/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Ignore anybody who says that Holy Scripture is fraud, fabrication, falsification.

We have a more sure word of prophecy.

>>606657

>voat

>>>/trash/

>>606659

I'm just confused why that person would claim that section is a fraud.

>>606661

Yeah, I know. I actually left voat after that post. I just was confused.

>>606657

St. Jerome (lib. ii. con. Pelag. tom. 4, part 2, p. 521. Ed. Ben.) says, they were found in many both Latin and Greek copies. St. Ambrose (Ep. 52.) says this passage, of the woman taken in adultery, was always famous in the Church. St. Augustine expounds them, tract. in Joan, &c.

>>606662

It's (((((((((((scofield))))))))))

[1] Jesus

Jn 7:53-8:11 is not found in some of the most ancient manuscripts. Augustine declares that it was stricken from many copies of the sacred story because of a prudish fear that it might teach immorality! But the immediate context Jn 7:12-46 beginning with Christ's declaration, "I Amos the light of the world." seems clearly to have its occasion in the conviction wrought in the hearts of the Pharisees, as recorded in Jn 8:9; as also, it explains the peculiar virulence of the Pharisee's words (Jn 7:41).

but it is forged, its not in the oldest versions on the bible

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=36&chapter=8&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

where is john 8:1-11? where is mark 16:9-20?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxH8ccsERtY&list=PL9xmU6ojAnjj09nFPcDs2JQP2hqzoNR6o&index=5

>>606657

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_8

Read on the Pericope Adulterae. The two beliefs are

1. It was not in the original, it was stuck in by as scribe who knew the story but needed a place to put it

>it’s not in the oldest manuscripts

>the narrative around it is cohesive if you remove it

2. It was in the original, but was removed by people fearing it could lead women to commit adultery

>it is extant in many manuscripts, even though they are not the oldest

>many ancient people make that claim