Rick Warren’s Call for Christians to Unite With Catholics, ‘Holy Father’ Raising Concerns

All we need, are more honest athirsts, who will try to disprove the resurrection, and they might end up getting saved.

Oops, I meant honest athiests. I hate this auto correction thing.

Amen.

They sinned the same One we all sin against, when we sin.

2 Sam. 12:13a

‘But the context of the censure against calling his brother a fool in Mt. 5:22 was that of doing so in a wrong anger, an anger that is forbidden, out of which one speaks rashly with his mouth.

But if you want to dismiss context, immediate and that of the whole of Scripture, and hold to the absurd idea that the Lord was teaching not to do as He did, then keep away from engaging in Bible exegesis.’

There is no such immediate context such as you have been stating. I.e.: the words “without a cause” appear in no Greek ms. I have known all along that they did not appear in any of the oldest, best, most complete and definitive mss. I finally decided to check exactly what ms they do appear in. Turns out, none.

So the supposed qualifier does not exist. There is nothing in the passage whatsoever about it being wrong to say ‘you fool’ to a brother in unjustified anger, but okay to do so in justified anger. There is simply the bald statement, that to say to a brother ‘you fool’ is to incur sufficient guilt to go into fiery hell.

[& btw, please, please stop claiming I say Jesus is guilty of ***anything***. I have explained half a dozen times at least that He is not and why He is not. (I.e.: I have explained, in great detail & multiple times, why certain restrictions that apply to us do ***not*** apply to God. The prohibition in this passage falls squarely into that category.) For you to keep on insisting I believe something I don’t believe is not productive. Please cease doing so; thank you.]

My baptism in the Catholic church did nothing for me. It can’t because it’s powerless to do anything. Getting wet does not save anyone.

You mean you actually got wet much? We know baptism is sppsd to signify death, being buried, cleansed and raised by the Spirit to walk in newness of life. (Rm. 6:1-1ff; Acts 22:16) But you know what happens to a dead body that is not buried in death but is only sprinkled with dirt? "Surely he stinketh!"

I think there are some other expatriates here in the RF (not me though). Can you tell me what kind of evangelism you see in the Philippines?
And do you want some NE weather?

Praise God, that is part of what its there for (but what for typos) , multiplication of the loaves!

Not here. Overseas military service yes, but firmly rooted in the Republic of Texas for now:)

Keep your NE weather:) I loved the winter when I was a kid in growing up in NY. Made a bunch of money (for a kid in the 70s-80s) shoveling walks, helping elderly folks with errands to the local store. Then went back to NY last in 2004 to present our new born son (second) to the in-laws. Cold, snow, ice wet...stuck even to my still young body; high state taxes, unbelievably high priced homes with little or no land or lot.

Decided Texas is best. Nice weather. We may get 1-2 weeks of very cold weather but the next week back up in the 60s-70s.

Decided Texas is best. Nice weather.

Cowboy Poetry

by Bill Jones

Jake, the rancher, went one day
to fix a distant fence.
The wind was cold and gusty
and the clouds rolled gray and dense.

As he pounded the last staples in
and gathered tools to go,
The temperature had fallen,
the wind and snow began to blow.

When he finally reached his pickup,
he felt a heavy heart.
From the sound of that ignition,
he knew it wouldn't start.

So Jake did what most of us
would do if we had been there.
He humbly bowed his balding head
and sent aloft a prayer.

As he turned the key for the last time,
he softly cursed his luck.
They found him three days later,
frozen stiff in that old truck.

Now Jake had been around in life
and done his share of roaming.
But when he saw Heaven, he was shocked --
it looked just like Wyoming!

Of all the saints in Heaven,
his favorite was St. Peter.
(Now, this line ain't needed
but it helps with rhyme and meter)

So they set and talked a minute or two,
or maybe it was three.
Nobody was keeping' score --
in Heaven time is free.

"I've always heard," Jake said to Pete,
"that God will answer prayer,
But one time I asked for help,
well, he just plain wasn't there."

"Does God answer prayers of some,
and ignore the prayers of others?
That don't seem exactly square --
I know all men are brothers."

