Ok, here is where you can post just about anything about any topic at all!

Why I do not trust the N.T.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why I do not trust the N.T.

    Originally posted by slippy View Post
    It does not matter if the miracles or healings now a days are made in the name of Mary, some other 'saints' or even Jesus they are condemned by Yahweh. All other names or sources of healing are not from Yahweh

    Originally posted by Origen View Post
    Perhaps you have not heard but Jesus is God. The N.T. makes it very clear.

    Moreover, Jesus does not agree with you concerning the use his name.

    “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward. (Mark 9:38-41)
    In Matthew 7 are these words that will be the final words of judgement. 21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

    So again those who hear the Word and do the will of Yeshua's Father who is the Father of those who believe in Him and may pray 'Our father thou art in Heavens' are the ones that Yeshua knows.

    This occurence in Mark might have been a statement that dealt only that particular case or it is added later or these words of not hindering and saying bad and being against or for have never been said by Yeshua. I have to say that I do not count the so called original NT writings being truthfull, no, not at all or at least it is hard to know what exactly has been said or done and what is added later or during later campaings of various bishops and elders and even emperors. I do not think that the nation of G-d is better or the best but------ they have from beginning, from individual believers taken the word of Elohim that they humbly received (not anyone does even that, talkin about myself too) and done precisely according to that i.e. Noah, Abraham, Isaac etc. Then as Hebrews they did see the fearfull miracles that their Elohim Yahweh made in Egypt and they saw with their own eyes how they were delivered out of Egypt, out of the land of sorrow and oppression after being loyal, waiting for Yahweh's timing and then doing what they were ordered to do and after the miracle of waters being divided they even saw how their oppresser was now drowned in the waters of that sea accross which they went without being harmed. And these things go on and on. Their own Yahweh showed them so great a miracles that no one has ever seen even a little something like those. So, it is more than obvious that their relationship with their G-d is something that people have never seen before and will never see. It is obvious too that they guarded the words of Moses and other prophets with a great concern and did not dare to change them. Greek, mostly Greek men, are the ones that had access to the New Covenant Scriptures after the Jews and their relationship with the G-d of Israel is seen e.g. in the way they changed the dates and days that Yahweh had given to His people. They were not born in to that nation which had had their fearfull G-d, they were converts and children of their own culture.

    To Mackey. Well, it is very ok for believers in Yeshua, to celebrate the individuals that are said to be blessed in the Scriptures. We may start from Efraim, Manasseh and Josef if that is the reason for being exalted. Boys are blessed every Sabbath at Sabbath meal by saying this blessing - according to the words of their grandfather Isaac, who blessed them - 'May you be like Ephraim and Menasse', The blessing said unto them now a days continues 'May God bless you and guard you. May God show you favor and be gracious to you. May God show you kindness and grant you peace.'


    Genesis 48:20


  • #2
    Originally posted by slippy View Post
    This occurence in Mark might have been a statement that dealt only that particular case or it is added later or these words of not hindering and saying bad and being against or for have never been said by Yeshua.
    That is not the context. If someone was doing a miracle in Jesus' name they were not to be stopped, according to Jesus Himself. Now if what you claimed was correct, then Jesus would have to be wrong to allow such a thing even once. But that is not what he told the disciples to do is it? He said do not stop it.

    Originally posted by slippy View Post
    I have to say that I do not count the so called original NT writings being truthfull, no, not at all
    If that is the case, then you do have a problem. You might as well give up on the New Convent and Jesus. If you cannot trust the documents, then there is no reason to believe, no source for the events of Christ's life, no foundation for a Christian theology.

    Originally posted by slippy View Post
    or at least it is hard to know what exactly has been said or done and what is added later or during later campaings of various bishops and elders and even emperors.
    Oh yes there is. The manuscript evidence is overwhelming. Add to that add the numerous citations of the N.T. by other authors and translations made from the Greek text (i.e. Latin, Syriac, and Coptic etc.). I am sorry to tell this but no other ancient document has the vast amount of evidence that the N.T. has (not even the O.T.). Furthermore, you cite Matthew 7:21-23. If your claim is true, then any text you cite is suspect. Why would anyone cite a text they have no reason to believe is genuine? Your reasoning is circular.

