Arguing Over Nothing?

[teachmevp]

Harmonizing the gospels for over 20 years, one stumbles across cool research, like what to do with this forgery in John 1:1-1:14?

Here is what I wrote in the thread of The Author of Life Everlasting, Chapter 2;

Then Yeshua said to him, "Begone, Satan; for it is written, Revere only Yahweh, and worship him alone, to him shall you hold fast,

and swear only by his name." Then Satan left Yeshua; and lo, angels came, and ministered to him. John testified of Yeshua, and

cried, and said, "This is he, of whom I said, that he comes after me, and is before me." And this is the testimony of John, when

the Israelites sent to him priests and levites, to ask him, "Who are you?"

I just noticed that John 1:16-1:18 is a forgery too, in this context, those sneaky spirit believers?

In the Harmony of the gospels, their is no way for John 1:1-1:14 to fit in the harmonizing of the gospels?

How many times have you gotten into an argument with people with John1:1, it is a forgery of the spirit teaching pushers?

[socks]

Can you reference a theological or historical source for the claim that it's a forgery, and the history on the development of the actual verses themselves? The bible does have variances in the various books, and I can't remember the history on that section you're quoting. Thanks.

I've read your phrase "spirit teaching" and I confess I don't quite grasp exactly what it is or what differentiates it in Christian doctrine with or without it -in other words, what is it and what changes in biblical doctrine do you see occur with it and without it.

[teachmevp]

After over 20 years of trying to fit John 1:1-1:14 into the context of harmonizing the four gospels, it just does not fit?

We are coming out of the six temptations, we must go into John, into the first five chapters, in order to keep the harmony

of gospels going. The history on this section is trinity in origin, it is their way of saying Yeshua was in the beginning with

Yahweh, this is something I stubbled across, no theological or historical source other than it is trinity in origin.

Spirit teaching of man, they teach about a spirit life, we know that life should be the life Yahweh has in himself, that Yeshua was to

have, it is in John 5:26, a cool word study on that life will show you the context of that life in the word; they teach about a spirit body,

in Luke 24:39, we know that sprit has not flesh and bones, as they saw Yeshua have behind them close doors, whatever that body

Yeshua has is some kind of flesh and bone body, not a spirit body; they teach all kinds of things about spirit as the power source

of Yahweh, but it is the power of Yahweh that is in you, not spirit power; they covered up new nature with that spirit, that is how

they get that spirit way of living, spiritually looking at thing. Thanks for your insight on this research, it is only research throughout the

years, that is what is cool about the GreaseSpot, we can throw it out their, and we can work it out, unlike the way, we can grow together.

[TrustAndObey]

After over 20 years of trying to fit John 1:1-1:14 into the context of harmonizing the four gospels, it just does not fit?

...

The history on this section is trinity in origin, it is their way of saying Yeshua was in the beginning with

Yahweh, this is something I stubbled across, no theological or historical source other than it is trinity in origin.

While the "usual" translation of John 1:1 may be in question due to whether Colwell's rule could apply or not (Personally, I don't believe it can..), the section between v1 and v14 can be (AND HAS BEEN) translated a number of ways to support many a views. So to say it is Trinitarian in origin or a forgery is really stretching the facts.

[teachmevp]

It sure is stretching the facts, the fact is that John 1:1-1:14 does not fit in the context of harmonizing

the four gospels. I tried to use it as an introduction to the beginning of the story of the four gospels, but

it didn't fit their either. I notice how this added text of the Trinity is trying to tell their story and teach that

story into the story of the harmony of the gospels, instead of letting the story, tell the story. Thanks for your insight.

Edited August 20, 2010 by teachmevp

[Broken Arrow]

Who is claiming John 1:1-14 is a forgery?

[teachmevp]

I claim that John 1:1-1:14 does not fit into the harmony of the four gospels, it must be a Trinity forgery, who else would put it in the text?

Look at what the Trinity is trying to say, with what they added, it does not belong in the story line of the four gospels.

[cman]

There's a

'harmony of the four gospels'

?

Which 4, there is quite a few to choose from.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

I think I'd ask John about a book with his name on it.

[teachmevp]

Matt., Mark, Luke, John, and the first chapter of Acts, is all one needs to tell the story?

Edited August 19, 2010 by teachmevp

[socks]

Thanks, that helps. Can we also identify who "they" are, the ones that have added this, I guess they're "trinitarians"....? But do we know who, and when?

Harmonizing the gospels - I don't try to determine what doesn't seem to "fit" or appears contradictory and then take it out.

The gospels themselves were never written to be harmonized, although it's beneficial to compare and align the 4 books since they cover the same era and events, more or less.

There are parts that don't add up that Christians believe 100% on all sides is true. Parts like Jesus being "raised" from the dead.

Why is that less controversial than The Word/Christ being "in the beginning". Yet nearly all Christians accept that Christ rose from the dead and would never take it out or rewrite it. It's a basic essential part of the "faith".

I wouldn't remove John 1:1 or any other part on the basis that it appears contradictory to other sections, verses or books.

I'm not even sure it is contradictory, to be honest.

Can you list a few ways that you've seen it doesn't fit with the other gospels and the verses and context you're thinking of?

My only problem with your approach teach me, is that you're crafting the gospel accounts into what you think they should be, based on what you read and what makes sense to you.

Here's a question fer ya - what "if" the first few verses of John 1 WERE there, exactly as they were "originally' written. Like it or not, fit or not - those sentences are supposed to be there.

Then what?

[teachmevp]

I got half of the gospels harmonized on the treads of The Autor of Life Everlasting.

I is important for the story to tell the story about Yeshua being raised from among the dead,

but John 1:1-1:14 tries to justify the Trinity story, before the story is told, in order

to influence us into believing Yeshua was with, and is Yahweh in the beginning; John

is full of trinity junk.

Edited August 19, 2010 by teachmevp

[year2027]

God first

thanks teachmevp

it is impossible to harmonize and not have all books

Harmonizing the gospels for over 20 years, one stumbles across cool research, like what to do with this forgery in John 1:1-1:14?

Here is what I wrote in the thread of The Author of Life Everlasting, Chapter 2;

Then Yeshua said to him, "Begone, Satan; for it is written, Revere only Yahweh, and worship him alone, to him shall you hold fast,

and swear only by his name." Then Satan left Yeshua; and lo, angels came, and ministered to him. John testified of Yeshua, and

cried, and said, "This is he, of whom I said, that he comes after me, and is before me." And this is the testimony of John, when

the Israelites sent to him priests and levites, to ask him, "Who are you?"

I just noticed that John 1:16-1:18 is a forgery too, in this context, those sneaky spirit believers?

In the Harmony of the gospels, their is no way for John 1:1-1:14 to fit in the harmonizing of the gospels?

How many times have you gotten into an argument with people with John1:1, it is a forgery of the spirit teaching pushers?

because nothing is a forgery and everything is a forgery

you need to read more books and less books otherwise to walk the spirit of God more and less

read the gospel of

The Aquarian Age Gospel of Jesus, the Christ of the Piscean

The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour

Gospel of Thomas

The Life of Flavius Josephus

The Report of Pilate the Governor

Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

Martyrdom of The Holy Polycarp

Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea

The Epistle of Barnabas

The Gospel of Nicodemus, or Acts of Pilate

The Gospel of the Lord

The Apocryphon of James

Pistis Sophia: The Books of the Savior

and many more

just The Way ministry said it a forgery does not mean their right

with love and a holy kiss Roy

Edited August 20, 2010 by year2027

[teachmevp]

No thanks, but thanks Roy, I harmonized them their gospels, just find without them their books.

Edited August 20, 2010 by teachmevp

[year2027]

God first

thanks teachmevp

so you harmonized gospels books that King James likes but more were around books were around

it sound you worship the book and not God

King James decided what books got in the bible not God

so you still in the Way ministry or not

because what the Way does worship a book over God

think about it because it takes real believe to believe in God over the bible

study the bible when it came to be

study the bible why it came to be

study the bible how it came to be

then harmonized God word and trow away smelly bible

with love and a holy kiss Roy

[cman]

some info on the texts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

[teachmevp]

I used texts that these good folks would aprove of, but what I used is nothing but a thing; but as far as your book and god crack,

really Roy, I do not worship your god, or your books.

The impossible is on those threads, starting on page 22, take a look.

Edited August 20, 2010 by teachmevp

[year2027]

God first

thanks cman

thanks for the link it bless me

with love and a holy kiss Roy

Alexandrian Text (Latin Vulgate) And The Origin Of The Cross

Some of the world’s greatest minds were living in Alexandria. These men were very proud of their great wisdom. They called themselves Gnostics. The Christians from Antioch went to teach the people living in Alexandria.

Acts 11

26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Acts 13

1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Sprit, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

5 And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.

The Gnostics formed a school of religion and philosophy of which in time became the center of Christian learning and culture. At this time of history Alexandria was Satan’s territory (Egypt) the land of Isis (the queen of heaven or Mary) and Horus (the sun god). The city of Baal worship. Ref: Babylon mystery religion by Ralf Woodrow.

