Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's no king in (most of) Israel right now....that's the problem. Peace
This world is about to correct your problem and it's going to hurt you for 7 years...then the True King will return and destroy all who remains with this world's king.
You obviously heard what I said about a king and thought it was natural understanding. It was not. And you don't want to get me started on the "tribulation".....Peace
Actually, all of the New Testament letters had been written by around A.D. 95 and circulated among the churches. They simply weren't assembled under one cover until later. And so, the New Testament was in existence by the end of the first century. F. F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism And Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England, comments,
''The New Testament was complete, or substantially complete about AD 100, the majority of the writings being in existence twenty to forty years before this.''
[The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable, F.F. Bruce, pp. 6-7]
The Muratorian Canon which is dated to c. A.D. 175 lists 21 of the 27 New Testament letters.
To claim that there was no New Testament until 300 years after Christ is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
Second Timothy was the last of Paul's epistles to have been written, probably around the mid 60's. Paul considered what he spoke to be the word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13). He would have considered his epistles to be no less. Certainly, Paul's letters are compared to the rest of the Scriptures in 2 Peter 3:16.
Therefore, in addition to the Old Testament Scriptures, Paul could very well have also had his own writings in mind when he said that ''All scripture is God breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; (2 Timothy 3:16). And certainly, in principle it applies to all scripture regardless of when it was written.
And by the way, a good case can also be made that the synoptic Gospels and Acts were all written by the early 60's.
These constant and unfounded accusations of yours are tiresome.
Your constant twisting of facts ate also tiresome but equally expected as that is what fundamentalists do.
I'm not going to waste anyone's time quoting a dozen sources that show it wasn't until 331 that Constantinus had "fifty bibles" authorized. For the prior 200 years church leaders argued over what belonged in the Bible and what didn't. Hebrews and 2nd Peter received significant attention because of their potential apocryphal nature.
You streeeeettttch credibility, another fundamentalist trait, in saying Paul thought his own writings were Scripture. In fact, his own letters indicate he did not. No one writing after Paul quote Paul. When Scripture is quoted (or misquoted in some instances, it is always from the OT. The vast majority of scholars understand 2nd Timothy to have been written by a follower of Paul. The writing style is completely different from 1st Timothy and Titus, two letters that really were written by Paul.
But then scholarly study evades your posts as you always quote an expert when he says some generality. I've proven that by quoting in detail from Professor Dan Wallace who you have tried to use to back up your "perfect originals" argument by showing several parts of existing NT that don't merit being in the Bible in his scholarly study. He frequently agrees with you, but he spirals down into the reasons for his conjecture, such as you have done in your post above.
So you have no revelation from God today because you don't look for it.
But I don't write for your benefit. There are young people out there who need to know the Bible is not an otherworldly holy rulebook, but a collection of stories, observations, and opinions by flawed men. Some is uplifting and inspires. Some is disappointing and reflects ancient cultural ideas. Just like the flawed men who read it.
No matter how you wish to characterize it, worshiping each word of the Bible is simply idolatry. And one of the major themes of the OT is about having no other gods before Him. Your formulaic approach to Christianity, "believe once and then live however you want" is ear appealing but isn't from Jesus.
God is life and anything that causes death, or for life to cease from a perpetual continuance as designed by God is the sin of rebellion against God which is a sin of witchcraft.
For most people it is simple to see how if Adam and Eve had been homosexual there would have never been a Able and Cain to come forth from them let alone us. However, to put it into a proper light today it is best to consider what if the last persons left alive on earth to continue the human race we're all lesbian woman or gay men? The obvious is the human race would come to an end all because these persons have fulfilled the prophecy in the Old Testament of every man's doing what was right in his own eyes.
Judges 17:6
In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Judges 21:25
In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
There are about 5 or 6 persons here who do not serve God the Father of Jesus let alone follow after the Son who gave His life for us, but instead serve a small "g" god of their own wicked imaginations doing right by their own eyes instead of the eyes of the Prince of Peace and Everlasting Father of ones such as ourselves and others here who have not been beguiled by the same serpent who fooled Eve.
