How do Judeo-Christian folk resolve these issues?

Question

11. The Jewish, Catholic and Protestant Bibles all consist of different books.

12. New Testament is obviously not divine inspiration because the accounts themselves contradict one another. IMPRESSIVE events are related in one, but not the other. The oldest manuscripts of “Mark” don’t even have the resurrection tale, nor final passages about spreading the word. With these problems exposed, why trust any of it?

13. Why trust the opinion of anyone beyond yourself? “Upon this rock” is supposed to mean Peter? Please. It’s an ambiguous statement.

Answer 1

11. Not answering the first question I take the 5th
12. New Testament is 4 different peoples version of events, what the Holy Spirit inspired them to write to highlight different aspects of Jesus life on Earth. Mark for instance is very factual (short to the point)
Matthew is written specifically from his background Jewish, it ties in a lot with the Jewish law and showing how Jesus fulfills that
Luke a Doctor very people focused having the only story of Jesus has a child doesn't negate the previous books.
John was written much latter when he was on the island of patmous, and wrote it in the relevation of God's love, he wrote remebering the things Jesus had done.
(It is really important that you research these for yourself. I am only remembering what I have researched and some may be slightly off mark - but what I have said is relatively correct - it would take me weeks to prove what I have written here to source it all properly.)

13. Peter means Rock, I suppose you are reffering to the verse on this ROCK, I will build my Church. Peter was a key person in the 1st Century Church. He was a foundational person. It is an ambiguos statement when removed from its context all of it is when removed from its context.

Answer 2

James: You have asserted, that " the New Testament is obviously, not devine inspiration". The God, who patented the human design says to the contrary, that you are wrong ( see: Second Peter, chapter , verses 20). Do you really think a God of devine intelligence would trust the things of God to mere humans, knowing full well, that the bible would ultimately be passed down through the ages? Think again! The Holy Spirit deciphers the understanding of the Bible - not mere human intellect. When you read the Bible, one needs to employ this approach in his or her methodology (see: The book of Isaiah, chapter 28 ,verses 10 - 15). The books of the Bible are written accounts of eye wittnesses - some things do vary but the majority are in agreement. Most eye wittness accounts do NOT all precisely match but are given from the perspective of that particular writer, as any cop would tell you ! But there are always some omissions, as all are given their particular views. When you lead the life of one with spirituality (not religion), you will see things through the eyes as God has ordained. Remember; if God wanted every and all to "believe Him" , He would make it clear through some awesome miracle, leaving NO doubt. But God only draws those He is working with to Himself of His choosing (see John, 6th Chapter, verse 44). The Good News is that all humans ever born will have their turn later, at the arrival of Jesus Christ to this earth. (Read about it in the Book of Revelation - see Chapter 20 - for starters). I do not trust any one's opinion beyond the one I have researched to be true but I do trust, via faith, ( "faith" is a spiritual gift from the Holy Spirit - see: Book of Galatians, Chapter 5, verse 22) This "faith" is not humanistic trust but assurance. All in all, it is what the giver of the Holy Spirit wants not about the contents of Bibles per sec. i.e.: Holy spirit = HOLY Bible. God is in the saving business, and in the end we ALL (every human being) will be WINNERS ! ( inspite of our humanistic attempts to refine the spiritual things of God.)

Answer 3

This is amazing.

The Jews elected to depart from their promised Messiah; refusing to accept Christ because he would not offer them an earthly kingdom.

Catholicism has nothing to do with biblical Christianity, which sober-minded common sense alone should affirm; For your edification, then: When men place Mary as mediator with God before Christ; when men place Pope and church tradition as more authoritative than scripture.

The Greek word "anti" (in addition to meaning "against") means anything that substitutes. When men place priest, statues, icons, dead saints, relics, crosses, rosary, wafers, and any other form of religious bric-a-brac as objects of veneration, those men are NOT Christian. They are usurping the place of Christ with other things. They are putting other things in the place of Christ:

Different Bibles? www.theforgottenbible.org, Chapter Three will supply you with more than enough information as to where the different "bibles" arose from, if you do, in fact, wish to know, and pursue your own study from there.

The gospels vary because each apostle was writing with a specific purpose in mind; each apostle specifically stressed some aspect of the Lord Jesus - ie. Matthew was written specifically to relate to Jewish understanding, &c.

Do you want to talk about the "genius" of modern scholars?
Fair enough:

Superior Scholarship?
One example will suffice for this limited space -
In the Received Text ("Authorised Version") of the Bible, the text of Mark 1:2 makes the reference:
"As it is written in the prophets…"

This same reference, however, becomes in the modernist versions:
"It is written in Isaiah the prophet ..." [NIV]

This is a most intriguing alteration as the quote from the Old Testament in verse two, is from Malachi 3:1 -
It is not from Isaiah.

