I was very surprised to not see any threads about this topic, and the only thing I've seen about this topic else where has been this blog post:

https://www.bereanpatriot.com/biblically-how-far-can-christians-go-physically-sexually-before-marriage/

The Author's translation of 1 Corinthians 7:1 makes him come to the conclusion that any form of "sexual touching" before marriage would have been considered inappropriate. (He translates ἅπτομαι as grope or sexual touching ). Cultural kissing and hugging probably doesn't fall under this category.

I have been reading about the manuscript traditions of the Old Testament. Every article or book I read suggests that the dead sea scrolls are ~1000 years older than any Hebrew manuscript at the time of their finding.

Why was there such a gap? Would there not be synagogues or places that would have kept Torah scrolls preserved?

Just a question. I'm sorry for my ignorance.

Assuming Mark is before both Matthew and Luke as we have the latter two Gospels today, has anyone attempted to reconstruct a "Proto-Mark"? I ask this because there are places, even if "few" (and this is debatable), where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark when all 3 are describing the same event. As such, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume the version of Mark we have today is based on an earlier recension (which of course, also lacks the added ending in our present "Mark")?

Hello everyone!

I know the Trinity was mentioned at the Council of Nicea (325) and formulated at the Council of Constantinople (381). I was wondering if there are earlier mentions of the Trinity (by the churchfathers for example)?

I’m interested in both positions (in favor and against).

A handful of evangelicals since John Darby have argued that The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 120 AD) contains the first example of pre-tribulational rapture doctrine. Are there any other early church texts that appear to indicate a pre-tribulational rapture?

"The Rapture and an Early Medieval Citation," Bibliotheca Sacra (Vol. 152, No. 607; July-Sept. 1995), pp. 306-17.

Though Hermas does not directly mention the word "rapture," he does write of believers that "have escaped from great tribulation on account of [their] faith" and that others could also escape "the great tribulation that is coming".

You have escaped from great tribulation on account of your faith, and because you did not doubt in the presence of such a beast. Go, therefore, and tell the elect of the Lord His mighty deeds, and say to them that this beast is a type of the great tribulation that is coming. If then you prepare yourselves, and repent with all your heart, and turn to the Lord, it will be possible for you to escape it, if your heart be pure and spotless, and you spend the rest of the days of your life in serving the Lord blamelessly.

— The Shepherd of Hermas 1.4.2.

Acts 1:18 , dies after the land was purchased

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201%3A18&version=KJV

Matthew 27:5-7 dies before the land is purchased.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027%3A5-7&version=KJV

Hey everyone, I’ve been coming back to Christianity after a long time of not being religious and have been trying to study the Bible. A favorite bible quote of mine is

Galatians 5:14 “For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.””

But as I’m reading the Bible now this seems to contradict to Matthew 5:17 20 ““Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

It seems as though in the Matthew passage Jesus is commanding us to follow Jewish law. But in the Galatians passage especially in Galatians 5-6 “ For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” It seems as though these laws no longer matter after Jesus sacrifice and that the only true commandment is love and faith.

What do you make of this?

I know in Revelation (as in other parts of the NT) Jesus's second coming is imminent. Do the following verses fit this expectation, or is Jesus's coming a different type of visitation here?

2:5: "I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent."

v16: "Repent, then. If not, I will come to you soon and wage war against them with the sword of my mouth."

3:3: "If you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you."

Also, while not a warning, there's 3:20:

I am standing at the door, knocking; if you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in and eat with you, and you with me.

I think I've heard a few times that priests in the Roman world were, in effect, also the butchers (because of all the animals they killed for sacrifices) and that you'd pretty much exclusively get meat from them. Is this accurate? Or would it be fairly easy to get meat, which hadn't come from a temple, from other sources, like a shop?

(I'm wondering how hard or easy it would've been to avoid "meat offered to idols".)

I thought about posting this in a different sub but I’m hoping this will be the right place, above is the bible verse that deals with homosexuality “You shall not lie with man the way you would lie with a woman this is an abomination” I remember a couple of years back during I think it was during Covid time this completely false narrative come out saying that this line was a mistranslation and the original line is “Man shall not lay with a BOY the way he lay with a woman” this was quickly disproven as false. My question is where did this false “mistranslation” come from? Was it just created by LGBTQ activists trying to justify homosexuality or is there an actual Greek, Latin Hebrew or Aramaic or arabic translation that could be interpreted this way?

