Cleaning Up Scripture...

[timbo3]

I know what the opening of Timothy says. A forged $100.00 bill says it's a $100.00 bill also. Sadly the catholic movement of the second century had no problem forging a multitude of scriptures, three or four of which made it into the New Testament.

Timothy 1&2 and Titus were forged in Paul's name to counter Marcionism, whose followers would only accept Paul.

We know from his genuine letters, that Paul was friends with, and actively supported women preachers. The Marcionites followed this tradition, which the catholic movement felt was an abomination.(§5. The very women of these heretics, how wanton they are! For they are bold enough to teach, to dispute, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures-it may be even to baptize. ~Tertullian)

~Earlychristianwritings.com

It's relatively easy; Marcion introduced the Pauline corpus to the Christian world. If it's not in Marcion's canon---it ain't Paul.

The internal evidence points to 1 Timothy being written by Paul around 61-64 C.E., and 2 Timothy not much later, perhaps around 65 C.E., both being inspired by Jehovah God, for Paul had written to Timothy that his death was now imminent at the hands of Roman Emperor Nero (ruled from 54-68 C.E.), saying to him: "For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the due time for my releasing is imminent. I have fought the fine fight, I have run the course to the finish, I have observed the faith.From this time on there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me as a reward in that day, yet not only to me, but also to all those who have loved his manifestation."(2 Tim 4:6-8)

The authenticity of First and Second Timothy is well established. All outstanding ancient catalogs, starting with the Muratorian Fragment of the second century C.E. (about 170 C.E.), list both letters as canonical. Most important, these letters are in complete agreement with the rest of the Scriptures and quote from them. They contain quotations from or allusions to Numbers (16:5; 2 Tim 2:19), Deuteronomy (19:15; 25:4; 1Tim 5:18, 19), Isaiah (26:13; 2 Tim 2:19), and the words of Jesus Christ (Matt 10:10; Luke 10:7; 1Tim 5:18). Noteworthy are the frequent references to faith (1Tim 1:2, 4, 5, 14, 19; 2:7, 15; 3:9, 13; 4:1, 6, 12; 5:8, 12; 6:10, 11, 12, 21; 2 Tim 1:5, 13; 2:18, 22; 3:8, 10, 15; 4:7), as well as the emphasis on right doctrine (1Tim 1:3, 4; 4:1-3, 6, 7; 6:3, 4, 20, 21; 2 Tim 1:13; 3:14, 15; 4:3, 5), conduct (1Tim 2:8-11, 15; 3:2-13; 4:12; 5:1-21; 6:1, 2, 11-14; 2 Tim 2:22), prayer (1Tim 2:1, 2, 8; 4:5; 5:5; 2 Tim 1:3), and faithful endurance through suffering (2 Tim 1:8, 12; 2:3, 8-13). (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2, pg 1106)

First and second Timothy has nothing to do with "the catholic movement", but rather Paul countered apostasy that was starting to exhibit itself in the Christian congregation, writing to Timothy that "the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth."

It is the Catholic church that later forbid it's priest to marry (in 1022 C.E, at the orders of Pope Benedict VIII), to remain celibate, and condemned anyone who ate "meat on Friday". Former Jesuit Peter de Rosa in his book Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy (1988), wrote: "In the view of some historians, [priestly celibacy] has probably done more harm to morals than any other institution in the West, including prostitution. . . . [It] has been more often than not a stain on the name of Christianity. . . . Enforced celibacy has always led to hypocrisy in the ranks of the clergy. . . . A priest can fall a thousand times but he is forbidden by canon law to marry once.”

Or the eating of meat on Friday's, the Catholic church has ' commanded to abstain from foods which God created to partake of with thanksgiving." Or of Lent, the 40-day period preceding Easter, in which there is the practice of fasting. Thus, Paul was inspired by God to foretell what would happen once the apostasy that Jesus identified in an illustration at Matthew 13:24-30 would begin to fully blossom around the beginning of the 4th century C.E.

 

[Soulgazer]

The internal evidence points to 1 Timothy

Got change for a hundred?

 

[eachallberg]

Im not really up to learn about history that has no substance. Who wrote what is not as important as what was written.

In 1 Timothy Ch 1,
the talk about the law, omit.
Ch 2. the message to those with "authority"/kings and women, omit.
Ch 3, omit.
Ch 4. in verse 4 stop after, "God is good". 7, stop after, "worldly fables". 15, stop after, "absorbed in them".
I like Ch 5. except verse 23.
Ch 6. Omit 1,2,17-19.

This wind doesn't constantly feel like Christ and Sophia.

I notice a lot of the letter is addressing rich people in power.
There is some good in Timothy, but some not.
Ill meditate on 2 Timothy later...
Peace.

 

[Soulgazer]

Im not really up to learn about history that has no substance. Who wrote what is not as important as what was written.

In 1 Timothy Ch 1,
the talk about the law, omit.
Ch 2. the message to those with "authority"/kings and women, omit.
Ch 3, omit.
Ch 4. in verse 4 stop after, "God is good". 7, stop after, "worldly fables". 15, stop after, "absorbed in them".
I like Ch 5. except verse 23.
Ch 6. Omit 1,2,17-19.

This wind doesn't constantly feel like Christ and Sophia.

I notice a lot of the letter is addressing rich people in power.
There is some good in Timothy, but some not.
Ill meditate on 2 Timothy later...
Peace.

No, this wind is from much further south.

