₦airaland Forum

EMILO2STAY:
Humans are not immortals, humans are mortal beings that is why the bible said that when christ appears this mortality will put on immortality. Those who teach that humans are immortals are physicaly and spiritually blind some are Outright idiots who have rejected the teaching of scriptures for the teachings of men. Simply because they feel comfortable with the thought that humans continue to live after death.

Correct me if I am wrong, that passage refers to the corruptible , outer man, not the soul.

Now the Bible says the devil and his angels will be tormented in the lake of fire for ever and the same has been active since the time of Genesis till now; does that mean the devil has Eternal life? Let someone answer!

And since there are that claim that the story of Lazarus was just a symbol, let someone soundly exegesize that symbol and its meaning (backed by parallel scriptures vis a vis similar ones eg Matthew 25) once and for all.

That is another way of saying:

The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.

48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Luke 12:47,48

I believe though that the servant who ,assuming ignorance is bliss, shuns every opportunity to know will be treated just like the one who knew

Shollyps:
I dey come ...make I carry chair....where my popcorn and orijin?...it's gonna be interesting...

Not much to be said here; Op has expressed his opinion and made his conclusions already. Try another thread

joyandfaith:
everlasting destruction . read rev 20. lake of fire means second death. fire is symbol of total destruction.

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 9:43,44

Besides, what meaneth thee by total destruction?

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Revelation 20:10

joyandfaith:
if not in the land, where is the judgment? rich man parable is symbolic because Abraham never ascended to heaven.

Judgement was on the inhabitants. Besides what about the final destiny of the devil and his messengers?

Is this also symbolic?

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
Mark 9:43-47

joyandfaith:
Jude 1:7
just as qSodom and Gomorrah and r the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and s pursued unnatural desire, 4 serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
is fire in Sodom and Gomorrah still burning?

Revelation 20:13-15 King James Version (KJV)
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Just tell us what will be the end of the devil and his angels.
Besides, God's judgement on Sodom etc was not on the land but the people hence that passage you quoted reinforces the fact that the story of a literal, burning hell wherein the rich man landed after death (wherein the perverts of Sodom also landed) is very true!

nobilis:
Believe me, I have tried.
But tell me, how do you reconcile the report that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great whose reign was from 37-4 BC (he died in 4BC), as reported by Matthew; and the report that he was born during the Census of Quirinius, Governor of Syria, which census occurred in 6 AD as reported by Luke?
How do you reconcile the gap of 10 years?


How do you reconcile the report that Jesus had, for instance, 200 ancestors according to Matthew and, for instance, 150 ancestors according to Luke and still claim their reports were inspired by one and the same person?


How do you reconcile the fact that the terrain and topography of Judea in the narratives of the gospel are not in line with the correct terrain and topography of Judea at the time Jesus was said to have lived


So tell me, what actually convinces you people that the Gospels are accurate?
Nothing.
They fail to measure up in every way they are being measured.

There is a discussion between Sarasin and myself on this in this thread:
https://www.nairaland.com/2308335/did-anyone-mentioned-bible-actually/1#33754401.

Besides, the other link given to the op on genealogy might be helpful.

Sarassin:
Ok, if you say so.


No. The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions including the Syriac you mention, the Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic, except their Latin translations and it is not found in the Old Latin in its early form or in the Latin Vulgate as issued by Jerome.
In fact, the verse seems to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts.

Prove this.

I am not at all sure why you are so hung up on Origen and Marcion. I suspect it is a doctrinal issue. I am no fan of Origen’s allegorical system of interpretation but he was not the only one involved in “adding” or influencing the texts, it is Ireneaus who insists there are to be four Gospels because there are “four winds”

But Ireneaus changed nothing?! Besides, if he actually said so, remember it was one of the Apostles who, by Inspiration, said what and what should be written to the disciples in Acts 15.

and it is the views of Tertullian that is reflected in the Pastoral 1Timothy 2:12 that forbids women from teaching in church. Anyone and everyone had their say.

That cannot be true. Tertullian came 1/2 centuries after the older version besides, did Tertullian also influence a similar statement in 1 Corinth 14?

nobilis:
Okay. Let us assume that the Mark of the gospel and the Marcus of Peter's epistle are the same person.
Let us also assume that Mark was there with the apostles in the upper room when the 120 were counted. And we are assuming because apart from the apostles and a few other women, no other person was mentioned. So he might have been and then again, he might not have been.

Ok.

But I also wonder how it came to be that Mark's was the first gospel to be written and then formed a template for the other synoptic gospels written by an apostle and a disciple who were much closer to Jesus than Mark was.

Are there any similarities between Mark and John, Mark and Luke or Matthew and Mark? Well, thus saying you are simply regurgitating the views of some.

But let's get back to the issue of this post.
How does the inspiration of the Holy Spirit lead to the discrepancies between the reports of the times and lives of Jesus and his contemporaries?

Inspiration does not necessarily confer omniscience thus making one an island independent of fellowship and its benefit!

Bear in mind that we have now moved from foolishly saying the Bible was "inspired" (even as you Christians interpret that term to mean "dictated word for word" ) to agreeing that the stories in the Bible are the results of oral transmission of the happenings during that period.

All Scripture is given by Inspiration, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost!
Inspiration is not dictation word for word!

Sarassin:
Which of these two would you consider an early Christian.
A. St. Jerome 331CE -420CE
B. William Tyndale 1494 - 1536

Both were early christians to we in the 21st century. If you ask which is the earlier of the two off course it is Jerome but bottom line is both are early christians.

