Scholar8200:
Neither did John or Mark record the sermon on the mount. Apart from John, no other records the turning of water to wine or the deliverance of the woman caught in adultery. The fact that not all captures the same events does not mean those events did not happen.
In fact, Mark does not detail the circumstances around the birth of John either!

Yea!!!! Some manuscripts for John omit the story of the adulteress

Scholar8200:

Like you would have noticed in the Bible, chronological order plays little or no part. What matters is that there was a disciple called Levi/Matthew

weldon bro. @ op, scholar was right. In fact the bible was not written in chronological order, the book of job is the oldest book in the bible.

hopeforcharles:


Get this fact right, The Bib the doesn't have mistakes had it been it had the people that edited it, sealed and packaged would have amended it, but everything was left that way so that the authenticity of the bible is no affected,

Dead Sea Scrolls Remember them? They're not even in the Bible because humans discovered them recently. Like last week. Hahaha. People are carrying bibles to church on Sunday, totally oblivious of the fact that many of the pages are missing.

And then we find out that the god is a talking one, which to me defeats the purpose of going thru all of this shi.t in the first place. Why leave a book if you can talk in my head or stomach?

malvisguy212:
weldon bro. @ op, scholar was right. In fact the bible was not written in chronological order, the book of job is the oldest book in the bible.

Yea I know that already! Mark is the oldest gospel and some of Paul's letters are older than the gospels.

Weah96:


Dead Sea Scrolls Remember them? They're not even in the Bible because humans discovered them recently. Like last week. Hahaha. People are carrying bibles to church on Sunday, totally oblivious of the fact that many of the pages are missing.

And then we find out that the god is a talking one, which to me defeats the purpose of going thru all of this shi.t in the first place. Why leave a book if you can talk in my head or stomach?

I do not remember calling atheists and agnostics. Any atheist that replies, I would report.

lordnicklaus:





I do not remember calling atheists and agnostics. Any atheist that replies, I would report.

I like your signature, but not your god. I don't see how you like them both.

Apologies, I won't disturb your faith meeting.

lordnicklaus:




Yea!!!! Some manuscripts for John omit the story of the adulteress

Those are the Greek mss. Earlier mss contain the record so that settles it.
http://www.aproundtable.org/history-blog/blog.cfm?ID=1328&AUTHOR_ID=9

lordnicklaus:






Thanks!!!!! I now have knowledge of the genealogy

Glory to God.

lordnicklaus:
Please Scholar8200, malvisguy212 and others who know a lot about the Christian faith come in and contribute.............

I have recently discovered a problem which might pose a threat to the authenticity of the Gospels and the authority of the New Testament... I noticed a significant difference between Matthew's gospel and other gospels. In Matthew's gospel, the event of Matthew's calling to discipleship happens before the event of the healing of the demon possessed man but in other gospels, Matthew's calling takes place after the event of healing the demon possessed.... I want to know if anything has been said about it..... Thanks for contributing.........

But this is too trivial nah. If you as a christian is confronted with a more serious matter then u would faint.
Why does when Matthew called into ministry been an issue?
We have issues like Restitution. Why not take about an issue like my brorher?

Scholar8200:
Those are the Greek mss. Earlier mss contain the record so that settles it. http://www.aproundtable.org/history-blog/blog.cfm?ID=1328&AUTHOR_ID=9

Thanks for dispeling my doubts

analice107:

But this is too trivial nah. If you as a christian is confronted with a more serious matter then u would faint.
Why does when Matthew called into ministry been an issue?
We have issues like Restitution. Why not take about an issue like my brorher?

Ok

lordnicklaus:





Thanks for dispeling my doubts

We thank God.

lordnicklaus:



Yea I know that already! Mark is the oldest gospel and some of Paul's letters are older than the gospels.

I am busy now, but let me tell you something, the bible is not like the quran which is one man opinion. The bible is a book authored by more than forty men.

