The esv based in early greek texts

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 14 2009,16:21)

Hi WJ, Is Jesus not your appointed master and Lord? You should obey the one God appointed over you. But he is ever subject to the one who appointed him.

NH

Is he…

1 Cor 15:28

Remember Jesus hasn't subjected himself and the Kingdom to the Father yet, has he?

Imagine that, and you make him into a worm or a mere man of dust like us!

You should follow the Angels example and start worshipping him!

WJ

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 14 2009,13:51)

Quote (Gene @ Dec. 13 2009,15:52) pritNick………. Relying on the Spirit of GOD is sufficient for me, as Jesus said the spirit (intellect of God) will teach you (ALL) things. It  is also plain you do not understand Scriptures that are written , as you have many times shown US,  so i would not be calling the kettle black if i were a pot.   IMO gene Gene So why even have a Bible? Do you think your ability to hear from God is greater than the writers of the Bible? Who will believe you when you quote any scritpture if you think it is not the inspired word of God? This is proof why you will not accept the truth of the scriptures because you think your understanding is greater than the scriptures. WJ

WJ……….Do you think in order to be saved you need a bible?, None of the early Christians had bibles and How did they understand and come to be Saved then. Our Bibles are NOT what SAVES US, our excepting of the blood of Christ and belief that GOD the FATHER (the only true God) has forgiven us of our sin by his blood, and Raised Him from the DEAD is what saves us. You do not need a bible to understand that.

My ability to hear God may not be greater but it is no less either. I have had many, many, many, answered prayers in my life. The bible never converted anyone, the spirit of God has converted  many.  IMO

peace and love to you and yours………………..gene

[gollamudi]

Wonderful post brother Gene. We don't need written word for our salvation which was corrupted by biased human beings.

Thanks and love to you.
Adam

[GeneBalthrop]

Adam………Amen brother, all we need is the FATHER to be With us and guide our hearts and minds and teach us His WILL.

Hope you and your family are all OK brother, love to you and yours…………………gene

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Gene @ Dec. 14 2009,17:11)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 14 2009,13:51) Quote (Gene @ Dec. 13 2009,15:52) pritNick………. Relying on the Spirit of GOD is sufficient for me, as Jesus said the spirit (intellect of God) will teach you (ALL) things. It is also plain you do not understand Scriptures that are written , as you have many times shown US, so i would not be calling the kettle black if i were a pot. IMO gene Gene So why even have a Bible? Do you think your ability to hear from God is greater than the writers of the Bible? Who will believe you when you quote any scripture if you think it is not the inspired word of God? This is proof why you will not accept the truth of the scriptures because you think your understanding is greater than the scriptures. WJ WJ……….Do you think in order to be saved you need a bible?, None of the early Christians had bibles and How did they understand and come to be Saved then. Our Bibles are NOT what SAVES US, our excepting of the blood of Christ and belief that GOD the FATHER (the only true God) has forgiven us of our sin by his blood, and Raised Him from the DEAD is what saves us. You do not need a bible to understand that. My ability to hear God may not be greater but it is no less either. I have had many, many, many, answered prayers in my life. The bible never converted anyone, the spirit of God has converted many. IMO peace and love to you and yours………………..gene

Hi All

Gene has claimed the scriptures cannot save anyone though the scriptures themselves claim that they are able to make us wise unto salvation. Gene has also implied that his ability to hear God supercedes the writings of the scriptures.

So why should we believe any of his interpretations of the scripture seeing that he thinks they are corrupt.

It seems he is a pick and choose apologist for he just picks what fits into his theology and denies the rest.

Why should we listen to his teachings at all since he seems to claim that his inspiration is greater than the inspired scriptures which are able to make us wise unto salvation.

Even the Apostles and early believers trusted in the written scriptures they had and searched them daily for the truth.

