Is the bible authoritive and truly inspired?

That's a lot of speculative assertion for someone supposedly above accepting the rearing up of "dogma". Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I don't understand why some people can't believe that Paul wrote Second Timothy.The apostles worked in teams and often have very good coordination among themselves. Differences in style of writing could be due to an author dictating or communicating to a scribe basically what to write: "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord." (Romans 16:22) Men and women fully dedicated to a mission of spreading the gospel could coordinate in "one accord" for that task. And I fully can believe that Second Timothy is Paul's product, albeit perhaps with nuances in style which reflect coordination with others.The same is true for Peter's epistles. The sophistication of the Greek with which they were written could just indicate cordination with an editor or the polishing of someone laboring with Peter for the cause of the gospel.Skeptics of the revelation always seek to splice and dice up the Bible, hoping to separate the pieces from one another to "kill the beast" pulling him apart. That is deprive it of unity and life, cut it up, reduce it to an insignificant scrape book hodge podge, not at all needed to be taken seriously.What's your evidence that Paul didn't write Second Timothy ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Paul's Corinthain letter was written in response to a letter from the Corinthian church written to him.If we had the writing that Paul was responding to, probably verses 36,37 would not seem out of place. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think the words including and in between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21 are sanctioned by God.Though we do not have the autographs of any of these books, I think what we do have is adaquate to convey major themes of God's communication to man.No we do not have the letter that the Corinthians wrote which Paul was responding to. We can speculate. Just as we can take note of copyists' descrepancies and speculate that a sentence may have been added by a scribe, maybe not a part of Paul's autograph.That's what you have with this textural examination - speculation like me, like "some scholars" - Fortunately, this matter of 1 cor. 14:36,37 effects no major tenet of the New Testament.I think God was sovereign over the typos of copyists too. I know some will regard that as not playing fair. But I think God kept watch over these things too.I think they are more of test to us then a test to His authority. we are experts on missing the point, you know ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