Scholar8200:

Those are the Greek mss. Earlier mss contain the record so that settles it.
http://www.aproundtable.org/history-blog/blog.cfm?ID=1328&AUTHOR_ID=9

This is absolutely incorrect and misleading. The article you have linked to is dissembling. The issue is not whether the story was known or not, it certainly was.

As you know the Book of John was composed entirely in Greek, the earliest extant manuscript we have which is the Bodmer Papyri (P75) dated to around early 3rd century does not contain the "pericope adulterai" in fact there is no overt disctinction in the manuscript between the gospels of Luke and John, one begins where the other ends. What is more, even the agony of Jesus at Gethsemane (Luke 22: 43-44) is missing in this earliest manuscript.

This story which appears to be a pious legend of what the faithful believed Jesus would have said or done seems to have bounced around looking for a fit in the Gospels, it appeared first in Luke and was then removed and inserted into the Book of John.

Augustine and Jerome simply gave their own opinions.

Sarassin:


This is absolutely incorrect and misleading. The article you have linked to is dissembling. The issue is not whether the story was known or not, it certainly was.

As you know the Book of John was composed entirely in Greek, the earliest extant manuscript we have which is the Bodmer Papyri (P75) dated to around early 3rd century does not contain the "pericope adulterai" in fact there is no overt disctinction in the manuscript between the gospels of Luke and John, one begins where the other ends. What is more, even the agony of Jesus at Gethsemane (Luke 22: 43-44) is missing in this earliest manuscript.

If that is the earliest version you discovered, then realise that as far back as the 2nd Century, certain corrupters were spotted viz:Marcion (120-160 AD) or Origin (184-254 AD). Implication is that your earliest manuscript being the one in the 3rd Century must be one of the copies corrupted by either or their ilks.

This story which appears to be a pious legend of what the faithful believed Jesus would have said or done seems to have bounced around looking for a fit in the Gospels, it appeared first in Luke and was then removed and inserted into the Book of John.

Augustine and Jerome simply gave their own opinions.

http://www.tulipgems.com/whichbible2.htm While so many sought to corrupt the Word, God saw to its preservation through these people. So when you talk of Greek mss then specify which!

Scholar8200:
If that is the earliest version you discovered, then realise that as far back as the 2nd Century, certain corrupters were spotted viz:Marcion (120-160 AD) or Origin (184-254 AD). Implication is that your earliest manuscript being the one in the 3rd Century must be one of the copies corrupted by either or their ilks.

I don't doubt that there were corrupters, after-all the presbyter who was caught writing up the ill-fated 3 Corinthians was de-frocked on the spot.

My point is, there are no pre 4th century manuscripts that demonstrates the story of the woman taken in adultery in its present location. What the author of the link you presented neglected to mention was that the story appeared also in the Gospel of John just after John 21:25, also Luke 21:38 in some older manuscripts as well as those Levant documents he referenced.

Sarassin:


I don't doubt that there were corrupters, after-all the presbyter who was caught writing up the ill-fated 3 Corinthians was de-frocked on the spot.

My point is, there are no pre 4th century manuscripts that demonstrates the story of the woman taken in adultery in its present location. What the author of the link you presented neglected to mention was that the story appeared also in the Gospel of John just after John 21:25, also Luke 21:38 in some older manuscripts as well as those Levant documents he referenced.

Being the activities of the corrupters and their likes. However, the second link shows that God kept His Word through the people mentioned.

Scholar8200:
Mary, mother of Jesus was with the 12 Apostles and others in the upper room; she was taken home by John the beloved when Jesus was crucified; meaning she was there throughout the 40 post resurrection days.Hence you dont need to look too far as to how Matthew or Mark knew about the birth of Jesus and all that transpired before His birth.

Who else could have been able to say this but Mary herself:

And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
Luke 2:51

Oga sir, Mark was not one of the 12 apostles (that is, assuming that the Gospels were written by the original apostles, but that is talk for another day).