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days “reasoned with them out of the scriptures“, Acts 17:2

“These were more noble” than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, “and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so“. Acts 17:11

And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, “an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus“. Acts 18:24

For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, “shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. Acts 18:28

For whatsoever things “were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope“. Rom 15:4

But now is made manifest, and “**by the scriptures of the prophets**, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith“: Rom 16:26

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day “according to the scriptures“: 1 Cor 15:3, 4

And that from a child thou hast known “THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, WHICH ARE ABLE TO MAKE THEE WISE UNTO SALVATION THROUGH FAITH WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS“. 2 Tim 3:16

“AS ALSO IN ALL HIS EPISTLES, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, WHICH THEY THAT ARE UNLEARNED AND UNSTABLE WREST, **AS THEY DO ALSO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, UNTO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION**“. 2 Peter 3:16

But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled. Matt 26:56

And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, “because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? Mark 12:24

“Jesus loved the scriptures, the Apostles loved the scriptures, and the early church Fathers loved the scriptures, and it is not recorded anywhere that any of them ever questioned their authenticity!

Are we any better than they? They needed and used the scriptures to preach and to even write the inspired words that we have in the NT.

And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, “BECAUSE YE KNOW NOT THE SCRIPTURES, NEITHER THE POWER OF GOD? Mark 12:24

“AMEN JESUS!!!“

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (gollamudi @ Dec. 14 2009,23:28)

Wonderful post brother Gene. We don't need written word for our salvation which was corrupted by biased human beings. Thanks and love to you. Adam

GM

Since when can someone who not long ago claimed that Jesus is not the Messiah, be an authority on the validity of the scriptures?  

Your disdain for the inspired words of God is telling!

WJ

[NickHassan]

Quote (gollamudi @ Dec. 15 2009,15:28)

Wonderful post brother Gene. We don't need written word for our salvation which was corrupted by biased human beings. Thanks and love to you. Adam

Hi GM,
You have hoisted your own pathetic sail and headed out into the shipping lanes without map or sextant or anchor?

[KangarooJack]

WorshippingJesus said to Con:

Quote

The fact that a couple of early manuscripts reads it Jesus just adds weight to it.

WJ,
Not only do the EARLY manuscripts that say “Jesus” add weight to it, but by Con's own standards the EARLY manuscripts would be AS the originals. Note what he said,

“Original – Oldest same point, you use johnny come lately manuscripts which still bastardize scripture.”

There it is! By Con's own standard the EARLY manuscripts that say “Jesus” would be on a par with the originals. Con has backed himself into a corner on this one.

Moreover, he said that “Novum” does not mean old. But the Novum Testamentum Graece is simply the Latin for the Greek New Testament. The difference is that the Novum Testamentum Graece is based in two EARLY manuscripts.

Therefore, by Con's own standards the variant reading “the Lord” would be “bastardization.”

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Gollamudi said:

Quote

Wonderful post brother Gene. We don't need written word for our salvation which was corrupted by biased human beings. Thanks and love to you. Adam

TO KEITH:

Keith,
Did you notice that Gene and others here have started to say that we don't need scripture? It wasn't until the two EARLY manuscripts were introduced that they started to say this. Ergo, they fear that the two EARLY manuscripts which say “Jesus” are the scripture.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 14 2009,12:08)

Hi TT, So you are somehow convinced that a couple of early manuscripts must be correct? Was Jesus the God of Israel and if so why did he say what he did in Jn8.54?

Nick,
By Con's own standards the EARLY manuscripts would be AS authoritative as the originals. Note what he said,

“Original – Oldest same point,”

So ask Con if they are correct. My quess is that he will pull the ole switcharoo.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

CON said:

Quote

Thought we were talking ESV, now your talking NASB. Personally I use KJV, it is far better than the ESV or the NASB, even with it's translation problems.  I also refuse to use any bible with a copyright law. Because it is bastardized even farther.

