pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
actuly the story about, let he without sin cast the first stone...should not even be in the bible..it was added later...early bibles do not have that story
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Teacher fired for conceiving child out of wedlock
- Thread starter PLC1
- Start date
actuly the story about, let he without sin cast the first stone...should not even be in the bible..it was added later...early bibles do not have that story
Werbung:
plc....
The contract did mention it. In the contract it stated that she was to follow the rules and guidelines put forth in the teacher handbook. The teacher handbook is given to the teachers each year at the school. This was information from an interview I watched with the lawyer from the school. Also, forgives does not mean a lack of punishment. When your child does something wrong, yes you forgive the child, but you also punish the child. Thus is life, you do things wrong and you get punishment. I didn't realize that the concept of peoples actions and words having consequences had become so foreign.
Pockets......
Actually it wasn't a story it was an account that took place with Jesus present....not a parable. FYI this account took place in the New Testament(John Ch. 8 I believe.), and thus like the crucifiction is not found in the original Old Testament cannons. It was not recorded in the scrolls that were put together to form the OT cannon, because it had not taken place yet. This was Jesus as an adult, there was no Jesus walking the earth in the OT just proficy of his coming birth.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Alright Couch...you kicked both their a**es in one post. Amazing how libs don't think there are any rules when dealing with sex. Of course, this fits their ideology of no consequences for one's actions. They just love doing IT anytime anywhere with anyone.
And, really funny when libs who know nothing of Christianity, Christ, or the Bible comment on them (actually they hate Christians just as Jesus said they would). Wow what a joke!!!
If the handbook specifically mentioned sex outside of wedlock, then the school probably has a good case. If not, then it's likely to be a pretty contentious in court.
After this teacher is fired, will she then be forgiven and allowed to come back, or is the punishment permanent? Are the people doing the firing without sin themselves? If not, how is it OK for them to cast the first stone? It seems to me that Christian principles have to apply to everyone.
Say, Gipper, do you ever, at any time, under any circumstances, take the partisan blinders off and look at the facts of a situation, or is the whole world black and white, liberal and conservative, with no colors or even shades of gray? My world is three dimensional, and full of nuances of color.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Yeah that is evident THC1. Toke one up for me!
What's the matter, can't you toke up your own?
There is a difference between advocating the end of a failed government program like the war on drugs and actually being into ingesting mind altering substances oneself.
But, then, libs love failed government programs, correct?
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Its a story, that while in the NT that you read today...was not in the New Testament at all when it was written ...that is what I am saying...when the first New Testament was written, all copies where copied by hand...and people ( screwed up, changed on accident, changed on purpose, mistranslated...)...this story shows up in the new testament quite a while after it was first written...
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
So you do live in a 2D black and white world....explains sooo much
Please do share your source for this information. Took 2 different NT classes in college and never once have heard what your claiming. Not to mention the years of attendance at a private christian school.
Pandora
Well-Known Member
Actually, he is right. The oldest "known" text does not have that story, it started appearing much later.
Some people like Pocket think it was never there to start with since it is not in our oldest copy but it could be that it was in older copies that were destroyed, warn out exc. and it was looked over by mistake or some other reason during the oldest known copies we have. Oral tradition would have remembered the story and brought it back. I honestly can not remember where I learned this from but a few years back I was big into studying the history of scripture and I did learn this also. Its always brought up by atheists who want to disprove the bible.
I hate it when I agree with Pocket
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Actually, he is right. The oldest "known" text does not have that story, it started appearing much later.
Some people like Pocket think it was never there to start with since it is not in our oldest copy but it could be that it was in older copies that were destroyed, warn out exc. and it was looked over by mistake or some other reason during the oldest known copies we have. Oral tradition would have remembered the story and brought it back. I honestly can not remember where I learned this from but a few years back I was big into studying the history of scripture and I did learn this also. Its always brought up by atheists who want to disprove the bible.
I hate it when I agree with Pocket
whats funny is that if you really look at the changes made to the bible, and how it was altered over time, you actually can fix some of the errors that someone may use to disprove it..like why Luke says one thing..and the same story told by Mark....is completely different...One way to look at is it say, its proof its all worthless drivel...the other is to see that man changed the meaning and words of one story, to meet there own viewpoints....and thus why the stories them self do not match up. But it also shows why those who try to take very literal takes of the bible...should know that the words they take litterly...are often now what was written 2000 years ago...but maybe what they where changed to 1700 years ago 1500 years ago...or at some other point. its why if you have different versions of the bible...and scholars can actually trace back the changes to different branches of translations...
Then again I am not a christian...so why should I have to point out these things Christians...I mean they devote there live to it, and use it to condemn others...I am sure they must know these things..
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
you think they want to teach you that everything your reading...could and often is not what was written originally?
you ever played telephone? now picture that game, for hundreds of years,...being written and translated....by countless people who have there own views , viewpoints, and flaws in reading and translating...Even simple things like punctuation that we use, not really in place in the written languages...Someone makes a error...someone finds error, fixes error...someone fixes error wrong....someone fixes what they think must be a error...but is now...someone does not agree with something they are asked to translate and write...they change it, make it agreeable to them....the times change and politically something written is not convenient ...it gets changed. There is not printing press, its all by hand...often times with very few around who can read and write , so no one to question its correctness...
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Actually, he is right. The oldest "known" text does not have that story, it started appearing much later.
Some people like Pocket think it was never there to start with since it is not in our oldest copy but it could be that it was in older copies that were destroyed, warn out exc. and it was looked over by mistake or some other reason during the oldest known copies we have. Oral tradition would have remembered the story and brought it back. I honestly can not remember where I learned this from but a few years back I was big into studying the history of scripture and I did learn this also. Its always brought up by atheists who want to disprove the bible.
I hate it when I agree with Pocket
when a story is not in copy's for hundreds of years, and then show up one day...its more likely if was just added then forgotten for 300 years and someone was just like hey wait we forgot this....is it possible sure, but likely? no...also its just one of many errors and changes to the book
http://www.carm.org/manuscript-evidence
Also this is referred to in the Latin as Pericope Adulterae:
The pericope is not found in its canonical place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the late 4th or early 5th century. Papias (circa AD 125) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which may well refer to this passage; there is a very certain quotation of the pericope adulterae in the 3rd Century Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum; though without indicating John's Gospel. The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book II.24 refers to the passage “And when the elders had set another woman who had sinned before Him, and had left the sentence to Him, and were gone out, our Lord, the Searcher of the hearts, inquiring of her whether the elders had condemned her, and being answered No, He said unto her: “Go thy way therefore, for neither do I condemn thee.” Book II is generally dated to the late third century (Von Drey, Krabbe, Bunsen, Funk). Codex Fuldensis, which is positively dated to AD 546 contains the adulterae pericope. The Second Epistle of Pope Callistus section 6 contains a quote that may be from John 8:11 - "Let him see to it that he sin no more, that the sentence of the Gospel may abide in him: “Go, and sin no more.”" However the epistle quotes from eighth century writings and is not thought to be genuine.
Until recently, it was not thought that any Greek Church Father had taken note of the passage before the 12th Century; but in 1941 a large collection of the writings of Didymus the Blind (ca. 313- 398) was discovered in Egypt, including a reference to the pericope adulterae as being found in "several copies"; and it is now considered established that this passage was present in its canonical place in many Greek manuscripts known in Alexandria and elsewhere from the 4th Century onwards. In support of this it is noted that the 4th century Codex Vaticanus, which was written in Egypt, marks the end of John chapter 7 with an "umlaut", indicating that an alternative reading was known at this point. Jerome reports that the pericope adulterae was to be found in its canonical place in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the Latin West in the late 4th Century. This is confirmed by the consensus of Latin Fathers of the 4th and 5th Centuries CE; including Ambrose, and Augustine. The latter claimed that the passage may have been improperly excluded from some manuscripts in order to avoid the impression that Christ had sanctioned adultery: "Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin."
As for the different accounts in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John it's not that they are different in facts, but rather in details that one noticed over the other. This is 4 different vantage points, even in the the earliest canonical writings they do not differ in validity but just in the 4 different ways of noticing details. You will find that John (the beloved) and Luke (doctor) were far more detailed than Matthew or Mark.
Also this is referred to in the Latin as Pericope Adulterae:
The pericope is not found in its canonical place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the late 4th or early 5th century. Papias (circa AD 125) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which may well refer to this passage; there is a very certain quotation of the pericope adulterae in the 3rd Century Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum; though without indicating John's Gospel. The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book II.24 refers to the passage “And when the elders had set another woman who had sinned before Him, and had left the sentence to Him, and were gone out, our Lord, the Searcher of the hearts, inquiring of her whether the elders had condemned her, and being answered No, He said unto her: “Go thy way therefore, for neither do I condemn thee.” Book II is generally dated to the late third century (Von Drey, Krabbe, Bunsen, Funk). Codex Fuldensis, which is positively dated to AD 546 contains the adulterae pericope. The Second Epistle of Pope Callistus section 6 contains a quote that may be from John 8:11 - "Let him see to it that he sin no more, that the sentence of the Gospel may abide in him: “Go, and sin no more.”" However the epistle quotes from eighth century writings and is not thought to be genuine.
Until recently, it was not thought that any Greek Church Father had taken note of the passage before the 12th Century; but in 1941 a large collection of the writings of Didymus the Blind (ca. 313- 398) was discovered in Egypt, including a reference to the pericope adulterae as being found in "several copies"; and it is now considered established that this passage was present in its canonical place in many Greek manuscripts known in Alexandria and elsewhere from the 4th Century onwards. In support of this it is noted that the 4th century Codex Vaticanus, which was written in Egypt, marks the end of John chapter 7 with an "umlaut", indicating that an alternative reading was known at this point. Jerome reports that the pericope adulterae was to be found in its canonical place in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the Latin West in the late 4th Century. This is confirmed by the consensus of Latin Fathers of the 4th and 5th Centuries CE; including Ambrose, and Augustine. The latter claimed that the passage may have been improperly excluded from some manuscripts in order to avoid the impression that Christ had sanctioned adultery: "Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin."
As for the different accounts in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John it's not that they are different in facts, but rather in details that one noticed over the other. This is 4 different vantage points, even in the the earliest canonical writings they do not differ in validity but just in the 4 different ways of noticing details. You will find that John (the beloved) and Luke (doctor) were far more detailed than Matthew or Mark.
Werbung:
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Thank you Coach. That is very good.
Christian haters love to point out minor discrepancies in the historical record to denigrate the faith, Jesus, and all Christians. They are most intolerant of anyone who believes other than of course, Muslims. They are afraid of them so they never criticize them.
Similar threads
