Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-29-2015, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 449,917 times
Reputation: 46

Advertisements

Here are a few more later additions to the New Testament for Hawkins.

The Longer Ending for Mark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

The two oldest manuscripts of Mark 16 (from the 300's) then conclude with verse 8, which ends with the women fleeing from the empty tomb, and saying "nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Many scholars take 16:8 as the original ending and believe the longer ending (16:9-20) was written later by someone else as a summary of Jesus' resurrection appearances and several miracles performed by Christians. In this 12-verse passage,

Because of patristic evidence from the late 100's for the existence of copies of Mark with 16:9-20, it is contended by a majority of scholars that this passage must have been written and attached no later than the early 2nd century.[ May, Herbert G. and Bruce M. Metzger. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. 1977.]

John’s Story about the adulteress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_...en_in_adultery

Jesus and the woman taken in adultery — known as Pericope Adulterae (..from verses 7:53-8:11 of the Gospel of John. The passage describes a confrontation between Jesus and the scribes andPharisees over whether a woman, caught in an act of adultery, ought to be stoned as per the Law of Moses. Jesus shames the crowd into dispersing, and averts the execution.

Textural History - The pericope is not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the late 4th or early 5th century
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2015, 08:16 AM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 449,917 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanJP View Post
Not understanding the context or BIG picture is one thing, but comparing YOUR own moral code to that of God's is another thing altogether, and IMO quite supercilious in nature. If God is who His word says He is, then WHO are you to judge God?
RESPONSE:

Thus you are stuck with the fundamental problem. If the Bible permits and encourages the slaughter of children, isn't there some problem with it being "God breathed"?

What must you think of God?

What about scripture in reality being "man breathed"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2015, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 449,917 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanJP View Post
Not understanding the context or BIG picture is one thing, but comparing YOUR own moral code to that of God's is another thing altogether, and IMO quite supercilious in nature. If God is who His word says He is, then WHO are you to judge God?

RESPONSE:

The flaw in you argument is immediately apparent.

" If God is who His word says He is"

That is nearly perfect circular reasoning. We might recast your argument thus. "If the Word says it is God, we have to believe it, because that's God talking"?

Or as the old preacher once claimed, "We can prove the existence of God, because the Bible says God exists, and God wrote the Bible, so we know it's true."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2015, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 449,917 times
Reputation: 46
Default The change in the Catholic teaching on inerrancy

For the most part, the Catholic view on the inerrancy of scripture paralleled those of Protestants at least until the mid-1900’s. But at Vatican II, an ecumenical council, the Catholic view on inerrancy was subtly changed.

It was becoming increasingly apparent that the Bible contained scriptural errors which, despite the best efforts of apologists, could not intelligently be explained away. So ultimately the question had to be addressed.

The Catholic traditional teaching had been stated thus:

“And so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican [Providentissimus deus, 20, 1893]

But at Vatican II, this view was challenged:

“On October 2, 1964, Cardinal Franz König of Vienna spoke before the Council Fathers on behalf of all the German-speaking bishops' conferences, stating that the Bible does, in fact, contain errors of science, history and incorrectly-attributed quotations. He then proceeded to provide several examples of apparent contradictions and misinformation.”
Library : The Inerrancy of Scripture and the Second Vatican Council | Catholic Culture

An interesting way around the fact that the Bible contained errors was developed although it clearly involved ambiguity. It can be found in Dei Verbum, Vatican II official teaching on scripture thus:

"The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.”

Thus, if an error is found in a passage of scripture, it must be that this particular passage of scripture isn’t inspired byGod and isn’t necessary “for the sake of our salvation.”

This is an ambiguous passage but can be interpreted to mean that not everything in scripture is divinely inspired!

Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 10-29-2015 at 10:07 AM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2015, 12:14 PM
 
19,942 posts, read 17,098,228 times
Reputation: 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur View Post
How in the world would I know?
The question is relevant, in that you seem to suggest it's important that they're missing. If they contain nothing of value to us, it's not an issue.
Quote:
You may very well question such a list. That's beside the point. The point is that at one time, they were considered canonical.
Says who? Just because you refer to ONE list that said they were? That doesn't suggest that the rest of Christianity considered them to be Scripture.
Quote:

Since you're so sure that God was right there determining which books should be included and which ones weren't, why didn't He make His mind up back in the third century? If it was His choice all along, why did He apparently keep changing His mind?
I don't see that he did.
Quote:
Or, more likely, God didn't have anything to do with what was preserved and what wasn't.