    Thus your comments concerning the N.T. texts does not address my response above that "Perhaps you have not heard but Jesus is God. The N.T. makes it very clear." If you have some, then lets see it.

    Also, do you have any evidence that an emperor changed something in the N.T.? If so, which emperor, which text, and prove it from the manuscript evidence.
    Last edited by Origen; 04-17-2016, 06:07 AM.
    Comment>

    • #3
      Should this matter be dealt in an other thread? This was about 'our lady'. As a person who I see is a one that has read Greek texts and, I suppose, also history of the institution called the Church, you have to know that the canonization of the New Testament writings was a complicated process that took place quite late and mostly if not totally by people of non-Israeli descent. Yahweh did clothe Himself in flesh: 7 'But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men': and did live a Torah obedient life and did die: 8 'And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.' and because of all that his name exalted by His Father: 9 'Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:' Phil 2:7-9. and was born or begotten that day 5 'For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?' Hebrews 1:5 among other similar passages. These things are true.

      You surely do know that Eusebius', again Eusebius, form of Matthew 28:19 was "Go disciple ye all the nations in my name" that is written 17 times in his extants and only after the first Greek or Roman Church councel did he add the ending that probably and quite obviously was to be added after this council made the decision about the nature of their god. This seems to be really obvious and normal and human. And so appeared the form extended with the words about making disciples by baptizing using the baptismal formula that now consisted of all three persons of god, the father, the son and the holy spirit to be in his later writings after that councel 5 times.

      Are these a matter of rival? Not.
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by slippy View Post
        Yahweh did clothe Himself in flesh: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men': and did live a Torah obedient life and did die: 'And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.' and because of all that his name exalted by His Father: Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:' Phil 2:7-9. and was born or begotten that day 'For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?' Hebrews 1:5 among other similar passages. These things are true.
        Why are you using N.T.? You have already claimed (without any evidence) it cannot be trusted. Again, your reasoning is circular.

        Moreover, you clearly do not understand the N.T. or the trinity. God the Son became a human being.

        Also Inotice you often leave out important information like Philippians 2:6:

        "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage..."

        Funny how you missed that.

        Originally posted by slippy View Post
        You surely do know that Eusebius', again Eusebius, form of Matthew 28:19 was "Go disciple ye all the nations in my name" that is written 17 times in his extants and only after the first Greek or Roman Church councel did he add the ending that probably and quite obviously was to be added after this council made the decision about the nature of their god. This seems to be really obvious and normal and human. And so appeared the form extended with the words about making disciples by baptizing using the baptismal formula that now consisted of all three persons of god, the father, the son and the holy spirit to be in his later writings after that councel 5 times.
        What in the world are you talking about? These are merely asinine assertions without any evidence. If you are not going to back up your claims with hard historical evidence from primary sources, then your claims are pointless. Lets get to the heart of the matter.

        (1) Name the council?

        (2) Cite the primary sources that support such a claim?

        But before you answer my questions, if you can, let me tell you the facts. There is ZERO manuscript evidence to support such a claim. It can be demonstrated from the evidence that Matthew 28:19 was and is part of the N.T. (long before Eusebius) and there no evidence that it is not. Your Eusebius claim was based on a faulty reading of Eusebius’ quotation of this text way back in 1901 and has long since been refuted. Keep up with current scholarship and do not use sources which cite sources that are over a 110 years out of date.
        Last edited by Origen; 04-12-2016, 07:23 PM.
        Comment>

        • #5
          Again: this thread is about "our lady". But you may move this conversation somewhere else. You said that the scholars that are still alive (?) or have lived 100 years ago have more credibility than people before them, am I right.
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by slippy View Post
            Again: this thread is about "our lady". But you may move this conversation somewhere else. You said that the scholars that are still alive (?) or have lived 100 years ago have more credibility than people before them, am I right.
            I said your information is 110 years out of date and was refuted long ago.

            It was you who claimed that "I do not count the so called original NT writings being truthfull, no, not at all, so it is up to you to defend it. If you can.
            Last edited by Origen; 04-10-2016, 07:46 PM.
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by slippy View Post
              the canonization of the New Testament writings was a complicated process that took place quite late and mostly if not totally by people of non-Israeli descent.
              Paul's writings were recognized as canonical during his lifetime. Peter was among those who acknowledges that they were part of Scripture.
              And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
              (2 Peter 3:15-16 ESV)

              Clyde Herrin's Blog
              Comment>

              • #8
                So, we are no more discussing e.g. 'our lord'?..
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Should we have this conversation in some other thread, or do we just quit and let this thread be for 'mary'.

                  I do not see NT the way you see it. First because their is so much (enough to doubt that alterations are made in favour of the non-Israelite dogmas that are dealt in the thread about Easter and Passover) doubtfull and controversial (not all 'gospels' agreeing) content in verses, terms etc. Secondly, as you theo#22 said Peter (is it not funny that exactly this letter was not whole heartidly accepted to be 'in') pointed out that Paul is a Tanach observing teacher and is thus being valued as a teacher. This we can see in the beginning of this passage where he writes to the attendees of that Tanachic faith and Tanach word observance with him. 1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

                  What is the commandment that the apostles had given to gentiles? Is it not the one in Acts 15, where too this same "procedure" of G-d creating everything from or in the beginning and then the whole "story" of righteous people and the nation of Israel and finally Yeshua, is referred to. This same history is shared with Peter here. So, the ground, the foundation, the solid rock on which the apostles stood (or stand, being "more" alive now than they were at that time) and on which also Peter here stands and says Paul is standing - is Moses, the writings that were given by G-d through him to the sons of Israel. They allways start from the beginning and continue the straight and safe path (or Way) that was instructed to them to be followed by Moses and the prophets untill the last prophet (!) Yeshua. (Did not Yahweh say to Moshe that He will send His people a prophet like him (Moshe) from among his brethren and that the one who will not hear that prophet will be cut off of his people.) The controversiality here is, for me, that these canonizers did not - according to their own words - stand on that foundation.


                  And, by the way, Paul's teachings a-r-e being twisted. The one clear example being the flat out say that people who do celibrate Sabbath, new moon, and other feasts of Yahweh are to be condemned or judged. Every English speaking person understands that sentence a-s i-t i-s w-r-i-t-t-e-n and not as it is twisted. This is not a bully speaker talking here but a person who understands a little English and other languages a little more :). G-d bless.