Origen (184 A.D. to 254 A.D. a great student became head of this school. He and others messed up the scriptures. He didn’t believe Jesus was a God Jehovah so he took out the verse in

1 John 5

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

Origen was an Arian. Ref: which bible David Otis Fuller, God only wrote one bible J.J., Manuscript evidence. P.S. Ruckman, and The King James version defended ED Hills.

At this time in history Rome ruled the world. Their religion was a form of Baal worship that had come from Babylon, and Egypt. Nero thought he was a divine (like a god). The wouldn’t worship him so he them hunted down and had them killed. As thousands were; put in a prison and killed. Others would spring up to take their places. Instead of wiping our Christianity persecution made it grow. When this persecuting didn’t work they stoped it. The Roman Empire was ready to fall apart. The Caesars were smart enough to figure if they lost their armies they could always become religious leaders and continues to rule the people.

Constantine was the son of a Roman Emperor. After his father died he felt he was the rightful heir to the throne. So he took his army and marched against Rome. At the stone milvaian bridge at the Tiber River on Oct 28 321 A.D. his enemy Maxentius, with his army stood between Constantine and the throne. Constantine and his troops were vastly out numbered. The PLAN: Constantine worshipped Sol (the sun god), and he already had the backing of the pagans. He needed the backing of the Christians also. This is how he did it. He said he and his troops saw a sign in the sky saying (in this sign conquer," The sign was a

Deuteronomy 21:23

His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Galatians 3:13

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree?

The cross that is on top of the church building, would it curse all that was inside it?

This is the sign of the cross. If the Christians would help him with this battle he would become a Christian. (Ref Constantine Ramsey Mac Mullen.) Constantine won the battle. He marched into Rome and shook the world by saying I am a Christian. He sprinkled his troops in baptism. The troops became instant Christians.

In 323 AD he issued a decree of tolerance (Edict of Milan) giving total religious freedom. At last the persecutions had stooped

In 325 A.D. Constantine setup the Council of Nicaea and presided as Summus Pontifex (the official title of the pope). Constantine (who still worshipped the sun god) ordered a man named Eusebius the bishop of Caesarea to make him 50 bibles. Eusebius had a choice of using the Greek manuscripts from Alexandria or from Antioch. Eusebius was not a real Christian. He believed the same way Origen did. So he used the Alexandrian text to make the bibles for the Roman Catholic Church. Slowly grew in power. Out of the 50 bibles made up by Eusebius came the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate written by Jerome became the official bible for the Roman Catholics Church. All others were outlawed.

Edited August 20, 2010 by year2027

[teachmevp]

I don't think in terms of textual criticism thinking, what does not belong, does not belong.

Men of spirit belief, added that three-in-one god junk into the word of Yahweh.

Please Roy, I would like to have a serious reasoning with people that were in the way,

not some apostle of a church with a website, pushin their teachings, Holy Breath the Mother,

I do not want anything to do with that stuff, or offshoots of it, please Roy, leave me alone, thank you.

Edited August 20, 2010 by teachmevp

[cman]

http://75.102.32.213/search?q=spirit&site=refbible&client=refbible&proxystylesheet=refbible&filter=0&num=100&output=xml_no_dtd&btnG=Search

[year2027]

God first

thanks teachmevp

LISEN MY FRIEND I WAS ANSWERING my friend cman WHO IS HERE TO LEARN BECAUSE IT IS PLAIN YOU KNOW BETTER THEN THE REST OF US SMALL PEOPLE

search others places is good way to learn new things and enjoy learning new things

learning makes me able love bigger than

with love and a holy kiss Roy

[waysider]

I thought "arguing over nothing" is what we did on the "Cult of Zero" thread.

[socks]

Well, some kind of criteria has to be used to determine what does belong and what does not belong, and you seem to have a means of determining that. I'm still not clear on what your criteria is or how you go about determining what stays or goes.

The bible is a book, in that form it has to be read. Reading, one will come to find there are many different translations and versions. Not all have the same wording or even the same books, order, etc. etc.

If you're using the King James version (or translations based on the same set of books), how did you come to the deciion to use that bible and that collection of books? What is the means of excluding other books and why? If you've determined only to use KJV and to exclude anything else, on what authority then do you accept that the KJV (or any other) is the primary source? Are you familiar with how it was compiled and came to be? And if you are, what is it about that historical process that leads you to accept it as the only construct for information about Yehovah and Yeshuah?

