Just throwing a bone Verse added to scripture?

Star

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html

Don't know anything but this link was mailed to me concerning a verse that was added to scripture, supposedly proof?

Havent a clue so I thought you guys would enjoy arguing it out or something, dont know Laughing

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 6845 Location: USA

I found this amusing. His basic premise is that he has proof that is unsubstantiated, but should be believed because since it supposedly exists it must be true by the will of God.

I know of no other cannonized scripture that makes that claim, do you?

Star · Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:42 pm Post subject:

I havent a clue myself JP I just drop stuff off and wonder how do others know through these things.

I can't see how anyone could add or subtract to what Christ has done, I see Him as the Living Word of God.

If its Him the scriptures testify of, I see Him alone as the Truth of them.

Others may justify the verse "lying pen" of the scribes but I never saw this as a literal pen but that of the tongue. I see this as speaking falsely rather... Just as David said he was training his tongue as a skilful writer and the epistles say not pen and ink but the Spirit of the living God. Other places seem to validate this concerning ordering ones conversation aright.

But of the letter of it I havent a clue. There is one baptism and Jesus said to hear O Isreal, the Lord thy God is one... I dont stumble at it, its neither here nor there with me personally. Obviously there are books within certain breeds of Christianity that are added in while other books are not accepted as the whole of scripture.

But as long as one gets Christ, the Truth of them it don't matter to me.

lowers · Big Goldfish Joined: 22 Jul 2005 Posts: 70 Location: SC

King James Version (1769) " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
(at http://www.crosswire.org/study/passagestudy.jsp?mod=KJV#cv)

John Wycliffe Bible (1395) (Wycliffe) "Therfor go ye, and teche alle folkis, baptisynge hem in the name of the Fadir, and of the Sone, and of the Hooli Goost;" <-Not same spelling but clear enough)
(at http://www.crosswire.org/study/passagestudy.jsp?mod=Wycliffe#cv)

Confused or disgusted

So when was this changed Question

lowers

FFT · Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 6:29 am Post subject:

If you read the link, you'd see that he asserts that it was changed during the council of Nicea, 325 AD.

david2 · Booted Joined: 29 Sep 2005 Posts: 81

now is not true that there are some 20 or so verses comp[letely removed from the NIV, that are in the KJV.
Do the reasearch, the NIV makes for good fiction. lol sorry for you readers of that pathetic , theologian contaminated version.

Stick to KJV it was done more by linguists, paid as a job and paired and grouped off to render the most accurate word for wor translation for the record.
It has flow and you can do the correlations but as with the others, sorry people who read the contempory , grammatically changed syntax , reversing at times the object and subject changing the entire meaning of the verse just to make it sound right for the ear, fall into confusion, but controlled confusion by the ists, and isms who say "put that KJV away."
wonder why?
It's going to come back and bite you, you____________________>!

SORRY, _______________ PAINFUL STUFF
AND IF YOU THINK THAT'S BAD THE""" NIV STUDENT BIBLE""" IS A BIGGER JOKE!
lawyers , whenever you lump the phd's together, all doctors are the same, the all live and bed together when push comes to shove in the courtroom.

ok not all, but 99%___

David2

John R Nolan · Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:38 am Post subject: TRICKY TRINITY

Very much enjoyed the olde English writing, but, one little question
Jesus said to baptise "IN THE NAME of the Father and the Son ant the Holy Spirit" Mat.28:19
Father is not a name, it is a title
Son is not a name, it is a title
Holy Spirit is not a name, it describes Who God is, and that's why Peter in Acts 2:38 told us what the name is
Also, Paul instructs us to DO ALL THINGS in the NAME of the Lord Jesus Christ, and most people should be able to see how that all fits together, it' like the rest of God's Word, is so simple, if you let HIM reveal what It says instead of listening to unqualified, un-vindicated teachers and ministers

Frank1 · Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:06 am Post subject:

I John 5:7-8 should read: "For there are three that bear record, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The words "...in heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And thee are three that bear witness in earth..." are not Scriptures and are found in NO Greek Manuscripts or even the early Latin Fathers writings and translations. These spurious words appear in no reputable manuscript, and no manuscript period, before the FIFTEEN CENTURY! No Biblical Scholar thinks those words are part of any original manuscripts or Scriptures. They are as spurious as the pagan trinity doctrine. The Holy spirit OF God is certainly not a "person" as you suggest. The Holy Spirit is the "Spirit OF God the Father." I assure, however, that God the Father is not the "Father OF the Holy Spirit." Think about that for a few years and it might come to you. Paul ALWAYS addressed and praised God the Father and His Lord Jesus Christ in EVERY salutation in EVERY epistle He ever wrote.Example: "Paul, an apostle of JESUS CHRIST by the wil of GOD, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in CHRIST JESUS: Grace be to you, and peace, from GOD OUR FATHER AND FROM THE LORD JESSUS CHRIST" (Gal. 1:1-2). But Paul never ONCE mentioned or addressed the Holy Spirit in ANY of his epistles EVER. Do you have a good explanation for such an gross omission and degradation of the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit is PERSON, and VERY GOD? Well do you? No, of course you don't.

Jesus Christ was "conceived by THE HOLY SPIRIT." Now then, whose Son is Jesus Christ? Is he "The Son of the Holy Spirit?" NO? And why not? Since when is the man who "conceives" a child with a women, no longer the "father" when the child is born? Do you know of any such unscientific nonsense, peaple? Every little school boy in the street knows that the man who caused his mother to concieve IS HIS FATHER, not some other man or some other ghostly person. The reason that Jesus is the "Son of the FATHER" (I1 John 3) The reason little Johnny is the Son of his father is because his mother became pregnant by HIS SPERM. And the reason that Jesus is the Son of the Father {II Jn 3), and not the son of some other person, is because his Mother, Mary, was made pregant by His Father "Holy Spirit." Am I going to fast for you?

Jesus never said the word "hell" in His entire ministry. He never said it in English, or in Greek, or in Hebrew, or in Aramaic. No responsible Bible Translation translates "sheol" as hell, or "tartarus" as hell, or "hades" as hell, or "GeHenna" as hell. You have not a clue as to what you are talking about.

John R Nolan · Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:03 am Post subject: The Godhead STILL?

Friend, to whom this last tirade is addressed is not clear, and if perchance it be myself, thank you for donating so much time and effort to so simple a concept
If we do not yet comprehend that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God, God manifest in flesh, that the Father and the Holy Spirit are One and the same being, neither of whom are ever in disagreement, being one and the same identity, then there is clear revelation of the gross failure of EVERY religion, every ministry to clearly expound the Word of GOD
The Holy Spirit IS GOD, not a portion of GOD, not a facsimile of GOD, HE is GOD as GOD IS SPIRIT
I do not believe I have ever suggested the Holy Spirit is a person, and this is where trinitarian doctrine proves it's perverse, demonic character, by trying to cut GOD into three equal portions when HE IS ONE GOD Who expresses Himself en-morphe through different ages
If God and the Holy Spirit were different persons Jesus had two fathers and would be considered illegitimate
Was God His Father or the Holy Spirit?
The reference to hell is incomprehensible and surely applies to some other contribution
Hopefully this clarifies some things and comprehension of God
I am NOT trinitarian, I am NOT ONENESS, I am a Christian, a child of God and worship the God of Abraham, Paul and Jesus the Christ

Ryck · Lion King Joined: 05 Dec 2002 Posts: 1025

John R Nolan · Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:21 pm Post subject: ONE, TWO, THREE?

If I have not yet explained sufficiently clearly for all to understand that I believe in there being ONE GOD, Who had a SON, Whom the Father, the SPIRIT INDWELT for a period of time then I am afraid I have no words to more simply explain this concept
I have a son, he is NOT me, though he has, poor lad, many of my characteristics
GOD has a SON in Whom dwelt the fullness of the GODHEAD BODILY, Jesus was, for that specific time, GOD in FLESH
Before that He, Jesus was the second Adam
It would be best if we move on from this topic as I have no better way to describe this and you are more likely to get a better comprehension if you keep it before GOD, HE is the ONLY ONE Who can reveal such things

Ebal Trace · German Shepherd Joined: 19 May 2007 Posts: 337

John R Nolan · Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:48 pm Post subject: TRINITARIAN TWADDLE

Back to the grindstone.
It is not clear if rev. JP is addressing my thoughts here or another; in case he is, my response is that there is fallacy in both Oneness doctrine and the Trinitarian twaddle.
There is ONE GOD, Who created a physical body, a human tabernacle, a temple made without hands, Jn.2:21, in which GOD, SPIRIT, could reside, could experience life in flesh.
That, through this, HE could experience temptation, sorrow, grief, and other negative emotions which exist on this earth.
These are emotions HE could NOT experience as GOD, in a perfect environment.
Scripture teaches HE, GOD, CONDESCENDED, brought HIMSELF a little lower than the angels, Heb.2:7, that HE could experience life in the flesh. Mal.3:1; Jn.2:21.
We realize the flesh HE dwelt in was PERFECT, being made without sin and being sinless in texture; yet that flesh was able to be tested, to be tired, to be physically hurt; there are plenty of Scriptures to support that, Mat.26:36-Mk.4:38, Lk.22:44, etc., which is impossible for GOD to experience as SPIRIT.

This is the fundamental error of all pseudo-Christian religions, they reject REVELATION, preferring the doctrines of man, the interpretations and dogma of religious idioits who refuse to search the Word and rely on GOD to interpret IT for them.
There is still ONE GOD, Who manifested in a Pillar of Fire; a Whirlwind; a still, small voice, Moses, and, in HIS FULLNESS in the flesh of Jesus the Christos, the Anointed One.
Jesus was the "EXPRESS IMAGE" of GOD.
Express:"definitely stated; not merely implied; squeeze out, exude, represent by symbols, REVEAL, betoken, put (thought) into words" Oxford Dict.
Jesus IS the WORD, is He not?
It does NOT say He, Jesus was GOD, but that GOD revealed, expressed HIMSELF THROUGH Jesus, HIS Son.
JP's snide comments about proof are really hilarious, considering we are saved by FAITH:"spiritual apprehension of devine truth, APART FROM PROOF."
We also find Paul and other apostles pointing out that we are basing our hope on things not seen, which again excludes PROOF.
That is the fundamental difference between Christians, GOD'S children, who rely solely on HIM revealing HIS WORD to us, and the religious idiots who hung Him on the cross at Calvary and who again "crucify to themselves the Son of GOD afresh and put Him to an open shame" Heb.6:6
How do they do this?
By denying HIS WORD preferring doctrines of man. Mt.15:9; Mk.7:7; Col.2:22, 1 Tim.4:1; Heb.13:9
Proof?
Get a grip on yourself friend, if you can't BELIEVE HIS WORD, get out of the qame.
In His love
John

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 6845 Location: USA

John R Nolan · Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:17 am Post subject: ERROR

My apologies Rev.J.P.
It is a some time since I have been on the site and, in reading the layout I mistakenly thought you were addressing your comments to myself.
Sincere apologies
John