If I say that you Christians don't even read your bible, it would seem like an insult but everyday it is always evident.

Mark was not one of the 12 apostles. So he was not in the upper room. He was not there during the apparitions of Jesus after his resurrection. He was not there during the Ascension. He wasn't there during the Last supper. He wasn't there during any of the intimate conversations Jesus had with his apostles. Read your bible properly.
But he was the first to write a Gospel and that was about 33-35 years after the death of Jesus.
So don't tell me that crap you're writing up there.

The names of the 12 apostles are as follows:
Simon Peter, Andrew, James and John the sons of Zebedee, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Jude Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot. Where is Mark's name there?
Go and educate yourself properly.

I'm done talking with you over this issue until you upgrade your understanding of the bible you seem to profess.

nobilis:


Oga sir, Mark was not one of the 12 apostles (that is, assuming that the Gospels were written by the original apostles, but that is talk for another day).

If I say that you Christians don't even read your bible, it would seem like an insult but everyday it is always evident.

Mark was not one of the 12 apostles. So he was not in the upper room. He was not there during the apparitions of Jesus after his resurrection. He was not there during the Ascension. He wasn't there during the Last supper. He wasn't there during any of the intimate conversations Jesus had with his apostles. Read your bible properly.

And where did I say he was an Apostle? As regards the upper room, you can not prove that so leave it out. Besides, WHO told you only the 12 Apostles were in the upper room?

But he was the first to write a Gospel and that was about 33-35 years after the death of Jesus.
So don't tell me that crap you're writing up there.

13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

1 Peter 5:13 This was authored by Peter.

The names of the 12 apostles are as follows:
Simon Peter, Andrew, James and John the sons of Zebedee, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Jude Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot. Where is Mark's name there?
Go and educate yourself properly.

Where did I say he was an Apostle?

I'm done talking with you over this issue until you upgrade your understanding of the bible you seem to profess.

Your post appeared to have led your thoughts here.

Scholar8200:

Being the activities of the corrupters and their likes. However, the second link shows that God kept His Word through the people mentioned.

That your link is spurrious. I stopped reading after the following:

"The Textus Receptus was used by the earliest Syrian and Greek Christians and was sometimes called the Syrian Text, the Byzantine Text, the Majority Text or the Traditional Text".

It is true that the KJV was based almost entirely on the Textus Receptus (TR), but it is a nonsense to state the TR was used by the earliest Syrian and Greek Christians. The TR is derived from 16th and 17th century Greek Translations and the most famous of these was an edition produced in 1633 by Abraham and Bonaventure Elzevir (who were uncle and nephew), in which they told their readers, “You now have the text that is received by all, in which we have given nothing changed or corrupted.” Hence TR.

This version of the Bible was not even based on the oldest and best manuscripts, but a revision of the Greek Testament produced by the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus compiled a Greek testament after collating all the manuscripts he could find, he relied on 12th century manuscripts for the gospels and also translated parts of the Latin Vulgate into Greek (thereby creating some variances which appear in no older Greek manuscripts) Erasmus published 5 editions of his Greek translations in 1515, it is these editions that serve as the bedrock of the Textus Receptus and eventually the KJV.

hopeforcharles:

I like u, and I like the way u presented your points, but what you forgot to note is that, the whole Gospel scriptural text acknowledged and gave an account of the birth of Jesus according to the inspiration they receive, you are trying to see things from the perspective of mistake but that is where u failed because the Bible is not some literature book it's a book has so many metaphoric saying, I respect your opinion but I will want you to study the Bible as a spiritual and religious text and not some Literature book in so doing you will see the true meanings and messages, by the way what religion do u practice?

Obviously, you are missing the point all in your ploy to avoid seeing the errors in the Bible.
Stop turning things upside down and stop reasoning from your an*us( pardon my language).