These are the same persons who are leading the OP down the path of perdition unto her own destruction
On the other hand should she be willing to bow before the author of the new and better covenant He will heal her of all her afflictions and not just her sexual orientation
The problem with the old covenant was it could only condemn sin, therefore, because it was weak through the flesh it could not change the flesh and bring it into harmony with God.
So God sent His Son to do away with a literal law that could not save, Who became the Testament of a new and better covenant that did not depart from the old but instead fulfills it through Him in us by first writing it on the hearts of those who remain obedient to Him
The second and better covenant gave us the Holy Spirit to write the laws and Commandments of God on our hearts initiating the process of changing the desires of the flesh and bringing them into harmony with God was put into effect
People who have the Holy Spirit do not teach others to do whatever they feel they are led to do no matter what it is it acceptable to God. Persons who do this are NOT a part of the temple of God made without hands because they seek only to do what is right in their own eyes and not the eyes of God
The new covenant is to be made with the Houses of Israel and Judah...
Your constant twisting of facts ate also tiresome but equally expected as that is what fundamentalists do.
I'm not going to waste anyone's time quoting a dozen sources that show it wasn't until 331 that Constantinus had "fifty bibles" authorized. For the prior 200 years church leaders argued over what belonged in the Bible and what didn't. Hebrews and 2nd Peter received significant attention because of their potential apocryphal nature.
You streeeeettttch credibility, another fundamentalist trait, in saying Paul thought his own writings were Scripture. In fact, his own letters indicate he did not. No one writing after Paul quote Paul. When Scripture is quoted (or misquoted in some instances, it is always from the OT. The vast majority of scholars understand 2nd Timothy to have been written by a follower of Paul. The writing style is completely different from 1st Timothy and Titus, two letters that really were written by Paul.
But then scholarly study evades your posts as you always quote an expert when he says some generality. I've proven that by quoting in detail from Professor Dan Wallace who you have tried to use to back up your "perfect originals" argument by showing several parts of existing NT that don't merit being in the Bible in his scholarly study. He frequently agrees with you, but he spirals down into the reasons for his conjecture, such as you have done in your post above.
So you have no revelation from God today because you don't look for it.
But I don't write for your benefit. There are young people out there who need to know the Bible is not an otherworldly holy rulebook, but a collection of stories, observations, and opinions by flawed men. Some is uplifting and inspires. Some is disappointing and reflects ancient cultural ideas. Just like the flawed men who read it.
No matter how you wish to characterize it, worshiping each word of the Bible is simply idolatry. And one of the major themes of the OT is about having no other gods before Him. Your formulaic approach to Christianity, "believe once and then live however you want" is ear appealing but isn't from Jesus.
It is not I who am twisting the facts. The fact of the matter is that all 27 New Testament documents were written before the end of the first century and were in circulation. The fact that they weren't all under one cover until a later time is irrelevant. And yes, the expert that I quoted, F. F. Bruce, a world class Biblical scholar, agrees with what I said.
By the way, Dan Wallace also recognizes that the New Testament was in existence by the end of the first century.
Finally, catholicity was a criterion used in deciding what earned a place at the table of the New Testament canon. By ‘catholicity’ I do not mean Roman Catholicism. No, I mean that for a book to make the cut it generally needed to be accepted by all the churches. To be sure, some New Testament books struggled in this department, but not all did. In fact, within a century of the completion of the New Testament, the ancient church throughout the Mediterranean world achieved a remarkable unanimity concerning at least twenty of the twenty-seven books. This included all thirteen letters ascribed to Paul and the four Gospels. The rest would find acceptance by the fourth century, in both the eastern and western branches of the church. [Bolding mine]
What Dr. Wallace says above is that long before the fourth century A.D., and before all twenty-seven books of the New Testament were accepted with remarkable unanimity, the New Testament had been completed. The meaning being that with the completion of the writing of the twenty-seven books before the end of the first century, the New Testament was complete. The books simply weren't all under one cover as of yet.