There was a plethora of catholic scripture from the mid second century, including not only the Pastorals and 2 Peter, but also the Protovangelion, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, The letter of Pilate, the Gospel of Nicodemus ad infinim. My favorite of those mentioned is the Gospel of Nicodemus, as it presents the entire passion including all popular beliefs, but the Lucian Acts of Thomas, and Acts of John run a close second. They are all very well written, and all very believable, and all very late in the game. The Acts of Thomas and Acts of John also preserve some earlier Gnostic writings in their pages.

 

[timbo3]

Prior to, during and after the first century C.E., many apocryphal ("apocryphal", Greek apokruphon, as at Luke 8:17, meaning "carefully concealed") writings were made, such as 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees, these being dated between 134 B.C.E. and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. As applied to writings, it originally referred to those not read publicly of the Hebrew Scriptures (commonly called the Old Testament), hence “concealed” from others.

Later, however, the word took on the meaning of spurious or uncanonical, and today is used most commonly to refer to the additional writings declared part of the Bible canon by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1546). Catholic writers refer to these books as deuterocanonical, meaning “of the second (or later) canon,” as distinguished from protocanonical.

There were many others that fall into the category of the apocryphal, such as Baruch (including the Epistle of Jeremias), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Wisdom, Tobit (Tobias), Judith, The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susana and the Elders, The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon.

Jerome, who is described as “the best Hebrew scholar” of the early church and who completed the Latin Vulgate in 405 C.E., took a definite stand against such Apocryphal books and was the first, in fact, to use the word “Apocrypha” explicitly in the sense of noncanonical as referring to these writings.

Thus, in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, Jerome lists the inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures in harmony with the Hebrew canon (in which the 39 books are grouped as 22) and then says: “Thus there are twenty-two books . . . This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha.”

In writing to a lady named Laeta on the education of her daughter, Jerome counseled: “Let her avoid all the apocryphal books, and if she ever wishes to read them, not for the truth of their doctrines but out of respect for their wondrous tales, let her realize that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that there are many faulty elements in them, and that it requires great skill to look for gold in mud.”—Select Letters, CVII.

Particularly from the second century C.E. forward there has developed an immense body of writings making claim to divine inspiration and canonicity and pretending to relate to the Christian faith. Frequently referred to as the “Apocryphal New Testament,” these writings represent efforts at imitating the Gospels, Acts, letters, and the revelations contained in the canonical books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. A large number of these are known only through fragments extant or by quotations from them or allusions to them by other writers.

 

[RufustheRed]

The canonicity of certain individual books of the Christian Greek Scriptures has been disputed by some, but the arguments against them are very weak. For critics to reject, for example, the book of Hebrews simply because it does not bear Paul’s name and because it differs slightly in style from his other letters is shallow reasoning.

B. F. Westcott, (Biblical scholar and writer of the Greek master text, The New Testament in the Original Greek, 1881),observed that “the canonical authority of the Epistle is independent of its Pauline authorship.” (The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1892, p. lxxi) Objection on the grounds of unnamed writership is far outweighed by the presence of Hebrews in the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P46) (dated within 150 years of Paul’s death), which contains it along with eight other letters of Paul.

The internal evidence of the book is all in support of Paul’s writership. The writer was in Italy and was associated with Timothy. These facts fit Paul. (Heb. 13:23, 24) Furthermore, the doctrine is typical of Paul, though the arguments are presented from a Jewish viewpoint, designed to appeal to the strictly Hebrew congregation to which the letter was addressed.

On this point Clarke’s Commentary, Volume 6, page 681, says concerning Hebrews: “That it was written to Jews, naturally such, the whole structure of the epistle proves. Had it been written to the Gentiles, not one in ten thousand of them could have comprehended the argument, because unacquainted with the Jewish system; the knowledge of which the writer of this epistle everywhere supposes.” This helps to account for the difference of style when compared with Paul’s other letters, who was thoroughly knowledgeable of Jewish law, who was thoroughly knowledgeable of Jewish law.

The discovery in about 1930 of the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P46) has provided further evidence of Paul’s writership. Commenting on this papyrus codex, which was written only about a century and a half after Paul’s death, the eminent British textual critic Sir Frederic Kenyon said: “It is noticeable that Hebrews is placed immediately after Romans (an almost unprecedented position), which shows that at the early date when this manuscript was written no doubt was felt as to its Pauline authorship.”

On this same question, McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia states pointedly: “There is no substantial evidence, external or internal, in favor of any claimant to the authorship of this epistle except Paul.”(Hebrews, Epistle To, pg 147)

An due to Paul's closeness to Timothy (Acts16:1, 3), calling him "a genuine child in the faith"(1 Tim 1:2), Paul is the only Bible writer, besides Luke in Acts (whereby Timothy is attached to Paul), that mentions him by name, which is found at Hebrews 13:23 and of which Paul also calls him "my fellow worker".(Rom 16:21)

Thanks for your response. It give one something to ponder.

Rufus

 

[SwordoftheLord]

I dont think Paul wrote Hebrews.. I think Apollos wrote Hebrews...And tertullian said that Barnabas wrote it...

 

[Soulgazer]

I dont think Paul wrote Hebrews.. I think Apollos wrote Hebrews...And tertullian said that Barnabas wrote it...

This is all that earlychristianwritings had on it:

A text from the Talmud sets the latest possible date for Hebrews. R. Ishmael died c. 135 CE; if these are his words, the composition of Hebrews (to which Ishmael refers) must have taken place before his death.

