Rescuing The Bible From Fundmentalism

Brother Michael Sky · November 1, 2010

Yet it was Prof. Eberhard Nestle himself who warned us in his Einfhrung in die Textkritik des griechischen Testaments: "Learned men, so called Correctores were, following the church meeting at Nicea 325 AD, selected by the church authorities to scrutinize the sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct their meaning in accordance with the views which the church had just sanctioned."

how so, Coolhand? seems precisely stated ....

you must read further to get to the point of the article...

for example :

One of our greatest obstacles today is the fact that a very large amount of scripture alteration was performed by the Roman Church in their quest to rid the texts of what was labeled Gnostic interpolations. When it is remembered that the Greek word gnosis is used to describe the knowledge received via a spiritual revelation directly from God -- that the teachings of the New Covenant are very Gnostic indeed -- and the Gentile Churches that were ordained by the Apostle Paul were all Gnostic in nature -- the folly of these assertions begins to manifest. If Jesus taught Gnostic concepts, and the Churches started by Paul were also Gnostic, and the later Pagan Church removed all the Gnostic interpolations, then we must recognize the fact that it was the most important verses of the Bible which where were edited out by the later Roman Church in their endeavor to suppress Gnostic thought. Why would they remove these passages? The answer is simple once it is realized that as the church was transitioned into a secular institution where all revelation and interpretation was made by the political hierarchy, the idea that man would be taught directly by the indwelling Word was very quickly done away with.

and:

The historical Christian Gnostics were people who believed that each person has a direct inner connection to God. They held that Christ's Church was a spiritual, rather than a worldly institution, and that each person individually could learn directly from God. Because these Christians refused to support the later Roman Church, they were condemned as heretics and wiped out by the force of Constantine's sword.

and:

In time, though, as the Gospel became infused with Paganism, and the True followers of Jesus were put to death, believers could no longer enter God's Tabernacle because the Spiritual Path known as The Way became obscured with Pagan dogma and conceptions of life, man and God. When the later Roman Church either removed, or supported biblical manuscripts that had the "falsifications of heretics" removed, when in fact these falsifications were often the most important verses of scripture, what remained was biblical manuscripts devoid of its original spiritual essence and keys.

and:

From these verses it is easily seen that the present day doctrine of perpetual redemption, as well as the popular idea that once you profess that the Lord is you personal savoir you are forever saved, is invalid from an early Christian perspective. It is easily demonstrated that the teachings of Jesus were not intended for the sinner to continue to wallow in the mire of sin -- but rather, for those who truly repented through change -- and the process of "opening and unloosing the mind" in order to enter the Heavenly Kingdom. Clement, who was himself a disciple of the Apostle Peter, states that "…calling Him Lord… will not save us"!
The problem is seen in the fact that this message is totally contrary to what is being preached in the majority of our Evangelical churches today. It is quite common for the preacher to say to the congregation that all that is needed is to accept Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior, and you will be assured of your salvation. It is further commonly taught today that even those believers who fall away from the Gospel, and return to lives of sin, are said to remain saved, because they repeated the magic prayer. In defense of this position it will be said that man, whose natural nature is sinful because of the fall of Adam, is not saved by what he does, but solely by his faith in Jesus Christ. Yet, this earliest of Gospel tradition is at odds with the very concepts which Jesus actually taught. These verses which strongly convey the message that the believer is cast out of the bosom of Christ, were at one time in our scriptures, but were removed because they did not support the doctrine of perpetual redemption that was embraced by Constantine’s church.

and.... and... and... did you read it?

I remember this exchange :

which one, coolhand? do you have an original copy with Jesus' signature? or was yours as mishandled as History shows mine was? No matter how you slice it, the text you refer to was written by men, based upon the related tales of witnesses....
Regardless of how many time you repeat this, it is still a weak argument with no support.

shall we address this?

edit: Hex, I forgive you for calling my argument weak.... :lol: :jest:

Edited November 1, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

Coolhand · November 1, 2010

how so, Coolhand? seems precisely stated ....
you must read further to get to the point of the article...
for example :
and:
and:
and:
and.... and... and... did you read it?
I remember this exchange :
shall we address this?
edit: Hex, I forgive you for calling my argument weak....

You are trying to get me to argue points that I am not arguing. I asked you which texts you were refering to, which I suppose if there were so many it would be a rather easy task, however, you refer me to a length work which you apparantly are expecting me to take a part for you, and give you commentary on. And if I don't you apparant feel you have won.

I have already told you that arguing about who the bigger heretic is, is not my interest.

I think it is time for you to admit you do not have an example or state the example of:

1) the text that is altered

and

2) what the text should say

I'm not really sure what your problem is.

By the way, Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece claims to be the closest to the original text; which I thought was ironic when compared to what he allegedly said in the post of yours.

Brother Michael Sky · November 1, 2010

am I getting a little too " hermeneutical " for ya?

I was killing several birds with one stone in my posting, but you don't seem to want to show us your skills....

This befuddles me on a couple of levels. First in the respect that biblical "scholars" typically have eight to twelve years of biblical higher education. How the heck are you going to discuss with people these points of theology that they have no idea what you are talking about? In my opinion, you cannot do it. Today at a small group Bible study I was asked a question regarding doctrine that lead to my use of the words "Calvinism, Tulip, Arminianism, Pelagianism, and Traducianism; which in order to actually continue the response to the question required definition and explanations of these terms; which I'm not sure were completely understood by anyone but the professional clergy that were at the Bible study.

I understand all of your high-falootin' words, Cool... I have zero Biblical Higher Edumacation.... but I'm good to go with ya.... and yet you bring up a clearly stated point made BY prof. Nestle....????

The Article shows clearly the mishandling of the text.... It clearly shows the misdirection of the text... and it clearly shows where Spong might be getting his belief from... and it also shows why it might seem so familiar to you..... does it not?

you want to focus on points which would have me re-writing the post in near to it's entirety.... to avoid acknowledging that I have provided what you asked for, so we could get on with discussing YOUR problems with what Spong has to say....

you're giving me a headache Cool..... seriously.... I'm getting beginning to think you were simply trying to show off new words you learned in your Higher edumacation....

and yes it clearly gives an idea of what the text should say...

are you so focused on " winning " that you cannot have a discussion?

you find your irony in the most interesting of places cool....

Edited November 1, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

Coolhand · November 1, 2010

which one, coolhand? do you have an original copy with Jesus' signature? or was yours as mishandled as History shows mine was? No matter how you slice it, the text you refer to was written by men, based upon the related tales of witnesses.... and you insisting the Holy Spirit is more completely contained in a text, than the heart of men? I daresay the man has had many, many years of Biblical study - your understanding trumps his, because his understanding is slightly different? why did Jesus teach in parables?

Which one do I use?

This one:

http://www.amazon.com/Biblia-Utriusque-Testamenti-Editio-Hebraica/dp/1598561790

Brother Michael Sky · November 1, 2010

Which one do I use?
This one:
http://www.amazon.com/Biblia-Utriusque-Testamenti-Editio-Hebraica/dp/1598561790

i guess that means you have something to look forward to... as the Bible Hebraica Quinta ( with the recently released qumran material ) is due in 2015...

guess that answers another of your questions from above....

ok, i'm off to meditate... this doesn't seem to be going anywhere...

Edited November 1, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

Coolhand · November 1, 2010

From page 11:

In order to demonstrate just one example of this attempt to insert material to prove the doctrine of the Trinity, we read in the Authorized or King James Bible: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (1 Jn 5:7 KJV). In modern translations that are made from much older biblical manuscripts, this verse reads in the manner of the New American Standard: "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth".

Which is based on the majority text:

οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν

However, this was not continued by the critical text, the UBS text, or by Nestle’s work:

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες,

No modern translations that I am aware retain this tradition except the KJV and the NKJV.