You're being evasive. I am not talking about the NASB text. I am talking about the marginal note. The two manuscripts which say “Jesus” are EARLY. So by your own standards they are on a par with the original manuscript. You said,

“Original – Oldest same point,”

You have backed yourself in a corner. By your own standard the KJV and the NASB which say “the Lord” is a “bastardization of the scriptures.”

thinker

[Constitutionalist]

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 15 2009,00:58)

WorshippingJesus said to Con: Quote The fact that a couple of early manuscripts reads it Jesus just adds weight to it. WJ, Not only do the EARLY manuscripts that say “Jesus” add weight to it, but by Con's own standards the EARLY manuscripts would be AS the originals. Note what he said, “Original – Oldest same point, you use johnny come lately manuscripts which still bastardize scripture.” There it is! By Con's own standard the EARLY manuscripts that say “Jesus” would be on a par with the originals. Con has backed himself into a corner on this one. Moreover, he said that “Novum” does not mean old. But the Novum Testamentum Graece is simply the Latin for the Greek New Testament. The difference is that the Novum Testamentum Graece is based in two EARLY manuscripts. Therefore, by Con's own standards the variant reading “the Lord” would be “bastardization.” thinker

Strawman

[Constitutionalist]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 14 2009,13:43)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 14 2009,16:21) Hi WJ, Is Jesus not your appointed master and Lord? You should obey the one God appointed over you. But he is ever subject to the one who appointed him. NH Is he… 1 Cor 15:28 Remember Jesus hasn't subjected himself and the Kingdom to the Father yet, has he? Imagine that, and you make him into a worm or a mere man of dust like us! You should follow the Angels example and start worshipping him! WJ

The Son voluntarily subordinate to the Father.

In the mediatorial kingdom, the Son is, in a manner, distinct from the Father.

His kingdom shall merge in the Father's, with whom He is one; not that there is thus any derogation from His honor; for the Father Himself wills “that all should honor the Son, as they honor the Father” (John 5:22, 23 Hebrew 1:6).

Yeshua HaMoshiach is all in all (Colossians 3:11 ; compare Zechariah 14:9).

Then, and not till then, all things, without the least infringement of the divine prerogative, shall be subject to the Son, and the Son subordinate to the Father sharing His glory.

Contrast Psa 10:4 14:1.

Even the saints do not fully realize 'elohim as their “all” (Psalm 73:25) now, through desiring it; then each shall feel, 'elohim is all to me.

[Constitutionalist]

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 15 2009,01:22)

CON said: Quote Thought we were talking ESV, now your talking NASB. Personally I use KJV, it is far better than the ESV or the NASB, even with it's translation problems.  I also refuse to use any bible with a copyright law. Because it is bastardized even farther. You're being evasive. I am not talking about the NASB text. I am talking about the marginal note. The two manuscripts which say “Jesus” are EARLY. So by your own standards they are on a par with the original manuscript. You said, “Original – Oldest same point,” You have backed yourself in a corner. By your own standard the KJV and the NASB which say “the Lord” is a “bastardization of the scriptures.” thinker

Marginal notes are personal opinions and observations.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 16 2009,00:52)

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 15 2009,00:58) WorshippingJesus said to Con: Quote The fact that a couple of early manuscripts reads it Jesus just adds weight to it. WJ, Not only do the EARLY manuscripts that say “Jesus” add weight to it, but by Con's own standards the EARLY manuscripts would be AS the originals. Note what he said, “Original – Oldest same point, you use johnny come lately manuscripts which still bastardize scripture.” There it is! By Con's own standard the EARLY manuscripts that say “Jesus” would be on a par with the originals. Con has backed himself into a corner on this one. Moreover, he said that “Novum” does not mean old. But the Novum Testamentum Graece is simply the Latin for the Greek New Testament. The difference is that the Novum Testamentum Graece is based in two EARLY manuscripts. Therefore, by Con's own standards the variant reading “the Lord” would be “bastardization.” thinker Strawman

That's it?

thinker

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 15 2009,09:02)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 14 2009,13:43) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 14 2009,16:21) Hi WJ, Is Jesus not your appointed master and Lord? You should obey the one God appointed over you. But he is ever subject to the one who appointed him. NH Is he… 1 Cor 15:28 Remember Jesus hasn't subjected himself and the Kingdom to the Father yet, has he? Imagine that, and you make him into a worm or a mere man of dust like us! You should follow the Angels example and start worshipping him! WJ The Son voluntarily subordinate to the Father. In the mediatorial kingdom, the Son is, in a manner, distinct from the Father. His kingdom shall merge in the Father's, with whom He is one; not that there is thus any derogation from His honor; for the Father Himself wills “that all should honor the Son, as they honor the Father” (John 5:22, 23 Hebrew 1:6). Yeshua HaMoshiach is all in all (Colossians 3:11 ; compare Zechariah 14:9). Then, and not till then, all things, without the least infringement of the divine prerogative, shall be subject to the Son, and the Son subordinate to the Father sharing His glory. Contrast Psa 10:4 14:1. Even the saints do not fully realize 'elohim as their “all” (Psalm 73:25) now, through desiring it; then each shall feel, 'elohim is all to me.

