here is a short post I made about the Textus Receptus in another forum.
o my understanding, and I can't give sources off the top of my head, there are four different text groups which manuscripts and fragments are sorted into.
These are
Byzantine
Syriac
Western
and I believe that last one is the Coptic group
These are divided according to where the texts were found. There are 5000 some manuscripts (which I believe refers to a text containing at least a chapter of scripture) and another 20,000 some fragments (which contain a verse or passage).
The problem most scholars have with the Textus Receptus is that it uses only the Byzantine text group (which I believe contains about 30-40% of manuscripts and fragments, could be wrong about that though) and ignores the rest. The two other problems are that it was compiled in a hurry, its author Origen was in competition with another author to produce the text, and that its author was, in some of his beliefs, close to heresy.
Another problem with it is that it is old, we have found a large number of manuscripts and fragments that Origen simply didn't have access too. All of this together leads many modern scholars to discount the Majority Text as fully authoritative, though still very useful for comparison in textual criticism. Many modern scholars use either the Wescott and Hort text or the Nestle Aland text because they have access to a great many more sources then what are present in the Textus Receptus.
Fury, I think you are assuming facts not in evidence. No where in scripture are we told that Timothy was in Ephesus temporarily. While this might have been the case there is no evidence either way. In fact in scripture the only person who follows the model which you described was Paul, who was predominantly a missionary and church planter. We do not see any of the apostles following this model, nor do we see Timothy or Titus following this model.
While I agree that the idea of a single pastor running a church is not the scriptural model what you have suggested is even farther from being the scriptural model.
When we look at scripture we see; in the Jerusalem church in Acts, as well as in Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus; that the model for a church is that it is to be served by a board of Elders/Pastors/Bishops/Overseers (all of which are used to describe the same position) who are to be Godly men, elder Christians who have been educated in the word. They are not to be new Christians, nor are they to be backslidden or ungodly, nor are they to be men who simply picked up the bible and started teaching. They are also to be supported by the church. While they are not to be greedy or eager for unjust gain your idea that Pastors should be paupers begging from the tithe plate does injustice both to those who preach the word and the word that they preach.
GAHH I hate MMORPG's they are destroying descent role-playing games and they drink the life and money out of the people who get drawn into them. MMORPG's are evil incarnate!
Ok...so that was a little too strong...I just really don't like them.
I agree that the wink effectively expresses physical attraction. I usually only wink at girls who I find attractive but after reading their profiles I don't feel any real connection with. I look at it kind of like saying, 'hey, you got some good things going for you and I wanted to let you know that even though I'm not the one.'
I love to cook and I'm very good at it so if I wind up with a woman who doesn't know how to cook I'll probably just wind up teaching her...although until she gets the hang of it she's not allowed in the kitchen without my supervision...I can get picky about things like burnt out pots and grease fires.
No, I don't think that is inappropriate. Since this is a dating site I am always careful to qualify my responses when I am not attracted to, or interested in, a person by saying that while I would enjoy chatting with a getting to know them as a friend I do not see it going any further than that.
I have to say that I find this discussion interesting. A lot of good things have been said and the attitude seems to be right on. Personally I believe that one should look for the right Church, not the right denomination. Every denomination has some churches that are dead and some that are right on and some that are just confused. Personally I tend to fit in best at baptist churches, just where I'm comfortable, I don't like the formality of the high church denominations. However if you find a good church, who cares what denomination it happens to belong to, as long as it is teaching truth?
On the subject of the sabbath I will point out that the 4th commandment is the only one not repeated by Christ in the gospels. It was also originally on saturday and we are given freedom from the mosaic law in Christ. We are now followers of the Law of Grace which is the true law.
However you also have the position of the apostles in Act where they turned away any duties that removed from them the necessary time to study, spend time with God, and teach the word.
Yes Paul was a tentmaker but he was also not what one would call either a pastor or an elder. Paul traveled a great deal planting new churches in cities unreached by the word. He was a tentmaker because he did not wish to burden these new churches with his support.
Modern church planters often hold secular jobs or get support from other organizations while they are planting their churches for the same reason.
On top of this you have three terms in the New Testament 'elder', 'bishop', and 'supervisor' that are all (arguably) refering to the same position of leadership in the church. And when Paul told Timothy to appoint several elders it seems fairly clear that these elders were to be under him in authority.
Abusers tend to act out of a need to demonstrate their power and control over another person. This is, usually, because they have very low self-esteem and feel the need to 'prove' their strength/power to themselves and abuse is an easy way to do that.