Whether the bible is read as a text of literature or as a divinely inspired book doesn't justify the errors that abound.
In fact, because it is divinely inspired by an all-knowing and perfect God means that there should not be any errors.

Even your bible says: "by their fruits you shall know them". And one of the fruits by which the bible should be known is by its historical accuracy. Just as a prophet is known to be a true prophet if his prophecies turn out to be true, one of the most important ways we can test the bible's accuracy is if we match its writings with history and find out that it tallies with historical accounts.

The bible itself says we should test all spirits, in order to find out what to believe in. How else should we test the bible?

Or we should just believe that the bible is divinely inspired because the bible said it was inspired?
If you say so, that means that anybody that comes and says we should believe God sent him, we should just believe him without any testing.

Pathetic again.

Concerning Mark's gospel, tradition has it that he got his facts or story from Simon Peter who was his teacher.

Scholar8200:
And where did I say he was an Apostle? As regards the upper room, you can not prove that so leave it out. Besides, WHO told you only the 12 Apostles were in the upper room?


13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

1 Peter 5:13 This was authored by Peter.

Where did I say he was an Apostle?

Your post appeared to have led your thoughts here.

You're just beating about the bush unnecessarily.
If you're held down at one point, you'll jump to another point. This is the action of someone who has no points to back up his assertions.

If you didn't say he was an apostle, why then did you make reference to Mary being the upper room with the 12 apostles.

And what did you mean when you said it is obvious how Matthew and Mark got their stories just after u mentioned Mary being in the upper room with the apostles.

Thirdly, if Mary "kept these things in her heart" as you quoted and told them to the apostles as you hinted, and if Mark was not in the upper room with Mary, how did Mark get his own stories?

And how come it that the person who was not in the upper room was the first to write an account of Jesus' life before the apostles even started writing some 10 years later.

Finally, why make reference to "Marcus my son" Peter's first epistle? When did the name Marcus become the same as the Mark?

Sarassin:


That your link is spurrious. I stopped reading after the following:

"The Textus Receptus was used by the earliest Syrian and Greek Christians and was sometimes called the Syrian Text, the Byzantine Text, the Majority Text or the Traditional Text".

It is true that the KJV was based almost entirely on the Textus Receptus (TR), but it is a nonsense to state the TR was used by the earliest Syrian and Greek Christians.

I wish the author stated what period he describes as earliest; that gap is what you have filled and on that basis hastily dismissed the site as spurious!

Since it is general knowledge that Erasmus lived in 16th century, what is there to gain saying TR was used in 2nd century especially when http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/ shows that there were other non-Greek Mss relating to that 2nd century period (to which the TR coming much later agrees with!)

The TR is derived from 16th and 17th century Greek Translations and the most famous of these was an edition produced in 1633 by Abraham and Bonaventure Elzevir (who were uncle and nephew), in which they told their readers, “You now have the text that is received by all, in which we have given nothing changed or corrupted.” Hence TR.

This version of the Bible was not even based on the oldest and best manuscripts, but a revision of the Greek Testament produced by the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus compiled a Greek testament after collating all the manuscripts he could find, he relied on 12th century manuscripts for the gospels and also translated parts of the Latin Vulgate into Greek (thereby creating some variances which appear in no older Greek manuscripts) Erasmus published 5 editions of his Greek translations in 1515, it is these editions that serve as the bedrock of the Textus Receptus and eventually the KJV.

That highlighted is a haven for corrupt Mss like the works of Marcion and Origen who lived and produced corrupted mss in a period old enough to assume that title. Like this link shows, http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/, the TR agrees with the Syriac (157AD)etc meaning, God indeed preserved His Word. Why? I dont think Erasmus was in possession of those other non-Greek Mss when he undertook the job!

Traditions hold the fact that Mark was a disciple of Simon Peter and got his facts or story from him. That seems to explain why Mark doesn't record the events surrounding the birth of Jesus. But that still doesn't prove the strange ending of his gospels.

