"Woman Taken in Adultery" Story Not a Part of John's Original Gospel (believers, priest)

[kiwimac]

Originally Posted by Mikelee81

"
The perplexity and inquisitiveness of the age had led to the formation of numerous Spiritualist societies. One of the early pioneers of Spiritualist inquiry was the Ghost Society at the University of Cambridge, England. The Founders of Psychical Research records the stated objective of the Cambridge Ghost Society:

"In 1851, was founded at Cambridge a Society to 'conduct a serious and earnest inquiry into the nature of the phenomena vaguely called supernatural,' and a number of distinguished persons became members." (20)

The Ghost Society is also described in the biography of one of its founding members, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, by Arthur Hort. "Two other societies…were started…in both of which Hort seems to have been the moving spirit…the other called by its members ‘The Ghostly Guild.' The object was to collect and classify authenticated instances of what are now called ‘psychical phenomena’…the 'Bogie Club' as scoffers called it, aroused a certain amount of derision, and even some alarm; it was apparently born too soon.""


The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival

If interested in the truth, these details can be found out relatively easily now a days with the resources we have available.

Wescott and Hort were gnostics that deleted the Scriptures to fit their ideology of "christ consciousness".

"Oct. 15th - Hort: "I entirely agree - correcting one word - with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (Life, Vol.I, p.430)."

Heresies and blasphemies of Wescott & Hort

There's a lot more information for the inquiring mind exposing these two.

What Westcott and Hort started was the "Ghostlie guild" and it's function was not to hold seances but to apply scientific methodologies to ascertaining whether or not such things as spiritualism actually had any basis in fact.

Hort is saying in the quote above that the doctrine which limits Christ's atonement to his death and which ignores His life is a heresy, as indeed it is. The whole of Christ's kenosis, of His becoming a human and living a life with human limitations is what redeems us, not simply His death.

Moreover you might like to reconsider quoting David Stewart's site as not only is he extremely selective in the quotes he gives from Westcott and Hort (along with many other KJV-Onlyists) but it would appear that he is a criminal.

I refer you to the discussion here which has a considerable amount of detailed proof of that claim, certainly far more than I can put here.

[ancient warrior]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

This is wrong thinking on so many levels. It sounds like it should be in the atheist forum. To truly get engaged in any discussions in the Christianity forum you have to start with the premise that Jesus was/is the Son of God; that He is equal to God in stature, even though He often defers to the Father as being greater than Himself (call it divine humility); that His death made possible the salvation of all men. Without these three tenants (and lots more) you cannot begin to tackle the more thorny issues that come up in here. I cannot offer a defense for your assertions, sorry.

RESPONSE:

>>To truly get engaged in any discussions in the Christianity forum you have to start with the premise that Jesus was/is the Son of God; that He is equal to God in stature, even though He often defers to the Father as being greater than Himself (call it divine humility); that His death made possible the salvation of all men.<<

No. "To truly get engaged in any discussion in the Christianity forum" one has to be willing to objectively examine the evidence and separate historical facts from legends.

One has to separate the Historical Jesus from the Christ of faith.

[ancient warrior]

Originally Posted by snowdenscold

ancient warrior does this in every thread. I wouldn't concern yourself too much with it. (You'll also just end up with a canonicity and NT dating debate responding to numerous inconclusive, unproven or implausible assertions)

RESPONSE:

Actually, historically provable assertions. Much like proving that Thrillobyte's assertion that the New Testament documents can be carbon dated to be from 70 AD, and that the 16th century Textus Receptus is the most reliable form of the Bible is clearly false. Or that the story of the woman taken in adultery was part of the gospel of John prior to the 4th century!

