Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Which "Christ"?Now if men just went to Christ, this discussion would never have need to have being started. But IO cant see that happening anytime soon,
Mischaracterizaton, even straw-man. "smartest" has nothing to do with it. That's your gross distortion to the topic, your 'spin'.Thats the problem isnt it, all the arguments over doctrines to try and prove who is the smartest...
And what is it you are seeking to justify.. I canna understand yahhh.Mischaracterizaton, even straw-man. "smartest" has nothing to do with it. That's your gross distortion to the topic, your 'spin'.
Consider:
GNTR Mat 6:11 τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον δος ημιν σημερον
NA28th Mat 6:11 τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον·
UBS 5th - missing/absent
KJB Mat 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
DR Mat 6:11 Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.
Nothing about "supersubstanital" in the koine Greek and "σημερον" never means "supersubstantial". It means "daily", or 'day by day', or 'every day', and "supersubstantial" is not even in the Greek of Vaticanus, or Sinaiticus, neither UBS5th or NA28th, but is merely in the minds of the superstitious who desire their doctrine to be in the text to justify themselves.
I seek God's vindication, and the vindication of His truth, His glory.And what is it you are seeking to justify....
I made no assumptions, but made statements based in real textual science (knowledge), and not 'science falsely so called'.
Oldest and Best Mss?
I have read numerous books on the issue, and paged through scanned mss online. Neither Vaticanus (codex B), nor Siniaticus (codex aleph) are 4th cent. They are counterfeits, with Sinaiticus a forgery and Vaticanus probably the most 'emended' (altered) text in existence, and both are false prophets, false witnesses (one from the desert, and the other from the secret chambers or inner rooms of the Vatican lie-brary), and thus in a spiritual manner:
Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Mat_24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
The scripture is to represent Jesus in written form, and yet these two, falsely represent Jesus.
"... According to The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, "It should be noted . . . that there is no prominent Biblical (manuscripts) in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in (Codex) B." ...More amazing is that those who desire to accept Siniaticus, somehow ignore the "Epistle of Barnabas", & "Shepherd of Hermas" that is clearly attached to it, while whole portion of Genesis are missing. According to quick source wiki:
... The entire manuscript has been mutilated...every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact identification of many of the characters impossible. Dr. David Brown observes: "I question the 'great witness' value of any manuscript that has been overwritten, doctored, changed and added to for more than 10 centuries." (The Great Unicals). ...
... Linguistic scholars have observed that Codex Vaticanus is reminiscent of classical and Platonic Greek, not Koine Greek of the New Testament (see Adolf Deissman's Light of the Ancient East). Nestle admitted that he had to change his Greek text (when using Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) to make it "appear" like Koine Greek. ...
... Codex Vaticanus contains the false Roman Catholic apocryphal books such as Judith, Tobias, and Baruch, while it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10 and exposes the mass as totally useless as well!). ..." - Codex Vaticanus
"... While large portions of the Old Testament are missing, it is assumed that the codex originally contained the whole of both Testaments.[6] About half of the Greek Old Testament (or Septuagint) survived, along with a complete New Testament, the entire Deuterocanonical books, the Epistle of Barnabas and portions of The Shepherd of Hermas.[2] ..." - Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia
Those who accept it, merely desire it for its highly 'catholic' leanings, especially in the apocryphal materials it also contains, which was never accepted by Jews of the Apostles/disciples of Jesus.
Even the so-called Canon of Laodicea Canon LX does not give the 'Catholic' Canon.
"... Canon LX.
These are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.
And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon ..." - Link
No "sirach".
