[Ironrage]

Leizel kaže:

Ne igraj se sa onim o čemu pojma nemaš, i ne otvaraj vrata kroz koja nisi spreman da prođeš. Postavi svoje dokaze o ovim tvrdnjama, ili izbjegavaj ovakve komentare!! Ovo sam ti rekla i ranije, ali nesjećaš se.

To što sam napisao zna svatko kojemu je posao da istražuje novi zavjet, spise, itd. Ako ti ne znaš o tim stvarima onda upravo ti nemaš pojma o čemu govoriš...

Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, appears to be a later addition to the gospel. Mark 16:8 stops at a description of the empty tomb, which is immediately preceded by a statement by a "young man dressed in a white robe" that Jesus is "risen" and is "going ahead of you into Galilee." The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel. The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:8, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. Possibly, the Long Ending (16:9–20) started as a summary of evidence for Jesus' resurrection and the apostles' divine mission, based on other gospels. It was likely composed early in the 2nd century and incorporated into the gospel around the middle of the 2nd century.

The 3rd-century theologian Origen of Alexandria quoted the resurrection stories in Matthew, Luke, and John, but failed to quote anything after Mark 16:8, suggesting that his copy of Mark stopped there. Eusebius and Jerome both mention the majority of texts available to them omitted the longer ending. Critics are divided over whether the original ending at 16:8 was intentional, whether it resulted from accidental loss, or even the author's death. Those who believe that 16:8 was not the intended ending argue that it would be very unusual syntax for the text to end with the conjunction gar (γάρ), as does Mark 16:8, and that thematically it would be strange for a book of good news to end with a note of fear (ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ, "for they were afraid"). If the 16:8 ending was intentional, it could indicate a connection to the theme of the "Messianic Secret". This abrupt ending is also used to support the identification of this book as an example of closet drama, which characteristically ended without resolution and often with a tragic or shocking event that prevents closure.

______________

...

This prologue is intended to identify Jesus as the eternal Word (Logos) of God. Thus John asserts Jesus' innate superiority over all divine messengers, whether angels or prophets. Here John adapts the doctrine of the Logos, God's creative principle, from Philo, a 1st-century Hellenized Jew.

Philo had adopted the term Logos from Greek philosophy, using it in place of the Hebrew concept of Wisdom (sophia) as the intermediary (angel) between the transcendent Creator and the material world. Some scholars argue that the prologue was taken over from an existing hymn and added at a later stage in the gospel's composition.

_______________

The chapter John 21 in the Bible contains an account of the post-Resurrection appearance in Galilee, which the text describes as the third time Jesus had appeared to his disciples. In the course of this chapter, there is a miraculous catch of 153 fish, the confirmation of Peter's love for Jesus, a foretelling of Peter's death in old age, and a comment about John's future. Some New Testament historians assert that it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of John.

In an essay, contributed on behalf of scholars unconvinced of any decisive sense of "originality" to John 21 (published in 2007), Felix Just wrote: "We (unfortunately!) do not possess any ancient manuscript of John that actually ends at 20:31." In other words, ancient manuscripts that contain the end of John 20 also contain text from John 21. So if John 21 is an addition, it was so early (which is not in doubt: part of John 21 appears in P66) and so widespread, that no evidence of the prior form has survived. This should however be balanced against the tendency for the first and last pages of codices to be lost: there are just four papyrus witnesses to John 20-21, only three of which date from the 4th Century or earlier.

However, in 2006 one 4th century Sahidic papyrus manuscript (Bodleian MS. Copt.e.150(P)) came to light that may end at 20:31. One side of this single-leaf fragment consists of John 20:30-31 with a large space under it, having no subscription.

_______________

John 5:7 is the clearest verse in the Bible regarding the Holy Trinity, yet it is missing in many modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV and Jehovah witness versions.

Those who say this verse is not part of Holy Scripture will often say it is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts and for this reason it should not be included in the Bible.

It is true that the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are not found in the majority of remaining Greek manuscripts that exist today....

_______________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_a...en_in_adultery Imaš pod 'Textual history' i 'History of textual criticism on John 7:53-8:11' pa čitaj.

Imaš na početku ovog videa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg-dJA3SnTA od strane Barta Ehrmana ponešto o tome što se za sada zna o tome što je originalno bilo u novom zavjetu, a što nije. (od 23:40 nadalje)

Jel trebaš još dokaza? premda ne znam šta bi tu bilo čudno, to što sam napisao se zna več godinama.

O starom zavjetu nemam šta dokazivati, vjerujem da bi se večina koja objektivno gleda na stvari složila samnom. To što piše tamo se kosi samo po sebi sa svime što znamo o tome kako je svemir nastao (sigurno ne u 6 dana) i o tome kako su ljudi nastali (ništa od adama i eve - evolucija).

A što se tiće toga da Isusov bog Otac nije starozavjetni bog Jahve, da, točno. Usporedi sve njegove izjave o Ocu iz četvrtog evanđelja sa opisima boga kakav je opisan u istočnjačkim Upanishadama i primjetila budeš da se savršeno poklapaju. Makar ima još tekstova koji imaju neke izjave koje se poklapaju sa time što tamo piše, ali te izjave dolaze iz nekoja evanđelja koja nisu postala dio prihvačenog novog zavjeta. Makar zbog starosti (jednako su stari kao i ostala glavna evanđelja, više-manje) su legit. Posebno mislim na Evanđelje po tomi: http://www.rationalresponders.com/wh...spel_of_thomas

Ali to je jedna čist druga prića. Očito je da je dosta učio ljude na temelju nekih stvari iz starog zavjeta pa su ljudi vjerojatno zadržali svoju vjeru i prihvatili Isusa, a dalje je sve krenulo tako kako je.. komplicirano je sve to. I to jako. Ali se zato barem o nekojim stvarima može saznati što je točno a što ne.