It depends on how it is presented. Are you speaking of something the Bible teaches or something the Bible records as having happened ?Many amoral things are recorded as having occured. This does not mean that they are instructions for the reader's own behavior.Now, dealing with what is taught (not just recorded), I admit there some problematic teachings, particularly the Old Testament may offend our sensibilities.These difficult areas, I think, need to be examine case by case. This is what I realize Nuggin. There are many instances of God's dealing with man. They are of different levels of severity. They could be arranged on a scale of extremely severe to very merciful.Now on ONE end of the spectrum you have a couple of very severe judgments. God told Josua's army that they were not to pity, but to wipe out everyone. These few instances are really super harsh.But not all of His judgments came to this extreme. So I began to wonder "Why Lord?""Why in THIS instance You were so extreme to tell the executioners that they were not to pity but slay even childen ? If I had been an editor of the Bible, I would have not included that account. "Yet, the Hebrew kings also had a reputation in Canaan of being merciful. Did you know that ? "And his servants said to him, Look now, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings. we beg you, let us put sackcloth on our loins and ropes upon our heads, and go out to the king of Israel. Perhaps he will preserve your life." (1 Kings 20:31) How could this be ? How could these slaughtering kings of Israel get a reputation for being also merciful?I began to understand that God does the right thing, at the right time, in the right way. When a devastatingly HARSH judgment was what was needed, God had the Israelite army do that. When a judgment tempered with mercy was necessary, He also had them do that. When no judgment at all was called for, He did that.Instead of getting irreconcilingly offended by the judgment of some of the Canaanite tribes I became suspicious that God knows JUST what to do in the RIGHT way at the RIGHT time.This is not an easy stance to take. But I never STOPPED believing in God or loving His word because of these sparse instances of very harsh judgment.I could say more but that is enough for now, and it may be off topic.God laid out, faithfully, candedly, and honestly the full scope of His varying levels of severity. From one extreme end of the spectrum to the other the word of God faithfully informs us of the wide scope of possible ways God will act.No, I did not toss my Bible into the trash when I read about Jericho. I kept reading all the way to the end. I realize that in Genesis 15 God told Abraham that it would be another 400 years before He would bring the Israelites into Canaan. And this for the following reason - the Canaanites had not yet gotten BAD enough to merit so harsh a judgment.God told Abraham that to judge them now was pre-mature. God allowed them to SINK to the ROCK BOTTOM of sinfulness. He said He would judge them in another 400 years of thier downward decline.After that 400 years we see that God gave them an additional 40 years in which to repent. They saw the army of Jehovah wandering in the wilderness for an additional 40 years. Rehab told the spies that the people of Jericho saw what was coming.This timeline suggests to me that the Righteous God did the RIGHT thing at the RIGHT time in the RIGHT way. And furthermore, it is not surprising that sometimes we would simply not understand God.ALL of the judgments were not that harsh. And I meditated on why that was so.As a matter of fact sometimes God used a nation to punish another nation. Then afterwards the nation He used as punishers, He told them that they went TOO FAR in thier mecilessness. And for that reason He would now punish them.So I continued to read ALL of the Bible and saw a wide spectrum of Divine dealings from this God. I'll have to comment on this latter. Remind me if I forget.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think you will find that you are heavily enfluenced by the Judaeo Christian ethics to begin with. Being a product of Western civilization your sense of outrage, I am pretty sure, is fueled by moral senses you derived from the Bible.This is like the little child trying to slap her mother on the face from the vantage point of sitting on her lap. Without sitting on her lap the child and her arms are too short to be able to reach the mother's face.Its curious that the ethics that you use to condemn the God of the Bible are derived so much from the Bible itself. In order to scold God you have at least subconsciously stood upon His book. You would have to explain to me why each and every instance of people with "a different religion" was not handled in the same way, because it was not.Why weren't the Philistines not exterminated when they stole the ark of the covenant ? They only got sores on their bodies and figured out that they needed to return the ark to Israel.Daniel in Babylon, learned all the wisdom that the Babylonians taught. He just continued with his three friends to believe in Yahweh. We don't see as severe an extermination in that case.If God acted differently on occasion then there should be some reason for this. One case was to Him WORSE then another case.In the book of Jonah we see God's reluctance to judge a nation with "another religion". Ninevah repented to the prophet Jonah's dismay, and they were sparred a judgment.So unlike you, I see these differences in severity as indications of a deciding Judge who dispenses the appropriate discipline according as each case may be. I would prefer the exact quote you refer to rather then your rewording.Within the Levitical laws there were the trespass offering, the sin offering, the consecration offering, and other offerings. Sins could be atoned for through these offerings. So I see God providing a way out of the death penalty to that theocratic society.There were some recorded capital deaths for sure. But I think in more cases the way of atoning offerings was a remedy for even the most serious offenders.Am I correct that your outrage must indicate that you are vehemently pro-life too? Would I be correct that you are also outraged at the millions of abortions that murder innocent unborn children each year ?Are you pro-life or pro-choice ? This is not logical to me. Even a judge of the world has a great array of remedies he or she may enact to deal with an offense.Why should not the Judge of all the earth not have the wisdom to employ different recompenses to offenders ? I would not say a judge who gave a death penalty in one or two instances is by nature without mercy when it can be seen that with lesser offenders a punishment varied from community service or probabtion to some limited time in jail.It is more likely to me that this was a sign of God's varied levels of severity according to His righteoussness. The less likely scenario to me is that God arbitrarily singled out the Amalekites for total extermination just on a whim.I don't agree with you about a occasional sadistic Judge, for no apparent reason other then mood. The way I read that story is that pharoah was hard hearted to begin with. God wanted to display His glorious miracles and dramatically deliver the Jews. So God hardened pharoah more to get him to stand against such devastating calamities.If I recall rightly, Paul wrote about it saying "What if ...?" (Romans 9:22-24)"And what if God, wishing to demonstrate His wrath and make his power known, endured wuth much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He had before prepared unto ... not only from among the Jews but also from among the Gentiles ?" The impression I get is even Paul could only speculate on this difficult account. So I also will not pretend to have an answer for every philosophical paradox in the Bible.The person most qualified to make a judgment about what God did would have been the Son of God - Jesus Christ. Unless you, Nuggin, have a higher morality then Jesus Christ, I suspect your condemnation of God may be ill-informed and in error.Jesus never leveled this kinds of accusations against His Father though He spoke much about the Old Testament history. He was ethically and morally in a position to do so if ANYONE ever was. There are obvious differences in your priorities and God's. Whereas you are concerned with efficiency as the most important thing, God has some other priority in mind.And I think as always that is to make His people one with Him from the inside out - a union and a blending.This profound revelation is gradually disclosed. Often it is seen in the typology and symbolism until the New Testament covenant is enacted.But He did also do some things like what you mentioned. He brought them out "on eagle's wings". The pillar of cloud stood between the Hebrews and the Egyptian army. This must have obscured their visibility as you suggest.And certainly the mad pursuit of pharoah seems to indicate a suspension of good sense. This is especially as they plunged into the Red Sea after them. Some of the actions are like what you mentioned. But you have one instance being dealt with at one tme by God. That was not the only instance of God rescuing His saints. And in other accounts in the books of Joshua, First and Second Kings, Daniel, etc. there are other ways God intervened.So I see much variety in God's acts of liberation. There is no need for me to get stuck only on Exodus. Each and every way points to the Son of God. For Christ is God's ultimate salvation. I don't agree that God was not merciful in Exodus. They are said to have left "a mixed multitude" which means some of the Egyptians joined the Jews.The instructions to place the blood on the doorpost was to anyone who would beleive and obey. This was meciful because some of the Egyptians probably took heed to the warning of Moses. At least the instructions of the way to be passover by the destroying angel was given to ANYONE who took heed.I do not read it as only being effective to the Jews. And they left Egypt a "mixed multitude". God had mercy on the believing Egyptians. As indicated above some Egyptians left with the Hebrews in the Exodus.Other utterances in the Old Testament indicate that God loved the people of Egypt. For example: "In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrians will come to Egypt, and the Egyptians to Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship woth the Assyrians.