And certainly Paul considered his epistles to be Scripture as did Peter who compared Paul's writings with the Old Testament Scriptures. As already has been shown, Paul stated that what he spoke was the word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Therefore, what he wrote was also the word of God and therefore was Scripture.
Nor have I ever said that a Christian is free to live however he wants. The fact that eternal salvation is by grace through faith is not a license to sin.
Last edited by Michael Way; 03-13-2016 at 03:04 PM..
No matter how you wish to characterize it, worshiping each word of the Bible is simply idolatry. And one of the major themes of the OT is about having no other gods before Him. Your formulaic approach to Christianity, "believe once and then live however you want" is ear appealing but isn't from Jesus.
He doesn't have to be righteous, after all, it has been magically imputed to him as long as he believes it?
However, there is no mystical transference of character or sin from one person to that of another.
However, there is no mystical transference of character or sin from one person to that of another.
On the positive side, if we come into agreement with the Word and slay the carnal beastly nature, we are changed from glory (terrestrial) to glory (celestial). Just as we have borne the image of the natural, so too shall we bear the image of the heavenly.
On the negative side, those carnal beastly natures have and will continue to transfer down through the generations if we refuse to do the above. Science has just caught up to the concept, but since they are only looking at the natural, only see the fruit ("genetic predisposition"), and not the roots. Peace
It is not I who am twisting the facts. The fact of the matter is that all 27 New Testament documents were written before the end of the first century and were in circulation. The fact that they weren't all under one cover until a later time is irrelevant. And yes, the expert that I quoted, F. F. Bruce, a world class Biblical scholar, agrees with what I said.
By the way, Dan Wallace also recognizes that the New Testament was in existence by the end of the first century.
Finally, catholicity was a criterion used in deciding what earned a place at the table of the New Testament canon. By ‘catholicity’ I do not mean Roman Catholicism. No, I mean that for a book to make the cut it generally needed to be accepted by all the churches. To be sure, some New Testament books struggled in this department, but not all did. In fact, within a century of the completion of the New Testament, the ancient church throughout the Mediterranean world achieved a remarkable unanimity concerning at least twenty of the twenty-seven books. This included all thirteen letters ascribed to Paul and the four Gospels. The rest would find acceptance by the fourth century, in both the eastern and western branches of the church. [Bolding mine]
What Dr. Wallace says above is that long before the fourth century A.D., and before all twenty-seven books of the New Testament were accepted with remarkable unanimity, the New Testament had been completed. The meaning being that with the completion of the writing of the twenty-seven books before the end of the first century, the New Testament was complete. The books simply weren't all under one cover as of yet.
And certainly Paul considered his epistles to be Scripture as did Peter who compared Paul's writings with the Old Testament Scriptures. As already has been shown, Paul stated that what he spoke was the word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Therefore, what he wrote was also the word of God and therefore was Scripture.
Nor have I ever said that a Christian is free to live however he wants. The fact that eternal salvation is by grace through faith is not a license to sin.
You stated that the documents EXISTED before the end of the first century. Well here we are four years after Wallace supposedly discovered a first century FRAGMENT of Mark--a mere fragment. The conservative scholars who found it have kept all details secret for four years now and allowed no other scholars outside their own little realm to examine it.
Fundamentalists at work. Secrets. Keeping evidence hidden. Stretching time out to remove any ability to find questionable handling of materials. It fits the fundamentalist lifestyle of hiding the truth.
The earliest fragment of Mark prior to this potentially outstanding or fradulent claim was around 250 C.E. There exist no, zero, nada, first century fragments currently. There is a fragment of John that has been dated to around 125 C.E.