R. Zechariah said, in the name of R. Ishmael,
The Holy One - blessed be He - sought to cause the priesthood to go
forth from Shem.
For it is said:
And he was a priest of God Most High. [Gen 14:18]
As soon as he put the blessing of Abraham before the blessing of
God, he caused it to go forth from Abraham, as it is said,
And he blessed him and said:
Blessed be Abraham of God Most High, possessor of
heaven and earth, and blessed be God Most High. [v.19]
Abraham said to him:
Do they put the blessing of the servant before the
blessing of his owner?
Immediately it was given to Abraham, as it is said:
The Lord says to my Lord:
Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy
enemies a footstool for thy feet. [Ps. 110:1]
And further down it is written,
The Lord hath sworn and will not repent,
Thou art a priest forever after the order of
Melchesidek, [v.4] according to the saying of Melchesidek.
And this is what is written.
And he was priest of God Most High. [Gen 14:18]
He was priest; his seed were not priests.
​

Babylon Talmud, Nedar. 32b, quoted in Travers R. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, 1903, I, b, iv; pg 338, item 139.
Hebrews was clearly known to the author of 1 Clement (17:1, 36:2-5). This sets the terminus ad quem for the book of Hebrews. However, dating 1 Clement is difficult, with commentators ranging from 95 CE to 120 CE or even as late as 140 CE.
Attridge states on the dating of Hebrews (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, p. 97):

Within the broad range of the years 60-95 C.E., various conjectures have been made about a more precise dating. References to the Jewish sacrificial cult in the present tense (9:6-10; 10:1-4), along with the lack of any mention of the destruction of the temple, have been taken as evidence of a date prior to 70 C.E., when the Jerusalem temple was destroyed. This argument, however, is inconclusive, since our author is not at all concerned with the Herodian temple. Rather, he deals with the desert tabernacle and argues exegetically from biblical data. Moreover, authors writing after 70 C.E., such as Josephus, Clement of Rome, and the compilers of the Mishnah, often refer to the temple as a present reality.​

Kummel dates Hebrews as follows (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 403): "To the obvious question whether Jerusalem is still standing (13:13 f) and the temple cultus is still in process (9:9 f) Heb gives no answer. In its timeless scholarly movement of ideas only the OT sanctuary plays a role, not the Herodian temple; an origin before 70 cannot be inferred either from the silence concerning the catastrophe of the year 70 or from the expression in 8:13 that the Old Covenant is 'in the course of passing away.' On the contrary, the persecutions which the community has experienced (10:32-34) and the spiritual proximity to Lk-Acts point in all probability to the post-Pauline period. Heb was, however, written before 96 (I Clem); Timothy, who as a young man had been a mission aide of Paul, is still living (13:23), writers and readers belong to the second Christian generation (2:3), the new suffering which threatens the readers (12:4) may point to the time of Domitian (81-96). Accordingly the letter was probably written between 80 and 90."
Hebrews 2:3 states: "Announced first by the Lord, it [salvation] was confirmed to us by those who had heard him." Hebrews 13:7 states: "Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you; consider how their lives ended, and imitate their faith." This is compatible with a date of Hebrews during the second or third Christian generation.
Harold W. Attridge writes of the Epistle to the Hebrews (op. cit., p. 97):

Although Hebrews is included in the Pauline corpus and was part of that corpus in its earliest attested form (p46), it is certainly not a work of the apostle. This fact was recognized, largely on sytlistic grounds, even in antiquity. Some patristic authors defended the traditional Pauline attribution with theories of scribal assistants such as Clement of Rome or Luke, but such hypotheses do not do justice to the very un-Pauline treatment of key themes, particularly those of law and faith. Numerous alternative candidates for authorship have been proposed. The most prominent have been Barnabas, to whom Tertullian assigned the work; Apollos, defended by Luther and many moderns; Priscilla, suggested by von Harnack; Epaphras; and Silas. Arguments for none are decisive, and Origen's judgment that "God only knows" who composed the work is sound.​

The book is anonymous, and its author is unknown. Perrin writes about the provenance of Hebrews (The New Testament: An Introduction, p. 138): "To whom was Hebrews originally addressed? The writer is a Hellenistic Jewish Christian, and his arguments presuppose that he is writing to others who think as he does, i.e., to a Hellenistic Jewish Christian community. Since Clement of Rome knows and quotes the text within what could only have been a few years of its writing, that community may well have been in Rome. This view is supported by the greetings from 'those who have come from Italy' in Heb 13:24."

 

[timbo3]

Jehovah’s Witnesses and John 1:1 (see I can copy and paste also)

Just read that.
​

The Witnesses have been attacked consistently in regard to John 1:1 and the rendering of "a god". There are those who are willing to reason on this verse (as well as others), whereby it can readily be seen that John intentionally left out the definite article ho before the second instance of "god" at John 1:1b, and thus making it indefinite in this Scripture.

The Greek word "logos" or "Word" has the definite article before it all three times at John 1:1, 2, but the Greek word theos has it only at the 1st and 3rd times. This should speak loudly as to the Greek word theos at John 1:1b as being rendered as "a god", for had John wanted to insure that people understood that "the Word" is God, he would have used the definite article ho all three times with theos.

He would have written "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and (the) God was the Word. The same was in the beginning with the God." However, John did not write it this way, but rather intentionally left out the definite article and wrote literally "and god was the Word" and is thus rendered as "a god was the Word", with the Sahidic Coptic manuscript, P. Chester Beatty 813 confirming this.

