/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>665462

Treat it as tradition like the Pericope Adulterae

>>665464

>THEOPNUESTOS INTENSIFIES

>>665462

God willed this passage to be in the text regardless if it was added later than the original text or not. It's still scripture.

>>665469

which text

>>665469

Are you suggesting that inscripturation took place at more than just the point when Mark's original author wrote the text?

>>665462

The scholars are being stupid. The church fathers show awareness of those verses long before the codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written but they overvalue the manuscripts they can lay their hands on as being more authentic.

>>665462

this doesn't mean it's bad or anything, just not in the autographa.

>>665474

>The church fathers show awareness of those verses long before the codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written

Sauce?

>>665462

>>665462

>>665462

>>665616

Interesting fact is that if you add up all the verses in Mark you get 678 but if you take out the last 12 like the new versions tell you then you get 666 in Mark.

>>665494

Justin Martyr seems to quote it in his apologies, his student Tatian definitely quotes it in the Diatesseron and Irenaeus wrote about it too.

>>665622

wtf I'm a hoshbrown ecclesiasticaltextist now

>>665622

THE VERSE MARKERS WERE ADDED IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND HAVE ZERO THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

>>665796

If you asked John what he meant by 666 would he say "oh yes, in the future, someone will add verse numbers to the Mark's Gospel and if someone takes out one of the endings floating around, there will be exactly 666 verses. I know I said it was a the sum of a name but you finally figured it out!"

>>665796

>j-just a coincidence

>>665796

Does Satan care about what is theologically significant, or does he just want to get his foot in wherever he can?

>>665474

+1

>>666788

>Six hundred and sixty six=six six six

I am close to hatred towards americans