A question regarding scripture, Located within the Gospel of Mark.

[Pacman]

It does not really matter to you FollowingHim. If you truly believe that there has not been an open agenda ongoing for the past 1600 years to rid the world of polygyny by the christian church and this is not just another low ball tactic they used your free to believe it, but as for me it was left out against the authors original text. I have no doubt in my mind.

as for paul "shivers" Jesus never mentioned him coming. I do not have to believe a word that man said.jesus said : "26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not." and i don't he never saw him on any road to damascus. He probably saw satan. paul even said his self:13For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. then had serpent scales come out of his eyes lol.
I dont take my eyes off of Him Jesus is my savior and I don't care how badly they adulterate his teachings I know Him and will serve Him till my death. even if it means focusing on torah to better understand his teachings.

and yes this is in the correct thread if I wanted it elsewhere Id have placed it there.

Misinterpretation of Pauls teaching does not make the teaching invalid or unscriptural.

Are you also going to throw out the teaching of Peter? Because he affirmed that Paul’s writings are part of scripture. Also Luke who chose to write extensively about Paul in the book of Acts. You see where this is going?

 

[Cap]

Are you also going to throw out the teaching of Peter? Because he affirmed that Paul’s writings are part of scripture. Also Luke who chose to write extensively about Paul in the book of Acts. You see where this is going?

This has already been discussed (and tabled). Peter wasn't saying that Paul's writings were scripture, per say, Scripture as we know it hadn't been created yet. Luke is Paul's friend and travel companion, not a witness to Paul's claim of 'seeing' the Son of God.

 

[Nikud]

@Herbie

You do realise if your were correct, your not, that that means Paul deceived the Apostles and that all of scripture is suspect. If any of the original language was alter and parts of it omitted then all of scripture is suspect and there is no word of God because you can't prove it wasn't. Your belief invalidates all of scripture.


Then you called Yeshua, satan. You can argue you didn't say Yeshua/Jesus is satan but by saying it was not Yeshua on the Road to Damascas, it was, but satan you did call Yeshua, satan. Right now at least with me you have no credibility.

 

[Cap]

It starts here about Paul..

There is no second witness to Paul's claim to be an apostle with a big 'A'. At best he is an apostle with a little 'a'. And if that is so, then since most of the New Testament is written by an apostle with a little 'a', then there is room to believe that God still sends apostles and prophets to us today. The stranger who told you to go another way and you find out later that there was a terrible accident. The child pulled out of a street by a dog, or wasn't. How you came to meet your wife. How you came to understand salvation. PM. There are no coincidences. God is not just in a book. He is alive and well and working in our lives ever second of ever day. You can hear Him speak if you listen. But only if you believe that is possible.

(This is my observation, nothing more.)

Probably need to start another thread about Paul but it probably won't go anywhere either.

 

[Pacman]

This has already been discussed (and tabled). Peter wasn't saying that Paul's writings were scripture, per say, Scripture as we know it hadn't been created yet. Luke is Paul's friend and travel companion, not a witness to Paul's claim of 'seeing' the Son of God.

I have read most of what was said in that discussion. We can go round and round about it but I think @Kevin has it correct here.

 

[Cap]

I have read most of what was said in that discussion. We can go round and round about it but I think @Kevin has it correct here.

I can agree with that. I would never say Paul was deceived, only that he was just human.

 

[FollowingHim]

It does not really matter to you FollowingHim. If you truly believe that there has not been an open agenda ongoing for the past 1600 years to rid the world of polygyny by the christian church and this is not just another low ball tactic they used your free to believe it, but as for me it was left out against the authors original text. I have no doubt in my mind.

There has certainly been an agenda to rid the world of polygyny. But this particular point is entirely from your own imagination. To be clear:

The word "wife" (singular) appears in v29 in some versions and not in others. The word "wife" obviously does not indicate polygamy, so its deletion has nothing to do with suppression of polygamy.

You hypothesised that v30 originally said "wives", which would indicate polygamy. However, as far as I am aware, not a single ancient text ever includes this word. Do you have any evidence that this ever was in v30? If not, this is something that has come from your own imagination. It is not worth any further time discussing until such a time as you find an ancient text that backs it up.

There has however been a very real agenda to rid the world of polygamy, and there are many scriptural passages that would be worth spending much time discussing. This just isn't one of them.

 

[frederick]

You hypothesised that v30 originally said "wives", which would indicate polygamy. However, as far as I am aware, not a single ancient text ever includes this word.

@Herbie, I haven't been able to research this matter as fully as I would like but as far as I can find to this point, as @FollowingHim has stated, there is no extant manuscript evidence to lend any support to your hypothesis of a variant in Mark 10:30. Stick to the biblical text. Shalom

 

[Mojo]

Whoa there cowboy....

Paul was spot on. How the church fathers misunderstood him and twisted what he said into lawlessness is another story. Peter warned us it would happen. Don't jettison Paul, rather, study Torah, the foundation of everything he taught.

Paul was Torah all the way. Amen. I had a bout of questioning his validity once, but just examining the PM issue should dissuade you from that. He is careful to be consistent with Torah, just like Yeshua.