​

In that day Israel will be the third party with Egypt and assyria, a blessing in the midst of the land.

​

With which Jehovah of hosts will bless, saying Blessed be Egypt My people and Assyrian the work of My hands and ISrael My inheritance." (Isaiah 19:23-25) This is a glimpse into God's love for the nation of Egypt, whom He promises to call - "Egypt My people" .Doesn't this show God's mercy on Egypt sometime in the course of history ? It could be regarded as a repayment on a national level. Afterall the policy from Pharoah was to kill all the male babies of the Hebrews. And that was without ANY warning.At least God's judgments were on a graduating scale and were preceeded by warnings. God the Creator is the Giver of all life. He has the power and authority to give life. He has the authority to take it away.The death of children of Egypt speaks of their temporal punishment. It tells us nothing about their portion in eternity. I suspect that I will see some of those judged for the sins of their parents in the eternal new heaven and new earth.I expect to be surprised. Who knows? Maybe even Pharoah will be there.I have to stop here for this morning. MY bottom line is that I beleive God does the right thing, in the right way, at the right time.Jesus, of all humans, was most qualified to point out moral defficiencies in His Father's behavior in the Old Testament. He did not condemn His Father but refered to Him as "Righteous Father".He has built up a kind of approvedness in human history such that I am inclinded to believe His word over your rationals.

Yes. I believe this is what happened. Dusty, imperfect prophets were vessels thrugh which God spoke to mankind. I think it is obvious that individual flavors, styles, opinions, leanings, even some display of temper and mood came through in the prophetic writings.In spite of these, I think God communicate with man in the Bible a revelation adaquate to know the mind of God and His eternal purpose. We have no autographs. We only have copies. As you know textural critics can trace how in transmission of copies some typos were added in many cases.There are thousands of such typos. The people who really care and cover these matters catalogue these changes.But 98% of them are trvialities which effect no major tenet of faith. I can back that up latter.I get this information from the book "A General Introduction to the Bible" by Giesler and Nix. It of course draws on many scholarly sources itself.