Neither version changes the meaning of what is being said. You could argue that the addition in 5:7 teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, which I agree, but this doctrine is already taught in other places. Look at all the references to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are obviously not talking about the Father only.

If it could be proven that ALL references in the New Testament are supposed to be either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit you might have something in my opinion; but that is not the case.

Now which is it: a) Was this line added? b) Was it left out?

This is where I think we all need to have humility in approaching this because we do not have the originals. We have copies with many variants.

Any speculation (in my opinion) is just speculation. When people start claiming the copiers of the texts were evil and wicked men they expose a bit about themselves.

As a results we see what the result was from the above comparison of Greek texts in context in our English Bibles:

NASB: 1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

5 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

7 For there are three that testify:

8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.

10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.

11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

KJV

1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

NIV

5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.

3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,

4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.

5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

7 For there are three that testify:

8 thea Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

9 We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.

10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.

11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

My argument on this passage is that:

a) There is an apparent addition or omission but which it is cannot be determined without an original autograph. I agree that one is right and one is wrong, we are aware of it, and we have both, so there is no conspiracy of deception that is going on.

b) The meaning of the text in which this sits in its context is not changed due to the mention of God, the Son of God, and the Spirit with in this portion of Scripture; the trinity is already understood from the context of this passage.

Brother Michael Sky · November 1, 2010

The way I see it is that since there is a question, we must look in other places for verification or denial...

the Author goes on to say:

Regarding this and other such verses, the New Unger's Bible Dictionary says: "The New Testament teaching upon this subject is not given in the way of formal statement… Reliance, it is held by many competent critics, is not to be placed upon the passages in Acts 20:28 and 1 Tim. 3:16; and 1 John 5:7 is commonly regarded as spurious"

Regarding the validity of 1 John 5:7, the Adam Clarke Commentary states that: "But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every manuscript of this letter written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve. It is missing in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Aethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin".

so there is reason for doubt.... a large reason for doubt...

and raises the question of other examples...as in 1 timothy 3:16 and Matthew 29:19

In the case of 1 Timothy 3:16, the King James reads: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory". There is no doubt that this passage proves that Jesus was God in the words "God was manifest in the flesh". But, in more accurate translations, such as the New International Version, this verse reads: "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory". What you have just witnessed is the creation of a god with the power of the pen.

Another such doctrinal corruption is found at Matthew 28:19, where it reads: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19-20 KJV). Of this verse The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics writes: "It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on the grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism".
In the Hibbert Journal (1902), F.C. Conybeare is quoted regarding the spurious verse: "In the course of my reading I have been able to substantiate these doubts of the authenticity of the text Mathew 28:19 by adducing patristic evidence against it, so weighty that in future the most conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all, while the more enlightened will discard it as completely as they have its fellow-test of the three witnesses".

What we need to do, IMO, is acquire a comprehensive view, looking for THEMES which do not jibe.... and being wary of those themes... and as the author states:

Conybeare then goes on and quotes the biblical scholar Dr. C.R. Gregory, and writes: "In the case just examined (Matthew 28:19), it is to be noticed that not a single manuscript or ancient version has preserved to us the true reading. But that is not surprising, for as Dr. C.R. Gregory, one of the greatest of our textual critics, reminds us, 'The Greek MSS of the Text of the New Testament were often altered by the scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings' (Canon and Text of the New Testament, 1907, p. 424)".
Conybeare then writes: "These facts speak for themselves. Our Greek texts, not only of the Gospels, but of the Epistles as well, have been revised and interpolated by orthodox copyists. We can trace their perversions of the text in a few cases, with the aid of patristic citations and ancient versions. But there must remain many passages which have been so corrected, but where we cannot today expose the fraud". With regard to the assertion of those many scholars who claim that the New Testament has not been interpolated to support what is known as orthodox doctrines, Conybeare goes on to write: "This is just the opposite of the truth, and such distinguished scholars as Alfred Loisy, K. Wellhausen, Eberhard Nestle, Adolf Harnack, to mention only four names, do not scruple to recognize the fact".
The fact that he speaks of is that the text of the New Testament has been severely altered and revised by the so-called orthodox church of the past. Of the interpolation of Matthew 28:19 where the Church of Constantine attempted to prove the doctrine of the Trinity by inserting it into the text, The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics writes: "The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty one times, either omitting everything between 'nations' 'and teaching', or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name,' the later form being the more frequent". Quoting Eusebius directly, his text reads: "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you".

