/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>Clearly if they were able to become an established part of the text, God must have inspired/willed it, correct?

By this logic the Book of Mormon would be scripture. The inspired scriptures are the exact words of the original writers in the languages they wrote in. The three verses you mentioned have been proven to not be part of scripture and can be safely ignored.

>Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book

>>849725

That's not true since the Book of Mormon was written to deceive and it is full of numerous heresies which contradict the Biblical orthodox teaching, whereas none of these verses do. In fact, the periscope adulterae (for example) was mentioned by the Church Fathers as a valid tradition concerning Jesus before it was included in the Gospel of John, so we know the incident is true as there are various other orthodox sources about it before it was even included in John. God willed/inspired these additions, that is why they became an established part of this text. No, this does not mean the canon is open. The canon closed long ago in the 4the and 5th centuries when there were finally councils deciding on what should and should not be included in the Bible by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Book of Mormon and the Qur'an are long removed from this.

>>849722

Even if they were added, they still hold apostolic authority. Contrary to popular opinion, the early church knew these were additions themselves. Eusebius in his famous church history tells of the woman caught in adultery as originally being part of the Gospel to the Hebrews (the Jewish Christians who had dwindled in number by the time of Eusebius). It was evidently still worth saving and someone thought to include it in existing gospels. Most include it in John, but some manuscripts also include it in Luke. Nobody knew what to do with it, but felt compelled to keep it anyways.

The ending to Mark was marked in some manuscripts as actually being from one of the 70 - one "Elder Ariston". The early Church knew of the abrupt ending to Mark, but it's possible someone tracked down a witness other than Mark to add on more. This may be why there were different endings floating around in different regions. Eventually this longer ending was included in the standard Byzantine text. If this story of Ariston is true, it's still apostolic witness. It just so happens that it isn't Mark (and Peter's) original ending. But still valid nonetheless. It's not an "either/or" situation where one side is holy and the other side is full of snickering charlatans and demons cackling away at the different endings. They're both valid endings.

>>849730

I should add one bit about 1 John 5:7. It's almost definitely not original. But it doesn't mean it was added out of malice either. It's possible that it was originally just a scribal note off to the side. There's a lot of instances like this in manuscripts. These weren't modern books that were only meant to be read. A lot of manuscripts were personal possessions with glosses and marks in them, passed down to many people for study or meditative purposes.

I think this addition to John probably had a similar origin. It's plausible enough that a scribe might've been musing on the Trinity, relating it to the original passage about the three witnesses of the Blood, Water, and Spirit. So he added the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. It's a good thought. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. But then later on down the line, another scribe could have mistakenly included it in the body of his own copy of the text. Over time, it gained traction, almost entirely in the Latin/Vulgate reading world. But it could have all started off as a copying error . At least, this is more plausible to me than some retarded conspiracy that conniving monks conjured up and planned to play out over centuries… up until the present day. This would be the most long planning geniuses of all time, if that were true. Occam's Razor would tell me that long planning geniuses of this caliber do not exist, except in comic books and cartoons. It's easier to believe it was just an innocent mistake. And in the end, nothing to tear my hair out over.

>>849725

>The inspired scriptures are the exact words of the original writers in the languages they wrote in.

Yes, because as it says,

> 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

> 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

- 2 Peter 1:20-21

If we were to allow people to add, remove, or change things after their inspiration, it would be the work of another person and not someone that we know. Paul told Timothy to continue in the things he has learned, knowing of whom he has learned them. This could not be true if we allow later writers add or change things later. We are supposed to believe the same thing that the apostles received and taught by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Like it says in Galatians 1:9, "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

>>849730

>Even if they were added, they still hold apostolic authority.

Not if you believe in inspiration of Scripture and the fact that it was the prophets and apostles to whom God gave his word and also that his word is true from the beginning and never changes, not even a single time.

>This may be why there were different endings floating around in different regions.

Actually we have reason to believe that some people have attempted to but been unsuccessful in changing the various points of Scripture in the past. For instance, Marcion famously created his own version of the Gospel of Luke that removed the first 3½ chapters and many other parts of it. Surely you do not conclude that those chapters were added by people later, if you were to uncover an ancient papyrus copy of Marcion's gospel. Rather, Marcion was a heretic who altered Scripture.