"Or does he randomly reply,
without good rhyme or reason?
Maybe, it's the time of day,
the weather or the season."

"Now I ain't trying to act smart,
it's just the way I feel.
And I was wondering', could you tell me --
what the heck's the deal?!"

Peter listened very patiently
and when Jake was done,
There were smiles of recognition,
and he said, "So, you're the one!!"

"That day your truck, it wouldn't start,
and you sent your prayer a flying,
You gave us all a real bad time,
with hundreds of us trying."

"A thousand angels rushed,
to check the status of your file,
But you know, Jake, we hadn't heard
from you in quite a long while."

"And though all prayers are answered,
and God ain't got no quota,
He didn't recognize your voice,
and started a truck in Minnesota."

Nope,
Another Obama supporter is helping push the Pope to a gay agenda

"“Without a cause” is really a disclaimer or a “qualifying” clause that makes the teaching more clear."

I have enjoyed many of your responses over the past few months. However, I would respectfully disagree that the above is a solution for the apparent trouble with this passage. Frankly, this is one of the milder difficulties Jesus presents. Tearing one's eye out seems monumentally more severe.

Notice, hermeneutically the story line commencing with the Torah (Pentateuch) has not developed to include Gentiles at the point of "According to Matthew". If Paul is correct that the Law is not yet "done away with" (Heb.) and we are not grafted in until the blood is shed (Eph. 2), then Jesus is in Matt. simply teaching more of the Law to the Jews.

After all, Matt. 5:48 puts the cherry on the sundae. And, the Law is ultimately found to be impossible to fulfill (Acts 15). Thus, we are here reading someone else's mail, not tenets for "Christian Living". This hermeneutical error has long plagued the RCC which focuses heavily on "obeying" the words of Jesus...only to fail miserably at every imaginable level.

And, for someone to repeat the so-called Lord's Prayer, while ignoring the final phrase, does incredible injustice to the demands Jesus was actually presenting. Talk about not taking Him seriously! But, the evangelical community has failed to distinguish the Gospel of Jesus Christ as grace, alone (Rom. 3, Eph. 2) and instead followed in the footprints of Rome.

Tearing one's eye out seems monumentally more severe.

Rush points out absurdity by emphasizing it.

And the forecast for Tuesday night into Wednesday is for another nor’ easter.

This one is iffy as to whether we’re going to get rain, snow, or a mix.

"Rush points out absurdity by emphasizing it."

Jesus is not, repeat not, exaggerating for effect. He is stating the absolute requirement of the Law for a man to be righteous in and of himself. It is the readers who have minimized His comments to make them "doable", and to make the applicable to modern day Gentile believers. Big hermeneutic mistake.

Absolutely! James 2:10 tells us, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.". Jesus clarified what even that "one point" was - the SPIRIT of the law rather than merely the letter of the law. He demonstrated to the religious leaders - those who gloated over their blamelessness - that God's standards for ultimate holiness and perfection were unreachable for sinful mankind. It is EXACTLY why Jesus came, lived a perfect life, and sacrificed Himself for the sins of all the world. We are powerless to save ourselves and, without Christ, are hopeless.

"John 6:28-29 Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?' Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.'"

=============================================================

Yes, and to Jesus (and to His Church), words actually mean something.

For example, the word "believe" actually means something (and it is not just to concede to the existance of Jesus, which even Satan does).

Jesus explains what one part (but certainly not the only part) of "believe" actually means, right here:

✝============================================================✝

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father."

John 14:12

✝============================================================✝

This may be of interest to others i pinged.

But the context of the censure against calling his brother a fool in Mt. 5:22 was that of doing so in a wrong anger, an anger that is forbidden, out of which one speaks rashly with his mouth.

But if you want to dismiss context, immediate and that of the whole of Scripture, and hold to the absurd idea that the Lord was teaching not to do as He did, then keep away from engaging in Bible exegesis.’

There is no such immediate context such as you have been stating....