In addition, John 1:18 calls Jesus "the only-begotten god" (Greek monogenes theos ho, Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15, Greek manuscript, about 200 C.E., Codex Siniaticus, 4th century C.E.) How could Jesus be an "only-begotten god" and yet be God who has no beginning, for the word "only-begotten" means “single of its kind, only,” or “the only member of a kin or kind.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144)

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible says "only-born, i.e. sole." The word beget, from which the word begotten comes from, means "1. father: to be the father of a child (archaic)'(Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005) How could Jesus be fathered and yet be God ?

How could Jesus be God and yet be "born" ? God has never been "born", but has been alive forever, or without beginning. Psalms 90:2 says: "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."(King James Bible) Hence, if Jesus is God, then there is a problem.

This combined with Jesus words that showed him as God's Son (John 10:36), as subordinate to God (1 Cor 3:23; 11:3), such as John 8:28, 29. Here Jesus says that "that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to him.”

According to the trinity, Jesus is "God", and yet Jesus said that he was taught by the Father. At Isaiah 40:13, 14, it says: "Who hath directed the spirit of the Lord, or being his counseller hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?"(King James Bible)

There is a problem, for Isaiah wrote that no one has taught God; however Jesus was. If Jesus is "God", then how is it that he does ' nothing of his own initiative ' ? If Jesus is God, then why does he have to be taught as to what to say ? Again, there is a problem, for Isaiah 40:14 says that no one "taught God knowledge", but Jesus had to be.

And how could Jesus be God and yet "always do the things pleasing to" the Father" ? Always ? The trinity teaches that Jesus is co-equal to the Father, but Jesus said that he "always" pleases his Father. Some co-equalness. Again, there is a problem if Jesus is said to be God.

According to the trinity, “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.” It is held that the three “are co-eternal and co-equal.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia)

Jehovah God is the Creator. (Revelation 4:11) He is without beginning or end, and he is almighty. (Psalm 90:2; Gen 17:1) Jesus, on the other hand, had a beginning. (Colossians 1:15, 16; Rev 3:14) Referring to God as his Father, Jesus said: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) Jesus also explained that there were some things neither he nor the angels knew but that were known only by his Father.(Matt 24:36; Mark 13:32)

Yet, according to the trinity doctrine, Jesus is co-equal with the Father, and yet cannot tell when the "great tribulation" is to start. This alone shows a failure in the trinity doctrine, for if Jesus is "God", then he would have known "the day and hour" just as the Father does. In addition, Habakukk 1:12 says: "Are you not from long ago, O Jehovah? O my God, my Holy One, you do not die." Yet Jesus died.(Matt 27:50; 1 Thess 2:15)

The ability to reason on the Bible is for most, "few and far between". The trinity has had such a stranglehold on people, that most are unwilling to reason, but rather just accept the trinity without question, treating it like the Greeks did Greek mythology, as a supposed answer for the real world, but as we all know are just myths. So likewise of the trinity.

And at 1 Corinthians 2:16, the apostle Paul pointed toward Isaiah 40:13, saying: "For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ." Why is it that we can "have the mind of Christ", but not "the mind of Jehovah" ("mind of the Lord", King James Bible), if both are God, co-equal, both being omniscient or "all-knowing" ? The problem is getting worse if Jesus is God.

 

[cybrwurm]

> On Feb27 SwordoftheLord say: Bible for Dummies!
> (see I can copy and paste also) ... Just read that.
.
cybrwurm say: You sure know how to ask a lot from a guy, SwordoftheLord.
Stepping into textual-garbage all day long is definitely NOT my idea of fun!

In the so-called 'Bible for Dummies' one Dr John Ankerberg and one Dr John Weldon didst together write an article entitled 'Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1' which begins thusly:

wurm interrupts to say: But don't be overly impressed by the fine-sounding titles of these two Doctors John. This is simply the way that bible-scholars of the scribal persuasion establish their authority as bible-teachers. They are indeed authorized to teach the bible to dummies; and to anyone else who doesn't know that they are basically just two more highly biased interpreters of the scriptures. They are biased in favor of the trinitarian theology (which determines ALL of their saying and teaching). Of course, the reader should also be aware that we are just as biased in our exegesis as the two doctors-john are in theirs. But our bias is rather different in terms of quality, in that our bias is in favor of the *integrity* of the sacred-texts. Let us see which warped-perspective sheds more light upon the verses at hand ...
.

A&W: In John 1:1, the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses inserts
the word "a" in an attempt to deny Christ's deity:

"In (the) beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
--New World Translation (NWT)

The same verse in the New American Standard Version reads this way:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The transliterated Greek of this verse looks like this:
En arche en ho logos / In beginning was the Word
kai ho logos en pros ton theon / and the word was toward the God
kai theos en ho logos / and God was the Word

.

A&W: In essence, the Watchtower Society claims it can translate theos as "a god" because there is no definite article before this usage of theos (God) in the last clause of John 1:1. Note that the first use of the term God (pros ton theon) has the article (ton-the). The second use simply states kai theos ("and God," not "and the God"). Because it does not say "and the God" Jehovah's Witnesses argue they are free to interpret this second usage of God as figuratively meaning a lesser deity, "a god"-signifying Christ's exalted status, even though he is still only a creature. Their main concern here is to escape the clear meaning of this passage. Christ is here called theos, God. The difficulty is that, had the apostle John used the article, he would have declared that "the God was the Word." Had he done so, he would have confused the persons of the Trinity and supported modalism (in the early church known as the heresy of Sabellianism). In other words, to declare that "the God was the word [Jesus]" would have stated that all of God-i.e., the whole trinity-was Jesus. This would have supported modalistic belief that there is only one Person in the Godhead (i.e., Jesus) and that the terms Father, Son and Spirit in Scripture only refer to modes or offices of the one God who exists as one person.

