Orthodox Christianity, False Teachers, Faith, and Reason

[koshergrl]

We're agreed.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sorry that you believe that to be error and 'hurting people' but I belong to a Church that does that magnificently and baptizes dozens of new adult believers every year--believers who are full of the Spirit and who are going out and spreading the Gospel and relieving human suffering all over the world. How can that be a bad thing?

I have to take someone to the urgent care which is a little different than the hospital and I already live with not having enough time.

It is not just one thing. It is your worldview.

You can't give the Bible a late date and expect there not to be problems because someone is going to say, "look. that is a reason I don't have to believe".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...od-s-wrath-against-mankind-6.html#post7897654

It is also the company you keep:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...od-s-wrath-against-mankind-7.html#post7906121

If Jesus said, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel" then that gives us authority. When someone says that Mark 16 is not in the Bible then that takes away from Biblical authority. Who does that hurt? It hurts the person whom doesn't follow God because they listened to you instead of God and it disconnects people from those who tell them the truth. Mark 16 is in the Bible. The people who profess to know have unbelief as their problem so the unbelievers in Christian cloth are calling people after themselves so that they will follow them instead of the Christians.


David Otis Fuller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well I won't argue with you on those points Chuckt. I accept that you think I'm the devil incarnate and am teaching apostasy. I believe God honors your faith even though I cannot share some of your beliefs.

As for Mark 16, here is what one of your heroes, Norman Geisler, has to say about it:

These verses are lacking in many of the oldest and best Greek manuscripts (Aleph, B, Old Latin manuscript k, the Sinaitic Syriac, many Old Armenian manuscripts and a number of Ethiopic manuscripts). Many of the ancient Fathers show no knowledge of it (e.g. Clement, Origen, Eusebius, et al.). Jerome admitted that "almost all Greek copies do not have this concluding portion." Among some of the [copies] that have these verses, there is also an asterisk or obelus to indicate it is a spurious addition.

Geisler, Norman and Nix, William. A General Introduction to the Bible. Moody Press. Chicago, 1973. p. 372.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh, and Chuck, I hope your friend or loved one is okay. I've been running medical taxi service for loved ones at a steady clip lately. And yes, it is time consuming.

 

[BreezeWood]

Also, nowhere anywhere in the Bible does it suggest that God's work here on Earth is completed or that the ultimate triumph over evil has yet occurred. There are numerous passages alluding to that day when the Christ will return with his avenging angels and dispel all evil. But I think we are not intended to know the time or hour that will occur and we are not privy to know exactly HOW it will occur. The ancient prophets did the best they could to describe it with the words available for them to use, but as with much of the scripture, we no doubt have lost something in the translation over the millenia.

I do not condone using some people's version of God, Jesus, or the Bible to control or hurt people. I hope God uses me to enlighten people that our job is to arrange the meeting between the mortal and the Divine, and then allow God to take it from there.

Does that cover it? Or did I fail to address something here?

Foxfyre: Also, nowhere anywhere in the Bible does it suggest that God's work here on Earth is completed or that the ultimate triumph over evil has yet occurred.

well, that is a perfect example of where scripture has failed to recognize the very motive for an event that was a true message from God. the Parable of Noah.


Judgement will be the moment when Good will Triumph over Evil or Evil will be the triumph over Good - when the last person of either will perish God will return to judge all those remaining.

with the death of Noah all who would be remaining would have been Evil fulfilling the prophecy bring Gods Judgement and their destruction - God returned beforehand to allow mankind a second chance, destroying those to be destroyed and giving Noah a new leas on life.

Foxfyre: There are numerous passages alluding to that day when the Christ will return with his avenging angels and dispel all evil.

the Message from God, the Parable of Noah clearly leaves to mankind the determination for their own destiny. Either the triumph of Good - or the Triumph of Evil, Armageddon

there is no passage in the Bible for the Triumpth of Good - a major cause for its insindiary final passages.

Foxfyre: But I think we are not intended to know the time or hour that will occur and we are not privy to know exactly HOW it will occur.

the Bible can not be allowed such an egregious error against the message from God, Noah's Parable - it will occur on the day when the last person of either Good or Evil perishes leaving a completed Triumph of one over the other.