one of the things I find so frustrating is the lack of sources left for us, due to the destruction committed by the early church. We're left trying to find the truth in WHAT REMAINS... and pointing out one specific Verse, without a comprehensive view, is common practice for trying to prove concepts that just don't jibe, IMO..... The concept of the Trinity is a very important example, and we MUST try to get to the bottom of it... and it is a concept which, when seen with a comprehensive view, just does not jibe..... That should make us look for reasons WHY it was inserted... because, as the author has stated:

Every Christian today who desires to know the Mysteries of God should be alarmed by the fact that neither Jesus nor his disciples taught the concepts of the Trinity. From a doctrinal standpoint with regard to the manner we must live in order to approach the alter of the Lord, one's adherence to this doctrine is an obstruction that inhibits the modern church from embracing the spiritual essence of what Jesus actually taught. When one reads the scriptures through the doctrinal filter of the Trinity, the majority of the Bible is negated and rendered useless. Nowhere in the New Testament does the text even hint that Jesus is to be worshiped in any other manner than as a pattern for each of us to imitate.

the importance of this cannot be stated strongly enough , for as the author says:

One of our greatest obstacles today is the fact that a very large amount of scripture alteration was performed by the Roman Church in their quest to rid the texts of what was labeled Gnostic interpolations. When it is remembered that the Greek word gnosis is used to describe the knowledge received via a spiritual revelation directly from God -- that the teachings of the New Covenant are very Gnostic indeed -- and the Gentile Churches that were ordained by the Apostle Paul were all Gnostic in nature -- the folly of these assertions begins to manifest. If Jesus taught Gnostic concepts, and the Churches started by Paul were also Gnostic, and the later Pagan Church removed all the Gnostic interpolations, then we must recognize the fact that it was the most important verses of the Bible which where were edited out by the later Roman Church in their endeavor to suppress Gnostic thought. Why would they remove these passages? The answer is simple once it is realized that as the church was transitioned into a secular institution where all revelation and interpretation was made by the political hierarchy, the idea that man would be taught directly by the indwelling Word was very quickly done away with.

so in answer to your points -1. YES, a subterfuge is strongly hinted at ( as an understatement )

and

2. It changes the most basic interpretation of the Word, to the point of derailing Christian practice to it's most impotent form...

edit: i'm sure you realize, at this point I'm wishing I HAD taken a week to write up an answer in my own words - for I am now in the position of framing my thoughts in the authors language - but I will do my best here Cool, as conversation IS what I wanted....

Edited November 1, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

Brother Michael Sky · November 1, 2010

If we accept the idea that the trinity was introduced into the text ( if only for a moment ) - where would your arguments against Spong stand?

If our instruction was truly to " be taught directly by the indwelling Word " - then it would be a little more difficult to disparage his words, would it not? - and our recourse would be to " take it to the Lord " ...deep inside ourselves, for clarity..... but we have not been taught to establish and practice this connection...... and it is, IMO, a severe detriment to the average Christian.... If the Average "biblical illiterate" were taught to establish a connection with the Lord - and continually refine it, I wonder what changes would take place within the Christian community...

Coolhand · November 1, 2010

so in answer to your points -1. YES, a subterfuge is strongly hinted at ( as an understatement )
and
2. It changes the most basic interpretation of the Word, to the point of derailing Christian practice to it's most impotent form...

In regard to this, how would you say that the added or omitted portion of 1 John 5:7 changes the meaning of the pericope of verses 1 through 11?

This is what I am not getting and what I think gets to the heart of your approach versus my approach.

How does it change the meaning of the passage from your perspective?