Even without the qualifier there is indeed context, which pointed out to you from the beginning . For "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" is not the only prohibition, but killing and anger are also prohibited, but neither of which are absolute injunctions either in the light of the rest of Scripture.

I.e.: the words “without a cause” appear in no Greek ms. I have known all along that they did not appear in any of the oldest, best, most complete and definitive mss. I finally decided to check exactly what ms they do appear in. Turns out, none.

Which is more a wish versus a fact. The absence of εικη, the qualifier rendered "without cause," among most of these so-called better mss is hardly surprising since as can be seen here and here , hardly any even have Mt. 5 in the first place. Codex Washingtoniensis , written in Greek on vellum in the 4th or 5th century is said to contain it, but before that i only see the fragment P86 as having that.

> "Only eight Greek manuscripts from before the 13th century omit εικη (p64 ℵ* B Ω 135 137* 364 371*) the qualifier. (http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html)

On can seen the difference in the Greek btwn the Byzantine Majority text and Alexandrian Hort and Westcott texts here .

Thus arguing from its omission based upon the absence of εικη in Mt. 5:22 from mss that do not even contain the verse is hardly a valid argument.

The KJV reading with εικη is supported by the majority of manuscripts, being found in Aleph (second correction), D, L, W, Theta, 0233, 33, the majority of Byzantine manuscripts and other authorities (Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed.). The earliest of these is W from the 4th/5th century. The omission is a minority reading, but is supported by three manuscripts that are earlier than W. These are: P64 (3rd century), Aleph (4th century) and B (4th century). However, the KJV reading is supported by Cyprian and Origen who lived in the 3rd century. - http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/angry-without-cause-in-matthew-522

In addition, the so-called "better" manuscripts make up a very small percentage of the Greek NT manuscripts, and abound with errors, while up to 95% of all known manuscripts are of the Byzantine text type.

What is a fact is that you cannot prove that the older copies are the best, for they abound with errors and are only a small minority of texts, which should be the ones the most copies were made from, while the more recent copies, the majority texts, can be copies of even earlier mss, which of course would be why they were made.

More on this in a separate section below.

So the supposed qualifier does not exist.

Wrong, as the evidence simply does not establish that, the conditional nature of this the censure against using invectives does not rest upon that, but upon the fact that not only the Lord but His disciples employed them, as shown before , and that the preceding commands against killing and anger are also conditional, in the light of the rest of Scripture, and the Law which Christ fulfilled.

In contrast, your argument for a blanket unequivocal condemnation against calling anyone a fool also applies to anger, which the Lord and disciples also justly manifested they had. And it also requires it to only refer to using the term "fool," but which can be expressed by other words, and is part of many invectives such as were used by the Lord and disciples. How do you feel about calling people "vipers" and a ethic class of people constant "liars, evil beasts, slow bellies"? (Titus 1:12)

Moreover, your "Jesus only" hermeneutic lacks any support for your premise that the Lord was excepting Himself in His incarnation - in which He laid aside certain Divine rights - from the moral commands He enjoined His disciples to obey as His followers. Indeed, to act in the name of Jesus is to do what He would if in your situation, which would include confession of sin if He could and was ever guilty of it.

Furthermore, the Lord never called His enemies "brethren," and it against calling brethren fools that this injunction applies to. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More on MSS evidence for εικη:

The Greek Testament of liberals Westcott and Hort is the single most famous of the so-called better "critical texts," but were preceded in the late 1700s by famed German biblical textual critic Johann Jakob Griesbach (4 January 1745 – 24 March 1812), who stated regarding the omission of the qualifier εικη,

"We have no doubt that it was omitted on purpose. For so rigid was the teaching on behavior among most of the teachers of the ancient church that they supposed that not only 'to be angry without a cause' but also all anger whatsoever was to be prohibited under Christian law. One of them supposed that the εικη, as if impeding the zeal of Christian perfection and being less suitable to our most holy teacher, had been inserted into the text by those who were wishing to reach heaven by a more favorable way. Therefore he erased it by dots above or below in his own manuscript. He was followed afterwards by others who were influenced by the same prejudiced opinions when coming across the verse." Griesbach concedes that the variation already existed in Origen's time, but that Origen approved of the shorter reading, partly for theological reasons, partly also perhaps because εικη seemed superfluous. He also notes that the witnesses against εικη "are refuted by other equally old and weighty manuscripts originating from the same families," not to mention the manuscripts that even Jerome and Augustine confessed to contain it, including "all other Greek manuscripts (Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine) -http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/21481644/14882515/name/ETS2012.pdf