How do you understand your Yehovah and Yeshua to be, today? What are they and what is their nature, their form and how do they exist? How do you relate to them and they to you? And I guess I'm also curious now if that relationship is represented to you in the Bible where you can see it written about?

If you're working in biblical languages, which ones and which texts do you use in determining what the King James english means? Do you already completely know what it means, if so how? Do you read for context and assume you understand? How many times have you read the bible itself then? 10, 20, 100 times?

I'm not asking these questions to bug you, only to understand. I am a Christian, although I may find out here by your standards I'm not, or not "really", which is fine but I'm not approaching this from a perspective of disrespect, I'm just interested.

[socks]

" ...claim that John 1:1-1:14 does not fit into the harmony of the four gospels, it must be a Trinity forgery, who else would put it in the text?"

I was thinking on this topic and wanted to add - this is where I would disagree with what seems to be the essence of your idea here....that some verses don't fit in your "harmony" or harmonizing of the four gospels.

I'm not clear on how you use "harmony" but I'm taking it to mean that when compiling the records in all 4 gospels there are parts that stick out to you as not being correct contextually.

The 4 gospels don't include all of the same events in order, as I'm sure you know. John 1 is an example, it starts out with a series of statements that aren't inherent to the record of someone telling the life story of Jesus Christ and the events and people involved. Or - it does, in such a way that it sets the context for understanding what's about to be read. It's often described as a "prologue"....as if it were added but I really don't think that accurately describes that section of the book. I may be wrong about this, someone can add insight, I think the first verses of John have always been included in the book as it's been known and nothing indicates they were added, as if at a later point, to the beginning of the gospel. If always been there then it's a question of what it means, not if it should be there.

But if you put the content of each in a chronological order and laid them out end to end into one record you don't have a gospel "harmony", you have a new record made of the 4.

A "harmony" might be stacking the 4 on top of each other - some records will fill spots where others have no content - these verses in John would be an example. Much like a musical score, some instruments play where others are silent. There's no contradiction in the score, all instruments and all parts form the music.

That may not apply to everything in the 4 gospels, but it's a way to describe the approach I prefer. I don't see an intrinsic problem with the beginning of John in that light.

[teachmevp]

Thanks socks for your questions, lets start out with determining criteria,

All I can say is, I have been harmonizing those gospels for over 20 years,

but I agree, so what. I hand wrote them four times, it is in that hand

writing of those gospels I notice this forgery stuff in John, and their

is a lot of it. King James is in my study bible, Bullinger, but I try to

stick with Aramaic texts, what I use is what I learned in PFAL, but

PFAL taught me to learn, how to learn; but the bigest thing I learned,

I must always think context. My reasoning depends on the gospels in

their harmonized format, where does that context go. I just didn't chuck

that context out, I worked it, I saw where that word, word, should be wisdom, in

John 1:1 In the beginning was wisdom, and that wisdom was..........,

I found that wisdom in a set of Kitalls (sorry about the spelling) one day,

But I am finding that people don't believe harmonizing can be done, but in the

treads of The Author of Life Everlasting, I have half of the work done for you to

check it out. What business do I have doing this harmonizing work, I don't, but

I did harmonize the four gospels, and used first chapter of Acts. Thanks for your insight.

[year2027]

God first

thanks teachmevp

in my mind I see the context of whole bible

just a part talks word for word with another book

does mean there not context with another book

Luke 2:42 are in line with The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour 1:50 and Gospel of Thomas 19:1

Luke 2:46 line up the The Aquarian Age Gospel of Jesus, the Christ of the Piscean Age 19:1

Matthew 9:20 Mark 5:25 Luke 8:43 line up with The Report of Pilate the Governor

Luke 3:1 line up with The Gospel of Nicodemus, or Acts of Pilate 0:1

Matthew 12:40; 27:63,64 Mark 8:31;9:31; 10:34 Luke 9:22;13: 32;18:33;24:7, 21,46 Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:4 ine up with The Antiquities of the Jews Book 18 3:3

Genesis 5:3-8 ine up with The Book of Jasher 2:1; 4:10

Genesis 5:6-11 ine up with The Book of Jasher 2:10; 5:1

Genesis 5:9-14ine up with The Book of Jasher 2:15,16; 5:2

Genesis 17:17; 21:5;25:20; 35: 28,29 ine up with The Book of Jasher 24:45

Numbers 14:30- 33 Joshua 24:29 Judges 2:8 ine up withThe Antiquities of the Jews Book 5 1:29

these all harmonize with each other

with love and a holy kiss Roy