Featured The Virgin Conception in The Gospel of John

OK, what books on Textual Criticism did Zahn write? Or Harnack? Not even talking about church fathers but only the past 500 years.

Seems the one with "great ignorance" on these matters can't answer the simple questions posted about textual critics or Greek NT editions of the past 500 years. Why is that?

 

I have a question.

Is this all about eating Jesus Body in The Lord's Supper, and having it actually be Him?


Christ’s Real body Not in the Eucharist
By John Wyclif (1324-1384)

Editor’s Note: The reader will note that Wyclif does not quote the KJV, for there was no KJV in the 1300s. The Wyclif version is older than the KJV. The wise observer will note that while the words are not exactly the same, the sense is the same as in the KJV. Please note that John Wyclif believed in “wine” in the Lord's Supper. He wrote before the days of prohibition.

p. 121
“This is my body” (Matthew 26:26). Now understand ye the words of our Savior Christ, as He spake them one after another - as Christ spake them. For He took bread and blest, and yet what blest He? The Scripture saith not that Christ took the bread and blest it, or that He blest the bread which He had taken. Therefore it seemeth more that He blest His disciples and apostles, whom He had ordained witnesses of His passion; and in them He left His blest word, which is the bread of life, as it is written, “Not only in bread liveth man, but in every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Also Christ saith, “I am the bread of life that came down from heaven.” And Christ saith also in John, “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Therefore it seemeth more that He blest His disciples, and also hisp. 122
apostles, in whom the bread of life was left more than in material bread, for the material bread hath an end. As it is written in the Gospel of Matthew 15: that Christ said, “All things that a man eateth go down into the belly, and are sent down into the draught;” but the blessing of Christ kept His disciples and apostles, both bodily and (ghostly) spiritual. As it is written, that none of them perished but the son of perdition, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, and often the Scripture saith that Jesus took bread and brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, “Take ye, eat ye, this is my body that shall be given for you.” But He said not this bread is my body, or that bread should be given for the life of the world. For Christ saith, What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before? “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.” Also Christ saith in the Gospel, “Verily, verily I say unto you except the wheat corn fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone, but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit.”

===========
[From Milburn Cockrell, Editor, The Berea Baptist Banner newspaper, July 5, 2001, pp. 121-122, 124-125. Scanned and formatted by Jim Duvall.]

 

What complete nonsense are claiming is being made?

 

I say the OP.

I say adding 'Jesus' into this Passage, as the One Who was Born, etc., is complete nonsense.

Greek or no misapplied incorrect bad copy Greek.

11 He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.

12 But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name;

13 Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.

Not:

11 He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.

12 But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name;

13 IT WAS JESUS Who was born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.

 

textural study your little person with the devil down any road you want.

it does not matter to me.

btw

what, in The Name of God, are you trying to prove?

Nothing?

 

John here completes his train of thought in regards to those who are now saved, and then turns back to focus on Jesus Himself!

 

ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.

No reason to go crazy, other than an unfortunate distraction from the Evil One that doesn't require too much time.

Below Manusia nothingness to suggest.

If some of those 'Church Fathers' only had a copy or Bible version of, "ἐγεννήθη", their near guess, Godlywise, may have been the, "The Virgin Birth", Doctrine, for John 1:13,

That Could be Avoiding the following Language, from God, in John 1:13: "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13), to PERTAIN to SAVED SOULS.

In context, as Yeshua says.

This verse is reinnervated, recapitalized, re-visited, afterward, in John 1:13.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name;

Then:

13; Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 1:12 is reinnervated, recapitalized, re-visited, here, in John 1:13.

IF SO: "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

IS GOD TALKING ABOUT, "MEN DO NOT CHOOSE TO ELECT OR CHOOSE, OR "HAVE FAITH", BEFORE GOD FLICKED THE HOLY SPIRIT INTO THEIR SPIRITUALLY DEAD SOUL and GAVE HIS LIGHT and LIFE( THE DIVINE NATURE) ....toooooo them.

Would a Teaching from God be DISPISED by the flesh of man and motivate this canard?

This is not about The Lord's Support or The Virgin Birth; it is about the denial of Human Depravity.