AlexanderJ

I don't think that your statement "Everything after "bear record" found in no Greek manuscript before the 14th century" is wholly accurate. I quote from an article from https://www.chick.co...les/1john57.asp 1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause. It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this: The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all. The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment. 1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts. So why then is 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible, but not in many of the existing Greek manuscripts? To understand the answer, we must look at the history of what happened shortly after the Bible was written. During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal. The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught. But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles. But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse: 200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas 250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin) 350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.] 350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.] 350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione 398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism 415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ) 450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are: A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven" B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.] C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.] 500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.] 550 AD Old Latin ms r has it 550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.] 750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it 800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [it was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.] 1000s AD miniscule 635 has it 1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin 1300s AD miniscule 629 has it 157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse 1500 AD ms 61 has the verse Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

Additionally, the doctrines of Lordship Salvation tend to shift the focus from salvation and sanctification from being primarily the works of God, to being primarily the works of man and only secondarily of God. It's all about Me - Memaking Christ Lord in my life, My repentance, My works. Christ is Lord of every believer's life by position. This cannot be changed. When I believe, God makes me his son, and whether I am obeying him or not he is always my Father and my Lord.

The word "Repentance" is the Greek "Meta-noia". The first part of the word "Meta" is a preposition which, according to Strong's, can denote (and I quote) "(Meta)used in composition, in substantially the same relations of participation or proximity, and transfer or sequence." The second part of the word, "Noia", is the Greek word for mind. So, etymologically, the word "repentance" simply means a change of mind, a transfer from one mental state to another. Proponents of Lordship salvation have propounded that repentance also entails turning from one's sins. I believe that this is an error. They are mistaking the meaning of repentance for what will naturally follow it. They are confusing the means with the ends. This confusion can cause much turmoil in the hearts of believers, because every time they sin they are wondering whether their repentance was genuine or not. Sanctification (when God brings a believer's life and practical walk closer to himself and farther away from Sin) is a gradual, ongoing process, which is culminated with our resurrection and glorification - but salvation is instantaneous. Those who hold to the position of lordship salvation confuse sanctification with salvation and vice versa.

The reason there is so much disagreement on matters spiritual is because of the inability of the human mind to fully comprehend the eternal. We are looking through a darkened glass; we cannot see clearly until the glass has been removed. It's good to debate and discuss as long as we keep this in mind. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 1 Corinthians 13:12 I think that we will all be supprised at how many things we got wrong on earth after we get to Heaven.

Being spiritually dead does not mean that you cannot choose right, it simply means that you are separated from God, who is the source of positive spiritual life. This does it mean that an unbeliever cannot do good. It simply means that an unbeliever cannot do good that will earn him the union with God. It is not doing good that unites us with God, it is believing (choosing) Him.

Ok, just a little final question and then I will leave it at that. If spiritual death is the separation from the source of positive spiritual life, how can a spiritual dead be in the position to recognize and accept Christ as Saviour, assuming that He comes from a positive spiritual life's source. Either there is a wall between this reality and the spirit or there isn't. If there is, then recognizing Jesus is as plausible as seeing colors when you are blind. If there isn't, then you are not spiritual dead to start with. Ciao - viole We would not be able to recognise or choose good had not God placed in us the ability to do so. This ability is called the "Knowledge of Good and Evil". As I said before, I don't know where this ability lies, whether in the soul, body, or spirit. The ability to recognise and choose the thing is not the thing itself. This ability is not Good or Bad; it is neutral, because a person can use the same ability to choose either Good or Bad. Even though you are spiritually dead, you can choose God because he has given you the means (or as I put it before "the key").

"Spiritual death" is being seperated from the source of positive spiritual life - God. Our spirit, before being animated by the positive energizing influence of God, was animated by the world and the Enemy. However, God has placed in us the ability to choose between good and evil (in other words, the knowledge of good and evil see Genesis 2:16-3:23). I don't know whether he placed this ability in our spirit, or if he placed it in our physical mind or in our soul - but I don't think that this is important. What is important, is that we have been given the key to the door of God's spiritual realm through this knowledge. When we believe in Him, he brings us into His world little by little until: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ... (Heaven) Ephesians 4:13 If you choose the other way (evil), you will be influenced by the Enemy, who is also spiritual, but who, unlike God, is evil. He will, if a person allows him, to bring him into his world little by little and change the person's world and life into Hell.

How can they accept Christ as their saviour if they are spiritually dead? There must be a phase in which they are not dead but have not accepted Christ as their saviour, yet. Which seems to indicate that you do not really need to accept Christ as your savious to come back to life so that you can accept Him. Ciao - viole The term "spiritually dead" does not mean that the spirit is literally dead (in the physical, human sense). Spirits, of course, are immortal - they cannot die (in the literal sense) for any reason. "Death" (in the physical, human sense) is when an animate being transitions into an inanimate object. What we have in the term "spiritually dead" is the physical being used to describe the spiritual. Therefore, there appears a slight inconsistency in the terms. However, I think that this can be reconciled. When we say that a battery is dead, we don't mean that it is dies in the same way that a human dies - because a battery cannot "die" in the same way that a human or an animal dies - it is inanimate. When we say that a battery is dead, we mean that it cannot work in the way that it is intended to, because the energy necessary for it to do so has either been depleted or because it (the battery) was never there in the first place (if it was never charged). In the same way, we as humans are spiritually dead. Our spirits are alive (in the same way that a battery exists) but cannot perform their intended functions because they are not "charged". When we choose to believe in God, He "charges" or to put it the way He puts it "quickens" our spirits.

Silviawang, have you read the book "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel? If not, I would recomend it strongly. It has helped me greatly in laying to rest many doubts I have had about God and the Bible.

Salvation is not "all about the soul". Our bodies, souls, and spirits all need to be saved and sanctified because they have all been tainted by sin. And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians 5:23 The spirit can be saved: ....that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1 Corinthians 5:5 The body must be saved: ...Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Ephesians 5:23 (See also, Romans 8:23, Philippians 3:21) The soul must be saved: But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. Hebrews 10:39 Salvation is triune, just as God is triune. To say that one facet of salvation is more important than another would be like saying that a certain member of the Godhead is more important than another. An interesting thing to note is that our present body, is as Paul puts it, "soulish", and that our ressurected self will be "spiritual" implying that while our present body is dominated by our soul, our ressurected body will be dominated by our spirit. 1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural (Gr. psuchetikon, or "soulish") body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural (again, Gr. psuchetikon, or "soulish"); and afterward that which is spiritual.

In the first verse, the Jews were asking John the Baptist if he was the person Elias himself come back to life. John the Baptist was denying that he was the same person as Elias. Even though John the Baptist was not Elias ressurected, he was we would call a "modern day version of Elijah". He did the same thing that Elijah did (he attempted to bring Israel back to God). John the Baptist was a second Elijah and Jesus was teaching that the one of whom Malachi the prophet spoke had already come. Malachi was speaking symbolically, not literally: Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. Let me give an example. If I say (hypothetically, of course) that "George Washington will return", I could mean one of two things. I could be speaking literally, saying that George Washington will rise from the dead and come back to lead the United States, in which case I should be immediately referred to the nearest psychiatric hospital - Or, I could be speaking symbolically, saying that a man will come in the same "spirit" if you will, of George Washington, returning America to its founding principles. He would accomplish (or seek to accomplish) the same ends as George Washington without being the same person. In other words, we might say that he would be the "second" or "modern day" George Washington. It is in the same sense that Jesus spoke when he said that Elias had returned.

Could you elaborate a little?

...who is a rock save our God? Psalms 18:31 Not everything in the Bible should be taken literally. For example, God is not a literal "rock". "Rock" is simply a symbolic metaphor signifying trustworthiness and strength.

Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. Proverbs 31:10

Lots of heat is being generated; but not much light.

The Holy Spirit wouldn't be worth having if he could be cast out by a mortal nor would our God wouldn't be worth believing in if he could be thwarted by a man. The Holy Spirit became the seal of the believer after the Day of Pentacost and it will not leave the believer for any reason - it has been placed there by an omnipotent God. ...the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Ephesians 4:30 (For the record this verse: "Psa 51:11 Do not cast me out from Your presence, and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me." was written before the Holy Spirit was established as the mark and seal of a believer)

I admit, this one could be a bit of a stretch (I had reread it and removed it before you posted), but I was assuming that the Spirit works in conjunction with our Spirit in our hearts. Forgive my carelessness, this is what happens when one talks in circles for pages and pages. Our Spirit is within us - it is not in Heaven. Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God... For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 1 Corinthians 2:11 As regards to the rest, I do know what the Scripture is saying - do you?

So if our Spirits leave our bodies directly to go to God, why does Solomon say that our Spirits travel to him at the moment of physical death? Ecclesiastes 12:6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. And why does Paul say that the Spirit may be "saved in the day of Christ" if it is ressurected ? To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1 Corinthians 5:5 Why would Paul bother stating that women should care that their Spirits be holy if their Spirits are ressurected and in heaven? There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 1 Corinthians 7:34 How could our spirit be troubled if it is ressurected? That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 2 Thessalonians 2:2 James states that the body without the spirit is dead? How is it that we are still alive physically if our spirit is in Heaven and not with the body? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:26 I could go on and on....

Why would a spirit need to be ressurected? Spirits don't die! You can't ressurect something that is alive - it would contradict the definition of ressurection.

Good point. Spirits are immortal - why on earth would they need to be ressurected? It is the body that must be ressurected and glorified.

Ay ay ay....

Please forgive the long length of the following post. I try to avoid writing "books" because they often dilute the importance of the point discussed and are tiresome to read. However, I cannot make "short and sweet" explanations/refutations of the points you have raised due to their level of difficulty. I fail to see how that when a person is placed in a position of authority that it makes those beneath that person's authority inferior in a negative way. I am beneath the authority of the President of the United States. Does that mean that in some way I am inferior to him as a human being? Of course not! God placed man in authority over the Family. Everyone (not only the wife and daughters, but the sons also) in the Family is under the subjection of the Father, and the human Father is directly under the authority of God. There must be authority and structure in the government of a family or anarchy will ensue. You may say that since God insists that the man be the head of the family, that he is promoting sexism. This is not correct. God created man, and he knows man's capacity much better than man knows it himself. God determined that it is best for man to be placed in authority, not woman. Men and women are equal, but have different roles in the same way that I am equal to the President of the United States but we have different roles. If I and the President have a disagreement on whether or not to implement a law, someone will have to be overuled - me. To have it any other way would produce anarchy or a division in the nation. It works the same in the family. In the previous paragraphs I have been speaking of the family. In the family and in the Church, the man is the head/leader by default. However, the Bible never says that a woman cannot ever be in other aspects of leadership. A mother has leadership over her male and female children, and in certain cases, a woman can lead a country (Read the story of Deborah in Judges 4:1-24). My point is that the Bible does not teach that women are intrinsically inferior to men, nor does it ignore or refuse to address the problems that can arise from a sexist culture. Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. This is not slavery especially not in the the negative sense that you put it, and nowhere in the text does it state that the young woman "...gets no say in this matter...". It is an ancient Hebrew betrothal and is not slavery. This custom, though it would not be considered proper today, is not morally wrong or sexist. The Hebrew term "sell" does always have the same connotations as the English which usually simply denotes selling one's own property for money. It is a form of betrothal, and the party recieving the young woman had to pay a price according to the custom. She had rights, (quite a few) which becomes quite clear when one reads the entire text. It is a different culture, no doubt, but it is not morally wrong. Leviticus 27:1 ¶And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation. 3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. 4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. 5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. 6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. 7 And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. Monetary worth is not intrinsic worth - anyone should know that. Besides, we are not talking about selling people, we are talking about vows. Why the men were worth more in monetary value than the woman in regard to vows, I can only guess. My guess is that it is because the men had more money and a greater ability to make money in that culture. To say that because the men were worth more than the women monetarily dictates that this also applies in the aspect of equality and intrinsic value would be the same as saying that I am intrinsically inferior as a person to Bill Gates because he is worth 66 billion and I am worth 1000 dollars. On this particular subect, I confess that am woefully ignorant. I would ask one of the Hebrew members of WCF to comment on this, because I do not possess sufficient knowlege of Hebrew euphenisms and their connotations to present a cogent answer. You spoke of treating the Bible as a whole. On the whole, the Bible supports women in a positive and Godly way. If we interpret the more difficult verses in the light of the many clear verses which deal with the relationship between men and women, the task of reconciling opposing verses or ideas in Scripture becomes much easier. God is usually quite clear in showing his views on equality between men and women. As I said before "Telling husbands to love their wives as they love their own bodies was a revolutionary concept in that age. Jesus' association with women, such as the Samaritan woman (John 4:1-43), the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery (John 8:3-11), and his relationships with Mary Magdalene and many other women in the NT, were in polar opposition to the Jewish teachings and ideas of the day....Another concept which radically opposed the Eastern mindset concerning women was the Pauline teaching of all believers' oneness in Christ"

On the contrary, God did say that (that he is against sexism), both in deed and word. Telling husbands to love their wives as they love their own bodies was a revolutionary concept in that age. Jesus' association with women, such as the Samaritan woman (John 4:1-43), the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery (John 8:3-11), and his relationships with Mary Magdalene and many other women in the NT, were in polar opposition to the Jewish teachings and ideas of the day. Yet men are allowed to sell their wives and daughters as property. If you want to talk about the progression of God's revelation throughout the Scriptures, and how the NT negotiates and negates some ideas in the OT, that could be a great conversation. But, if you're going to talk about the Scriptures as a whole, then, based upon most OT treatment of women, I can come to no other conclusion than that it promotes sexism. First of all, you said " to say so 2,000 years ago would have made no sense" which led me to the logical conclusion that you were primarily addressing issues in the NT, since most of the books in the NT were written around 2000 years ago. The books of the OT are much older than that. I'm not going to negate the accuracy of your statement (it may very well be true): "Yet men are allowed to sell their wives and daughters as property..." but I would appreciate if you could provide textual evidence that supports your claim so that I know exactly what you are referring to. On the whole, I can say that my personal experience in studying the OT has been that it is not sexist.

Yes. Just because Paul teaches that the roles of men and women are different does not mean that his teaching is sexist.