And this applies to 1 John 5:7 as well. In the 4th century, it is known that much of the Empire was inhabited by Arians who were averse to various parts of Scripture. It could very well be that Constantius II and his friends in the east wanted to have it removed so they produced copies with 1 John 5:7 removed. Don't believe me? look at what other church historians wrote on this subject. They attribute its removal in some but not all copies, to the work of Arians in the 4th-century ancient Greek and Latin speaking world.

"Ariani abstulerant ex evangelio Joh. 4. Spiritus est Deus, sed indicavit et notavit Ambrosius lib. 3. de Spiritu s. c. 11. et nostri codices Graeci omnes hoc testimonium habent. Dictum 1. Joh. 5, v. 7: Tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in coelo etc. Ariani ex quibusdam codicibus abstulerunt, sed piorum ecclesiae doctorum vigilans industria illud restituit, ut in disp. priore de hoc dicto habita ostendimus. 5. Consequens absurditas. Si textus Graecus in N. T. corruptus esset, non amplius purum et incorruptum haberemus primum et summum fidei Christianae principium, cum a rivulis non possit major puritas sperari, quam a fontibus; frustraneum esset studium, quod fontium cognitioni impenditur; divina providentia in quodam necessario ecclesiae suae defuisset etc. quae cum sint absurda, ideo etiam absurdum illud, ex quo talia consequuntur."

– Johann Gerhard, Loci Theologici, vol. 1, ch. 16, p. 152.

"Potius ergo corrupti Codices illi sunt, in quibus versus ille expunctus est, quod etiam Hieronymus ‘Prologo in Epist. Canon.’ observat, questus videlicet, ‘ab infidelibus translatoribus multum erratum esse in fidei veritate, Patris, Verbi ac Spiritus testimonium omittentibus,’ quod proin in Codicibus emendatioribus ille invenerit oportet."

– Johann Heinrich Heidegger, Corpus theologiae Christianae, vol. 1, ch. 4, article 33, p. 118.

If they were added in, they're not scripture. The point of textual criticism is to find the closest possible reading to the autographs.

>>849738

>Not if you believe in inspiration of Scripture and the fact that it was the prophets and apostles to whom God gave his word and also that his word is true from the beginning and never changes, not even a single time.

The 70 disciples after the 12 are still apostolic authority, in usual Church parlance. Apostolic doesn't just mean the 12 Apostles. It indicated a whole Age of the church. It's why even the Bishops they ordained are still called the Apostolic Fathers as well (Timothy, Barnabas, the Didache, Polycarp, Ignatius, etc).

If Apostolic applies to them, it certainly applies to a disciple who was there at Jesus' Ascension and wrote down his own witness. Just because he wasn't named Peter doesn't magically make his words carry less weight. It's not like it becomes "less than the word of God", if the event was still true and he was there. If he was a disciple standing next to Peter at Jesus' Ascension, it's the same strength of witness. If Peter wrote the same exact words, it would make no difference. It's the event itself that matters. This strange emphasis on sources or exact witness is bizarre. It's Jesus' words that matter. Not who recorded it.

>>849751

Also, on that note, John himself says that he left out many things in his Gospel. That the world couldn't contain all of the books about Jesus. But just because he didn't include every instance doesn't make them less true than what was included in his own gospel. He never said anything of the sort, where the drew the line on what he included was only the words of God, and what he didn't included suddenly had less importance. And it's precisely for this reason that the later church decided to include a few more things that had carried weight, like the extended ending to Mark or the story of the woman about to be stoned. They were still important events that needed to be preserved - just probably not a part of the original works.

Convert to Islam then you xians won't have to deal with these problems. The Qur'an is the preserved word of Allah, unaltered and perfect.

>>849780

No. The Quran's changes are more corrupt and have more impact than any variations of biblical texts. None of the biblical texts have any significant doctrinal difference. Even the most secular scholars admit that much, even when they dislike the Church. But the Quran's changes were so radical that they altered your very notion of heaven itself. For example, the original text of the Quran never promised anything about 72 Virgins in the afterlife, or instructed women to be completely veiled.

And unlike you, the Church doesn't threaten scholars who discover variations. While in Islam, you all are so fearful and weak that you can't even stomach any notion of this. You kill any dissenters, like the petulant inbred children you all are. Scholars like the guy in this vid have to hide their identity, just to give out the truth about his scholarship.