Burgon states that every extant copy of the Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic and Armenian versions contain the words. The TBS, (58) July-September 1985 p 16, states that only about 10 Greek manuscripts omit the words, including Aleph and B and indicates that this is a very small number compared with those that include them.

Burgon, p 359-60, Cites the following fathers in support of the AV161 1 reading: 2nd Century: Irenaeus, Justin Martyr; 3rd Century: Cyprian, Origen; 4th Century: Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Ephraem Syrus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary, Lucifer; 5th Century: Cyril of Alexandria, Isidorus, Theodore of Mops, Theodoret; 6th Century: Severus; 7th Century: Antiochus the monk, Maximus; 8th Century: John Damascene; 9th Century: Photius; 11th Century: Theophylactus; 12th Century: Euthymius Zigahenus. -http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

A former Freeper's research states ,

Codex Sinaiticus, 7th century corrections in margin

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, 5th-6th century ms.
Codex K, 9th century uncial
Codex L, 9th century uncial
Codex W, 5th century uncial, known as "The Freer Gospels" because it presents a mixed type, displaying the "Byzantine" type in Matthew
Delta, a 9th century uncial
Theta, a 9th century uncial
Pi, a 9th century uncial
f1 and f13, families of miniscule mss. dating between the 11th and 14th centuries, and containing a total of 16 mss.
28, an 11th century miniscule
33, a 9th century miniscule
565, a 9th century miniscule
700, an 11th century miniscule
892, a 9th century miniscule
1010, a 12th century miniscule
1241, a 12th century miniscule
The Byzantine textual set majority
The majority of lectionaries
The Old Latin version
The Syriac versions
The Coptic versions

Hence, the deletion of "without a cause" rests on a small minority of the available evidence. Only three Greek mss. support it, two of which (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) are well-known to be corrupt, having over 3000 disagreements between themselves in the Gospels alone, and as many others with the majority of Greek mss. at large. The third is less than sure due to the difficulty in reading it at that passage. The deletion is supported by only one papyrus, albeit of excellent antiquity. The deletion is only supported by one other version, the Latin Vulgate, itself suspected of corruption due to Jerome's reliance upon Alexandrian texts very much similar to Sinaiticus to prepare his Latin New Testament².

On the other hand, the verse is supported by numerous uncial and miniscule manuscripts or good antiquity, some dating to within a century of the primary Alexandrian texts. It is supported by practically all the Byzantine textual set (the majority of mss.) which contains this passage. It is supported by the Old Latin version, the various Syriac compilations, and the Coptic compilations, all of which date at least back to the 3rd century, if not the 2nd for the Old Latin.

Given the preponderance of weight in favour of including "without a cause", and the relative untrustworthy nature of the primary witnesses which remove it, there is really no solid reason to question the inclusion of that phrase, and hence, the new versions needlessly remove "without a cause", and help to give sceptics an excuse to attack God's Word.

End Notes

(1) - B. Terry, A Student's Guide to New Testament Textual Variants, Matthew 5:22
(2) - F. Kenyon, The Story of the Bible, p. 1

Also in the inclusion of the qualifier among many of the ancients:

It is the reading found in the early Diatessaron, and it so quoted by such early church witnesses in their writings as Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret and Hilary.