Foxfyre: The ancient prophets did the best they could to describe it with the words available for them to use, but as with much of the scripture, we no doubt have lost something in the translation over the millenia.

a somewhat sad commentary or should I use the word Excuse - nonetheless there will always be accommodations for intent ... an intent in existing scriptures that is inimical to the message of God is unforgivable.


the Parable of Noah is the path to follow to achieve Remittance - the Triumph of Good, for "all" of Mankind.

 

[Chuckt]

Well I won't argue with you on those points Chuckt. I accept that you think I'm the devil incarnate and am teaching apostasy. I believe God honors your faith even though I cannot share some of your beliefs.

What makes you think you would share some of my beliefs?

3671 /homología ("common confession") can refer to the collective agreement of Christians about what God loves and hates – and the courage to proclaim it! See also 3670 (homologé&#333.

When we hear the word homologia about proclaiming or profession, can you hate only the things that God hates and love only the things that God loves? Can you say the same things that God says?

 

[Foxfyre]

Sometime back in the thread you held up Geisler as a true authority of the Church, Chuckt. What did you think about his comments on Mark 16?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, for heaven's sake, you professors of Christ yet who profane Him with your mouths.

Christ reveals Himself to each of us in His way and His time. Love each other as you would Him.

You all need time outs with Jesus, for pity sake.

Now you got me quarreling about this. I am going to go take a time out. Unsubscribe.

 

[Foxfyre]

Also, nowhere anywhere in the Bible does it suggest that God's work here on Earth is completed or that the ultimate triumph over evil has yet occurred. There are numerous passages alluding to that day when the Christ will return with his avenging angels and dispel all evil. But I think we are not intended to know the time or hour that will occur and we are not privy to know exactly HOW it will occur. The ancient prophets did the best they could to describe it with the words available for them to use, but as with much of the scripture, we no doubt have lost something in the translation over the millenia.

I do not condone using some people's version of God, Jesus, or the Bible to control or hurt people. I hope God uses me to enlighten people that our job is to arrange the meeting between the mortal and the Divine, and then allow God to take it from there.

Does that cover it? Or did I fail to address something here?

Foxfyre: Also, nowhere anywhere in the Bible does it suggest that God's work here on Earth is completed or that the ultimate triumph over evil has yet occurred.

well, that is a perfect example of where scripture has failed to recognize the very motive for an event that was a true message from God. the Parable of Noah.


Judgement will be the moment when Good will Triumph over Evil or Evil will be the triumph over Good - when the last person of either will perish God will return to judge all those remaining.

with the death of Noah all who would be remaining would have been Evil fulfilling the prophecy bring Gods Judgement and their destruction - God returned beforehand to allow mankind a second chance, destroying those to be destroyed and giving Noah a new leas on life.




the Message from God, the Parable of Noah clearly leaves to mankind the determination for their own destiny. Either the triumph of Good - or the Triumph of Evil, Armageddon

there is no passage in the Bible for the Triumpth of Good - a major cause for its insindiary final passages.

Foxfyre: But I think we are not intended to know the time or hour that will occur and we are not privy to know exactly HOW it will occur.

the Bible can not be allowed such an egregious error against the message from God, Noah's Parable - it will occur on the day when the last person of either Good or Evil perishes leaving a completed Triumph of one over the other.

Foxfyre: The ancient prophets did the best they could to describe it with the words available for them to use, but as with much of the scripture, we no doubt have lost something in the translation over the millenia.

a somewhat sad commentary or should I use the word Excuse - nonetheless there will always be accommodations for intent ... an intent in existing scriptures that is inimical to the message of God is unforgivable.


the Parable of Noah is the path to follow to achieve Remittance - the Triumph of Good, for "all" of Mankind.

Interesting theory or interpretation BW. That's a bit over my head, but it is interesting.

 

[Chuckt]

Sometime back in the thread you held up Geisler as a true authority of the Church, Chuckt. What did you think about his comments on Mark 16?

I said he was qualified to teach and a heavyweight.

Haven't read everything he wrote as he wrote 50 or more books after all.

He's not going to hide information just because it is there. Whether he has dealt with it all is another thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sometime back in the thread you held up Geisler as a true authority of the Church, Chuckt. What did you think about his comments on Mark 16?

I said he was qualified to teach and a heavyweight.

Haven't read everything he wrote as he wrote 50 or more books after all.

He's not going to hide information just because it is there. Whether he has dealt with it all is another thing.

But he agrees with me that Mark 16 was not part of the original manuscript and was added at a much later date. You accused me of teaching untruth by my opinion about that. So can you concede that maybe possibly I wasn't teaching untruth? Or at least Geisler, the heavyweight, and I are in agreement about that?

I haven't read everything Geisler has written either, but I do own his book that I quoted from.

 

[Chuckt]

Sometime back in the thread you held up Geisler as a true authority of the Church, Chuckt. What did you think about his comments on Mark 16?

I said he was qualified to teach and a heavyweight.

Haven't read everything he wrote as he wrote 50 or more books after all.

He's not going to hide information just because it is there. Whether he has dealt with it all is another thing.

But he agrees with me that Mark 16 was not part of the original manuscript and was added at a much later date. You accused me of teaching untruth by my opinion about that. So can you concede that maybe possibly I wasn't teaching untruth? Or at least Geisler, the heavyweight, and I are in agreement about that?

I haven't read everything Geisler has written either, but I do own his book that I quoted from.

No one has seen an original manuscript. The originals were probably on parchment which helped Christianity spread faster.
That is a copy from a manuscript family.
Oldest doesnt mean most authentic because if you make a mistake, it gets put on the shelf and no one uses it so it stays nice while the good ones get worn out.

My original thumb drive wore out. I have copies of my original thumb drive. I have older thumb drives that don't get much use because they don't have complete information on them. I have thumb drives with more information and they have more miles on them so they look more warn and they are farther down the road because they are copies.

 

[Foxfyre]

I said he was qualified to teach and a heavyweight.

Haven't read everything he wrote as he wrote 50 or more books after all.

He's not going to hide information just because it is there. Whether he has dealt with it all is another thing.

But he agrees with me that Mark 16 was not part of the original manuscript and was added at a much later date. You accused me of teaching untruth by my opinion about that. So can you concede that maybe possibly I wasn't teaching untruth? Or at least Geisler, the heavyweight, and I are in agreement about that?

I haven't read everything Geisler has written either, but I do own his book that I quoted from.

No one has seen an original manuscript. The originals were probably on parchment which helped Christianity spread faster.
That is a copy from a manuscript family.
Oldest doesnt mean most authentic because if you make a mistake, it gets put on the shelf and no one uses it so it stays nice while the good ones get worn out.

My original thumb drive wore out. I have copies of my original thumb drive. I have older thumb drives that don't get much use because they don't have complete information on them. I have thumb drives with more information and they have more miles on them so they look more warn and they are farther down the road because they are copies.

So you still accuse me and wont accept even the testimony of your own witness who exhonerated me from error. Sigh. Oh well. A true fanatic at least is truly committed to his beliefs. Do have a nice evening.

 

[Chuckt]

;7985947]

But he agrees with me that Mark 16 was not part of the original manuscript and was added at a much later date. You accused me of teaching untruth by my opinion about that. So can you concede that maybe possibly I wasn't teaching untruth? Or at least Geisler, the heavyweight, and I are in agreement about that?

I haven't read everything Geisler has written either, but I do own his book that I quoted from.

No one has seen an original manuscript. The originals were probably on parchment which helped Christianity spread faster.
That is a copy from a manuscript family.
Oldest doesnt mean most authentic because if you make a mistake, it gets put on the shelf and no one uses it so it stays nice while the good ones get worn out.

My original thumb drive wore out. I have copies of my original thumb drive. I have older thumb drives that don't get much use because they don't have complete information on them. I have thumb drives with more information and they have more miles on them so they look more warn and they are farther down the road because they are copies.

So you still accuse me and wont accept even the testimony of your own witness who exhonerated me from error. Sigh. Oh well. A true fanatic at least is truly committed to his beliefs. Do have a nice evening.[/QUOTE]

The quote you quoted does not exonerate you from error.
There are also two authors. Who wrote that section?
Geisler quotes different people on different positions. Could he agree with all the positions? No.
The section you quoted doesn't say Mark 16 is missing from all manuscripts.
Nowhere did I see the word "original".
It is a small paragraph that I won't read into it what you are reading into it.
Did you also notice the name of the book has "Introduction" in it? Probably it means you can learn the truth from David Otis Fuller.

 

[Foxfyre]

No one has seen an original manuscript. The originals were probably on parchment which helped Christianity spread faster.
That is a copy from a manuscript family.
Oldest doesnt mean most authentic because if you make a mistake, it gets put on the shelf and no one uses it so it stays nice while the good ones get worn out.

My original thumb drive wore out. I have copies of my original thumb drive. I have older thumb drives that don't get much use because they don't have complete information on them. I have thumb drives with more information and they have more miles on them so they look more warn and they are farther down the road because they are copies.

So you still accuse me and wont accept even the testimony of your own witness who exhonerated me from error. Sigh. Oh well. A true fanatic at least is truly committed to his beliefs. Do have a nice evening.

The quote you quoted does not exonerate you from error.
There are also two authors. Who wrote that section?
Geisler quotes different people on different positions. Could he agree with all the positions? No.
The section you quoted doesn't say Mark 16 is missing from all manuscripts.
Nowhere did I see the word "original".
It is a small paragraph that I won't read into it what you are reading into it.
Did you also notice the name of the book has "Introduction" in it? Probably it means you can learn the truth from David Otis Fuller.

It's okay Chuck. I won't quarrel with you. Your arguments are absurd and at times dishonest and you bear false witness based on your own opinion and won't accept an authority that you originally held up as an authority.

I will enjoy discussing the concept in the OP with those willing to discuss it. I respect your faith and hope it brings you much more joy than you seem to have here. Do have a good evening.

 

[Chuckt]

It's okay Chuck. I won't quarrel with you. Your arguments are absurd and at times dishonest and you bear false witness based on your own opinion and won't accept an authority that you originally held up as an authority.

I will enjoy discussing the concept in the OP with those willing to discuss it. I respect your faith and hope it brings you much more joy than you seem to have here. Do have a good evening.

You had your fun listening to your own opinions and when it is time to hear other opinions, you don't want to share with someone else.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's okay Chuck. I won't quarrel with you. Your arguments are absurd and at times dishonest and you bear false witness based on your own opinion and won't accept an authority that you originally held up as an authority.

I will enjoy discussing the concept in the OP with those willing to discuss it. I respect your faith and hope it brings you much more joy than you seem to have here. Do have a good evening.

You had your fun listening to your own opinions and when it is time to hear other opinions, you don't want to share with someone else.

So you really do wish to discuss those verses from Mark and can do so without insulting me or accusing me of having no authority to express an opinion? I would enjoy that

While you were telling me that I knew nothing and had no authority and was speaking untruths and hurting people and shouldn't be speaking on theology at all, you were holding up Norman Geisler as one I should respect and hear.

So I quote Geisler who agrees with me that the last 12 verses of Mark were not part of the original manuscript, were added later, and he gives a very strong argument for that. Mind you that is NOT the same thing as saying the verses aren't true. It is just an honest opinion that the verses were added by another writer at a later time.

So you don't like that and now want me to listen instead to David Otis Fuller. I agree that in Fullers' Genuine or Counterfeit?, he makes a strong argument that those same 12 verses WERE part of the original manuscript. (Yes I have read Fuller's book too.)

So Geisler has written 50 books according to you--(actually he has written or co-authored 80 books but who is counting?)-- that you earlier stated as evidence of his superior authority over me. Fuller has written only three, so presumably he has less authority? You don't know how many books I have written so the argument is rather specious anyway don't you think?

Norman Giesler is acclaimed as a respected theologian and researcher and authority on Bible history and David Otis Fuller not so much, but he has his own impressive credentials. (He has stated that he is not a scholar and rather has learned from others.) And yet these two giants in the theological world disagree on those verses from Mark.

How can that be? Is it okay that they disagree? Does it make one virtuous and the other evil? I don't think so. I learned from both and trust the Holy Spirit to advise me of what is important to know. Does it really matter whether those verses were part of the original manuscript or were added later? Or is it simply a matter of interest to we students of Bible history who are not afraid to understand things differently so long as we are tuned into the Holy Spirit and trust Him to sound the alarm when something is dangerous?

A difference of opinion on the origin of 12 verses from Mark is not dangerous.

 

[Chuckt]

It's okay Chuck. I won't quarrel with you. Your arguments are absurd and at times dishonest and you bear false witness based on your own opinion and won't accept an authority that you originally held up as an authority.

I will enjoy discussing the concept in the OP with those willing to discuss it. I respect your faith and hope it brings you much more joy than you seem to have here. Do have a good evening.

You had your fun listening to your own opinions and when it is time to hear other opinions, you don't want to share with someone else.

So you really do wish to discuss those verses from Mark and can do so without insulting me or accusing me of having no authority to express an opinion? I would enjoy that

While you were telling me that I knew nothing and had no authority and was speaking untruths and hurting people and shouldn't be speaking on theology at all, you were holding up Norman Geisler as one I should respect and hear.

So I quote Geisler who agrees with me that the last 12 verses of Mark were not part of the original manuscript, were added later, and he gives a very strong argument for that. Mind you that is NOT the same thing as saying the verses aren't true. It is just an honest opinion that the verses were added by another writer at a later time.

So you don't like that and now want me to listen instead to David Otis Fuller. I agree that in Fullers' Genuine or Counterfeit?, he makes a strong argument that those same 12 verses WERE part of the original manuscript. (Yes I have read Fuller's book too.)

So Geisler has written 50 books according to you--(actually he has written or co-authored 80 books but who is counting?)-- that you earlier stated as evidence of his superior authority over me. Fuller has written only three, so presumably he has less authority? You don't know how many books I have written so the argument is rather specious anyway don't you think?

Norman Giesler is acclaimed as a respected theologian and researcher and authority on Bible history and David Otis Fuller not so much, but he has his own impressive credentials. (He has stated that he is not a scholar and rather has learned from others.) And yet these two giants in the theological world disagree on those verses from Mark.

How can that be? Is it okay that they disagree? Does it make one virtuous and the other evil? I don't think so. I learned from both and trust the Holy Spirit to advise me of what is important to know. Does it really matter whether those verses were part of the original manuscript or were added later? Or is it simply a matter of interest to we students of Bible history who are not afraid to understand things differently so long as we are tuned into the Holy Spirit and trust Him to sound the alarm when something is dangerous?

A difference of opinion on the origin of 12 verses from Mark is not dangerous.

I don't believe most higher critics and when I look at some of the character behind their work like Westcott and Hort, it is additional information that they are wolves.

I believe I am right based on the Holy Spirit because I won't listen to the voice of strangers telling me Mark 16 is not in the Bible.

John 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

John 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

We emphatically deny that such wild surmises 15 are called for by the state of the evidence in this case. All opposition to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of אB. Let us accord to these the weight which is their due: but against their verdict we can appeal to a vast body of ecclesiastical evidence reaching back to the earlier part of the second century; 16 to nearly all the versions; and to all extant manuscripts excepting two, of which one is doubtful. So powerfully is it vouched for, that many of those who are reluctant to recognize St. Mark as its author, are content to regard it notwithstanding as an integral portion of the inspired record originally delivered to the Church. 17

The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20)

I believe David Otis Fuller and his work over the textual critics.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ah Chuckt, so will you now say that Norman Geisler teaches error and hurts people and is not to be listened to because he disagrees with Fuller?

That would be rather fickle on your part would it not but it would at least be consistent?

Tricky stuff this logic and reason stuff.

 

[Chuckt]

Ah Chuckt, so will you now say that Norman Geisler teaches error and hurts people and is not to be listened to because he disagrees with Fuller?

That would be rather fickle on your part would it not but it would at least be consistent?

Tricky stuff this logic and reason stuff.

Some AV1611 (which I am not) people think Geisler boxed himself into a corner but respect him as a defender of the faith.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ah Chuckt, so will you now say that Norman Geisler teaches error and hurts people and is not to be listened to because he disagrees with Fuller?

That would be rather fickle on your part would it not but it would at least be consistent?

Tricky stuff this logic and reason stuff.

Some AV1611 (which I am not) people think Geisler boxed himself into a corner but respect him as a defender of the faith.

Ah well. I guess it is too much to ask for you to cut me that much slack. But I do respect you as a defender of the faith even if I can't agree with you on your every interpretation of scripture. Most especially when you keep moving the goal posts. But then I don't think it necessary that we all have to agree on every interpretation of the scripture even to be right, much less orthodox.