A Thread To Discuss Anything About Scripture.
- Thread starter jackrosie
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Sorry I missed your posting. The thread has moved on since my first posting, but we can safely say that the reason "given" is in italics is because it does not appear in the original. To my knowledge, only the Vatican text has it. My posting was not to show that it was missing from the original. 99.9% of scholars admit that. My posting was to show that the verse makes perfect sense without it. See posting # 9.
The lengthy discussion about spiritual gifts, is only in 1 Corinthians. The discussion of head covering is also only in 1 Corinthians. I don't see your point. Surly you are not suggesting that something be discarded because it was not specifically named in the Pauline Epistles?
John was the only writer to write about Jesus Christ as the God-man, the other three were writing from another perspective. Matthew wrote about Christ as the King of the Jews, Mark, as the Perfect Servant and Luke, as the Perfect Man.
So John was the only one writing to magnify His Divinity. Perhaps this explains why John was inspired to include the conversation with Nicodemus and others were not.
John was the only writer to write about Jesus Christ as the God-man, the other three were writing from another perspective. Matthew wrote about Christ as the King of the Jews, Mark, as the Perfect Servant and Luke, as the Perfect Man.
So John was the only one writing to magnify His Divinity. Perhaps this explains why John was inspired to include the conversation with Nicodemus and others were not.
-
1
- Show all
The term "Christian" was never used by any of the writers to identify a true believer. The term means "one who follows Christ."
The term "Christian" was placed on followers of Christ, by those who were outside of the Faith and was generally perceived as a derogatory remark by those who used it. Example, "Oh great! It's one of those Christians again."
It is found twice is Scripture. The first time is in Acts 26:28 - Where Agrippa uses it sarcastically, in response to Paul's testimony before him. The second time it is used by Peter, in his first epistle, 4:16, where he identifies it as label given by others. He is talking about suffering for the cause of Christ and implies it is okay, to be called a Christian but does not use the term himself.
Typically, I use the term "True believer, believer or brother/sister in Christ" I quite using Christian as a rule because of the negative connotations the word has in today's World. Every church going individual calls themselves Christians but not everyone who goes to church are Christians. So I moved away from this label, so as to not be identified myself with these others.
Since Scripture clearly teaches, that you can only worship God, in Spirit and Truth! I always try to identify with being "Born Again" and Believing in "Truth", as presented only in Scripture. If it cannot be proven by Scripture, it is not Truth. God will only receive in worship what He has given. Therefore, proper Worship, comes from the Perfection of God, through His Spirit of Truth, to Born Again believers and returns to God, from imperfect believers, striving to be as close to The Truth as possible.
Many so called "religionist" try to say, that God's Wrath is coming upon this World because of immorality. While there is truth in this, closer inspection of Scripture will show, that the primary reason Wrath is coming, is because man took God's Truth and tried to turn it into The LIE. Remember, Adam and Eve did not Fall because they ate of the forbidden fruit, they Fell because they failed to believe what God said was true.
The term "Christian" was placed on followers of Christ, by those who were outside of the Faith and was generally perceived as a derogatory remark by those who used it. Example, "Oh great! It's one of those Christians again."
It is found twice is Scripture. The first time is in Acts 26:28 - Where Agrippa uses it sarcastically, in response to Paul's testimony before him. The second time it is used by Peter, in his first epistle, 4:16, where he identifies it as label given by others. He is talking about suffering for the cause of Christ and implies it is okay, to be called a Christian but does not use the term himself.
Typically, I use the term "True believer, believer or brother/sister in Christ" I quite using Christian as a rule because of the negative connotations the word has in today's World. Every church going individual calls themselves Christians but not everyone who goes to church are Christians. So I moved away from this label, so as to not be identified myself with these others.
Since Scripture clearly teaches, that you can only worship God, in Spirit and Truth! I always try to identify with being "Born Again" and Believing in "Truth", as presented only in Scripture. If it cannot be proven by Scripture, it is not Truth. God will only receive in worship what He has given. Therefore, proper Worship, comes from the Perfection of God, through His Spirit of Truth, to Born Again believers and returns to God, from imperfect believers, striving to be as close to The Truth as possible.
Many so called "religionist" try to say, that God's Wrath is coming upon this World because of immorality. While there is truth in this, closer inspection of Scripture will show, that the primary reason Wrath is coming, is because man took God's Truth and tried to turn it into The LIE. Remember, Adam and Eve did not Fall because they ate of the forbidden fruit, they Fell because they failed to believe what God said was true.
-
1
- Show all
An addendum, It was also used in Acts 11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught much people, and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
The sense is, that this label used by others, first occurred in Antioch.
The sense is, that this label used by others, first occurred in Antioch.
Your post# 9 would be too long but if we have the 'given' makes the sense perfect. Anyway to rehash about that italicized would still be an assumption since no one has seen the original where even those 99.9% scholars admit it. Seems to me, you are still speaks of uncertainty on the evidence of the Greek manuscript you are pointing. The Greek for ‘given ’Δεδομένος edoménos as per Google translation is not found neither in Vaticanus or in Sinaiticus.
http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03
https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/...chapter=7&lid=en&side=r&verse=39&zoomSlider=0
On the reverse you are actually agreeing with the Vatican manuscripts. But why even most of the critical scholars have it? One reasoned among many is to complete the sense in the English even that is not found or that didn’t occurred either in the Vaticanus or Sinaitcus copies (not ‘originals’) of manuscripts or any Greek available but the KJV translators have other evidences or proofs that they have access to, in the other foreign language, hence it was italicized. I have given one that is Wessex Gospel translation and yet the question is what may have been the language basis of this English gospel translation? Well, it could not be the French Bible since the earliest translation would date backs to 16th AD ie. Antwerp and the improved which is Olivitan. It could not be the German being the earliest dates back to 15ce, then the Luther which is 16th ce. Well, the most probable is from the faithful Greek copies.
http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03
https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/...chapter=7&lid=en&side=r&verse=39&zoomSlider=0
On the reverse you are actually agreeing with the Vatican manuscripts. But why even most of the critical scholars have it? One reasoned among many is to complete the sense in the English even that is not found or that didn’t occurred either in the Vaticanus or Sinaitcus copies (not ‘originals’) of manuscripts or any Greek available but the KJV translators have other evidences or proofs that they have access to, in the other foreign language, hence it was italicized. I have given one that is Wessex Gospel translation and yet the question is what may have been the language basis of this English gospel translation? Well, it could not be the French Bible since the earliest translation would date backs to 16th AD ie. Antwerp and the improved which is Olivitan. It could not be the German being the earliest dates back to 15ce, then the Luther which is 16th ce. Well, the most probable is from the faithful Greek copies.
I must apologize. I haven't a clue which statement of mine you are addressing. One proposed that the rebirth does not appear in Paul's writings. I countered that every time Christians, a Church and/or a son of God is mentioned, the rebirth is evident because they are believers and John 1:12-13 applies to a believer. Maybe you were reading somebody else's posting but accidentally
Thanks for the information brother. I will consider it. Go well.
answered mine.
Your post# 9 would be too long but if we have the 'given' makes the sense perfect. Anyway to rehash about that italicized would still be an assumption since no one has seen the original where even those 99.9% scholars admit it. Seems to me, you are still speaks of uncertainty on the evidence of the Greek manuscript you are pointing. The Greek for ‘given ’Δεδομένος edoménos as per Google translation is not found neither in Vaticanus or in Sinaiticus.
http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03
https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/...chapter=7&lid=en&side=r&verse=39&zoomSlider=0
On the reverse you are actually agreeing with the Vatican manuscripts. But why even most of the critical scholars have it? One reasoned among many is to complete the sense in the English even that is not found or that didn’t occurred either in the Vaticanus or Sinaitcus copies (not ‘originals’) of manuscripts or any Greek available but the KJV translators have other evidences or proofs that they have access to, in the other foreign language, hence it was italicized. I have given one that is Wessex Gospel translation and yet the question is what may have been the language basis of this English gospel translation? Well, it could not be the French Bible since the earliest translation would date backs to 16th AD ie. Antwerp and the improved which is Olivitan. It could not be the German being the earliest dates back to 15ce, then the Luther which is 16th ce. Well, the most probable is from the faithful Greek copies.
http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03
https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/...chapter=7&lid=en&side=r&verse=39&zoomSlider=0
On the reverse you are actually agreeing with the Vatican manuscripts. But why even most of the critical scholars have it? One reasoned among many is to complete the sense in the English even that is not found or that didn’t occurred either in the Vaticanus or Sinaitcus copies (not ‘originals’) of manuscripts or any Greek available but the KJV translators have other evidences or proofs that they have access to, in the other foreign language, hence it was italicized. I have given one that is Wessex Gospel translation and yet the question is what may have been the language basis of this English gospel translation? Well, it could not be the French Bible since the earliest translation would date backs to 16th AD ie. Antwerp and the improved which is Olivitan. It could not be the German being the earliest dates back to 15ce, then the Luther which is 16th ce. Well, the most probable is from the faithful Greek copies.
answered mine.