In case you've overlooked these on this thread:

>>Textus Receptus is the most accurate collection of manuscript evidence supported by carbon dating of various manuscripts dated back prior to 70AD. It is the primary source for compilation of the Authorized (not new) King James Version Bible New Testament. It contains John 7.<<

[Heartsong]

Law of Moses still upheld by certain Islamic groups:
Mali Couple Stoned To Death, Ansar Dine Spokesman Says

[AlabamaStorm]

Here is some good information on this particular disputed text, viewed from the textual criticism side of the debate:

The Story of the Adulteress

Although Westcott & Hort were at odds with many parts of the Textus Receptus, this in and of itself does not invalidate their own critical text research. Most of W&H's findings we're already supported by many textual critics prior to their work.

Here is a discussion regarding this:

Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by snowdenscold

Why do you draw your line there? I know it's an important point, but is still somewhat arbitrary given your view.

Well, for starts, no matter how much tampering has gone on in the scriptures it has essentially been in the realm of the eternal destiny of the soul. Witness that up until Augustine the predominant view of the destiny of the soul was universal redemption in the writings of Clement and Origen. It wasn't until Justinian that church leaders began to see the necessity of using fear of eternal damnation to keep people obedient to them, hence the birth of the doctrine of eternal torment, and that by a "scholar" (Augustine) who was an "idiot" at reading the early Greek texts, no less.

I digress. The point I'm trying to make is that it was simple and expedient to corrupt the idea of where the soul goes after death. No so much with the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and was sent to death to be a sin offering for mankind. That can never be disproved no matter how much the heretics try. Things like eternal destiny have been tampered with, but in the long run it's just stuff to argue and debate over. It doesn't affect what actually happens to the wicked whether they are tormented, annihilated or given a second chance after they die. Given the tampering over the centuries nobody here on earth will ever have a conclusive answer until after each experiences their own individual "rapture" when they take their last breath.

[AlabamaStorm]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

...no matter how much tampering has gone on in the scriptures it has essentially been in the realm of the eternal destiny of the soul...

I couldn't agree more. There is a very good reason why this is so, too. As stated here by Jesus:

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

and here by Paul:

Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Most bible translations today are produced by translation committees that overwhelmingly believe in the eternal torment of the soul. Naturally, such translations have an exceedingly biased starting point and simply add more weight to their preconceived doctrines.

However, if you take the time and look at the underlying Greek texts being translated, often a much different light emerges from what we've traditional been taught to believe, and what we routinely hear coming from the pulpit.

For example: A simple examination of how translator's translate the Greek definite article (ὁ / ἡ / τό , etc.) will make this point very clear. For instance, translators often use the definite article to define or transmit to their audience (the reader) what the translator believes in their own hearts to be true. Namely: their evil thoughts, their inventions of evil things and their unmerciful thinking, when the text, in reality, says no such thing.

Jesus tells us why this is:

Mat 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

The natural man's heart is simply conditioned to bring forth evil things and to believe evil things. Whether it be in daily life or when translating scriptures, or for that matter reading scriptures. This is why it is so imperative to call on Jesus in prayer and ask His Spirit to spiritually translate for us what we are reading.

[ancient warrior]

AlabamaStorm posted:

>>However, if you take the time and look at the underlying Greek texts being translated, often a much different light emerges from what we've traditional been taught to believe, and what we routinely hear coming from the pulpit.

>>For example: A simple examination of how translator's translate the Greek definite article (ὁ / ἡ / τό , etc.) will make this point very clear. For instance, translators often use the definite article to define or transmit to their audience (the reader) what the translator believes in their own hearts to be true. Namely: their evil thoughts, their inventions of evil things and their unmerciful thinking, when the text, in reality, says no such thing.

Comment:

And this too:

“They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith”. (Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church by Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS)

So the scriptures we have may not be entirely accurate or even accurate at all in some cases.

[snowdenscold]

Ahhh, the eternal quest for the historical Jesus. Yawn.

[ancient warrior]

Originally Posted by snowdenscold

Ahhh, the eternal quest for the historical Jesus. Yawn.

RESPONSE:

I prefer to think of it as separating fact from fiction.