Ehrman's (currently serves as the chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the Univeristy of N. Carolina @ Chapel Hill) and Bruce Metzger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Metzger).

[simchat_torah]

Now that is very exciting! Oh for an experience like THAT. How wonderful you had that opportunity. That certainly trumps anything I have ever done.Of course I wasn't invovled in the restoration, but it was quite a sight to see with one's own eyes.

Many of the fragments are so fragile they could crumble with the slightest touch. The technologies they used to restore the fragments was utterly fascinating.

[GerTzedek]

Of course I wasn't invovled in the restoration, but it was quite a sight to see with one's own eyes.

Many of the fragments are so fragile they could crumble with the slightest touch. The technologies they used to restore the fragments was utterly fascinating.
Oh I bet. It's not often any of us get to see the actual manuscripts outside of a museum. The only other person I've ever met who has seen any original manuscripts was my old professor of Islamic Culture and Religion, Dr. Robert Eisenman. He is a dead sea scrolls expert. It's been kind of fun seeing him getting quoted in various news articals. But... sigh*... that was him and not me. Best I've ever really managed is reading mere translations into English of original sourse documents. That's WAY down on the totem pole!

[simchat_torah]

A good friend of mine was involved in translating many of the Greek scrolls at Princeton under the supervision of James H. Charlesworth.

[ContraMundum]

If you feel so led to attack me, make a sepeate thread.

Is that permission?

Just take it like it's meant to be, ok? I'm being direct because we are men, and I know you can handle it.


citaton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript


***Note*** The above quote perfectly mirrors the Rabbi's original statements.

It's a ridiculous argument, and the wiki is yet another attempt to ignore the issues raised by people faithful to the scriptures.

It's all been said before, back in the 60's, and it's all pretty easy to answer.

Would you like to respond to my reply earlier, or will you prefer to ignore it because you know it's too powerful an argument against radicalism?

How about discussing the actual reasoning of the radicals and let's test them to see whether or not their basis for claiming a zillion variants is actually sound or whether it is merely playing a shell game with sacred scripture?

Do you know about how the Bible was canonised?

Mark 16 has different endings depending on which manuscript you read from. The existence of the last 12 verses (16:9 and onward) vary depending on which 4th century manuscripts are used. Two Greek manuscripts contain these verses, but older Latin manuscripts do not contain these verses. A 12th century commentator also ends at Mark 16:8. Many have also noted the linguistic styles differ between 16:8 and the rest of the chapter.
citation: D. C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 125;

Parker. Wrong.

Lots of errors here- of course.

Firstly, it is found in 7 Greek Uncials. (A, C, D, X, K, Q & P). It is found in around 10 miniscules, it's found in the Coptic texts and the majority Latin texts as well. It's quoted by Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Ambrose and just about everybody afterward. Ireneaus quotes it directly and attributes it to Mark.

In other words, they knew it, believed in it, and thus the Church canonised it. End of story.

Jesus sweating blood in Luke 22:43-44 does not appear in earlier manuscripts.
citation: http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Luke&verse=22:43-44&src=!

First of all, are the earlier manuscripts the most accurate? Why or why not?

Then we'll deal with this one.

Volum II of "Unholy" (author J.P. Green) notes over 3,000 differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the New Testament Gospels alone.

What does he consider to be a "variant"? What theological importance does he place on the various differences he considers to be variations?

Answer this first, then we can continue.

These last two questions are vital in going forward.

The Comma Johanneum (an explicit reference to the Trinity contained in I John) was added centuries later.
citation: ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum (http://