Verse three is from Isaiah. The whole of verse two is not!
The Authorised Version rendering of "the prophets" ... is correct!

The "Oldest" manuscripts? So, you affirm the tired insistence of scholars that "older is bettter" ?
The second-century manuscript that has been intentionally corrupted by the Unitarian, to exclude doctrine such as 1 John 5:7, immediately becomes more “reliable” than a third-century manuscript that contains 1 John 5:7?

What facile reasoning does it take to insist that “the shorter text” is the correct one?

The text of manuscript that obliterates a portion of the scripture text, is correct because it is shorter than a manuscript which contains the whole of the scripture text?

What has happened to the elementary capabilities of the human mind? Has Satan so blinded even common reason that church-going men and women are unable to think clearly?

Do the assertions of the men who promote the modern “translations” hold true: Is the oldest, the best? Answer the following question in your own mind: ARE the writings of a third century apostate are more “reliable” than those of an eighteenth century Puritan?

"Upon this Rock" ... refers to Christ - NOT Peter.
Petros means "a stone". Christ reminded Peter of the meaning of his (Peter's) name; he then pointed to himself and said "Upon this Rock" - (Me) ...

If any of this truly is of interest to you; and not merely a weak attempt to attack the Bible, read through Chapter Three of the thesis at the site www.theforgottenbible.org; and see the Appendix I - Modern Translations.

Your three points are "resolved", because there is nothing in them. The Bible is concerned with the Lord Jesus Christ - from Genesis to revelation. It has nothing to do with modern Judaism or Roman popery.

From Genesis 1, where Christ created the heavens; to Revelation 22, where Christ closes the history of humanity. The only supreme subject of the entire Bible is the Lord Jesus Christ.

I sincerely trust that you will investigate matters for yourself, and so learn some small amount of your subject, before you attempt to speak against it.

With regards,

Philip Livingstone
www.theforgottenbible.org

Answer 4

rock-paper-scissors

Answer 5

Why do you care what is in a protestant Bible?

As for the Jews and Catholics (Christians), the ancient Jews had an open Canon, as did the Early Catholic Christians. The Ethiopic Church still has an open Canon, allowing for anything of the HOLY SPIRIT to be given full credance, if tested and found to be of the SPIRIT. The Canons of the Church were not originally Sciptures or lists thereof, but maxims of Tradition handed down from the beginning, by which to measure Orthodoxy. Syrian Christians have their own Bibles, as do Greek and Russian Orthodox. These varying collections are mainly whittled down individual Parish Scripture collections, remaining officially recognized at the points of overlap between neighboring Parishes and Dioceses' collections of things handed down in the SPIRIT since the beginning.

The early Church, like the Jews of their days, had countless other Jewish Books that they considered Scripture, but in the conflicts between the Jews that remained outside of the Jewish Religion of Christianity, and those both Jew and gentile that were the early members of the Catholic Church, Jews revitalized their pride in things most demonstrably their own, such as their language, and put whatever Writings they still commonly had exemplars of in their original Hebrew forms first. They did this in hopes of concentrating their apologetics from the written part of their Tradition into service to their current interpretations of the Tradition as a whole.

Christians didn't feel a need to corner themselves into that selection of Writings most commonly known to exist in Hebrew still, but they not only made use of ancient Translations, Commentaries, and supplementation in oral Tradition, but still sought out and collected Hebrew manuscripts once again brought to light, to check the above against, as Jerome did in making his efforts toward the Vulgate.

As for the New Testament, the Church Fathers at the Council of Nicea had to settle with one another and with their heretical opponents the extent of the Documents to be brought forward to use in the Council to establish the orderly lines of argumentation from both sides. This selection out of a much greater body of Sacred Writ, from the overlaps of the various collections recieved by each of the Bishops in their respective dioceses made for a conveniently ready corpus of dialogue Canons in any future universal debates on Orthodoxy. This led naturally to Bibles in which a selection of Works was already drawn together for inclusion altogether between two covers. Still, Bibles often varied to some degree in content of Writings, though not in nature or Spirit of Tradition and Orthodoxy, which beforehand gave the sense for all that had come to converge into the Bibles of the Faithful.

Mark was not the earliest Gospel written. All of the Gospels, however, mention supernatural phenomena, and in some way mention the DEITY of CHRIST. By beginning with the passage of Isaiah with which Mark's Gospel does, and so applying it to John and JESUS as it does, it clearly equates JESUS with GOD, and makes John his Preparer for HIS Ministry.

None of the Gospels claims to be definitive, but each was written to supplement an understanding and instruction given orally through the Church. Luke's is to one that requested to know from Christians about the fundamentals of their history in a most basic way, and it is obvious that being filled in with this, he could have a framework with which to further question Catechists in person. He would likewise understand the elements of the Church as in the Acts Luke wrote best by seeing the Church alive in action in his own day, just prior to the Martyrdoms of Peter and Paul themselves.