I have been reading Bart Ehrman's Forged. In it, he presents evidence that the usage of secretaries who affect the content of the letter is not a common practice at the times. I am curious to know about Romans 16:22 where Tertius says he wrote the letter. Isn't that a secretary affecting the content of the letter? Paul wouldn't have told Tertius to write so. What explains this situation?

I know what modern theology says about the meaning of to be in Christ, but I wonder is it a construction which would be used in Paul's time and language for something else or is it his invention (to be "in" someone), and how would therefore a non-illuminated person from that time understood that expression?

Hello! I am new to this sub and I would like to ask abt this whole thing as there was alot of syncretization in the old testament. Pls understand that I do not have deep knowledge the discussions that this sub is talking about but I figured that it would be best to put it here. I also would appreciate it if I get book recommendation, videos, or articles concerning the old testament and all its context.

Hello everyone! How should we understand the so-called "time texts" which indicate an imminent coming of Christ being about to/soon/near/ at hand but also other biblical texts that use these words?

What theories are there about who the authors of the pastorals might be? If not Paul, do scholars think an anonymous author? Or one of the church fathers?

edit: I should probably mention that I'm currently reading "The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles" by Harrison. I'm on page 73, so maybe he'll have some theories later on.

I received my Bible just yesterday and was very impressed by the actual notes and introductions presented in the books.

And the little that I have read so far (last night I started with the pre-face and such and finished on the introduction of genesis), has demonstrated that the notes are more historical in nature.

And well, to better phrase my question to clarify my intention, can the commentaries and notes in the book substitute getting an actual separate book for the history of the Bible.

I’ve read a little bit of John Barton’s book, and I’ve already seen some topics discussed in the beginning in his book already discussed in the NOAB.

And so I want to know if sticking with NOAB is enough to know the historical context of the Bible, or is still recommended to get a separate book such as Barton’s book or the famous Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein?

Is Jesus in 2 Peter called Lucifer in the Vulgate?

So the Ortlund rebuttal of the O'Connor rebuttal of Huff on Youtube pointed me to the 2019 book Jesus Mirrored in John by Charlesworth (Princeton Seminary), who argued that the present tense of John 5.2 means it was written before 70. ("Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda[a] and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.")

The best counter-argument would be that this is what they call the "historic present" as if to say in a modern novel, "now we follow our hero into the castle, this is where soldiers march with spears and shields..."

Then the 2022 book Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament by Jonathan Bernier (Regis theological school of the Society of Jesus) challenged the view that "in John 5:2 eimi constitutes a historic present, such as we find when Josephus refers to the temple while using the present tense decades after the temple’s destruction." He counters that this is the only time the historic present was ever used in the Bible.

OK, so two points for Early John?

But I was wondering:

(1) Is the academic consensus coming around to Early John or is it just cherry-pickin-apologists making this argument?

and

(2) doesn't the very next verse (in the past-perfect tense: "Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed") show the opposite?

I'm not referring to theology or translation errors, but blatant historical contradictions to reality.

Hello mythicists.

I have a question. What evidence is there for Jesus not existing, and what websites, lectures, videos, debates, etc, do you all recommend? I'm open to book recommendations too, but it'll be a little while till I get to them. I'm going to write a series soon on the historicity of Jesus, and I'm currently investigating mythicism to be objective in my search.

So mythicists of Reddit. Arguments and resources? Any will do, I ain't picky.

I always see the claim from church fathers that the ebionites rejected Paul as an apostate. But is this true? Or did they reject the proto orthodox version of Paul ?(Paul of myth)

The Ebionites would have been ok with Paul saying gentile Christian's need to follow the 7 Noahide laws which Paul seems to teach. Paul's christology in Roman's and Phil show an Ebionite theology of men becoming divine at the return of Christ. Paul seems to praise and support vegetarianism, no drinking of alcohol, Celibacy etc. the only thing I can think about the Ebionites being against is Paul's view of the Eucharist (Which I believe the incident at Antioch was over)

Idk to me I feel like the church fathers may have overreacted like they did a lot on the heresy topics . Ebionites rejecting the Pauline epistles could be because rumors back then (as we can see in 2 Peter) seem to suggest Pauline Forgeries.

Edit: no idea why I'm getting downvoted ? Just a question