Many early Christian writers testify to the legitimacy of these words as found in Matthew 5:22. Here are a few of them:

"And again: It has been said, Thou shalt not kill. But I say unto you, Every one who is angry with his brother WITHOUT A CAUSE, shall be in danger of the judgment." Irenaeus (115 - 202 AD), Against Heresies, 4.13 & 4.16

"But I say unto you that every one who is angry with his brother WITHOUT A CAUSE is worthy of the judgement." Taitian (140 AD), Diatessaron

"But I say unto you, That every one who is angry with his brother WITHOUT CAUSE shall be guilty of the judgment." Cyprian (200 - 258 AD), Treatise 12

"Be not angry with thy devout brother WITHOUT A CAUSE." Commodianus (3rd Century AD), Instructions

"But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother WITHOUT A CAUSE, shall be in danger of the judgment." Chrysostom (347 - 407 AD), Homilies on Matthew (6 quotes)

"But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother WITHOUT A CAUSE shall be in danger of the judgment." Augustine (354 - 430 AD), Sermon on the Mount (6 quotes)

"For he that is angry with his brother WITHOUT A CAUSE is obnoxious to the judgment." Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (200 - 400 AD), Book 2, Sec 6

- http://brandplucked.webs.com/matthew522withoutcause.htm

Basic Facts About Manuscripts

There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the Bible. These have been divided into four hypothetical “text types.” There are two main text types we need to be concerned with. These are the Byzantine text type, which was prevalent around Antioch, and the Alexandrian text type, which was prevalent around Alexandria, Egypt. There are a couple of other text types, the Caesarean and the Western, which seem to be a combination of these two other text types, but these are not important as we know they are derivatives of the other two types.

The vast majority of manuscripts, perhaps up to 95% of all manuscripts known, are of the Byzantine text type, which is therefore referred to today as the “majority text.” These are all “late manuscripts”, the majority of them having been produced after 600AD. Of the four text types, the Byzantine type is the largest text, meaning it has the most words.

The oldest manuscripts we have are all Alexandrian in nature. Of all known manuscripts, perhaps 5% reflect this text type. The two best examples of Alexandrian manuscripts are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus,... The Alexandrian text type stopped appearing in the Greek texts in the 700's after a long period of tapering off.....

What I have written up until this point seems to conclusively prove that the Alexandrian text type is the better text, and that the theory behind modern textual criticism is valid. However, there are a number of details that need to be considered in defense of the Byzantine text before a decision on textual issues can be made.

The first and foremost thing to understand is that no one can demonstrate that the Byzantine text ever grew. It is similar to the theory of evolution; no one can demonstrate from the fossil record that evolution ever occurred. No one can demonstrate a gradual growing or “evolution” of the Byzantine text, either. One may argue this is due to the lack of manuscript support before 500AD. But if the text was growing before then, why would it have stopped afterward? The Latin Vulgate did not stop growing in that time.

Next, we need to consider textual transmission theory. The fact is, the Byzantine manuscripts flow from the area in which the early church was the strongest, and where the church was centered after the fall of Jerusalem, Antioch. All of the original writings of the apostles with a few exceptions either originated from this area or came into this area first. Certainly none of the apostles' writings originated in Egypt or were directed to Egypt. All of the text that came to Egypt would have to come from Antioch first. Naturally, that text could lose something in transmission from scribe to scribe, and Egypt was a very long distance from Antioch. It is well within the realm of possibility that Egypt would receive an abbreviated text.

The Alexandrian manuscripts, including Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, contain a lot of errors, and disagree with each other in a number of places. One of the oldest manuscripts known is called Papyrus 66 (or “P66”). It is Alexandrian. It contains on average two errors per verse. How could this happen? It is speculated that the person transcribing P66 probably did not personally know Greek, but was simply copying out, letter by letter, the papyrus manuscript. The amount of error in the document is consistent with this explanation.

Another problem arises when you add in the testimony of the early church fathers. They obviously quoted the Bible extensively, and they seem to include a mix of Alexandrian and Byzantine readings. One glaring example in which the church fathers disagree with the Alexandrian manuscripts involves Mark 16. Mark 16 ends at verse 8 in the most important Alexandrian manuscripts. Nevertheless, the very early church fathers Ireneaus and Hippolytus quoted from Mark 16:9-20 in the second century, long before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were copied.

This proves that, while we have no Byzantine manuscripts from the period, the readings in the Byzantine manuscripts existed in the second century. Why were they not included in the Alexandrian manuscripts, if the readings existed?