But you are convinced that it was God's choice to not have them preserved, and that's what blows my mind. Why can't you just admit that there could have been dozens of reasons why they were not preserved, none of them having anything to do with what God "saw fit" to do? He's God, for crying out loud, Vizio. Why did He even involve human beings in the process at all? If He involved them, He knew that there would be mistakes.
You think that God is incapable of preserving the Bible?

Yet, Scripture itself testifies to the fact that it's God-breathed. God inspired it and then he abandoned it? I'm sorry, but I don't know how one could believe that.
Quote:
You are absolutely sure that everything God wanted to be preserved was preserved, and yet you do not have one shred of evidence to support this statement.
Except that it's God-inspired.
Quote:
I had no idea I was arguing against scriptural inerrancy. All I thought I was doing was provide a little bit of history about how the "perfectly preserved canon" has been composed of different books throughout the ages.
Fair enough. I shouldn't have said inerrancy there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2015, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
27,914 posts, read 29,727,261 times
Reputation: 13063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child View Post
RESPONSE:

I thought that God didn't make mistakes? It what you say is true, this was a serious blunder on God's part, wasn't it?
God doesn't make mistakes, but people do. If there was a "serious blunder," it wasn't God's fault.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2015, 12:25 PM
 
19,942 posts, read 17,098,228 times
Reputation: 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur View Post
God doesn't make mistakes, but people do. If there was a "serious blunder," it wasn't God's fault.
Except that you apparently think he wasn't bright enough to entrust the Bible to men that would preserve it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2015, 01:26 PM
 
339 posts, read 193,210 times
Reputation: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child View Post
RESPONSE:

Thus you are stuck with the fundamental problem. If the Bible permits and encourages the slaughter of children, isn't there some problem with it being "God breathed"?

What must you think of God?

What about scripture in reality being "man breathed"?
First of all, I think by now you should know how these forums work, and starting all your respo0nses with RESPONSE: is quite redundant. The program formats your responses as such by quoting the post you reply to.

Your assumption just show you don't really KNOW God. Having to qualify it in a rational that will make you happy just means you put yourself above God, but still don't get it. You actually have to KNOW and have FAITH in God before you read His Word.

I think God is my Salvation, my Rock, my King, my Father, and whatever else He needs to be.

The Greek uses the word θεόπνευστος (theopneustos), which connotes divinely inspired. It is only used ONCE in the entire Bible, and conveys exactly what it means. As man is NOT divine, man can NOT breathe scripture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2015, 01:30 PM
 
339 posts, read 193,210 times
Reputation: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child View Post
The flaw in you argument is immediately apparent.
" If God is who His word says He is"
That is nearly perfect circular reasoning. We might recast your argument thus. "If the Word says it is God, we have to believe it, because that's God talking"?
Or as the old preacher once claimed, "We can prove the existence of God, because the Bible says God exists, and God wrote the Bible, so we know it's true."
There is no need to equivocate unless you either fail to understand, or just don't want to I said exactly what needed to be said. Do you believe He is or isn't who His word says He is?
If He IS, then listen to His word, and if He isn't then why are you here?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2015, 05:39 PM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 449,917 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanJP View Post
First of all, I think by now you should know how these forums work, and starting all your respo0nses with RESPONSE: is quite redundant. The program formats your responses as such by quoting the post you reply to.

Your assumption just show you don't really KNOW God. Having to qualify it in a rational that will make you happy just means you put yourself above God, but still don't get it. You actually have to KNOW and have FAITH in God before you read His Word.

I think God is my Salvation, my Rock, my King, my Father, and whatever else He needs to be.

The Greek uses the word θεόπνευστος (theopneustos), which connotes divinely inspired. It is only used ONCE in the entire Bible, and conveys exactly what it means. As man is NOT divine, man can NOT breathe scripture.
RESPONSE:

>>I think God is my Salvation, my Rock, my King, my Father, and whatever else He needs to be.<<

Some of us prefer the rational approach to reality. And as St. Paul advises, we test everything, hold fast to that which is true, but put away childess things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality

Broadly speaking, there are two categories of views regarding the relationship between faith and rationality:

1. Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.

2. Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.

Many of us prefer the first approach to truth.

Should people think, or should they just believe?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top