Quote:
In fact, in his original post, Daniel Wallace acknowledged that the fragment of Mark in question still needed to be vetted through scholarly discussion. He insists that people should refrain from getting too worked up about it before that vetting process takes place:
Ãœber-exuberance or dismissive skepticism are both unwarranted responses based on the information supplied so far. But when the fragment is published along with six other early New Testament papyri (all from around the second century), the scholarly vetting will do its due diligence. It should be fun!
I don't doubt he BELIEVES that all scripture was around and intact. You do too. But since nobody has a complete Bible prior to 331 C.E. then claiming it was all together in the early first century is exactly what Wallace has warned about--it's too early to tell. Until then I let the facts do the talking. If Wallace or anyone else finds a first century fragment--great. But here is what the oldest fragment of John looks like:
Quote:
p52, a portion of the Gospel of John that is dated to around 125 A.D.
And you maintain that John is complete, proper, and 99% the way it was originally written based on this???!!!!!
Young folks, the Bible is a faith book, and we are uncertain how often it was tampered with (Wallace concedes several times). It can still be a witness to God, it just isn't an idol to be worshiped. When folks try to make it a rulebook, or a step-by-step guide to salvation, that methodology doesn't even match Jesus' own use of Scripture--which He reverenced and then told us not to listen to on more than once occasion.
You stated that the documents EXISTED before the end of the first century. Well here we are four years after Wallace supposedly discovered a first century FRAGMENT of Mark--a mere fragment. The conservative scholars who found it have kept all details secret for four years now and allowed no other scholars outside their own little realm to examine it.
Fundamentalists at work. Secrets. Keeping evidence hidden. Stretching time out to remove any ability to find questionable handling of materials. It fits the fundamentalist lifestyle of hiding the truth.
The earliest fragment of Mark prior to this potentially outstanding or fradulent claim was around 250 C.E. There exist no, zero, nada, first century fragments currently. There is a fragment of John that has been dated to around 125 C.E.
I don't doubt he BELIEVES that all scripture was around and intact. You do too. But since nobody has a complete Bible prior to 331 C.E. then claiming it was all together in the early first century is exactly what Wallace has warned about--it's too early to tell. Until then I let the facts do the talking. If Wallace or anyone else finds a first century fragment--great. But here is what the oldest fragment of John looks like: Have Scholars Discovered the Oldest Manuscript of the New Testament?
And you maintain that John is complete, proper, and 99% the way it was originally written based on this???!!!!!
Young folks, the Bible is a faith book, and we are uncertain how often it was tampered with (Wallace concedes several times). It can still be a witness to God, it just isn't an idol to be worshiped. When folks try to make it a rulebook, or a step-by-step guide to salvation, that methodology doesn't even match Jesus' own use of Scripture--which He reverenced and then told us not to listen to on more than once occasion.
All of the New Testament documents were written and in existence before the end of the first century. Most scholars believe that the book of Revelation was the last of the New Testament books to have been written, and date it to around A.D. 95. Some believe that the Gospel of John and perhaps the epistles of John may have been written after Revelation but still date them to the first century. Not many, if any scholars today date any of the New Testament books after the end of the first century.
One of the criteria that the early church used in recognizing the canonicity of a New Testament document was apostolicity meaning that the document had to have been written by an apostle or by someone closely associated with an apostle. This rules out any book that was written after the apostles, or those associated with the apostles died.
This fact is recognized in the Muratorian canon which is dated to around A.D 175. As stated in the Muratorian canon, the 'Pastor' or 'Shepherd of Hermas' could not be recognized as belonging in the canon because it was written too late.
The Pastor, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother bishop Plus sat in the chair of the Church of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made public38 in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time.
And I did not claim that all 27 books were put together under one cover at that time. I specifically stated that they were not all brought together under one cover until later. But all 27 books had been written and were in circulation before the end of the first century and therefore the New Testament was in existence by the end of the first century.
Not only is the Book of John that we have today 99+% faithful to the original NT documents, but so are all of the New Testament Books as New Testament textual critics agree, based on a comparison of all of the extant New Testament documents. Not based on any one fragment.
Last edited by Michael Way; 03-13-2016 at 04:56 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