Nuggin,I may only be able to respond to about a third of your post right now. You must be kidding. I consider Unitarianism very close to biblical Christianity. As a Unitarian your main squabbles are with the Trinity. But holding the ethics of Jesus as some kind of humanitarian example for the rest of us to follow, your Unitarianism is very dependent upon Judeo / Chrtistian morality.Are you associated with the Unitarian Universalist congregations founded in 1961 ? It is important for me to understand your beliefs. So please indicate. I will look into that to learn more about it. Copied without persmission from Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry below: Are these principles of Unitarianism, set forth in 1899, cornerstones of your beliefs?If so your conjunction with the Bible in your belief system is far more than incidental. And I would say your morality is extremly informed by the Bible in a selective way. That is far inadaquate to explain why there are differences in judgment in the SAME book by the SAME author.For example, within the book of Numbers you have different levels of the severity of divine judgment. The means of dealing with the Midianites (31:1-54) is not exactly as the dealing with the people of King Arad (21:1-3). or Bashan and Og and their people (21:33-35) .Will you now propose that differences in agendas is reflected in different chapters ? Numbers, Deutoronomy, Exodus, Joshua are among the "historical" books. On your say so you are asking me to take what was presented as history and regard it as some other genre.Part of the Levitical laws was that every 50 years there was a special Sabbath of freeing prisoners, debters, and slaves. This doesn't seem to indicate tyranical control of the uneducated mass by a power class. Just try to propose such a law in your country of forgiveness of all debts and liberation of prisoners every 50 years. See how well your plan is received. That's a real leap. You may be more of an expert on James Bond movies then I. I will not comment much on this.However, an Ultimate Life as God, Who is the Source of all lives, I would expect to be varied and all-inclusive.All I have to do is look at the creation, especially the biological creation, and see that within the Creator are varied expressions of life which He has distributed to thousands of species.So I would regard a book written written about God over 1600 years in the making, would progressively portray this rich Divine Life from many angles.And the many angles sometimes occur withinn ONE book by ONE author. Nope. Not sure what you are refering to. So quote it so I can look at context and compare with your spin on it. Educate me.Below here you provide me a quote. Thanks. That is admittedly rather harsh. However I notice that it could not be done easily: " In such cases, you must examine the facts CAREFULLY. If you find it is TRUE and CAN PROVE that such a detestable act has occurred among you ... (my emphasis) " I would surmise that this was very infrequent because of God's provision that a very solid case for accusation had to be secured. In the process of examining such a town they probably found worthy people vouching for the exception to the greater population of such offending behavior.In other words, it was probably not frequent that ALL the inhabitants of such a town were deceived.Remember that God assured Abraham that if He found a minority of worthy people in a town He would not destroy the entire town (Genesis 18:23-33). You said this was not relevant. Well, I am not trying to change the subject. I just am curious about your consistency.You see I meet a lot of people who express outrage at the killing by God of Canaanite children to be reluctant to express similar outrage at the legalized killing of unborn children through the millions of abortions practiced yearly in some countries.I am curious about your consistency or whether your outrage is selective because you have it out for the God of the Bible. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Your assumption would not be accurate. I regard the specific instance of God commanding the execution of a nation in the judgment of the Canaanites to be completely different from the plague abortions for convenience.I simply point out that God's judgment in time may not reflect His judgment as to eternity. This is not an excuse to carry on millions of abortions for convenience so that heavenly grace can be bestowed upon unborn children.I found this to be a mere clever twist on your part. Then we are not that much difference in our sentiments. However, you did use the phrase "ANY" murder. Didn't you ? Thankyou for expressing your position. I am not sure about your political analysis. It sounds a little screwy to me as emphatically as you put it ...Ie, "PERIOD ...Conservative Christian politicians WANT what they DON'T WANT."???Skipping down ... The politics aside, I hear you say the number of deaths of unborn chirldren should be reduced.Well, since the judgments of the OT did not ALWAYS go to the extreme of having children killed, I would surmise that God TOO thought the number of such incidents should be kept DOWN. So He did not always go to that length.Now let me say this. I do not yet understand the killing of the children of certain Canaanite tribes. At present time I wonder if these nations were so deeply immersed in the occult that thier children were kind of consecrated to demons and Satanic powers.It this were the case, it is possible that they were so bad off because of the dark voodoo like crimes of their parents that it was a mercy for them to have not lived in this age.You spoke before of James Bond movies. It you want to refer to Hollywood, recall in the Godfather, that the mother of the Mafia boss's child would rather abort the child then have him grow up in the Mafioso lifestyle that she found her family trapped in. Remember?At the present time, I wonder if some of these Canaanite children had nothing to look forward to in their lives but enslavement to the darkest and most evil Satanic and demonic control and enfluences.This could have been a reason for the killing of the children along with their adult parents.I'm sorry Nuggin. I just believe that God is good at being God. And I do not share your eagerness to portray God as the sadistic enemy of mankind.At any rate, as a Christian, there is no such New Testament instruction to wipe out peoples with genocide. Rather we are to pray for our enemies. And Joshua is not the last book in the Bible. I continued to read on and on through to the ministry of Jesus, the "Friend of sinners, the Great Physician". Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