.
Please note that the good doctors are here *assuming* that when John says 'the-god' he is referring not to the Father, but to the Trinity. And therefore the theos/god in v.1c refers to one person of the triune-godhead, namely, God the Son. In order to put all these baseless assumptions into proper perspective, let us now show Jn 1:1 exactly as the trinitarians actually do, in fact, see it:
.
"In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with the Trinity,
and the Word was God the Son."
.
What a shame that the greek-text does NOT support this fanciful interpretation!
.

A&W: The apostle John had to make a finer distinction and, on the one hand, clearly declare that the person of Jesus was deity, but, on the other, not make it seem as if all three persons in the Godhead were to be considered the same as the person of Jesus. To make this fine distinction he had to use the exact wording he used. We should also note that the Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Interlinear (p. 1158-1159) utilizes both Julius Mantey's Manual Grammar and A.T. Robertson's Grammar in defense of their John 1:1 translation. However, Mantey observes: "Since my name is used and our Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament is quoted on page 744 to seek to justify their translation, I am making this statement… of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done. If the Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John 1:1, the implication would be that they are one and the same person, absolutely identical. But John affirmed that "the Word was with (the) God" (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing, he indicated his belief that they are distinct and separate personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, i.e., of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in other words, that both are of the same nature, and that nature is the highest in existence, namely divine ..." <snip remainder>

.
wow. Now that's what we call some convoluted logic there! If the author had wanted to indicate that the Logos was divine, what prevented him from simply saying "and divine was the Logos"? Such a statement would, in fact, be *entirely* consistent with the centuries old logos traditions of the philosophers and jewish sages. So rather than project trinitarian concepts and meanings into texts that are not built to hold them, maybe we should seek for a more *historical* solution to this problem. Check this out:
.
kai theos en ho logos / and God was the Logos
kai theios en ho logos / and divine was the Logos
.
Do you see what a huge difference one little iota makes? Do you see how easy (not to mention tempting) it must have been to just conveniently "drop" that bothersome iota so as to make the prophet John *seem* like a trinitarian theologian? ... Given the undeniable literary fact that the third gospel is a textual nightmare of post-autograph adjustments, additions, and changes, what are the odds that the second rendition above represents the words that John actually wrote? We would argue that the overall weight of *all* the textual evidence pushes us to a very strong probability (bordering even on certainty). Nor am I the only translator who reasons this way, and thus supports 'theios' over 'theos':
.
"and the Word was divine" - The Bible: An American Translation,
by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago. 1935
.
"so the Word was divine" - The Authentic New Testament,
by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen. 1955
.
My only objection here is that although they have the right word (theios), they changed the order (to accommodate to english), and this we see as a literary and theological mistake (albeit a relatively minor one). A *much* bigger mistake is translating 'Logos' into english as 'Word', which is a translation that is devoid of almost all of the theological-meaning that the prophet John puts into that one small word. What John means by the divine-Logos is, unfortunately, not something that the trinitarians are at all able to grasp, let alone understand ...
.
Here then is the best english translation of what the prophet John's greek-text actually *means*:
.
] En arche en ho logos / In [the] beginning was the Way of Love & Reason,
] kai ho logos en pros ton theon / and the Way of Love & Reason was facing the-god,
] kai theios en ho logos / and divine was the Way of Love & Reason.
.
Yes, dear reader, it certainly does look as if we have no need for trinitarian assumptions after all. The text pretty much explains itself, and does not require us to pursue these absurd theological gymnastics (that the trinitarians so excel at)! "the-god" is the one and only God, the Cosmic Father, whose name is ABBA. And the divine-Logos is the only-begotten-one who was "made flesh" in and through Joshua of Nazareth. The divine-Logos then took on human being, and *became* a human person in Jesus. And *this* is why he, and no other, is the Anointed One (Christos). Therefore JC is the physical manifestation of the Way of Love & Reason; or (to put it another way), Jesus Christ is human-being taken to the max!
.
This is the gospel according to John.

 

[timbo3]

The Jewish Sopherim, or scribes, emended (or altered) several passages to read “bless” instead of “curse”, such as at 1 Kings 21:10, 13 and Job 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9, holding the view that it was blasphemous even to note anyone’s cursing God. These changed the Hebrew word arar, meaning "to execrate" and rendered as "curse" (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, H779) to barak, meaning " to kneel, by implication to bless God [as an act adoration](1st meaning, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, H1288)

The Catholic Douay reads at Job 1:5: "And when the days of their feasting were gone about, Job sent to them, and sanctified them (his sons): and rising up early offered holocausts for every one of them. For he said: "Lest perhaps my sons have sinned, and have blessed God in their hearts, So Job did all his days."(1945) Had the scholars of the Catholic Douay done their homework, these could have reasoned that it is not a sin to "bless God", but rather to curse him. But these accepted without question what Jerome had rendered in the Latin Vulgate.

