Do differences in practices of faith mean we follow the same Jesus Christ? (reject, gospel)

[uss_bigd]

yes or no and why.

Again, the Jesus Christ came from the bible, not from any other reference material.
Hence, in this thread, the authenticity of the bible is not questioned, because it is the only reference where the life and teachings of Christ can be found.

if you want to question the authenticity of the bible please start a new thread, thank you!

[angellous_evangellous]

Probably.

There is only one Christ, but many reconstructions of him. We enjoy creating Christ in our own image, whether it's a friendly politically correct hippie or the figment of a fundamentalist's imagination. None of them are faithful to Scripture, because there is no one Jesus, but four in the Gospels, at least two in Paul, and possibly another in Hebrews, not to mention the scores of others in the apocrypha.

Choose one that makes you feel warm and fuzzy and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Jeremy Mason]

(Gal. 1:6-9) " I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preach to
you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned."

(2 Peter 1: 20-21) "Above all you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

(2 Timothy 3:16-17) " All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be throughly equipped for every good work."


What Paul is saying here is that different practices of faith don't mean that we follow the same Jesus Christ. Ultimately, the Bible is the true standard for Christians. Some will say that the Bible was tainted through time, I would like to see the proof. The gospels that were not canonized were gospels that had major conflicts of interests to the gospels that were canonized. I agree that the timing of the canonization happened at very turbulent time, and understand other peoples concerns and rejections of the New Testaments authenticity. Never-the-less, when I read the Old and New Testament, I personally feel it is the Word of God. I will continue to grow Biblically while at the same time, open my mind to other ideas.

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Mason

(Gal. 1:6-9) " I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preach to
you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned."

(2 Peter 1: 20-21) "Above all you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

(2 Timothy 3:16-17) " All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be throughly equipped for every good work."


What Paul is saying here is that different practices of faith don't mean that we follow the same Jesus Christ. Ultimately, the Bible is the true standard for Christians. Some will say that the Bible was tainted through time, I would like to see the proof. The gospels that were not canonized were gospels that had major conflicts of interests to the gospels that were canonized. I agree that the timing of the canonization happened at very turbulent time, and understand other peoples concerns and rejections of the New Testaments authenticity. Never-the-less, when I read the Old and New Testament, I personally feel it is the Word of God. I will continue to grow Biblically while at the same time, open my mine to other ideas.

well said... well said

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Probably.

There is only one Christ, but many reconstructions of him. We enjoy creating Christ in our own image, whether it's a friendly politically correct hippie or the figment of a fundamentalist's imagination. None of them are faithful to Scripture, because there is no one Jesus, but four in the Gospels, at least two in Paul, and possibly another in Hebrews, not to mention the scores of others in the apocrypha.

Choose one that makes you feel warm and fuzzy and may God have mercy on your soul.

Yippie-kai-ee!!



Hoot! Hollar! Whistle!!

WEEEEE

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Mason

What Paul is saying here is that different practices of faith don't mean that we follow the same Jesus Christ. Ultimately, the Bible is the true standard for Christians. Some will say that the Bible was tainted through time, I would like to see the proof.

This is a picture of the earliest manuscript of John 1.1-14. The lines between the letters show where the scribe's text was corrupt, and he added what he thought the text should say. There aren't many on this picture, but others have many many more, and this is but one copy.

You can also see blank spots, where other scholars who copied this text would add what they thought should be there.

[Jeremy Mason]

Thanks again for the info. I really do appreciate the research you have done.

I'm sure that there are many examples of fraud when it comes to archeological evidence. Since I can't read this example, I can't be edified as to what exactly was changed.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Mason

Thanks again for the info. I really do appreciate the research you have done.

I'm sure that there are many examples of fraud when it comes to archeological evidence. Since I can't read this example, I can't be edified as to what exactly was changed.

Yes, that would take a considerable amount of explanation.

Here are some more pics though. Seeing the imperfection for yourself is more than half the battle. Below are pictures of P66, the oldest edition of John 13. It's in a Codex, which is basically a scroll cut into book pages, so you're seeing it one page at a time. Just to give you some context.

John 13.6-10



John 13.10-15



John 13.15-20

[Jeremy Mason]

What web site are you getting this from?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Mason

What web site are you getting this from?

It's not a from a website. It's scanned from P. Bodmer II.

Some pics of P66 are available online. I have a few threads on it here, and I will post links in a second.

Earliest Christian Codex is not Biblical

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...nt-papyri.html

Cool pictures of the Gospel of Thomas Codex

And K. C. Hanson's website is useful - NT Papyri & Codices