jar and Nuggin,Out of regard for the topic and our departure from it, I think I will not contribute to the drift more for now.Some people here want talk about Inspiration and such things concerning the Canon of Scripture.There is a little overlap. But I think the regular contributers to this thread want to discuss Inspiration. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I do need to be careful about that. Thanks.

Nuggin, I misread Utilitarian as Unitarian. My mistake.I'll have to research Utilitarian for my own education.

Purpledawn,I wrote: I don't think I understood what you were saying when I wrote this.The verses you thought are additions were 34,35 ?

Some speculate that they are added lines. I don't think they know for certain. I'll have to back and read that post latter. I don't know who that single verse could have any real impact on the revelation of the Triune God. That the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God is made abundantlty clear elsewhere in undisputed passages.But you can explain how you think absence or presence of 1 John 5:7 alters the teaching of the Three - One God. I think that in the very same epistle of First John the weight of other passages confirms a trinitarian understanding of God. I don't think the matter of the three-oneness of God stands or fails on verse 7 purpledawn. Include or exclude verse 7 and see what we still have in the same letter:1.) In 1:1 we have the divine life that was with the Father. And that divine life was handled, seen, heard and manifested to the apostles in the Son who is a Man:" ... our hands handled the Word of life (And the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and report to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us." ) [/b]This is an uncreated and divine eternal life who is the Person of Jesus Christ. Being the eternal life with no beginning this must be God Himself in the form of a man.This much shows a utter oneness of the Father and the Son. And ...2.) To have fellowship with this eternal life is to "have fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ."That is TWO distinct Persons yet ONE divine life. We are well on our way to trinitarian understanding of God already.3.) The disciples only know that God abides in them by the Holy Spirit in 3:24 and 4:13. "And in this we know that He [God] abides in us, by the Spirit whom He gave to us." "In this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, that He has given to us of His Spirit"Experiencially, the disciples only know by the Holy Spirit within them, that God abides in them. So you have an organic unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit already.4.) "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him and he in God" (4:15)Here the believer in Christ the Son of God abides in this God. Yet John's exhortation is to abide in Christ for His second coming: "And now, little children, abide in Him, so that if He is manifested, we may have boldness and not be put to shame from Him [Jesus] at His coming." ( 2:28)To abide in Jesus the Son is to abide in God the Father. This shows the oneness of the Father and the Son. And the only way the disciples know that God abides in them is by the Holy Spirit.The revelation of the Trinity is already established in the same epistle quite independent upon 5:7.5.) We are told that the divine eternal life is in the Son, and to have the Son is to have the life: "And this is the testimony, that God gave to us eternal life and this life is in His Son.

​

He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (5:11,12)If you would think about it, the very term FATHER denotes a SOURCE of life. So the FATHER'S own uncreated and eternal life is embodied in the Son of God. This confirms a multi-une revelation of God. The Father's divine life is dispensed into the believers in the Son of the Father.6.) Whoever denies the Son of God cannot possibly have the Father: "Everyone who denies the Son does not have t he Father either; he who confesses the Son has the Father also." (2:22,23) And to abide in God is to abide in the Father and in the Son simultaneously: " If that which you heard from the beginning abides in you, you will also abide in the Son and in the Father." (2:24)And remember, the only experiencial way the believers know that they abide in the Father and in the Son is by the Holy Spirit whom God has given to them: "And in this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He gave to us." (3:24) "In this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, that He has given to us of His Spirit." (4:13) 7.) To abide in the FATHER and HIS SON is to to have the true God and eternal life. Look carefully how John worded his final passages: "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding that we might know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ.