>>849780

That has nothing of divine or preserved.

>>849813

>Some random person

Disciples of Christ in the early Church are not some "random person". They will sit closer to the seat of the Most High than most. These are the first witnesses and martyrs of the Church. They witnessed the Lord on earth with their own eyes, and eventually gave their lives to him. None of us had the privilege of the first, and most will cower or live in comfort to have experienced the second to the extent they did. Please have some respect and realize whom you're referring to.

And this witness is how the Gospel spread in the first place. It wasn't written down first. It was spread through these "random people" by their direct testimony. And just their testimony alone makes it the Word of God. It's this LIVED experience of the life of Christ that made their witness holy. Anything they testified about the Lord or what he said carried apostolic weight.

Besides all that, I don't know why a Baptist with a photo of the "KJV" is giving me so much fuss. Are you just arguing for the sake of it? I'm actually on most of y'all's side, for acknowledging that the additions to the KJV have apostolic authority (for example, the longer ending to Mark or the story of the woman caught in adultery). The only people who would really want to dismiss me are people who think those additions carry no weight. They want to only resort to the critical texts and place less importance on anything else. They just give blind credence to age of manuscripts, and not acknowledge the nuance on why some of these additions were added and what "pedigree" they came from. In other words, I'm saying that things in the KJV (or Byzantine text) still have apostolic authority, despite being from different sources than the originals - because they were acknowledged to have come from other early disciples. Just not the original writers. But the fact that they came from early witness still makes them worthy. These people are not "random". And trying to use a quote from Peter about false prophets is ridiculous. He wasn't referring to his own brothers. That's insanity.

>>849821

>they still have apostolic authority, despite being from different sources than the originals

No they are not, they are from the same source and are not additions but are original.

I don't know you.

>Just not the original writers.

Like I said just above, they actually are from the original writers.

>And this witness is how the Gospel spread in the first place.

Yes, by the word of God, the actual word which God sent unto us.

That is not the same thing as, and is not what you are apparently talking about - some fuzzy, new-age nonsense which was set up by the Devil, forged as false testimony after the fact deviously, which Paul already warned us about, forged by Satan to draw away unstable souls. A false Christ, in other words, and not the words of our Lord Jesus Christ.

>>849835

>No they are not, they are from the same source and are not additions but are original.

>I don't know you.

Of course, you don't know me. I never told you and you didn't even ask. It's also an anonymous board, after all.

>>849835

>That is not the same thing as, and is not what you are apparently talking about - some fuzzy, new-age nonsense which was set up by the Devil, forged as false testimony after the fact deviously, which Paul already warned us about, forged by Satan to draw away unstable souls. A false Christ, in other words, and not the words of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Fuzzy new age nonsense? What is "new age" about telling you that Eusebius said the Pericope was from the Gospel to the Hebrews, or that the Longer Ending to Mark is from one of the 70 Disciples? This is recorded history from 4th century and onwards. Not "new age". This is as "old age" as it gets.

And how is supporting the VERY SAME text that you value suddenly "new age" only when I talk about it? That doesn't make a lick of sense. It's only "holy" if YOU talk about the Pericope Adulterae? Yet it's bad when I defend it? This is crazy. I appeal to it's importance because it still holds apostolic weight. I appeal to TRADITION. I do not want it removed or anything "new". It's quite the opposite of anything "new age". I'm saying we should keep the old things, and not adopt any radical changes to the scriptures. I want to read the same scripture text that our fathers, and their fathers, and their fathers read before them. This is the text they knew. So it's good enough for me too. How you got "new age" from any of that is beyond me. Just because I said they were added on doesn't diminish them. The Church included them from elsewhere. I accept the Church authority. If it was wise enough for them to do it, I do not argue against them. I obey it.

>>849871

And here is another one:

Galatians 1:8-9

>8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

>9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

2 Cor. 11:3-4

>But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

>4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

>added in later

no

>>849753

The events after the resurrection are largely covered in the other gospels though. It seems suspect for featuring such a sudden and odd shift of narrative and significantly different course of events from other gospels.

>>849780

But I'm a Christian exactly so I can follow Logos instead of a stupid book that says turn a blind eye to injustice.