                  Thirdly, the Mashiah haSheker has come already. He changed the laws and dates (no more the absolute continuity of the Tanachic commandments that are placed in the hearts of believers in the New Covenant, which the G-d of Israel made with the tribe of Israel and the tribe of Judah; Jer. 31:31 to the end of that chapter.; no more Pesach 1/14, no more Sabbath) and he entered the congrecation saying him to be god and taking the seat of G-d which is in Heavens and placing it on the earth (did not Paul say For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. So quickly, right away after he departed, he knew it. The new age entered the congregation in that much that as a result there is a vicarius filii dei who sits on the holy see and says that his words and laws are the ones to obey, placing himself in the place of G-d Himself, giving no true honor and glory to G-d.) Do I have to continue? Ok, our witness Eusebius, describes already the emperor C. with Jesus-like terms. and so on and so on and ... here comes the fruit. Rome, church of Rome, said that they do not want to celebrate their resurrection day, the day of the Lord (about which Paul wrote to the same Thessalonians to whom he wrote the above cited lines ...To the effect that the day of the Lord is already here. Any day of the Lord is still to come. Sun day is not the day of the Lord nor is the resurrection any feast day, no. The Pesach 1/14 is the only day to be commemorized) on the same day than those horrible Jews who killed Jesus and then they, the church of Rome, went and killed the Jews. Is it not funny that these strange things do happen. Did not Yeshua say that judging your brother you judge youself committing the exact same sin (freely memorized :)). Do not judge and - especially do not change G-d's commandments by judging the people of Yahweh even if they did wrong, your 'time' is near. Am I judging? Seeing similarities between Scriptures and history? Is it not enough to have these Scriptures that we already have, Tanach and NC. Do some one need some more evidence? Yeshua again said, if you do not belive what is said in the Scriptures = Tanach, you won't believe if some one rose from death (freely memorised :)). Ok, he also wanted to show these hearers in beforehand that after He died and rose from death, would they not believe in, not even then. If the bible is not enough why do people need some one to mediate between them and G-d.
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by slippy View Post
                    Should we have this conversation in some other thread, or do we just quit and let this thread be for 'mary'.

                    I do not see NT the way you see it. First because their is so much (enough to doubt that alterations are made in favour of the non-Israelite dogmas that are dealt in the thread about Easter and Passover) doubtfull and controversial (not all 'gospels' agreeing) content in verses, terms etc. Secondly, as you theo#22 said Peter (is it not funny that exactly this letter was not whole heartidly accepted to be 'in') pointed out that Paul is a Tanach observing teacher and is thus being valued as a teacher. This we can see in the beginning of this passage where he writes to the attendees of that Tanachic faith and Tanach word observance with him. 1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

                    What is the commandment that the apostles had given to gentiles? Is it not the one in Acts 15, where too this same "procedure" of G-d creating everything from or in the beginning and then the whole "story" of righteous people and the nation of Israel and finally Yeshua, is referred to. This same history is shared with Peter here. So, the ground, the foundation, the solid rock on which the apostles stood (or stand, being "more" alive now than they were at that time) and on which also Peter here stands and says Paul is standing - is Moses, the writings that were given by G-d through him to the sons of Israel. They allways start from the beginning and continue the straight and safe path (or Way) that was instructed to them to be followed by Moses and the prophets untill the last prophet (!) Yeshua. (Did not Yahweh say to Moshe that He will send His people a prophet like him (Moshe) from among his brethren and that the one who will not hear that prophet will be cut off of his people.) The controversiality here is, for me, that these canonizers did not - according to their own words - stand on that foundation.


                    And, by the way, Paul's teachings a-r-e being twisted. The one clear example being the flat out say that people who do celibrate Sabbath, new moon, and other feasts of Yahweh are to be condemned or judged. Every English speaking person understands that sentence a-s i-t i-s w-r-i-t-t-e-n and not as it is twisted. This is not a bully speaker talking here but a person who understands a little English and other languages a little more :). G-d bless.

                    Thirdly, the Mashiah haSheker has come already. He changed the laws and dates (no more the absolute continuity of the Tanachic commandments that are placed in the hearts of believers in the New Covenant, which the G-d of Israel made with the tribe of Israel and the tribe of Judah; Jer. 31:31 to the end of that chapter.; no more Pesach 1/14, no more Sabbath) and he entered the congrecation saying him to be god and taking the seat of G-d which is in Heavens and placing it on the earth (did not Paul say For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. So quickly, right away after he departed, he knew it. The new age entered the congregation in that much that as a result there is a vicarius filii dei who sits on the holy see and says that his words and laws are the ones to obey, placing himself in the place of G-d Himself, giving no true honor and glory to G-d.) Do I have to continue? Ok, our witness Eusebius, describes already the emperor C. with Jesus-like terms. and so on and so on and ... here comes the fruit. Rome, church of Rome, said that they do not want to celebrate their resurrection day, the day of the Lord (about which Paul wrote to the same Thessalonians to whom he wrote the above cited lines ...To the effect that the day of the Lord is already here. Any day of the Lord is still to come. Sun day is not the day of the Lord nor is the resurrection any feast day, no. The Pesach 1/14 is the only day to be commemorized) on the same day than those horrible Jews who killed Jesus and then they, the church of Rome, went and killed the Jews. Is it not funny that these strange things do happen. Did not Yeshua say that judging your brother you judge youself committing the exact same sin (freely memorized :)). Do not judge and - especially do not change G-d's commandments by judging the people of Yahweh even if they did wrong, your 'time' is near. Am I judging? Seeing similarities between Scriptures and history? Is it not enough to have these Scriptures that we already have, Tanach and NC. Do some one need some more evidence? Yeshua again said, if you do not belive what is said in the Scriptures = Tanach, you won't believe if some one rose from death (freely memorised :)). Ok, he also wanted to show these hearers in beforehand that after He died and rose from death, would they not believe in, not even then. If the bible is not enough why do people need some one to mediate between them and G-d.
                    First, none of this has anything to do with the point I was addressing. Second, you refer to Acts 15 in this post. However you have claimed that we cannot trust the N.T. documents. Therefore Acts 15 is worthless to you because you claimed that the N.T. documents cannot be trusted. Fourth, you are in the habit of making claims and then not defending them. And this is one of those times. Rather than defending your claim that N.T. documents cannot be trusted you change the subject and now you are going back to the Passover\Easter topic.

                    If you are not going to address the claim you made, then at least try and answer the questions I asked. Let's start with this one I asked in post 17.

                    Do you have any evidence that an emperor changed something in the N.T.? If so, which emperor, which text, and prove it from the manuscript evidence.

                    If you feel that we need a new thread, then by all means create one and present your case.
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by slippy View Post
                      In Tanach every prayer is directing to Yahweh. No teaching on how to word a prayer.

                      Pharaos magicans made nearly all the same miracles that Moses did. Moses did them because Yahweh said him what to do, they were Yahweh's miracles.
                      When the last miracle happened and Yahweh saved the Hebrews to offer Him a sacrifice did Yahweh say that all the gods in the power of which the Egyptian magicans had performed their miracles where now condemned.



                      In the NC Scriptures prayer were directed to Yahweh. When asked Yeshua says to His disciples how to pray; Our Father who art in Heavens. No prayers even directed to Jesus. People did beg and ask for His help though. But He said that everything that He does He does in the name of His Father. In our (no others existing :)) world there is only one true healer and He is Yahweh and in our era in the name of Yeshua.

                      It does not matter if the miracles or healings now a days are made in the name of Mary, some other 'saints' or even Jesus they are condemned by Yahweh. All other names or sources of healing are not from Yahweh.


                      Of course people in Egypt were veeeeery pleased every time a plague deceased but they did not consider in their state of religious beliefs that the final and last, the utmost horrible miracle was yet to happen. -- And that was death, eternal death. While the Hebrews went out to serve their G-d the Yahweh. Do not count on miracles or miracel healings. They are none to assure that you have had an encounter with the only G-d, The Yahweh who has your eternal soul in His hands. He has given his orders in the Book of the Scriptures. Do not rely on any other Writings, holy or not. He will not perform miracles in any other names or through any saints who do not obey the Word of G-d - Yeshua, who said that He only does what His Father tells Him to do.
                      What I want to point is that Christ is the Only offer that pleases G-d. There is no (other) salvation than the Salvation in the name of Yeshua. He is the one whose blood gives life. He is the Salvation that is from Jews. He is the only mediator, no one else. He is Abraham's seed, He is David's seed.
                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by slippy View Post
                        What I want to point is that Christ is the Only offer that pleases G-d. There is no (other) salvation than the Salvation in the name of Yeshua. He is the one whose blood gives life. He is the Salvation that is from Jews. He is the only mediator, no one else. He is Abraham's seed, He is David's seed
                        So says the N.T. but you claimed: "I do not count the so called original NT writings being truthfull, no, not at all." You said you do not believe the N.T. writings were truthful, not at all. Since the vast majority of our information about Jesus comes from the N.T., and you claimed it is not truthful, you have no means, no source, no way to make any claim about Christ Jesus. You threw Christ Jesus out then window when you rejected the N.T. by saying it was not truthful. You might as well dispose of everything you said above because all that information comes from the N.T.
                        Last edited by Origen; 04-12-2016, 05:26 AM.
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          Origen. Part of the problem might be my English which is not perfect amongst many other unperfections in me :) I try to explain my view again (all though MY view is not the important one). Even in this newest Encyclopedia that is called Wikipedia we do read that certain verses are disputable. Comma Johanneum is one. Secondly Eusebius who clearly cites and quotes the end of Matthew only in a let's say 'short form' - and this in his writings before the first Greco-Roman council, gives us some thought too in this matter. What do these two verses have in common? The new formula of godhead. The wording that is found nowhere in the Scriptures other than those. So, for me it is obvious that the texts have been altered or to be literal, this new formula is added. You may read your bible as that, I do not.
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by slippy View Post
                            Even in this newest Encyclopedia that is called Wikipedia we do read that certain verses are disputable.
                            You realize that anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles?
                            Comment>

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by slippy View Post
                              Origen. Part of the problem might be my English which is not perfect amongst many other unperfections in me :) I try to explain my view again (all though MY view is not the important one). Even in this newest Encyclopedia that is called Wikipedia we do read that certain verses are disputable. Comma Johanneum is one. Secondly Eusebius who clearly cites and quotes the end of Matthew only in a let's say 'short form' - and this in his writings before the first Greco-Roman council, gives us some thought too in this matter. What do these two verses have in common? The new formula of godhead. The wording that is found nowhere in the Scriptures other than those. So, for me it is obvious that the texts have been altered or to be literal, this new formula is added. You may read your bible as that, I do not.
                              Then let me help you.

                              (1) Do not use Wikipedia. It is not a scholarly source.

                              (2) It is well know that the Comma Johanneum was not part of the original text. It is not a secret. I can give you the history of the passage and how it got into the text and why it is there now and it has nothing to do with Matthew 28:19.

                              (3) The Eusebius issue can also be disposed of very easily. First, every manuscript that contains Matthew 28:19 has the formula. Second, all the early version (i.e. Latin, Syriac, and Coptic etc) have the formula and they all predate Eusebius.

                              (4) Eusebius actually gives three versions of the Matthew 28:19.
                              7 times - "Go ye and make disciples of all nations"
                              17 times - "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name"
                              5 times - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"

                              What this means is that Eusebius was inconsistent and not always careful with his quotes (and it may have something to do with him having Arian leanings).

                              (5) Eusebius died ca A.D. 340. but the formula was know and used by other church fathers long before Eusebius. For example all of these text quote the passage and all of them were written before the time of Eusebius.

                              Gregory Thaumaturgus quote the whole text in A Sectional Confession of the Faith Chapter 12. He died A.D. ca. 265\270 before or just after Eusebius was born.

                              Cyprian of Carthage Letter 73. He died A.D. 258.

                              Origen Commentary on Romans 5:8. He died ca. A.D. 253\254.

                              Tatian the Syrian (died ca. A.D. 180) in his The Diatesseron quotes the full text.

                              The Didache written around late 1st century quote the whole formula.

                              These are but a sample of the evidence. You really need to do in-depth research.


                              Now if it was Eusebius who changed the text as you have claimed, how did all of these authors (and documents) who wrote before Eusebius was even born know it? Why is there no manuscript evidence which proves it was changed? Why does every early translation (by the way they translated before Eusebius was born) of the Greek text have the formula?
                              Last edited by Origen; 04-17-2016, 06:08 AM.
                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap