Christians, would you buy this NT?

[watchamadoodle]

GC, I don't agree with your explanation of Matthew 18:15-20 vs. Matthew 18:21-22, but thanks for answering.

[Godscreated]

GC, I don't agree with your explanation of Matthew 18:15-20 vs. Matthew 18:21-22, but thanks for answering.

Can I ask why you disagree?

GC

[watchamadoodle]

GC, I don't agree with your explanation of Matthew 18:15-20 vs. Matthew 18:21-22, but thanks for answering.

Can I ask why you disagree?

My understanding is that early Christians expected the Parousia/Kingdom of Heaven within their lifetimes. One of Paul's letters addresses concerns that Christians who die beforehand would not enjoy the Kingdom of Heaven. The practical concerns of running an human church don't belong. So that alone should make a person suspicious about Matthew 18:21-22 IMO. (I actually became suspicious of those verses when I was a teenager. It didn't sound like Jesus to me.)

Also I have a lot of respect for Geza Vermes, and I was quoting his book. Here is some info on Vermes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9za_Vermes

[Godscreated]

Can I ask why you disagree?

My understanding is that early Christians expected the Parousia/Kingdom of Heaven within their lifetimes. One of Paul's letters addresses concerns that Christians who die beforehand would not enjoy the Kingdom of Heaven. The practical concerns of running an human church don't belong. So that alone should make a person suspicious about Matthew 18:21-22 IMO. (I actually became suspicious of those verses when I was a teenager. It didn't sound like Jesus to me.)

Also I have a lot of respect for Geza Vermes, and I was quoting his book. Here is some info on Vermes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9za_Vermes

Paul mistakenly though the Kingdom to come soon, but saw he was wrong. Paul also spoke many times of the resurrection of the dead. The present kingdom is the church, the church is Christ bride and all this is in the NT writings.
As far as Vermes an his writing on the Jewish Jesus, Jesus was born physical a Jew, spiritually He was born a savior for all man kind and spiritually is the concern of all Christians. I can't understand why people want to focus on the physical man and not the savior.

GC

[watchamadoodle]

As far as Vermes an his writing on the Jewish Jesus, Jesus was born physical a Jew, spiritually He was born a savior for all man kind and spiritually is the concern of all Christians. I can't understand why people want to focus on the physical man and not the savior.

Well, most people here are atheists, so we only believe in the physical man.

What surprises me is Christians on Christian forums who only focus on the non-spiritual features of Christianity (church history, bible verses, theology, church rules, etc.). These people tell non-believers the nuts and bolts of how to be a Christian instead of the personal testimony about why they became Christians and why they remain Christians.

This makes me suspect that the vast majority of Christians have no answer to why.

BTW I'm not talking about the Christians on AF. I'm talking about other forums.

[IATIA]

---

Many will disagree with what you have stated, many extremely good Biblical authorities. You take one side and post it without any representation of the opposite. If it were proven then as you stated then there would be no counter argument and there definitely is.

GC

---

I don't suppose you're going to present that counter argument? Just going to say "you're wrong" and leave it at that?

Yep!

[Godscreated]

As far as Vermes an his writing on the Jewish Jesus, Jesus was born physical a Jew, spiritually He was born a savior for all man kind and spiritually is the concern of all Christians. I can't understand why people want to focus on the physical man and not the savior.

Well, most people here are atheists, so we only believe in the physical man.

I would think most do not even believe He existed, it's ridiculous but true.

What surprises me is Christians on Christian forums who only focus on the non-spiritual features of Christianity (church history, bible verses, theology, church rules, etc.).

That's why I do not join them, to many of them have lost their way and purpose, they need to read the first few chapters of Revelation and then look in the mirror. Bible study is important and hashing out verses is fine, not all will agree what is said in them, but to get into arguments over them is not a right thing to do. To be educated on those things is fine to dwell on them is not.

These people tell non-believers the nuts and bolts of how to be a Christian instead of the personal testimony about why they became Christians and why they remain Christians.

That's an important part of Christianity, however one needs to become a Christian first, being told how to live a Christian life doesn't help the lost. I have a question, if any did give a testimony would you give it relevance and thought or just dismiss it right off?

This makes me suspect that the vast majority of Christians have no answer to why.

The why? If you mean why they are Christians, I think most know, they just never mature in the knowledge of scriptures that leads to a greater knowledge of their savior. Kinda' baby Christians, you know how babies love to babble.

BTW I'm not talking about the Christians on AF. I'm talking about other forums.

I never gave it a moments consideration, but thanks for saying so. We here often get caught up in the moment and argue things not necessarily important to salvation and that are more opinion than anything else, not that a lot of what we argue is important for us, it is, we get tested here and it strengthens us when we seek the truth. That's much of the reason we do not often jump into each others conversations, personal growth.
Thank you for being one with whom we can have good discussions.

GC

---

I don't suppose you're going to present that counter argument? Just going to say "you're wrong" and leave it at that?

Yep!

The counter arguments have been given over and over, you should pay closer attention.

GC

[dyresand]

As far as Vermes an his writing on the Jewish Jesus, Jesus was born physical a Jew, spiritually He was born a savior for all man kind and spiritually is the concern of all Christians. I can't understand why people want to focus on the physical man and not the savior.

Well, most people here are atheists, so we only believe in the physical man.

What surprises me is Christians on Christian forums who only focus on the non-spiritual features of Christianity (church history, bible verses, theology, church rules, etc.). These people tell non-believers the nuts and bolts of how to be a Christian instead of the personal testimony about why they became Christians and why they remain Christians.

This makes me suspect that the vast majority of Christians have no answer to why.

BTW I'm not talking about the Christians on AF. I'm talking about other forums.

Once they wonder why they are christian they will question their faith. Just saying.

[Aractus]

- 2 Corinthians is actually 4 or 5 letters and one of them isn't from Paul

There's no doubt that Paul wrote 2 Corinthians, and the hypothesis that it is composed of multiple letters from Paul is just speculative there's no real evidence for that.

---

- Sections of the gospels that were probably added later would be eliminated

The added sections, including the part you mentioned regarding handing serpents in Mark, have been eliminated through textual criticism. Only the Orthodox and conservative Catholics keep them. Anyone who believes in textual criticism removes them.

---

- 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John would be eliminated as forgeries

2 Peter would be removed, so too probably would 1 Peter. There's no reason to remove 2 and 3 John because a majority of scholars believe all three epistles 1, 2, 3 John to be written by the one author.

Interesting that you had nothing to say about Jude, James, or Revelation.

If 2 Peter pre-dates Jude then you'd have to eliminate Jude. But that's by no means a settled theory, and it could well be that 2 Peter used the book of Jude, which would lend credibility to its authenticity.

You would not want to keep Revelation though since its content is unverifiable.

[watchamadoodle]

The added sections, including the part you mentioned regarding handing serpents in Mark, have been eliminated through textual criticism. Only the Orthodox and conservative Catholics keep them. Anyone who believes in textual criticism removes them.

I was not aware that some translations have eliminated the snake handling verses entirely. Usually I've seen a footnote with a disclaimer for the verses.

- 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John would be eliminated as forgeries

2 Peter would be removed, so too probably would 1 Peter. There's no reason to remove 2 and 3 John because a majority of scholars believe all three epistles 1, 2, 3 John to be written by the one author.

Interesting that you had nothing to say about Jude, James, or Revelation.

If 2 Peter pre-dates Jude then you'd have to eliminate Jude. But that's by no means a settled theory, and it could well be that 2 Peter used the book of Jude, which would lend credibility to its authenticity.

You would not want to keep Revelation though since its content is unverifiable.

Those are good points.
I forgot about Jude, but I would eliminate it.
I don't like Revelation, but I don't think it's a forgery. The author's name was John, but he wasn't trying to impersonate the apostle John as far as I know. The goal should be authenticity as opposed to sanity.