​

This is the true God and eternal life." (5:19,20) The saved ones know Him who is true. And they are organically within Him who is true - yet this is to be in His Son ! "we might know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ.". "This" is the true God. John did not say "This is the true Son of God". John said "THIS ... is the TRUE GOD" . John is refering to Him that is true and His Son Jesus Christ as the Divine "THIS".Even more than that John is including the experience of abiding in the Father and the Son as subjectively "the true God and eternal life".This experience of an organic union of the the believer's life with the Father and the Son is so uppermost that everything replacing this experience is an idol that the believers should guard themselves from: " ... and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. Little children, ruard yourselves from idols." (5:20b,21)I use to not understand the last verse in First John. It seemed that the apostle wanted to start a new subject about idols and perhaps ran out of scroll.Then I realized the connection between verse 21 and what has gone before. Anything replacing in our lives Him that is true and His Son Jesus Christ, can become an idol. Nothing should compete with the experience of abiding in the Triune God. Nothing should be more important to man then abiding in the Triune God.And the saved should guard against anything which usurps the preeminence of abiding in the Triune God. Anything more important to man then living in an organic union with the Father and the Son become idolatry. Preeminence must be given to this organic oneness of the Trinity with His saved people.Apart from a contraversial single passage, beceause of copy descrepences, does not effect the revelation of the Triune God abundantly testified to elsewhere in the same book, let alone eslewhere in the New Testament and even entire Bible.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I won't in a single post try to deal completely with the issue you raise.However will say something. In that natural world we have three things which are dependent upon one another in a kind of logically "unfair" circular way. Take Time, Motion, and Space. We can only measure Time by Motion through Space.
Yet we can only measure Motion by Time and Space.
And we measure Space through Motion with respect to Time.This kind of circular verification is not unlike the matter - The Word of God, The Spirit of God, and the People of God.The three are dependent upon one another in a triangular manner. It is the Spirit of God which produces the People of God. And the People of God dicern what is the Word of God.The Spirit o God in the People of God is needed to recognize the Word of God. The people of God recognized the Canon of the Word of God. They did not bestow authority upon books. They recognized authority in books.They could not recognize authority in books without the Spirit of God. And they did not get the Spirit of God apart from the Word of God.This may be quite frustrating to the modern scientific mind. You might even state what I say is circular reasoning. It may be a divine circular reasoning that we just have to live with.The Word of God does have authority in itself. But the People of God with the Spirit of God must recognize rather than bestow that authority.Now concerning disputes over passages. It is too much that we expect all believers to agree on every single point of doctrine.The problem arises not with mere disagreements. The problem arises in forming different CHURCHES according to those doctrines.Paul and Barnabus had a sharp contention between them. They were both apostles. What they were saved from was formulating a Paul Church as opposed to a Barnabus Church.I can have differences in opinion with another believer of the interpretation of a text or the importance of a disputed text - as to it being original or a latter amendation. What we should not do is DIVIDE the organic Body of Christ into different churches based on those disputes.Now I don't pretend this one brief word can deal completely with the problem of disputes among Christian teachers. But the greater error is to denominate the one Body of Christ because brothers in Christ have different opinions about a matter.Paul exhorted the believers to hold fast the Head. The Head is a living Person. The Head is a living Presence - Jesus Himself as the Head of the church.A saved brother may have a different view of First John 5:7 then another saved brother. It is not encouraged. But it is somewhat unavoidable. The danger comes not so much in the different opinions but in the founding of DIFFERENT CHURCHES according to those respective opinions.You can see from the First Corinthian letter a local church with many problems. But the FIRST problem Paul deals with, which he seems to regard as the ROOT of all the problems, is to fail to see that Christ Himself, the living Savior is not divided.All the workers of God are theirs - Paul, Peter, Apollos. God gives the organic GROWTH of the divine life.The believers must not let a dispute over variant copies of First John cause us to be distracted from holding FAST to the living Person of Christ Who is alive and available. And we must not allow the dispute to halt the growth of divine life within us. And we should not attempt to lay other foundations for another CHURCH according to those opinions. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.