List of Totally and Partially Omitted Passages in the Modern Translations

[blueskies]

The absence of any manuscript evidence concerning Immaculate Conception (which only applies to the Lord Jesus) is one of a multitude of anti-Christian doctrines.

I am not sure if you are endorsing or bemoaning this.
Is this one of the missing passages you are referring to in your topic header?

List of Totally and Partially Omitted Passages in the Modern Translations​

 

[netchaplain]

I am not sure if you are endorsing or bemoaning this.
Is this one of the missing passages you are referring to in your topic header?

List of Totally and Partially Omitted Passages in the Modern Translations​

Bemoaning the sadness that comes from immature believers, which are most Christians!

 

[crossnote]

What is the IC?

Immaculate Conception

 

[netchaplain]

Yes, I know about those things, but I was asking, 'Was the source of the IC, the texts of Scripture or Church Tradition?
Remember, she holds Church Tradition on par with Scripture.

It's their primary teaching (more than Christ), thus it is their primary doctrine; it sure isn't Scripture, so could be possibly tradition based.

 

[crossnote]

The absence of any manuscript evidence concerning Immaculate Conception (which only applies to the Lord Jesus) is one of a multitude of anti-Christian doctrines.

It's their primary teaching (more than Christ), thus it is their primary doctrine; it sure isn't Scripture, so could be possibly tradition based.

So the Papacy's primary doctrine of IC most likely isn't based on 'corrupted texts', correct?, but rather Church Tradition and the imaginations of man.

 

[netchaplain]

So the Papacy's primary doctrine of IC most likely isn't based on 'corrupted texts', correct?, but rather Church Tradition and the imaginations of man.

Yes, because there is no corrupted manuscripts or pure manuscripts that teach this doctrine. Most of the RC's doctrines are manmade.

 

[crossnote]

“As the Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity, it became necessary for him to choose which Bible he would sanction. He preferred the one edited by Eusebius and written by Origen, the outstanding intellectual figure that had combined Christianity with Gnosticism in his philosophy, even as Constantine was himself the political genius that was seeking to unite Christianity with pagan Rome.” –Which Bible, David Otis Fuller, D.D., page 195, first paragraph

This is why the Catholic religion embraces so many anti-Christian doctrines, like the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception”: “the conception of the Virgin Mary in which as decreed in Roman Catholic dogma her soul was preserved free from original sin by divine grace.” –Merriam/Webster Dictionary

Yes, because there is no corrupted manuscripts or pure manuscripts that teach this doctrine. Most of the RC's doctrines are manmade.

OK I might have assumed you were tying Constantine (1st paragraph) to the corrupted manuscripts (3rd paragraph) which led to bad doctrine.(2nd paragraph). Mea culpa ...I think.

 

[netchaplain]

OK I might have assumed you were tying Constantine (1st paragraph) to the corrupted manuscripts (3rd paragraph) which led to bad doctrine.(2nd paragraph). Mea culpa ...I think.

Constantine was evil, he was always out for his self, and he ordered 50 copies of the corrupt text to be prepared for use in the churches.

 

[Origen]

The absence of any manuscript evidence concerning Immaculate Conception is one of a multitude of anti-Christian doctrines.

I did not claim otherwise. Now you are trying to reshuffle the deck in regard to your claim concerning the manuscripts. The fact is there is NOTHING in any New Testament manuscript that support the immaculate conception as you suggested.

Immaculate Conception (which only applies to the Lord Jesus)

I prefer virgin birth, as found in the Bible.

 

[Origen]

Constantine... ...ordered 50 copies of the corrupt text to be prepared for use in the churches.

Prove it with evidence. Fuller offers ZERO evidence for his claim. He cites no sources of any kind. I see no reason to simply take his word for it. Where is the concrete proof?

 

[Origen]

Constantine chose the Eusebius/Origen Latin Bible, which finalized by Jerome, called Jerome's Latin Bible,

There is zero evidence for these claims. It never happened. If this happened where are the primary sources? Do you have any?

 

[Origen]

Yes, because there is no corrupted manuscripts or pure manuscripts that teach this doctrine. Most of the RC's doctrines are manmade.

There are no New Testament manuscript that support the immaculate conception as you suggested. There is no evidence there ever has been. Your claims are purely a fabrication.

 

[blueskies]

This is the sort of talk I get from atheists.

I’m sorry I don’t understand the reference, what do you mean?

 

[netchaplain]

There are no New Testament manuscript that support the immaculate conception as you suggested. There is no evidence there ever has been. Your claims are purely a fabrication.

I think you misunderstood me. I agree there are no manuscript evidence for Mary having been immaculately conceived like the Christ. It's their belief's that Mary was born sinless, and is why they worship her (Mariology). The majority of all the Vatican beliefs have nothing to so with faith, and is why the RC denomination is an anti-Christian religion (the Whore of Babylon - Rev 17:5).

 

[blueskies]

Atheists love to point out any and every error they can, whether correct or not, to bring the Bible and therefore Christianity into disrepute, and here we are giving them the ammunition.
.

Ah, okay.

I might suggest that it would be a rare atheist indeed who would relish following such a discussion on Biblical text history and scriptural interpretation.

Either way, I would not be alarmed, if it were so, it might be the Lord at work on such a dedicated individual.