predestination vs freewill

[OIC1965]

Epistles are letters, and the Gospels are designed to be an "eyewitness account", via the writers.

27 books. = NT

So when someone writes a historical biography, you call it a letter?

 

[OIC1965]

So when someone writes a historical biography, you call it a letter?

A case can be made for Luke and Acts as they have a salutation. But Matthew, Mark, and John are not letters/epistles.

 

[Kidron]

It appears you do not read English fluently.

It appears that you try to mislead fluently.

I asked you if you are fluent in K-GRk.

You told me you are., then sent me searching for posts.
I found a few.
You studied it, you are not fluent, and your opinion is that you can use it to ; "exegesis".

uh huh.

sure you can.

 

[Kidron]

So when someone writes a historical biography, you call it a letter?

I would teach it as.......the Gospels are eyewitness accounts of the ministry of Jesus.
So, if you are an eyewitness, then you had to be there...
That would have been the Apostles, and those who followed Jesus, literally, during His ministry.

 

[OIC1965]

The NT Canon has slightly less than 40. But that is including the Catholic idea that includes others.. that sit between the OT and NEW, and im talking about long ago, not recent.

So, depending on which "scholarship" you are using............... i included both the older history, the early, and the recent that is what happened about the time of the protestant reformation.

If you want the Protestant version, then 27, yet, this is even debated, as 22 was considered all at one point, as a few that exist in the current canon were disputed.

However, if you consider all the epistles that never made it into the NT canon, then that is exactly the same as how to view all the Greek Texts that exist, but are not considered viable or authentic.

How many books are in the oldest New Testament Canon list?

 

[OIC1965]

It appears that you try to mislead fluently.

I asked you if you are fluent in K-GRk.

You told me you are., then sent me searching for posts.
I found a few.
You studied it, you are not fluent, and your opinion is that you can use it to ; "exegesis".

uh huh.

sure you can.

Do you know what exegesis means, sir?

 

[OIC1965]

I would teach it as.......the Gospels are eyewitness accounts of the ministry of Jesus.
So, if you are an eyewitness, then you had to be there...
That would have been the Apostles, and those who followed Jesus, literally, during His ministry.

Correct. But apparently you do not know what an epistle is.

 

[Kidron]

A case can be made for Luke and Acts as they have a salutation. But Matthew, Mark, and John are not letters/epistles.

That does not really work..........
Consider that Hebrews is the same, yet Paul wrote it.

 

[Kidron]

Correct. But apparently you do not know what an epistle is.

Not according to how you understand it.......that's probable true.
But you also didn't know that 30 texts are used, while many more are created.
So, sometimes, its just a situation where the lay understanding isn't wrong, but its not the scholarship understanding.

 

[Kidron]

Do you know what exegesis means, sir?

Want me to apply some more?
Look at my posts.
Its not common that i answer without scriptural exegesis, if the topic is a NT idea or actual verse.

Give me a NT Scripture, that is not found in the Revelation, and ill perform a exegesis for you.

 

[OIC1965]

That does not really work..........
Consider that Hebrews is the same, yet Paul wrote it.

So?!!!

Paul wrote 13 other epistles and it is debatable that he wrote Hebrews.

And Hebrews is not even close to the same genre as Matthew, Mark, and John.

Matthew, Mark, and John are historical didactic biographies. Hebrews is a didactic letter.

 

[Kidron]

So?!!!
it is debatable that he wrote Hebrews.

Its not debatable if you really have studied a NT. and are this......."Pauline Theology", as am I.

Here is how you know that Paul wrote Hebrews..

3 Things..

1. In the last chapter, He talks about Timothy, and Timothy was Paul's convert.

2. Hebrews 8-13, are all doctrine, that explain the Blood Atonement, and that is Paul's Gospel.

3. Hebrews 10:26, is Paul preaching to Unsaved Hebrew Christ Rejectors. So, if you then go to Acts 28, the last 10 verses, you'll find Paul doing it AGAIN, and this could be the same situation...


Take 5 mins and open your NT.
If you know Paul, as Romans and Colossians, and Ephesians.....if you KNOW Him, deeply, having studied say......Romans 3:21-28, then you'll recognize Him, whenever He teaches as he is very specific to the Blood Atonement as Salvation.
And that is just one way you can know that Hebrews is Paul's letter.