The absence of Byzantine manuscripts, and the presence of the readings, creates a mysterious conundrum. While the absence of Byzantine manuscripts from the period is seen as a point in favor of the Alexandrian text, it can be seen as a condemnation of that text as well. You see, the best manuscripts were copied extensively, until the first copy was worn out completely from use and discarded. (This was almost certainly the fate of the very originals.) The fact that the older Alexandrian copies exist can be seen as evidence that they were not considered good enough to copy, yet not bad enough to be discarded.

Furthermore, the climate in Alexandria is much kinder to papyrus than the climate around Antioch. It is possible that the Byzantine readings have existed since the beginning, even though there are no manuscripts physically available to prove it. More .

The Answer

So, did text get left out of the Alexandrian text or added into the Byzantine? This remains the question we need to answer for ourselves. I have provided as much information as I can for you to formulate your own answer to the question.

My answer is this: in light of the fact that no one can prove the Byzantine text ever changed; that the readings of the Alexandrian text may be incomplete due to its being a regionalized text; that the public availablility throughout all time of the Byzantine text would have served as a safeguard against changes as massive as alleged; upon the testimony of the church fathers of readings that never existed in the Alexandrian text type; and finally, the fact that the Alexandrian text type ceased to exist in the Greek, in light of the Biblical doctrine of providential preservation, the Majority Text must be considered the most trustworthy possible text of the Holy Bible.

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

1. Manuscripts. About 5,366 of all kinds, excluding those in category E.

A. Papyri are the oldest. There are about 100 of them, many mere scraps. Most date from before 300 AD. Most belong to the Alexandrian family, being from Egypt.

B. Majuscules were usually written on sheepskin parchment in capital letters called uncials. Most are from before the 9th century. There are some 274 majuscules and about 80% of them are from the Byzantine family, 10% from the Alexandrian and the rest from the Western and Caesarean families. The most important ones: Codex Sinaiticus (discovered near Mt. Sinai), Codex Vaticanus, Codex Bezae, Codex Alexandrinus. Some are palimpsests - a parchment was erased by scraping and then written over, but by careful study we can read the original writing.

C. Miniscules were written in cursive handwriting in small letters, some on parchment but most on paper. They usually date from after the 9th century and are by far the largest number of manuscripts (2,795). About 90% are from the Byzantine family.

D. Lectionaries are collections of the N.T. for public reading in Church services, usually numbered sections of the Gospels. Of the 2,209, some 245 are uncial majuscules and 1,964 are in cursive miniscule script. Most are Byzantine.

E. Miscellanous portions have been found among ancient inscriptions on the walls of the Catacombs, or on ostraca (some 1,624 small scraps of pottery) or amulets.

3. Families. The variations in manuscripts tend to fall down into 4 categories or families.

A. Byzantine (or Majority Witness) makes up some 80% or more of the manuscripts and variations, plus some of the ancient versions. Moreover, those in this family are almost entirely identical and uniform. Most are from the Eastern Mediterranean.

A. Alexandrian manuscripts and readings mainly come from Egypt. These readings tend to subtract (or conversely, say some, the Byzantine tends to add to the Alexandrian). 5-10% of the manuscripts are in this family. Even though they tend to be older, they do not agree with themselves as much as the Byzantine manuscripts do.

B. Western manuscripts come from the Western Mediterranean and make up about 5% of manuscripts, plus some versions and Fathers. Also not uniform, they tend to add.

C. Caesarean manuscripts contain mixed readings from other families. Some scholars deny that this is even a family as such. These supposedly came from Casarea. They number less than 5% of the total

http://faithbibleonline.net/MiscDoctrine/TextualCriticismOfTheBible.htm

Jesus is not, repeat not, exaggerating for effect.

Was Paul?

Galatians 5:12

he who believes in me will also do the works that I do;

I assume you consider that you are a 'believer'?

Have YOU done the WORKS that Jesus has done?

I'd LOVE to taste some of YOUR wine; and talk to the folks that YOU have healed!