Have you discovered the meaning of this passage or are you just counting letters and words with no regard to content?

How does it "derail" the text and make it "impotent?"

Coolhand · November 1, 2010

If we accept the idea that the trinity was introduced into the text ( if only for a moment ) - where would your arguments against Spong stand?

My issues with Spong are probably not going to be resolved through textual criticizm because: 1) according to Epicsopals, the Scriptures are only one of four "pillars" in which their faith stands, and though they say it is authoritative their view of Scripture is different that people of the tradition I follow; and 2) Spong breaks from his own tradition to come up with the doctrines he teaches.

I would argue that Spong may get some personal fulfillment and satisfaction from the Bible text, but his view of it is that his reason has much more authority when it comes to his doctrine.

Coolhand · November 1, 2010

one of the things I find so frustrating is the lack of sources left for us, due to the destruction committed by the early church.

Ah,......and this my dear brother is why I have a hard time buying into the argument. In my opinion that would be argumentum ex silentio.

When you remove the rabid debate of who the bigger hereatic is, you have little to discuss.

Dan56 · November 1, 2010

How does it "derail" the text and make it "impotent?"

This would also be my question.. IMO, Matthew 28:19 is almost a moot point. When we say "in Jesus name", aren't we invoking the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Yeshua literally means “YHVH is salvation”. Jesus said that he and his Father are "one". Jesus also sent "his" Holy Spirit. Thus, when baptizing in Jesus name, its inclusive of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. His name is the catalyst for the three.

The Father baptized the disciples with the gift of the Holy Spirit, a promise that came according to Jesus “in His name.” This is because Jesus is the “common denominator” in both water baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit, as made apparent in John 14:26; "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Even if 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19 were removed, the over-all content of the NT supports the trinity.

Coolhand · November 1, 2010

This would also be my question.. IMO, Matthew 28:19 is almost a moot point. When we say "in Jesus name", aren't we invoking the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Yeshua literally means “YHVH is salvation”. Jesus said that he and his Father are "one". Jesus also sent "his" Holy Spirit. Thus, when baptizing in Jesus name, its inclusive of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. His name is the catalyst for the three.
The Father baptized the disciples with the gift of the Holy Spirit, a promise that came according to Jesus “in His name.” This is because Jesus is the “common denominator” in both water baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit, as made apparent in John 14:26; "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Even if 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19 were removed, the over-all content of the NT supports the trinity.

I agree Dan. The trinity is inherently contexted by the writing itself; regard of whether the "trinity" is specified or not.

Dan56 · November 1, 2010

"When it is remembered that the Greek word gnosis is used to describe the knowledge received via a spiritual revelation directly from God -- that the teachings of the New Covenant are very Gnostic indeed -- and the Gentile Churches that were ordained by the Apostle Paul were all Gnostic in nature -- the folly of these assertions begins to manifest. If Jesus taught Gnostic concepts, and the Churches started by Paul were also Gnostic, and the later Pagan Church removed all the Gnostic interpolations, then we must recognize the fact that it was the most important verses of the Bible which where were edited out by the later Roman Church in their endeavor to suppress Gnostic thought. Why would they remove these passages? The answer is simple once it is realized that as the church was transitioned into a secular institution where all revelation and interpretation was made by the political hierarchy, the idea that man would be taught directly by the indwelling Word was very quickly done away with."

"Gnosis" is an Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, and not a spiritual revelation directly from God. The Gnostics had an agenda, they wanted to recast Jesus into a different light because he did not fit their theology. The only way gnosticism could gain acceptance was to discredit the bible. No evidence exist that any verses were edited out of Paul's letters, gnostic interpolations would directly conflict with what Paul actually wrote. We are taught by the written word as well as the indwelling Holy Spirit, so the church political hierarchy could never deny the Holy Spirit, even if they wanted too.