"The apocryphal books were not admitted into the canon of Scripture during the first four centuries of the Christian church. They are not mentioned in the catalogue of inspired writings made by Melito, bishop of Sardis, who flourished in the second century, nor in those of Origen, in the third century, of Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Jerome, Rufinus, and others of the fourth century; nor in the catalogue of canonical books recognized by the Council of Laodicea, held in the same century, whose canons were received by the Catholic Church; so that, as Bishop Burnet well observes, "we have the concurring sense of the whole church of God in this matter." To this decisive evidence against the canonical authority of the apocryphal books, we may add that they were never read in the Christian church until the fourth century, when, as Jerome informs us, they were read "for example of life and instruction of manners, but were not applied to establish any doctrine;" and contemporary writers state that although they were not approved as canonical or inspired writings, yet some of them, particularly Judith, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, were allowed to be perused by catechumens. As proof that they were not regarded as canonical in the fifth century, Augustine relates that when the book of Wisdom was publicly read in the church, it was given to the readers or inferior ecclesiastical officers, who read it in a lower place than those books which were universally acknowledged to be canonical, which were read by the bishops and presbyters in a more eminent and conspicuous manner. To conclude: Notwithstanding the veneration in which these books were held by the Western Church, it is evident that the same authority was never ascribed to them as to the Old and New Testament; until the last Council of Trent, at its fourth session, presumed to place them all (excepting the prayer of Manasseh and the third and fourth books of Esdras) in the same rank with the inspired writings of Moses and the prophets." - An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. by Thomas Hartwell Horne, B.D. of Saint John's College, Cambridge; rector of the United Parishes of Saint Edmund the King and Martyr and Saint Nicholas Acons, Lombard Street; Prebendary of Saint Paul's; New Edition, from the Eighth London Edition, Corrected and Enlarged. Illustrated with numerous maps and fac-similies of Bilical Manuscripts. Volume I. Philadelphia: Published by J. Whetham & Son, 144 Chestnut Street. Stereotyped by L. Johnson. 1841.; page 426 (left column) - An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures
How Many Books Are In The Old Testament?
Apocrypha, and the reasons they are not accepted as "canon":
"... 1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone (a little Syriac/Chaldee in Daniel, etc.) used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead...
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation. ..." - Sam Gipp - https://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=34.htm
That is not an assumption. Those two texts are simply Westcott & Hort warmed over.
You can go to Bible Hub to check for results regarding Acts 8:37. Here is what you will see:
Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
BLANK
Westcott and Hort 1881
BLANK
Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants] (NA = Nestle Aland)
BLANK
Now when you go to the traditional texts here is what you will see:
Greek Orthodox Church 1904
εἶπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος· εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας, ἔξεστιν. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε· Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.
Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
εἰπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος, Εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τὴς καρδίας, ἔξεστιν. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἷπε, Πιστεύω τὸν ὑιὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐιναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος Εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τὴς καρδίας, ἔξεστιν ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπεν Πιστεύω τὸν ὑιὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐιναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν
And this is a crucial verse in that passage since without it the passage makes absolutely no sense.
THE GOSPEL IS PREACHED
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
AN IMPORTANT QUESTION IS ASKED
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
THE PROPER ANSWER IS GIVEN
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
THE RESULT IS THE BAPTISM OF A BELIEVER
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Now with verse 37 missing there is no answer to that crucial question. So why was this verse EXPUNGED? Because baptismal regeneration had already become a doctrine within the churches by 400 AD. This verse clearly teaches believer's baptism only, and neither infants nor young children can respond to the Gospel.
And W & H was clearly based on primarily two of the most corrupt Greek manuscripts -- Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus). This conclusion is based upon solid biblical research from the 19th century. So you will need to study the works of Burgon, Scrivener, Hoskier, and other who did their due diligence and exposed the fraudulent text of Westcott & Hort.
"Some manuscripts"??? and "add"??? (are they implying motive???, shouldn't it just be 'differing' by their own standards, or is there an agenda and bias?)...These are the facts regarding Acts 8:35-37 (ESV):
Acts 8:35-36 English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)Oz
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. 36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”a]">[a]
Footnotes:
1. The ESV is another one of those corrupted modern translations.These are the facts regarding Acts 8:35-37 (ESV)
I really think cares much about vindication, all he cares about is mans salvation, which is all we should care about, getting His truth, not ours to teh masses and teh religious.I seek God's vindication, and the vindication of His truth, His glory.
Rom_3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
How many people on here are actually reading all of this stuff? Help us dear Lord to seek your face!
"When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek." Psalm 27:8
AmenHow many people on here are actually reading all of this stuff? Help us dear Lord to seek your face!
"When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek." Psalm 27:8
I have nothing against a person who is able to, to then goes ahead and studies things in depth like that, but I fail to see a meaningful purpose to posting it all here on an open forum blindly. Of the few who might have the ability to understand all of that stuff, probably only a handful would also have the time to even simply read it. The best writing in the world is certainly worthless to those who don't read it for whatever reason.LoL. ReChoired posts a lot like THBE used to. Pages upon pages. Unfortunately he hasn't posted a thing on a simple little thread I directed him to yet... must be a curve ball he's never seen before, so he doesn't want to swing at it.
I think Oz appears to be right. He's neck-deep in conspiracy theory, and tunnel-visioning in the extreme.
This the way I have been on forums for many years. Perhaps his church group gives him brownie points of kind for posting it all?Amen
The longer the post the less I read, Jesus just isnt that complicated.