Con
Nice try! Why don't you give us your source?

Why did you just clip a part of “Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary” on the verse?

Here is the whole quote…

28. Son . himself . subject-not as the creatures are, but as a Son voluntarily subordinate to, though co-equal with, the Father. In the mediatorial kingdom, the Son had been, in a manner, distinct from the Father. Now, His kingdom shall merge in the Father's, with whom He is one; not that there is thus any derogation from His honor; for the Father Himself wills “that all should honor the Son, as they honor the Father” (Joh 5:22, 23; Heb 1:6).

God . all in all-as Christ is all in all (Col 3:11; compare Zec 14:9). Then, and not till then, “all things,” without the least infringement of the divine prerogative, shall be subject to the Son, and the Son subordinate to the Father, “while co-equally sharing His glory“. Contrast Ps 10:4; 14:1. Even the saints do not fully realize God as their “all” (Ps 73:25) now, through desiring it; then each shall feel, God is all to me.  Found here!

You clipped… “God . all in all-as Christ is all in all (Col 3:11; compare Zec 14:9). Then, and not till then, “all things,” without the least infringement of the divine prerogative, shall be subject to the Son, and the Son subordinate to the Father, “while co-equally sharing His glory“. Contrast Ps 10:4; 14:1”.

And you are totally missing the point.

Jesus is not yet subject to the Father for he has all authority and power and all things will be subjected to him before he subjects the Kingdom and himself to the Father.

Obviously you have closed your eyes to the truth of what that means.

If he is not God, then he is “a god” of some sorts!

Thomas said he was his Lord and God!

We believe he is God, One with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

The whole council of God reveals the three as One.

WJ

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 16 2009,01:04)

Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 15 2009,01:22) CON said: Quote Thought we were talking ESV, now your talking NASB. Personally I use KJV, it is far better than the ESV or the NASB, even with it's translation problems.  I also refuse to use any bible with a copyright law. Because it is bastardized even farther. You're being evasive. I am not talking about the NASB text. I am talking about the marginal note. The two manuscripts which say “Jesus” are EARLY. So by your own standards they are on a par with the original manuscript. You said, “Original – Oldest same point,” You have backed yourself in a corner. By your own standard the KJV and the NASB which say “the Lord” is a “bastardization of the scriptures.” thinker Marginal notes are personal opinions and observations.

Marginal notes are opinion when they contain interpretation. Notes which indicate historical fact are not opinion. It's not enough that you have backed yourself into a corner. Now you dig a deep hole for yourself too. All you prove is that you are stubborn.

The NIV translators also indicate that the manuscripts which say “Jesus” are earlier:

Jude 1:4-5 (Today's New International Version)
4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about [a] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

   5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord (b) at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

Footnotes:
a.Jude 1:4  Or individuals who were marked out for condemnation
b.Jude 1:5  Some early manuscripts Jesus

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage….on=TNIV

CAN YOU SHOW AN OPPOSING “OPINION” FROM SCHOLARSHIP? Either the two manuscripts were “early” or they were not. And if early then you are bound by your “Original – Oldest same point” principle.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Constitutionalist said:

Quote

Personally I use KJV, it is far better than the ESV or the NASB, even with it's translation problems.  I also refuse to use any bible with a copyright law. Because it is bastardized even farther.

But the KJV is based in later manuscripts. You say “Original – oldest same point.” Therefore, the manuscripts on which the ESV is based are on a par with the original manuscript. This is your own standard and not mine.

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
You have amazing reliance on deceptive and weak logic.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 16 2009,04:59)

Hi TT, You have amazing reliance on deceptive and weak logic.

Refute my logic then.

thinker

[Author]

Posts