 

[OIC1965]

Not according to how you understand it.......that's probable true.
But you also didn't know that 30 texts are used, while many more are created.
So, sometimes, its just a situation where the lay understanding isn't wrong, but its not the scholarship understanding.

You said 30 extant Greek manuscripts, not how many are used. Which edition used only 30 Greek texts?

 

[Kidron]

You said 30 extant Greek manuscripts, not how many are used. Which edition used only 30 Greek texts?

For most of recent Bible making, the accepted Text that was used was "Nestles"..
And they used the Authorized Version Text, or the Textus Receptus..
About 30ish years ago, the Nestle's organization became the "we hate the KJV" cult, and so, they ruined their mostly perfect text by making it a hybrid that isn't the original that was the best.

 

[OIC1965]

Its not debatable if you really have studied a NT. and are this......."Pauline Theology", as am I.

Here is how you know that Paul wrote Hebrews..

3 Things..

1. In the last chapter, He talks about Timothy, and Timothy was Paul's convert.

2. Hebrews 8-13, are all doctrine, that explain the Blood Atonement, and that is Paul's Gospel.

3. Hebrews 10:26, is Paul preaching to Unsaved Hebrew Christ Rejectors. So, if you then go to Acts 28, the last 10 verses, you'll find Paul doing it AGAIN, and this could be the same situation...


Take 5 mins and open your NT.
If you know Paul, as Romans and Colossians, and Ephesians.....if you KNOW Him, deeply, having studied say......Romans 3:21-28, then you'll recognize Him, whenever He teaches as he is very specific to the Blood Atonement as Salvation.
And that is just one way you can know that Hebrews is Paul's letter.

So you’re saying Peter and John didn’t teach blood atonement for salvation?

And the books of Matthew, Mark, and John can in no way be called epistles.

 

[OIC1965]

For most of recent Bible making, the accepted Text that was used was "Nestles"..
And they used the Authorized Version Text, or the Textus Receptus..
About 30ish years ago, the Nestle's organization became the "we hate the KJV" cult, and so, they ruined their mostly perfect text by making it a hybrid that isn't the original that was the best.

How many greek manuscripts were used to produce the Textus Receptus? Look it up and let me know.

 

[Kidron]

So you’re saying Peter and John didn’t teach blood atonement for salvation?

And the books of Matthew, Mark, and John can in no way be called epistles.

Im saying that Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles, in the time of the Gentiles, who received from Jesus, ... "The Gospel of the Grace of God", "Justification by faith".....as THE Gospel.
Peter didnt have this in Acts 2, and it was Acts 15, where Paul showed up that all of the Apostles got on the same page.

No internet back then, no cell phones.....so, what Paul calls '"my Gospel"< took a while to become THE Gospel, that all the Apostles were preaching.

 

[Kidron]

How many greek manuscripts were used to produce the Textus Receptus? Look it up and let me know.

a lot. i dont think it was 100, but i'd have to go and research it, same as you.
there were about 50 scholars and translators that worked on the AV.

Its the only Bible that can be printed for free.
Anyone can print it, and as many times as you want. its free to print.

It was never revised textually, but it was "spell checked" that became the final draft with "italicized" words duly noted that show you where the translators inserted a word for the sake of clarity in the spell checked final version.

 

[OIC1965]

Im saying that Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles, in the time of the Gentiles, who received from Jesus, ... "The Gospel of the Grace of God", "Justification by faith".....as THE Gospel.
Peter didnt have this in Acts 2, and it was Acts 15, where Paul showed up that all of the Apostles got on the same page.

No internet back then, no cell phones.....so, what Paul calls '"my Gospel"< took a while to become THE Gospel, that all the Apostles were preaching.

So you hold that the apostles were teaching a false gospel until Paul arrrived?

 

[OIC1965]

a lot. i dont think it was 100, but i'd have to go and research it, same as you.
there were about 50 scholars and translators that worked on the AV.

Its the only Bible that can be printed for free.
Anyone can print it, and as many times as you want. its free to print.

It was never revised textually, but it was "spell checked" that became the final draft with "italicized" words duly noted that show you where the translators inserted a word for the sake of clarity in the spell checked final version.

Are you saying that the men who worked on the AV also worked in the production of the Textus Receptus?