In some people's minds, Matthew may have written more than is in the Greek translation, whether in a different work, or in a longer version in Hebrew from which a Greek version was condensed, but the Apostles like many bi- or multi-lingual writers today, were more than capable of writing their works in one tongue, then personally rendering their own works into a second or third language. Nonetheless, by the time of the early combined Syriac form of the four Gospels, there was in this version what is obviously Aramaic renditions of what was in the Greek version of the Gospel of Matthew.

There is a Tradtion that the Twelve Apostles stayed in Judea for the first twelve years, before they ventured out to make disciples in gentile lands. There is also a Tradition that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew to an all-Jewish audience. These two Traditions mentioned in different documents at an early date agree in making Matthew's Gospel both very early and the earliest of the four, as also the Tradition that he wrote his in Hebrew asserts. There is no evidence that the end of Matthew ever differed from the extant ending, with its Trinitarian Baptismal Formula, which makes JESUS to be, with the HOLY SPIRIT, an EQUAL with the FATHER.

There really are no contradictions between the four Gospels. Mark was a disciple of Peter, and compiled his Gospel mainly of pericopes from Peter's recollections of JESUS as used in Homilies. Mark's purpose was to set down in an official remembrance these precious things in a manner than fit liturgically with the mediations of the Church, which had orally recieved many supplementary details about JESUS and their own history stemming from HIM.

John, writing much later, being thus preceded by so many in things such as were in in the other three of four main Gospels to this day, and being himself, like Peter and Matthew, one of the original Twelve, wrote down things that needed to be expressed afresh, which he recalled as fundamental to the Church by this time a few generations into its struggle against the spirit of antichrist. He had personal reminescences no less precious than Peter's or Matthew's, so why wouldn't he mention them?

Luke was already a Christian before meeting Paul, and had a personal Christian history prior to meeting Paul. His interest in the matters of which he wrote preceded his knowing of Paul. Yet he later came to see things in Paul's life as few others he had previously known had had the chance to. He, thus, was very important as an eyewitness.

Paul agreed with him in all respects, and Luke in no way disagreed with Matthew, Mark, or John in his expression of JESUS' Teaching or History. Paul was a very realy convert, when the Church was still based in Jerusalem, and he naturally knew the early expressions of the first witnesses of JESUS - thus it is no surprise that Matthew's should reflect these (such as in saying, "This is MY Body, take, eat", in the Eucharist, etc.).

I once watched the statements given by the jury that agreed that a woman should still be executed in Texas for murder, even though she had become a Christian in prison who was repentant of her sin. What impressed me was how they seemed to give such different descriptions of her last moments. Some seemed to make it sound as if she showed no worry, and was all religious talk. Others seemed to have known no religious talk, and only observed signs of fear. Yet, as each spoke, the others nodded their heads in recognition, showing that none of them seemed to consider their statements contradictions. But to outsiders, these more than the Gospels, would be presumed to be riddled with contradictions if compared without inside recollection.

Philip Livingstone wrote:

"Catholicism has nothing to do with biblical Christianity, which sober-minded common sense alone should affirm; For your edification, then: When men place Mary as mediator with God before Christ; when men place Pope and church tradition as more authoritative than scripture."

He speaks as his own personal interpreter of things Divine, even though Peter said such practice is unlearned and unstable.

He also writes:

"Upon this Rock" ... refers to Christ - NOT Peter.
Petros means "a stone". Christ reminded Peter of the meaning of his (Peter's) name; he then pointed to himself and said "Upon this Rock" - (Me) ..."

Incorrect. It is not in the least obscure as to meaning. Why, SImon's name is here changed to "Rock"! In Greek the use of "Rock" to say what Peter is is rendered in the normal feminine form, because it is only saying WHAT he is, and not naming him properly yet. But when it states that this is in fact his new PROPER NAME, it has to use a masculine form, thus replacing "Petra" with "Petros". When it mentions the stone rolled in front of the tomb, it says, "lithos", not "petros". In Aramaic, it is the same word twice. Greeks were so afraid to make men's names sound feminine, that they added /s/ after final /a/ in transliterating names like "Jeremiah", creating the form "Jeremias", etc/ So also, even in giving in Greek letters the Aramaic name, "Kepha" (Rock), the Greek makes it "Kephas". In the Revelation of John, it speaks of the names of the Twelve as on the twelve foundation stones of the New Jerusalem. Paul even speaks of the Foundation of the first Apostles, of which all Scripture says Peter is the First. To Peter, JESUS also said he would be the faithful and shrewd Servant set over HIS whole House, and later told him to feed all of HIS Flock, and shepherd them, three times.