In time, though, as the Gospel became infused with Paganism, and the True followers of Jesus were put to death, believers could no longer enter God's Tabernacle because the Spiritual Path known as The Way became obscured with Pagan dogma and conceptions of life, man and God. When the later Roman Church either removed, or supported biblical manuscripts that had the "falsifications of heretics" removed, when in fact these falsifications were often the most important verses of scripture, what remained was biblical manuscripts devoid of its original spiritual essence and keys.

The gospels were never infused with paganism, they don't teach polytheism. Gnosticism is an ancient false philosophy written by uninspired anonymous people, they were never biblical manuscripts. Its not difficult to spot them as forgeries because they directly conflict with scripture.

In the second and third centuries, the people being thrown to the lions and burned at the stake were not the ones reading Thomas, Judas, the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary. They were the ones reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Gnosticism posed no threat to the empire or Constantine because it denied that Jesus was God who had come in the flesh.

Brother Michael Sky · November 1, 2010

In regard to this, how would you say that the added or omitted portion of 1 John 5:7 changes the meaning of the pericope of verses 1 through 11?

because it adds a reference to the trinity that wasn't within the original intent of the verse.... which can only be shown by examining other verses as well... it must be considered that the theme of The Trinity was inserted in various measures throughout the gospels...

This is what I am not getting and what I think gets to the heart of your approach versus my approach.

which only shows the effectiveness of the two methods, IMO

How does it change the meaning of the passage from your perspective?

It changes the focus of our responsibility to The Lord... it takes the responsibility to walk LIKE Jesus, to simply asking him to let us off the hook...and assuring us that's is good enough...

Have you discovered the meaning of this passage or are you just counting letters and words with no regard to content?

personally, IMO, I believe I have... and counting letters and words has next to nothing to do with it... it involves studying the text IN IT'S ENTIRETY....

How does it "derail" the text and make it "impotent?"

again : Because the insertion of the doctrine of the trinity changes the focus of our responsibility to The Lord... it takes the responsibility to walk LIKE Jesus, to simply asking him to let us off the hook...and assuring us that's is good enough...

My issues with Spong are probably not going to be resolved through textual criticizm because: 1) according to Epicsopals, the Scriptures are only one of four "pillars" in which their faith stands, and though they say it is authoritative their view of Scripture is different that people of the tradition I follow; and 2) Spong breaks from his own tradition to come up with the doctrines he teaches.
I would argue that Spong may get some personal fulfillment and satisfaction from the Bible text, but his view of it is that his reason has much more authority when it comes to his doctrine.

1.If Spong has decided that there are misunderstandings within his belief structure - which are to the detriment of those he has preached to previously, does he have an obligation to try to sort it out for them? Are you saying he should give up the collar?

2. perhaps he feels there is error in the tradition, and who better to try to straighten it out but him?

Ah,......and this my dear brother is why I have a hard time buying into the argument. In my opinion that would be argumentum ex silentio.
When you remove the rabid debate of who the bigger hereatic is, you have little to discuss.

If you choose to spend your time chasing heretics, maybe one would think so - but isn't this the cause of the problem to begin with?

Brother Michael Sky · November 1, 2010

This would also be my question.. IMO, Matthew 28:19 is almost a moot point. When we say "in Jesus name", aren't we invoking the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Yeshua literally means “YHVH is salvation”. Jesus said that he and his Father are "one". Jesus also sent "his" Holy Spirit. Thus, when baptizing in Jesus name, its inclusive of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. His name is the catalyst for the three.

it is a common misconception and misunderstanding of 1 John 5:14-15, IMO..... again a misconception brought about by the erroneous idea introduced by the doctrine of the trinity...

We are to ACT in sync with God's will, and Jesus is assuring us that anything asked for within the scope of God's will is assured to be granted.... it was not meant as a " magic formula" to get what one wants irregardless of why they want it...

The Father baptized the disciples with the gift of the Holy Spirit, a promise that came according to Jesus “in His name.” This is because Jesus is the “common denominator” in both water baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit, as made apparent in John 14:26; "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Even if 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19 were removed, the over-all content of the NT supports the trinity.

I don't see a mention to Jesus - I see the Holy Spirit mentioned there... 1 John 14:23 " Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me."