A modern English translation reads of Job 1:5: "And it would occur that when the banquet days had gone round the circuit, Job would send and sanctify them; and he got up early in the morning and offered up burnt sacrifices according to the number of all of them; for, said Job, “maybe my sons have sinned and have cursed (Hebrew arar instead of barak) God in their heart.” That is the way Job would do always."(New World Translation)

C.D.Ginsburg notes in his Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, under the subtopic "Impious expressions toward God", that "We have now to adduce a few passages into which changes have been introduced by the authorized redactors (the Jewish Sopherim) of the text, but which are not expressly mentioned in the official Lists. Foremost amongst these are instances in which the original reading described blasphemy or cursing God. Such profane phrases were deemed offensive to the ears of the devote worshippers when the Scriptures were read publicly before the congregation. It was the anxiety to mitigate (or lessen or make less serious) these harsh and impious expressions towards the Almighty, which gave rise to the editorial canon in accordance with which the Sopheric alterations were made."(pgs 363, 364, 1942 printing)

 

[riverrat]

Textual critics come a dime a dozen here.

 

[Noxot]

it is good to search into the matter with prayers.

 

[Unix]

Mt 11:27. The post-easter Church added it. It was used by the Arians, and the verse is used today by the United Church of God http://www.ucg.org/files/booklets/pdf/Is-God-a-Trinity.pdf (PDF). Note that the United Church and Arianism specifically use(d) the Mt passage.

Mt 11:27 should definately not be preached anywhere. I have a really solid commentary on it: Hermeneia-series Matthew 8-20, by Ulrich Luz, a 600-page volume, and it tells us that Mt 11:27 was added by the church. I'll get back to this after the weekend, I'm in the very middle of scanning in those pages from that book, and I'll post that here as images.
On page 164:
p. 155
p. 156
p. 157
p. 158
p. 159
p. 164
p. 165

What verses do you feel have been added or altered?

 

[Soulgazer]

Mt 11:27. The post-easter Church added it. It was used by the Arians, and the verse is used today by the United Church of God http://www.ucg.org/files/booklets/pdf/Is-God-a-Trinity.pdf (PDF). Note that the United Church and Arianism specifically use(d) the Mt passage.

There are so many additions that it is impossible to sort them all out. I.E. of the various "originals" of acts, they vary as much as 12% in length. It doesn't matter. The Gospels are sufficient; none of them were written much before the turn of the second century, and though they are not accurate in historical and factual terms, where it counts, the SPIRITUAL, they are completely satisfactory.

I "believe" that no one can know the Father but the Son; this was the cornerstone of pre-catholic theology, that "all those that ever came before me were as thieves and robbers".

This is critical; Jesus was hated not because he claimed to be the Messiah, but because He painted a picture of God that was different from the wargod that people previously believed in. The Pharisee and apocalyptic sects were expecting a sword swinging Sampson to free Israel from Roman bondage. They wanted Jesus and His Namby Pamby "turn the other cheek" out of the way to make room for the "REAL" Messiah.

Even some of the post crucifixion writings of the Apocalyptic sects such as "Revelation" never gave up hope that the Messiah would come back and overturn Rome. They just could not let go of the wargod.

The catolicism of the various sects give us a hodgepodge that include a bunch of beliefs that were unique to various sects and try to incorporate them into one belief system.

 

[Unix]

I don't read Acts or the Revelation at all, so that's not a problem!

I.E. of the various "originals" of acts, they vary as much as 12% in length.
<snip>
Even some of the post crucifixion writings of the Apocalyptic sects such as "Revelation" never gave up hope that the Messiah would come back and overturn Rome. They just could not let go of the wargod.

 

[timbo3]

Just as making sure that the money we use is genuine and not counterfeit, it sometimes takes great effort to sort out that which is the inspired word of God (2 Tim 3;16) and that which has been added or altered. Jesus recognized the 39 "books" of the Hebrew Scriptures as inspired.(Luke 24:44) Also, just three days before his death, Jesus appointed "a faithful and discreet slave" to oversee "all his belongings".(Matt 24:45, 47)

These "belongings" includes seeing that only "true (or accurate) food" (John 6:54) is provided to the "domestics" (Matt 24:45, Greek therapeias, meaning "attendance, figuratively and collectively domestics, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, G2322) or those selected as "kings and priests" (Rev 1:6) for the "heavenly calling"(Heb 3:1), along with the "other sheep"(John 10:16), those who are called "meek" ones that will enjoy life on the earth forever.(Matt 5:5, Ps 37:11, 29)

Providing "meat in due season"(Matt 24:45, King James Bible) included insuring that the clear distinction is made between the inspired word of God and the so-called "falsely called knowledge"(1 Tim 6:20), that gnostics espoused.

These claimed secret divine knowledge or gnosis (Greek for "knowledge") and challenged genuine Christians about who had the true teachings and writings of Jesus and his disciples, such as Montanus, Marcion and Valentinus, both of the second century C.E. and Manes of the third century C.E., who called himself "the messenger of God come to Babylon" (dubbed al-B&#257;bil&#299;yu, Arabic for &#8220;the Babylonian") and sought to form a universal religion fusing elements of Christianity, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism.

Marcion (about 100-160 C.E., the son of a so-called Christian &#8220;bishop&#8221; in Asia Minor ) differentiated between an imperfect &#8220;Old Testament&#8221; God inferior to Jesus and Jesus&#8217; Father, the unknown &#8220;New Testament&#8221; God of love, or, rather, in those parts of it that he accepted (some of the writings of Paul and Luke).

The idea of an &#8220;unknown god is a fundamental theme of gnosticism,&#8221; explains The Encyclopedia of Religion. This unknown god is identified as &#8220;the supreme Intellect, inaccessible to the human intellect.&#8221; The creator of the material world, on the other hand, is inferior and not absolutely intelligent and is known as the Demiurge.

Montanus (second century) preached the imminent return of Christ and the setting up of the New Jerusalem in Pepuza, near the modern city of Ankara, Turkey. More concerned about conduct than doctrine, he evidently tried to restore the original values of Christianity, but given to extremes, the movement finally fell victim to the very situation of laxity it condemned. Tertullian (about 160-220 C.E.) became a Montanist.

Valentinus (second century), a Greek poet and the most prominent Gnostic of all time, claimed that although Jesus&#8217; ethereal (or in his eyes, Jesus heavenly or spiritual) body passed through Mary, it was not actually born of her. This was because Gnostics viewed all matter as evil. Thus, Jesus could not have had a material body or it too would have been evil. Gnostics known as Docetists taught that everything about Jesus&#8217; humanity was mere appearance and illusion. This included his death and resurrection.

According to Tertullian, Valentinus broke with the "church" and left Rome after being passed over for the office of bishop, developing his doctrines, which reflected "the influence of Platonism and Eastern dualistic religion (Zoroasterianism) as well as "Christianity".(Microsoft Reference Library 2005)

Thus, the apostle Paul warned Timothy, writing to him: "O Timothy, guard what is laid up in trust with you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called &#8220;knowledge.&#8221; For making a show of such [knowledge] some have deviated from the faith."(1 Tim 6:20, 21)

 

[Soulgazer]

Just as making sure that the money we use is genuine and not counterfeit, it sometimes takes great effort to sort out that which is the inspired word of God (2 Tim 3;16) and that which has been added or altered. Jesus recognized the 39 "books" of the Hebrew Scriptures as inspired.(Luke 24:44) Also, just three days before his death, Jesus appointed "a faithful and discreet slave" to oversee "all his belongings".(Matt 24:45, 47)

These "belongings" includes seeing that only "true (or accurate) food" (John 6:54) is provided to the "domestics" (Matt 24:45, Greek therapeias, meaning "attendance, figuratively and collectively domestics, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, G2322) or those selected as "kings and priests" (Rev 1:6) for the "heavenly calling"(Heb 3:1), along with the "other sheep"(John 10:16), those who are called "meek" ones that will enjoy life on the earth forever.(Matt 5:5, Ps 37:11, 29)

Providing "meat in due season"(Matt 24:45, King James Bible) included insuring that the clear distinction is made between the inspired word of God and the so-called "falsely called knowledge"(1 Tim 6:20), that gnostics espoused.

These claimed secret divine knowledge or gnosis (Greek for "knowledge") and challenged genuine Christians about who had the true teachings and writings of Jesus and his disciples, such as Montanus, Marcion and Valentinus, both of the second century C.E. and Manes of the third century C.E., who called himself "the messenger of God come to Babylon" (dubbed al-B&#257;bil&#299;yu, Arabic for &#8220;the Babylonian") and sought to form a universal religion fusing elements of Christianity, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism.

Marcion (about 100-160 C.E., the son of a so-called Christian &#8220;bishop&#8221; in Asia Minor ) differentiated between an imperfect &#8220;Old Testament&#8221; God inferior to Jesus and Jesus&#8217; Father, the unknown &#8220;New Testament&#8221; God of love, or, rather, in those parts of it that he accepted (some of the writings of Paul and Luke).

The idea of an &#8220;unknown god is a fundamental theme of gnosticism,&#8221; explains The Encyclopedia of Religion. This unknown god is identified as &#8220;the supreme Intellect, inaccessible to the human intellect.&#8221; The creator of the material world, on the other hand, is inferior and not absolutely intelligent and is known as the Demiurge.

Montanus (second century) preached the imminent return of Christ and the setting up of the New Jerusalem in Pepuza, near the modern city of Ankara, Turkey. More concerned about conduct than doctrine, he evidently tried to restore the original values of Christianity, but given to extremes, the movement finally fell victim to the very situation of laxity it condemned. Tertullian (about 160-220 C.E.) became a Montanist.

Valentinus (second century), a Greek poet and the most prominent Gnostic of all time, claimed that although Jesus&#8217; ethereal (or in his eyes, Jesus heavenly or spiritual) body passed through Mary, it was not actually born of her. This was because Gnostics viewed all matter as evil. Thus, Jesus could not have had a material body or it too would have been evil. Gnostics known as Docetists taught that everything about Jesus&#8217; humanity was mere appearance and illusion. This included his death and resurrection.

According to Tertullian, Valentinus broke with the "church" and left Rome after being passed over for the office of bishop, developing his doctrines, which reflected "the influence of Platonism and Eastern dualistic religion (Zoroasterianism) as well as "Christianity".(Microsoft Reference Library 2005)

Thus, the apostle Paul warned Timothy, writing to him: "O Timothy, guard what is laid up in trust with you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called &#8220;knowledge.&#8221; For making a show of such [knowledge] some have deviated from the faith."(1 Tim 6:20, 21)

Excuse me, but that is a load of crap. It is very well established that the pastorals and 2Peter are second century forgeries...written to counter Marcionism.

Valentinius was not "passed over". He wasn't running a campaign. That he was considered at all shows how highly regarded he was.





"Gnostic" for historical purposes only applies to Sethians, who were self described. The rest were labelled such by that lying loonie toon Ireanus. Amazon.com: Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (9780691005423): Michael Allen Williams: Books

The Valentinian school was a bridge between the developing catholicism, and the predominant faith, Marcionism.


What is now mistakenly labelled Gnosticism is aboriginal Christianity---- before the sea change of the third century where catholicism came to the forefront.

What is called christianity today would not be recognized by first and second century practitioners. Today's Christianity is primarily fabricated from previous proto-catholic fabrications. Most of the scriptures are fabrications, and nearly 100% of the traditions. Please note, I am not calling any of the scriptures "worthless", but I see no need to lie about them. They are sufficient.

"Gnosticism" as a historical category is being dismantled and replaced by "pre-catholicism"

 

[UnamSanctam]

Just read the KJV, it is Gods Word for English speaking people

Hows that?

Better than the normal "The KJV is the ONLY TRUE Word of God, and God had IT in mind when inspiring the writers of the Bible"....but only a little.
It's just a bit LESS rubbish than the normal one.

 

[timbo3]

Excuse me, but that is a load of crap. It is very well established that the pastorals and 2Peter are second century forgeries...written to counter Marcionism.

Valentinius was not "passed over". He wasn't running a campaign. That he was considered at all shows how highly regarded he was.

"Gnostic" for historical purposes only applies to Sethians, who were self described. The rest were labelled such by that lying loonie toon Ireanus. Amazon.com: Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (9780691005423): Michael Allen Williams: Books

The Valentinian school was a bridge between the developing catholicism, and the predominant faith, Marcionism.


What is now mistakenly labelled Gnosticism is aboriginal Christianity---- before the sea change of the third century where catholicism came to the forefront.

What is called christianity today would not be recognized by first and second century practitioners. Today's Christianity is primarily fabricated from previous proto-catholic fabrications. Most of the scriptures are fabrications, and nearly 100% of the traditions. Please note, I am not calling any of the scriptures "worthless", but I see no need to lie about them. They are sufficient.

"Gnosticism" as a historical category is being dismantled and replaced by "pre-catholicism"

It is not "well established that the pastorals and 2Peter are second century forgeries", except only in your mind. Second Peter was written around 64 C.E. by the apostle Peter, while 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus was written by the apostle Paul between 61 and 65 C.E. Marcion was not born until about 100 C.E. and did not espouse his "doctrines" until perhaps some 40 or more years later. How could therefore the "pastorals and 2Peter" counter Marcionism since it did not exist for until at least 75 years later ?

Already in the 1st century, gnosticism was infiltrating the Christian congregation, for both Hy·me·nae´us and Alexander "experienced shipwreck concerning [their] faith."(1 Tim 1:19, 20) Thus, both were expelled from the congregation, along with Philetus, who taught that the resurrection had already occurred.

Evidently this was their teaching: that the resurrection was merely a spiritual one, of a symbolic kind, and that the dedicated Christians had already had their resurrection, that this was all there was to the matter and there was no further resurrection in the future under God’s Messianic Kingdom.(2 Tim 2:18)

This was contrary to 1 Corinthians 15:12-23 that explained that there is to be a future resurrection from the dead, as well as especially what Jesus said: "Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment."(John 5:28, 29)

Whether or not Valentinus was highly regarded is not the issue, but that his teachings were not truth, but apostate, being a "Christian mystic and poet".(The Gnostic Society Library) This Library further said that "according to Valentinus, there are esoteric teachings which originate from Jesus that were passed on in secret. When Jesus spoke in public, he used metaphors that did not disclose his complete teachings", even believing "that God is androgynous" or "a male-female dyad."

Valentinus thus claimed secret divine knowledge, mystical revelations through him, with one of his followers saying that "the Scriptures are ambiguous and the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition".(The Gnostic Society Library, Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:2:1)

Jesus teachings were disclosed to all, but only his disciples had the privilege of understanding what Jesus meant, and in which Jesus explained these to them.(Matt 13:11) Jesus said that this was his Father's will, saying in prayer to him: "I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes. Yes, O Father, because to do thus came to be the way approved by you."(Matt 11:25, 26)

Only humble individuals, those who are like "babes", ready to be taught by Jehovah God, are the ones who are allowed to understand the "deep things of God."(1 Cor 2:10) Daniel was told: "Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of [the] end. Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will certainly act wickedly, and no wicked ones at all will understand; but the ones having insight will understand."(Dan 12:9, 10)

Jesus said: "It is written in the Prophets (at Isaiah 54:13), ‘And they will all be taught by Jehovah.’ Everyone that has heard from the Father and has learned comes to me."(John 6:45) Jesus thence, said that those who are the symbolic "woman's sons" are "taught by Jehovah". Jesus identified God as "the Father", not "the Father / Mother" or "a male-female dyad".

Indeed, what is called "Christianity" by the churches today would not be recognized by Jesus apostles. Jesus knew that the Christian congregation that he established and practiced his teachings and went into operation on Pentecost 33 C.E. would apostasize or " stand away from" true Christianity by giving an illustration regarding this at Matthew 13:24-30, with an explanation at verses 36-43.

In addition, the apostle Paul told the "older men" from Ephesus that "I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves."(Acts 20:29, 30)

Gnosticism did just that and almost immediately after the death of the last apostle, John, who died in about 100 C.E., which removed the last "restraint" holding back the tide of apostasy and gnosticism.(2 Thess 2:6-8)