Steven Avery

So do you offer any explanation for the numerous usages and references in the 3rd through 5th century ? From 225 AD (Cyprian) to Eugenias at the Council of Carthage ? And Priscillian and the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles of the Vulgate and the other references that are before your assertion of when the addition took place ?

====

btw, I can see that the ending of Mark discussion on this thread is going nowhere. Much of the detail of the evidences, including Metzgerian omissions, was discussed here..
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=125251

Those who are interested in the very strong evidences for the ending of Mark can use that thread as an adjunct to the Jim Snapp website. Also there are other links on that thread.

And if anyone has a potential justification for the Metzgerian omitting of significant evidences in his presentation, explain away. His rigged extracts usually become the centerpiece of the skeptic argumentation (sometimes passed through others .. also apparently Metzger is not always the quickest to give his sources when he is putting forth his arguments).

Ignorance ? Bias ? Unscholarly ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Even your correction is preplexing. Since there are multiple 2nd century citations for the ending of Mark, what are the "earliest ..citations" that are "missing" that you consider probative ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Iasion, are you committing a rather blatant circularity?

Do you have even one manuscript or other external evidence for this claim ? Out of hundreds of manuscripts in multiple languages and textlines ?
How about a homily that omits John 1 ?

Are you going to try again with "missing .. citations" ? Peter Kirby's e-catena (often incomplete) has the Shepherd of Hermas, Ignatius, Irenaeus and a bit later Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus among others. That is quite strong. What more do you want ?

Or is this solely from doctrinal sources who have decided that the Messiahology of John 1 must be late.

So they have declared it as a later addition by doctrinal fiat ?
And you try to use their nonsense as your argument ?
And go out on a limb and state this as your little factoid ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Doug Shaver

Maybe . . . if it were being read by people with skeptical inclinations.

JoeWallack

God I love the sound of Psalms in the morning!


JW:
At ErrancyWiki:

Mark 16:9

I Am in the process of summarizing the reasons why 16:9-20 is Forged. For those who complain about my use of "Forged" let me qualify:

I Am in the process of summarizing the reasons why 16:9-20 is Dishonestly Forged.

As has already been indicated here the Manuscript evidence is clear that 16:9-20 is Forged:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

Metzger:

"1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document."

..."Today we know that the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to Mark (xvi. 9-20) are absent from the oldest Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts, and that in other manuscripts asterisks or obeli mark the verses as doubtful or spurious."


JW:
Consider the related common sense observation (always the best one) that Christianity would have had every reason to add a post resurrection story to manuscripts that didn't have one and no reason to remove a post resurrection story from manuscripts that had one considering that a post resurrection story would be the best supposed evidence Christianity would have for a post resurrection story.

The next best Category of evidence is Patristic identification of the Issue and related Commentary. When Patristic evidence just follows the Communal Party line it's not necessarily very good. But, when it goes against Christianity it's Gold, Jerry, Gold!

The earliest Church Father who comments on the Issue is Eusebius:

Eusebius Letter to Marinus:

http://www.degruyter.de/journals/znw...pdf/92_078.pdf

[I beseech the Almighty to grant me forgiveness for all errors here due to Conversion]

"I am now, skipping over the middle parts, proceeding next to the questions that are always being raised by everyone at the end of the same texts. [I do so] without much delay since the will of God spurs us on to this through your commands, Marinus, my most honored and most industrious son. You asked first,
I. How is it that in Matthew the Savior, after having been raised, appears “late on the Sabbath”17 but in Mark “early on the first day
of the week”?18
1. The solution to this might be twofold. For, on the one hand, the one who rejects the passage itself, [namely] the pericope which says this, might say that it does not appear in all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark. At any rate, the accurate ones of the copies define the end of the history according to Mark with the words of the young man who appeared to the women and said to them, “Do not fear. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene”19 and the [words] that follow. In addition to these, it
says,20 “And having heard [this] they fled, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.”21
For in this way the ending of the Gospel according to Mark is defined in nearly all the copies. The things that appear next, seldom [and] in some but not in all [of the copies], may be spurious, especially since25 it implies26 a contradiction to the testimony of the rest of the evangelists. This then [is what] someone might say to avoid and completely do away with27 a superfluous question.
On the other hand, someone else, who dares to set aside nothing whatsoever of the things which appear, by whatever means,28 in the text of the Gospels,29 says that the reading is double,30 as also in many other
[cases], and [that] each of the two [readings] pistoi&v kai+ eu$labe*sin e$gkri*nesqai. must be accepted in that [they both] are approved in the opinion of the faithful and pious, not this [reading] rather than that, or that [reading] rather than this.
2. And what is more, since it is granted that this part is true, it is appropriate to interpret the sense of the passage. If then we should determine the meaning of the expression, we would not find it35 [to be] contrary to the things spoken by Matthew, [that] “late on the Sabbath” the Savior was raised. For the [passage], “and having risen early on the first day of the week” according to Mark we will read with a pause: after the “and having risen” we will insert a comma. And we will separate the meaning of the [words] that are read afterward. Thus, on the one hand, we may read36 the [expression] “having risen” with reference to the [meaning37 found] in Matthew, “late on the Sabbath.” For that is when he was raised. On the other hand, we could [also] join38 what follows, which gives rise to39 a different meaning, with the [words] that are read afterward: for “early on the first day of the week he appeared to Mary Magdalene.”
tou&to gou&n e$dh*lwse kai+ o< $Iwa*nnhv prwi¸ At any rate, John has also made this clear, kai+ au$to+v t|& mi{& tou& sabba*tou w# fqai au$- and has himself testified that “early on the to+n t|& Magdalhn|& marturh*sav‚ ou=twv first day of the week” [Christ] appeared to ou#n kai+ para+ t}& Ma*rk} prwi¸ e$fa*nh au$t|&‚ the Magdalene. In this manner, therefore, ou$ prwi¸ a$nasta+v, a$lla+ polu+ pro*teron also in Mark he appeared “early” to her. It is not [that] he “rose early” but much earlier, according to Matthew, “late on the Sabbath.” For, “having risen” at that time, he appeared to Mary, not at that time,41 but “early.” The consequence is that42 two points in time are presented in these [pericopes], for the one43 [is the time] of the resurrection, which was “late on the Sabbath.” The other [is the time] of the manifestation of the Savior, which was “early.” Mark wrote [about the later time] when he said that which must be read with a pause, “and having risen.” Then, after having inserted a comma, one must read what follows, “early on the first day of the week he appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.”


JW:
Note that based on the above it was clear to Eusebius that the manuscript evidence indicated "Mark" ended at 16:8. A side observation is that this is more Ammunition that Eusebius was A Truth-Challenged Advocate for that guy from the Christian Bible whose name escapes me at the moment but I think starts with a "J" or "Y". Eusebius never mentions in his Public writings that "Mark" likely ended at 16:8, which probably would have been a more important observation than anything else he wrote, but is willing to offer the observation in Private as a possible solution to an apparent contradiction.

The next Church Father to identify the Issue is Jerome:

Jerome Letter To Hedebia

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...0&page=1&pp=25

[Roger Pearse]
"Jerome says much the same in letter 120, Ad Hedibiam, ch.3: (PL text, with rough translation):

...

CHAP. 3. What is the reason that the Evangelists spoke about the resurrection and appearance of the Lord differently?

In these, you ask first why Matthew said that, “But when the evening of the Sabbath had begun to dawn, on the first day of the following week the Lord rose again”, and Mark relates that his resurrection happened in the morning, thus writing, “However when he rose again, on the first day of the week, in the morning Mary Magdalen arrived, from whom he had expelled seven demons: and she departing announced to those who were mourning and weeping with her. And these hearing that he was alive, and that she had seen him, did not believe in him”.

The solution of this question is two-fold; for either we do not accept the testimony of Mark, that is carried in few gospels, almost all the books of Greece not having this passage at the end, especially and since it seems to speak various and contrary things to the other evangelists; or this must be replied, that both speak truly: Matthew, when the Lord rose again on the evening of the Sabbath, Mark however, when Mary Magdalen saw him, that is, on the morning of the first day of the week.

For so it must be distinguished: for when he had risen again, and being for a short while restricted by the spirit, it must be supposed, on the first day of the week in the morning he appeared to Mary Magdalen, so he had risen again on the evening of the sabbath (according to Matthew), [but] he appeared to Mary Magdalen on the morning of the first day of the week (according to Mark).

Which indeed John the Evangelist also signifies, stating that he was seen on the morning of the second day."


JW:
And so Jerome confirms Eusebius. A related qualification of relatively little worth in my opinion, comes from Smith/Carlson, that Jerome confirms Eusebius too well (copied and therefore dependent).

Thus we not only have the Manuscript evidence indicating that 16:8 was the Original ending, we also have Recognition and Confession of this Evidence by the Early Church Fathers. As my famous Namesake once (supposedly) said, "What more evidence do we need." (Followed by the sound of tearing someone a new one, but not a garment).



Joseph

TRANSLATOR, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the translator's advantage for the other to have said.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

dzim77

[QUOTE=Iasion;3746673]Greetings,


Not 'me'. This has been a primary doctrine of the church for hundreds of years.

Care to give an equivalent example?

No I don't see the problem. The Bible says God is one. The Bible says the Father is God. The Bible says Jesus -the Son- is God. The Bible says the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible says Jesus and the Father are one. The Bible describes Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct persons. Thus... 'trinity'.

How do you know this?

Nope. It's just that you asked what in the world John 1 has to do with the trinity - as if it was irrelavent to the doctrine. This made me wonder if you've read the NT, or perhaps your just not familiar with the doctrine. I didn't mean to insult you, really. Have you read it?


I don't know what you're saying here. Are you saying Jesus, Paul, and Peter aren't included in the NT?

Anyways, Here's Paul:
"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority."
Colossians 2:9-10

"while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" Titus 2:13

"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen." Romans 9:5

Here's Peter:

"Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:" 2 Peter 1:1

Here's Jesus:

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:28,29


These are trinitarian passages.



Paul was the earliest author of epistles.

See: John 1

Again, the Bible never mentions the word "trinity". Please specifically cite the passages you are referring to.

Amaleq13

The problem, as I see it, is selective reading. You focus only on those verses that appear to support your belief and ignore those which do not.

Jesus, according to the Bible, clearly indicated he was not God.

For example:
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (Mt19:17, KJV)

Given the above quote, that can only mean they are in complete agreement.

Heidi Guedel

History indicates that the first edition of the Christian Bible was compiled at the council of Nicea under the auspices of the Roman emperor Constantine, who had decided, for basically political reasons, to make Christianity the official religion of Rome:

http://www.deism.com/biblevotes.htm



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

When you read the description of events in the wikipedia text at the link above, you will see how the history of disagreement among sects of Christianity has existed for over 1,500 years. Christians themselves cannot even agree.

This particular thread of disagreement and debate concerns a collection of human writings which were pieced together at a somewhat fractious meeting of Christian leaders, under the command of a Roman Emperor. The very presumption that these writings were somehow divinely inspired by some cosmic intelligence/creator/god/diety is itself flawed and unsupportable. An argument based upon nonsense is, therefore, nonsensical.

dzim77

So there's two ways to interperet this passage...

1. Jesus was saying that he was not good. And that he was not God, because only God is good. This would then be the first time that Jesus said anything along the lines of 'I am not good'.

2. Jesus was acknowledging that he *is* good and indeed that he *is* God. Thus giving the rich young ruler a clue as to how to find eternal life.

This is not proof that Jesus said he wasn't God. In fact, it can actually be taken as a claim that he is God.

ceres

This is the most common reason given for why the Bible must be accurate. Truthfully it does not do a lot to insure its accuracy. If you take out and look at your Bible you will see many little numbers by different parts, then as a footnote it might say things like "Some manuscripts say..." There are hundreds, if not thousands of these in the New Testament. So which ones are correct? They only made an educated guess about what the original was. That's a fact. There are also whole stories that are not in the original. The beginning of John 8 has the famous story of how Jesus does not condemn a woman found in the act of adultery. Half of the original manuscripts don't include it. Was it added, or was it originally there? We don't know. Furthermore, if I wrote a story and glorified a man that I admired and made a lot of copies.... would that make it more true? I hope this helps.