I think you addressed it by saying that it wasn't about perceived importance... then, you agreed that every word of the bible would be important... you didn't yet agree, I think, that copies have differences in words, but I think that would be obvious... so, any difference would be an important difference.
Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine and St. Thomas: Masters of Theology
- Thread starter AuphirahQueen
- 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.
that's my memory of what the record says...
why would you say it was added to Mark? you would have to look outside the scriptures to say that...
if we just go by what's in the bible, then the longer ending of Mark and the traditional ending of the Lord's prayer may be Jesus' words... if we just ignore them, we may be ignoring the words of Jesus...
my position is that if one wants to benefit from the bible eveything the bible has to offer, one needs to acknowledge at least the possibility of the influence of say, greek philosophers... and that we don't have perfect copies of the bible, and the differences are important...
why would you say it was added to Mark? you would have to look outside the scriptures to say that...
if we just go by what's in the bible, then the longer ending of Mark and the traditional ending of the Lord's prayer may be Jesus' words... if we just ignore them, we may be ignoring the words of Jesus...
my position is that if one wants to benefit from the bible eveything the bible has to offer, one needs to acknowledge at least the possibility of the influence of say, greek philosophers... and that we don't have perfect copies of the bible, and the differences are important...
but of course not everything that made it into the scriptures is material, only if it alters the set of core teachings, yes?
did God secure the longer ending of Mark for us?
I understand why you would say that we don't suffer spiritual loss because we don't have it all... it's because it would only matter if it made a material change to a core teaching, yes?
did God secure the longer ending of Mark for us?
I understand why you would say that we don't suffer spiritual loss because we don't have it all... it's because it would only matter if it made a material change to a core teaching, yes?
dan, it looks like you're just going in circles. (arguments that have no end in sight and no good and true direction between more than one party).
per other: when paul used what a pagan had said, he did so by revelation/wisdom/purpose/training from yahshua, (not ever as if anything of the flesh / pagan beliefs/ poets/ socialites/ scholars or lawyers ever produced anything good) ...
perhaps like when yahshua , who spoke only what his father spoke (never anything on his own),
used the pharisees or saducees own beliefs to discredit them/ against their error (with a hope to correct them or others?) or otherwise and always for yahweh's purpose
and never, never, never giving any glory nor credit to social worldly mankind or the flesh or the carnal etc...
per other: when paul used what a pagan had said, he did so by revelation/wisdom/purpose/training from yahshua, (not ever as if anything of the flesh / pagan beliefs/ poets/ socialites/ scholars or lawyers ever produced anything good) ...
perhaps like when yahshua , who spoke only what his father spoke (never anything on his own),
used the pharisees or saducees own beliefs to discredit them/ against their error (with a hope to correct them or others?) or otherwise and always for yahweh's purpose
and never, never, never giving any glory nor credit to social worldly mankind or the flesh or the carnal etc...
now, I came up with this last night, and I think it will be helpful...
I gather from what you've written that you feel you have the ability to say when an addition or subtraction to or from the scriptures is an immaterial alteration to the meaning of the nt.
Myself, I don't like that approach... I think it would put one in a position to miss a lot.
(yes, I've said this before)
now, if the spirit is leading you in the direction you're using, then by all means, keep going!
I gather from what you've written that you feel you have the ability to say when an addition or subtraction to or from the scriptures is an immaterial alteration to the meaning of the nt.
Myself, I don't like that approach... I think it would put one in a position to miss a lot.
(yes, I've said this before)
now, if the spirit is leading you in the direction you're using, then by all means, keep going!
Perhaps if I rephrase it all, you would be better able to sort it all out.
The issue is authenticity of the Scriptures received from the NT writers vs. corruption of those Scriptures over time.
Those who have a vested interest in unseating 2Tim 3:16, point out that Paul cannot be correct there because there have been later "additions" to Scripture, which could not be from the NT writers.
However, alleged "additions" are immaterial if they do not corrupt the import/truth of the Scriptures.
The alleged "additions" to Mark and the Lord's Prayer do not corrupt the truth/import of the Scriptures,
cause no "damage" to them, and are, therefore, irrelevant to
the issue of the authenticity of the Scriptures received from the NT writers vs. corruption of those Scriptures over time.
Therefore, the Scriptures received from the NT writers are genuine, authoritative, trustworthy and credible,
which is what those who deny 2Ti 3:16 seek to disprove.
The issue is authenticity of the Scriptures received from the NT writers vs. corruption of those Scriptures over time.
Those who have a vested interest in unseating 2Tim 3:16, point out that Paul cannot be correct there because there have been later "additions" to Scripture, which could not be from the NT writers.
However, alleged "additions" are immaterial if they do not corrupt the import/truth of the Scriptures.
The alleged "additions" to Mark and the Lord's Prayer do not corrupt the truth/import of the Scriptures,
cause no "damage" to them, and are, therefore, irrelevant to
the issue of the authenticity of the Scriptures received from the NT writers vs. corruption of those Scriptures over time.
Therefore, the Scriptures received from the NT writers are genuine, authoritative, trustworthy and credible,
which is what those who deny 2Ti 3:16 seek to disprove.
Last edited: