John Kesler

What about Matthew 28:19?

Steven Avery

Hi Iasion,

You are actually repeating an error often made by Christian apologists who have fallen for some modern textcrit errors. You don't have an original for your assertion above.

And the evidence for the ending of Mark is actually very strong, you may want to peruse the Jim Snapp website (and threads we have had here).

http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html
The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20

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

Julian

While I certainly don't want to agree with praxeus about the ending of GMark, Iasion's claim regarding the ending of the original is also incorrect. We cannot know what the original, i.e. the autograph, said. The second part of Iasion's statement, not quoted by praxeus, is more correct. The longer ending is indeed missing from some good, old exemplars. And the debate rages on...

Julian

Malachi151

Matthew: Does not say that these are all the same entity.

When you read Mark especally, but also Matthew and Luke, you see that Jesus says he is not God, he is not the Father, and that he is not the Holy Spirit.

In Mark he also says that Christ can not be descended from David and seems to imply that he is not Christ as well.

Steven Avery

Hi Dzim,

Actually I think you might be giving Greyline an incomplete explanation. This idea of inerrancy you express is really a modern invention that became popular over the last century. In a sense it was adopted as a result of embracing the corrupt alexandrian Westcott-Hort text from which tangible inerrancy could not be defended.

So those today who accept tangible inerrancy (generally Textus Receptus and King James Bible proponents) hold to a far stronger concept of inerrancy, for the manuscripts that are in their hands and not the ethereal 'original manuscripts'.

In a sense the modern concept can be considered as conceptually irrelevant anyway. What is the actual and practical significance of the inerrancy in an unknown and unknowable text ? (The skeptics probably have an answer to this, with with I would agree.)

Similar to the question of what import there is to the concept of 'inspiration' of the scripture if there is not accompanying preservation.

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

Steven Avery

And I would agree, with the word 'good' omitted
and 'manuscripts' the appropos word rather than exemplars.

Steven Avery

... why the earliest extant manuscript theories are essentially rigged and poor manuscript science. It means taking the couple of manuscripts from the desert preservation region, even over hundreds of diverse manuscripts accepted within wide-ranging and manuscript-correcting church environments.

And even when the desert manuscripts are oddball and scribally very corrupt.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Iasion,
...much later than what ?

Julian

There are simply too many things wrong with your post and I don't want to get into it with you regarding your pervicacious, other-worldly 'reasoning' for the 'science' of divine inspiration.

To the lurkers and posters who read the above, just know that praxeus is blatantly misrepresenting, hmmm, everything.

Julian

The Evil One

Julian, as a lurker it seemed pretty clear that when he said "taking the couple of manuscripts from the desert preservation region, even over hundreds of diverse manuscripts accepted within wide-ranging and manuscript-correcting church environments. And even when the desert manuscripts are oddball and scribally very corrupt. " he was essentially assuming his conclusion (that the desert manuscripts are corrupt and the church manuscripts corrected) in a circular argument.