Tells us that it is the Will of the Father which accomplishes these things.... the " common denominator " can only be seen as The Father... unless one is confused by the false teaching of The Doctrine of the Trinity which was inserted...

Brother Michael Sky · November 1, 2010

"Gnosis" is an Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, and not a spiritual revelation directly from God. The Gnostics had an agenda, they wanted to recast Jesus into a different light because he did not fit their theology. The only way gnosticism could gain acceptance was to discredit the bible. No evidence exist that any verses were edited out of Paul's letters, gnostic interpolations would directly conflict with what Paul actually wrote. We are taught by the written word as well as the indwelling Holy Spirit, so the church political hierarchy could never deny the Holy Spirit, even if they wanted too.

that cannot be supported, but IMO, it can be supported the other way around... and I think you misunderstand Gnosticism - for Paul was a gnostic as his letters clearly show...

Because the concept of the Trinity is totally undermined by Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews, Martin Luther rejected the authorship, and condemned the epistle. Luther was offended by such statements as: "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house" (Heb 3:1-3 KJV)
That Jesus himself directly taught us that he was our brother -- albeit, the first of the Prodigal Sons to return to the Kingdom and be crowned the First Son of God -- is very clearly represented by Paul in the words: "For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will proclaim Thy name to My brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will sing Thy praise" (Heb 2:11-12 NAS). The Revised Standard Version interprets this passage to say that Jesus and the rest of mankind "…have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren".
The Apostle tells us: "Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children" (Eph 5:1 NAS). If we were created as inferior beings who were nothing more than the natural offspring of Adam, as Christians believe today, then the Apostle would never have told a race of inferior beings to imitate God. The basis of Paul's words is seen in the fact that man is created in the image and likeness of God, and is God's own offspring. If we were inferior beings, neither would God command us: "ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy" (Lev 11:45 KJV), if we did not possess this innate ability. What is written here is no different than what St. Gregory said when he wrote that we must walk the "path of an exact imitation of Him Who leads the way to salvation" -- which path in the words of St. Nazianzen, reveals to us our true nature and makes "us like God".

The gospels were never infused with paganism, they don't teach polytheism. Gnosticism is an ancient false philosophy written by uninspired anonymous people, they were never biblical manuscripts. Its not difficult to spot them as forgeries because they directly conflict with scripture.

that, is a ridiculously uneducated opinion..in my opinion.... it comes straight from the issues we are talking about... misunderstandings and misdirection... and possibly a misunderstanding of the usage of paganism...

In the second and third centuries, the people being thrown to the lions and burned at the stake were not the ones reading Thomas, Judas, the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary. They were the ones reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Gnosticism posed no threat to the empire or Constantine because it denied that Jesus was God who had come in the flesh.

at a time when it was illegal to possess the texts? when texts were gathered up and burned in big piles? they were important enough to gather up and hide away for a couple thousand years, were they not? what was left was thoroughly censored by the church.... c'mon, this is BASIC history...and it was slightly different than you suggest..

Edited November 1, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

Coolhand · November 1, 2010

because it adds a reference to the trinity that wasn't within the original intent of the verse.... which can only be shown by examining other verses as well... it must be considered that the theme of The Trinity was inserted in various measures throughout the gospels...

So what would you say is the original intent of the entire passage (1 John 5:1-11)? The verse is a part of a larger pericope. If we take just a specific verse and focus on that we will miss the point; you miss the forest because of the trees, so to speak.

How is the main point of this verse changed by the two versions of 5:7? The answer is that it isn't. This is how the doctrine inerrency is argued in light of the numberous variant readings.

I showed how the "trinity" is all over 5:1-11 by the context, yet proving the trinity is not even the point of that passage.

This is where hermeneutics and exegesis come into the picture. This is how a variant reading can have no effect on the context in which is resides.

I would say that the point of the verse is about showing love to God through obedience to the Son; and the witness that testifies to the fact the Son is sent from God; what would you say?

Look at it again: