In the newest bible the GB took out the scriptures found in the last chapter of Mark verses 9 on. They say these scriptures were added later. What they don't tell you in in the oldest bible the Septuagint the assention of Christ to heaven was also not in the book of Luke nor Mathew! So three gospels , Mark thought of being the first gospel written, lack Christ going to heaven to be with his father. So was Jesus supposed to go back to heaven it seems as though only the gospel of John thought so.
What they don't tell you what was left out of the Bible.
Hmmm interesting, wonder why they decided not to take those scriptures out. I always thought it was a given that they all recorded it.
It's true the ascension of Jesus is not in the Septuagint. But neither is any of the rest of the NT, the Septuagint being a Greek translation of the Old Testament.
But what I think what you're getting at: it's true that Mark is the earliest gospel and if the shortest version is original it doesn't show Jesus going to heaven or even being resurrected.
And while we are at it ,"what was left out of the Bible " why do the the Bibles of all the mainstream older religions ,such as the Greek Orthodox Church , The Russian Orthodox Church ,The Polish National Church ,The Roman catholic church ,and the Protestant churches ,and I`m sure their are a few others I have missed , all have different books in their Bible , some more , some less., I think you can go from about 66 books to about 89 , I stand corrected if I am wrong , but it is somewhere in that ballpark figure.
And of course not to be overlooked , their are scores more scriptures / books of the first 2 Centuries that human beings decided did not belong in the Bible .
So much for the Bible being inspired by the Almighty God , when imperfect humans decide what is the word of God or not.
Luke 24:50 - 53
50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.
Acts 1:9 - 12
9. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath day's journey.
What was left out of the bible? Well, Jesus used the septuagint, so I think that it is right that those books be included in the bible. Many protestants will assert that the catholics added books to the bible, but the truth is that many protestants took out books that they didn't like.
Book of Tobit is a good book removed from the NWT
What about this foreword:
"The Bible is a book of witchcraft intended to enslave the whole world. It is full of lies, and abiding by it will not only make you open to being enslaved, but empower those at the top (Jesuits) to enslave the whole world with your psychic power. It will also make needless hardships for yourself by following the bad advice found in this book of lies."
And Jesus went up into the sky, like pagan saviour heros do at the spring equinox... and the Bible story, just as in the pagan myth; had to end with the son going back to his Sun-god father to shine radiantly together from the heavens.........................
If I may, I became a Catholic after leaving the Jehovah's Witnesses and helped to teach RCIA classes (the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults which introduces and welcomes new adult Catholics into the Church).
From my teaching materials (which include several ecumenical volumes from Oxford):
"The oldest Bible is the Septuagint."
The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. This is not the oldest Bible collection. As a translation, the Septuagint is based on something older, the Hebrew texts themselves which make up the original collection. Older collections are found in the Qumran/Dead Sea scrolls. However, these do include the Deuterocanonical books found in the Catholic canon.
"Jesus used the Septuagint."
This doesn't seem likely. Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. The texts read in the synagogues in Second Temple Israel were composed in Hebrew (some may have been in Aramaic), and regardless of the common tongue Jews speak in for everyday conversation, historically they have been bilingual, teaching Hebrew to their children in order to read and understand the Scripture readings and prayers used in worship. The Septuagint was translated in Greek for the Diaspora, the Jews who lived and worshipped outside of Israel.
"The writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted the Septuagint."
While the Watchtower has repeatedly taught that the New Testament writers quoted from the Septuagint, Biblical philologists have demonstrated that this is unlikely, at least as a general rule. There are too many variations in the quotes used, and often it appears that the writers were often employing midrash (a Jewish teaching technique of quoting the text in specifically unique ways in order to make their arguments work out in a certain fashion). The early Church Fathers, however, did begin to use the Septuagint as their official text.
"The Septuagint was the original canon of the Old Testament."
Interestingly, Catholics and Orthodox Christians will tell you "no." Even though they accept the so-called "extra" books found therein, the idea of an official "canon" was invented by a heretic bishop named Marcion of Sinope. Influenced by Gnostic beliefs that written texts should be the basis for truth instead of theophanies or epiphanies of God, Marcion made a canon which excluded all Hebrew Books and accepted only select letters of Paul plus an oddly reduced version of Luke. In response, the Church Fathers began to develop an official canon. It would take more than 200 years, with the New Testament canon being approved in the 4th century and the Old Testament being approved at the Council of Trent about 1000 years later. Being that "canons" are a Christian invention, there has never been an "officially finalized" Jewish canon even though today Jews speak of their Tanach as a canon.
Because the Watchtower demands like Marcion that the ultimate form of revelation from God must be the written Bible, they demand the books to have been written as if this was the original plan of its authors and the communities that composed them. The Witness view can never match the historical reality of how the Bible developed and why.
Yes you guys are all right it's the Codex Sincanticus bible I was thinking of....
Vanderhoven the scriptures in Luke are not in there, but I did forget about the book of Acts. Wonder when acts was really written?
I do realize it all bullshit but it's interesting to read that maybe the original stories didn't have the Christ going to heaven.