Scholar8200:
And where did I say he was an Apostle? As regards the upper room, you can not prove that so leave it out. Besides, WHO told you only the 12 Apostles were in the upper room?


13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

1 Peter 5:13 This was authored by Peter.

Where did I say he was an Apostle?

Your post appeared to have led your thoughts here.

You're just beating about the bush unnecessarily.
If you're held down at one point, you'll jump to another point. This is the action of someone who has no points to back up his assertions.

If you didn't say he was an apostle, why then did you make reference to Mary being the upper room with the 12 apostles.

And what did you mean when you said it is obvious how Matthew and Mark got their stories just after u mentioned Mary being in the upper room with the apostles.

Thirdly, if Mary "kept these things in her heart" as you quoted and told them to the apostles as you hinted, and if Mark was not in the upper room with Mary, how did Mark get his own stories?

And how come it that the person who was not in the upper room was the first to write an account of Jesus' life before the apostles even started writing some 10 years later.

Finally, why make reference to "Marcus my son" Peter's first epistle? When did the name Marcus become the same as the Mark?

nobilis:


You're just beating about the bush unnecessarily.
If you're held down at one point, you'll jump to another point. This is the action of someone who has no points to back up his assertions.

If you didn't say he was an apostle, why then did you make reference to Mary being the upper room with the 12 apostles.

Again, where did you hear that only the 12 and Mary were in the upper room? Now read:
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
Acts 1:14,15

And what did you mean when you said it is obvious how Matthew and Mark got their stories just after u mentioned Mary being in the upper room with the apostles.

Thirdly, if Mary "kept these things in her heart" as you quoted and told them to the apostles as you hinted, and if Mark was not in the upper room with Mary, how did Mark get his own stories?
And how come it that the person who was not in the upper room was the first to write an account of Jesus' life before the apostles even started writing some 10 years later.

Mark was a disciple too and a close protege of Peter!

Finally, why make reference to "Marcus my son" Peter's first epistle? When did the name Marcus become the same as the Mark?

You could as well ask when Jehezkel became Ezekiel!

Anyway Marcus-Greek, Mark-English. see here;
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_peter/5-13.htm

lordnicklaus:
Traditions hold the fact that Mark was a disciple of Simon Peter and got his facts or story from him. That seems to explain why Mark doesn't record the events surrounding the birth of Jesus. But that still doesn't prove the strange ending of his gospels.

How do you mean with respect to the highlighted.

Scholar8200:
How do you mean with respect to the highlighted.

Simon Peter was a witness to Jesus' appearance after His resurrection yet he left that fact out in his narration to Mark cos' scholars believe that Mark's original gospel ended at chapter 16 vs 8. There is no mention of a post-resurrection appearance in older manuscripts of Mark yet Peter was a witness to it..................................

lordnicklaus:





Simon Peter was a witness to Jesus' appearance after His resurrection yet he left that fact out in his narration to Mark cos' scholars believe that Mark's original gospel ended at chapter 16 vs 8. There is no mention of a post-resurrection appearance in older manuscripts of Mark yet Peter was a witness to it..................................

You just won yourself an all-expense paid excursion to:
https://www.nairaland.com/2935365/mark-16-9-20-debate-rests

Scholar8200:
You just won yourself an all-expense paid excursion to:
https://www.nairaland.com/2935365/mark-16-9-20-debate-rests

I've read it. I believe part of Mark's manuscript broke off............


Yet there are some manuscripts that add extra material in between verse 8 and 9 of chapter 16 of Mark's gospel. Others add only in verse 8 making another version of a shorter ending. Others insert extra material at verse 14 e.t.c

lordnicklaus:






I've read it. I believe part of Mark's manuscript broke off............


Yet there are some manuscripts that add extra material in between verse 8 and 9 of chapter 16 of Mark's gospel. Others add only in verse 8 making another version of a shorter ending. Others insert extra material at verse 14 e.t.c

Can you quote such here?