 

[Mojo]

Somebody correct me, because I'm too lazy to verify, but aren't most of Pauls epistles even older than some of the gospels? Gospel of John was certainly not as old.

Some critics claim Peters epistles weren't really written by a rough, fisherman type of bloke. The three Johns have been questioned. Jude includes apocryphal stuff. Was Jesus' revelation to John a satanic nightmare after too much lamb one night? Be careful where you go @Herbie. It may not mean your salvation, but it certainly will limit your enlightenment.

 

[PeteR]

Somebody correct me, because I'm too lazy to verify, but aren't most of Pauls epistles even older than some of the gospels? Gospel of John was certainly not as old.

Some critics claim Peters epistles weren't really written by a rough, fisherman type of bloke. The three Johns have been questioned. Jude includes apocryphal stuff. Was Jesus' revelation to John a satanic nightmare after too much lamb one night? Be careful where you go @Herbie. It may not mean your salvation, but it certainly will limit your enlightenment.

Indeed, most of Paul's letters were written before the Gospels.

 

[Cap]

It may not mean your salvation, but it certainly will limit your enlightenment.

This could be said about a lot of things rejected around these parts.

 

[Cap]

Indeed, most of Paul's letters were written before the Gospels.

Which raises the question how could Peter's statement about Paul's writings being 'scripture' when they were just writings before the scriptures were actually put in place?

 

[frederick]

Which raises the question how could Peter's statement about Paul's writings being 'scripture' when they were just writings before the scriptures were actually put in place?

The same way as Jesus considered the Old Testament as scripture before any of the New Testament was written. God's word is all scripture.

 

[Cap]

The same way as Jesus considered the Old Testament as scripture before any of the New Testament was written. God's word is all scripture.

But yet the book of Enoch and the book of jasher are not included. Somehow this all seems off to me, but I'll have to think about the statement you made.

 

[PeteR]

Which raises the question how could Peter's statement about Paul's writings being 'scripture' when they were just writings before the scriptures were actually put in place?

I would say Peter knew and understood the validity and Torah basis of Paul's writings... maybe it was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit?...

 

[rockfox]

The same way as Jesus considered the Old Testament as scripture before any of the New Testament was written. God's word is all scripture.

More accurately, scripture contains God's word. Fine distinction but true nonetheless.

But yet the book of Enoch and the book of jasher are not included. Somehow this all seems off to me, but I'll have to think about the statement you made.

You're confusing cannon with scripture. Not all scriptures ever written are included in the cannon. And even then you're not accurate as the Ethiopian cannon includes Enoch. Jasher would also be scripture, being referenced in the OT, it just happens to be lost (allegedly).

 

[Cap]

You're confusing cannon with scripture. Not all scriptures ever written are included in the cannon. And even then you're not accurate as the Ethiopian cannon includes Enoch. Jasher would also be scripture, being referenced in the OT, it just happens to be lost (allegedly).

OK where is scripture defined? Who decides what is scripture and what is not? So there is lost scripture?

 

[rockfox]

OK where is scripture defined? Who decides what is scripture and what is not? So there is lost scripture?

Don't over spiritualize it. Scripture simply means sacred writings. (also this)

So there is lost scripture?

Yes. For example, a quick search found me this list of references to non-extant writings that were mentioned in the Bible (including ones containing prophecy and so are self-evidently scripture and not simply just government chronicles or other supporting non-inspired documentation).

I realize that will rub some Protestants the wrong way. But just because the Bible contains everything we need for righteousness and godliness does not mean it contains everything God ever communicated to man. It quite obviously does not considering we have very few complete speeches of prophets recorded and no course material from the ancient schools of the prophets. We also like to think of the cannon of scriptures as absolutely perfect, but in truth there are several different cannons; of which the Protestant is both the newest (by over 1000 years), smallest (which should bother you), and the only one divorced from direct apostolic tradition. Things are significantly more complex than black & white evangelical theology would have you believe. And I speak as one from the evangelical protestant tradition.

Enoch is an interesting case. While the Protestants leave it out it is in the Ethiopian cannon, was recognized as scripture by the pre-Christ Jews, was quoted by Jude, is the oldest known scripture, contains the earliest known prophecy of Christ and was widely read in the early church. And Enoch specifically wrote it was recorded for those of us in the last days; that is us, today. But it was effectively lost to us until very recently, the last 50-100 years. Only the Ethiopians preserved it in their canon. And while one could have cast doubt on its authenticity, being only preserved in the Ethiopian language and by that church, all such doubts were removed with the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.

I love to trot out Enoch whenever a Catholic takes sole credit for the preservation of the scriptures as they buttress their claim to be THE church. Drives them up a wall. Not only were they not the ones to pick and choose scripture, they even failed to preserve it all. And the church which preserved that scripture predates the RCC.

But don't let any of that trouble your faith dear reader. Even though humans have been an imperfect vehicle, God is mighty and able to preserve His scriptures for us. There are a host of reasons for which we can have complete confidence in both the preservation and authenticity of our holy writings; which I can go into if anyone like.

 

[Phillip]

There are a host of reasons for which we can have complete confidence in both the preservation and authenticity of our holy writings; which I can go into if anyone like.

Are you kidding? Yes.