Are you aware that Erasmus who compiled the Greek Testament that forms the basis of the TR and the KJV could not find the Johannine comma 1 John 5:7-8 in any of the extant Greek manuscripts he had. He initially left it out of his version, there was hue and cry from the church and he agreed to replace it if the church would provide him a Greek manuscript with the verse.

Underscores the fact that he was human but also very fastidious not willing to play to anybody's gallery!

The wily and devious church hierarchy promptly handed over a Greek translated manuscript of the Latin vulgate to Erasmus and asked him to insert it and publish or face the consequences. This is how you come to have that verse in the KJV.

before this time the verse was in the Syriac Bible 157 AD, meaning it was in the original greek. (of course the threat was not necessary). I am sure that is why Erasmus the compiler (not writer) included it. Besides, the acceptance of the TR by the reformers etc I believe was as a result of its agreement with the Original greek and/or non-greek Bibles translated from the Original Greek.

This is just perverse. You know full well that a Yoruba version of the KJV is still the KJV and not say....the Geneva bible!

Then a Greek Bible translated to either Syriac or Latin remains the same just as an English KJV translated to Yoruba remains a KJV Bible!

lordnicklaus:
There also exists an addition in between verses 14 and 15

Like the other, I'm sure this addition is not found in the KJV and I suppose in the TR and then I believe in the Original (pre-A/S/V codexes) mss, hence the Word was indeed preserved!

lordnicklaus:
A LATER ADDITION TO VERSE 8


"But they reported hastily to Peter and those with him all they were told. And after this Jesus himself appeared to them and sent out through them, from the east to west, the sacred and incorruptible declaration of salvation"

Thankfully, this addition is not found in the KJV and I suppose in the TR and then I believe in the Original (pre-A/S/V) codexes, mss, hence the Word was indeed preserved!

Sarassin:
We can clear that up right now. There were no early Greek and Syrian Christians left in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Can you prove that?

Yes, there were other non-Greek manuscripts relating to the 2nd century but since we know that all the present Gospels with the exception of the Hebrew Matthew were written in Greek, it therefore follows that all those levant versions you mentioned are translations of Greek originals or more likely translations of third, fourth or even fifth copies of Greek originals.

Translated from Greek originals untainted by activities of Marcion and Origen.

[

Heavens indeed help us all if the contents of the above link is what passes for biblical scholarship these days. Again, it is a nonsense to state that [iThe Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by Christians][/i]

If the TR agrees with/or has its source as the Greek Originals whence came those other mid-2nd century translations, then it is correct! Why? The TR is not a new production but a Translation of that which already existed centuries before!

Just like me saying the KJV has been in use by early Christians in Nigeria and you tell me that is false because there was no yoruba Bible till mid 1880s when Rev Crowther translated the English version!

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?

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

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.

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

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!

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.

Let Jesus answer you thus:

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Matthew 25:41

If in spite of this you say there is no hell then let us know what will be the end of the devil and his angels.

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.

smoy:
Only If there is anything like NT and OT with reference from both then there is LT

What is a Testament? (note Testament is not the same as Testimony)

1.Abraham genealogy were all promised which include that of the prophet Muhammad SAW .

Promised what?

2.Sure, the promise of God was with condition which He knows that the Israelite can not for fill and told them that the glory will be taken away from them to another nation if they fail and they did failed.

What Promise and what condition are you referring to?

3.No covenant was abolished by blood, no one, not in any testament from God.

Here is the question again:

3. Both testaments, Old and New, were ratified by blood. By what was the final testament ratified?

Now answer correctly.

4.Then what about THAT PROPHET prophesied which John himself claimed not.

That Prophet is also the Messiah which is Jesus Christ.

5.When Christ Himself said they were many unfinished project that some one else need to finished.

Quote where He said so.

6.The correlation is the same that is worship ONE GOD and ONLY and the prophet at that particular time is the way leading to God.

Show where this was written in Genesis in relation to Abraham and prove that this is the promise in question.

Quran 6: This is the way of thy Lord, leading straight: We have detailed the signs for those who receive admonition. (126

Again, 6. What correlation is there between your final testament and God's Promise to Abraham (being the basis of the OT and NT)
Hint: Quote that promise from Genesis then proceed to show what place Muhammed/Quran occupies therein

cckris:
Truth, like Light, overtakes lies & darkness in just one day, even when lies & darkness have existed for thousands of years.

Amen.

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!

lordnicklaus:
Thanks for dispeling my doubts

We thank God.

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

Glory to God.

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:
Mark doesn't record the virgin birth

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!

lordnicklaus:
I have also noticed something significant in Luke's geneology as you said I should search for, it renders Cainan as son of Arphaxad whereas Cainan probably had no ties with the Semitic family or was there an ancestor which Matthew did not consider?

Kindly spend some minutes here:
https://www.nairaland.com/2494362/why-jesus-genealogy-matthew-luke#36590310

nobilis:
Hahahahahahahahaha.
Christians deceiving themselves since 30AD.
Interesting.

Now, u say when more than 5 people are at the scene of an event and you ask them, they would give different accounts.

First let me ask:
Among all the gospel writers, just mention the one person that was there at the scene of the birth of Jesus. Bear in mind, that the very first gospel to be written was the gospel of Mark and that was written around 60AD, that is about 60-65 years after the supposed birth of Jesus. That should give you an idea of when Matthew and Luke were written.

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

lordnicklaus:
I have also noted something else......




God said to Moses concerning His appearance to the patriarchs.......................................................................................................................................


"I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as EL SHADDAI but by My name JEHOVAH, I was not known to them" - Exodus 6:3




Yet, we have God telling Abraham in Genesis 15:7------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I am JEHOVAH, who brought you out of Ur as of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit."

This is simply because the writer of Genesis-Moses- was the one God spoke to in Exodus 6:3