Christian pre reqs

[nobspeople]

In short, what are the pre reps for being a christian?
Believe in jesus?
Believe in jesus as the son of god?
Believe in jesus as the son of god and a sacrifice to humanity's sin?
Believe the bible is the actual word of god (be it literal or god inspired or what-have-you)?
Believe the bible has no errors nor contradictions?
Believe you must be saved to get to heaven?
Believe in eternal heaven?
Believe in eternal hell?
Believe in the holy spirit?
Believe in order to get to heaven you must be baptized?
Believe in 'once saved always saved'?

[JehovahsWitness]

Even if Eusebius cannot be credited with the Sinaiticus, any controversy about specific verses reflected in his personal writings can never equal that which is recorded in biblical copies.

... you'll need to support your assertion with something more than simply the assumption that the scripture is authoritative.

Fair enough. There are no early manuscripts of the book of Matthew that do not contain Matthew 28:19, 20. The verses are not disputed as being spurious by bible scholars including Eusebius who at no time proposed the words do not belong in the text. That he partially quoted the verses on occassion in discussing the trinity is not necessarily indicative he rejected the verses as not being part of the inspired text since he also quoted the text in full. Indeed if, as is suggested by some experts (e.g. Tischendorf, Batiffol, et. al), Sinaiticus was actually produced by Eusebius we have evidence he actively endorsed the verses at least at the time of writing.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS



Does Eusebius endorse the so-called "baptismal formula" ?
viewtopic.php?p=889429#p889429

[Mithrae]

I have understood that it means, a disciple of Jesus (“Christian”), is loyal to Jesus teachings, lives by them.

As for instance:

Mark 10:17-21 As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother.’” He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.” Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”

Matthew 6:18-25 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. . . .
 “No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?"

Luke 14:25-33 Now large crowds were traveling with him; and he turned and said to them, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. . . . So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions."

[2ndpillar2]

Matthew 28:19-20 is not in all the early transcripts.

It is probably fair to say not all biblical passages are in *all* tthe early manuscripts. That said, to the best of my knowledge thisparicular passage does not figure amongst those bible scholars contest. Could you list which major manuscripts you found it omitted in and why that leads you to conclude it was not part of the original script.
JW

According to a report I read, Eusebius, the early church historian, of the 325 AD era, quoted it without the Trinitarian version.

I am not aware Eusebius at any time claimed the words currently at Matthew 28:19 were spurious. If there exists some controversy as to why he failed to quote the long version in his all his exposées, this amounts to a doctrinal debate rather than a question of authenticity.

Further, certain scholars (e.g. Tischendorf, Batiffol, et. al), contend that the Sinaiticus was produced by Eusebius and the words do appear there. His later (or subsequently) quoting a shortened version in his personal writings would be irrelevant having already have testified (by his translation) the words belonged in scripture.

Even if Eusebius cannot be credited with the Sinaiticus, any controversy about specific verses reflected in his personal writings can never equal that which is recorded in biblical copies.

And what "biblical copies" are you referring to, and when were they written and by whom, and what was their basis? And were is the corroborating witness as to the content of Matthew 28:19, as required in Matthew 18:16 and Dt 19:15? And as Eusebius wrote in his writings, that he wrote not on the basis of truth, but what was good for the church. Being part of the original Arian leadership, Eusebius could just as well have deleted the verse. Eusebius, a church leader, was also the clergy for Constantine, and court historian for Constantine, the "beast with two horns like a lamb", and your other church leaders were in no better position, for they looked at Eusebius as a leader of their church, which according to the early Reform leaders, is the "whore of Babylon". It seems your foundational building blocks are made of sand, one grain depending on another, and when the wind, rain and hail come, what is to keep your house from falling? You are building a stalking horse, no one called Eusebius's exclusion of the long version of Matthew 28:19 as "spurious", it was mentioned that they were simply missing from his version. Having future so called scholars add words with respect to their opinion is not helping your case. You are like the Muslims, you make your own narrative, which has no foundation, on "spurious" opinions. In the case of Muslim's, 200 years after the death of some made up guy in the 7th century, but in your case, making "spurious" accusations 1400 years after the fact. No, we are at the "end of the age", and that which is hidden will be revealed, and the tares will find themselves in a position of wailing and gnashing of teeth (Mt 13). The JWs will find no rock to hide under, for they have discounted the "rock" (tested stone) for their own "falsehood" and "deception" (Isaiah 28:15). Your "covenant with death shall be cancelled" (Isaiah 28:17), and you shall "sleep/die", contrary to what your false prophet Paul, has taught you. The end of the "path" you are on ends in "destruction" (Matthew 7:13). As for Tischendorf, with his honorary doctorate degree, and his 4th century bible, found at Saint Catherine's monastery, which was a monastery built on the wrong Mt Sinai, on the wrong continent, from which the supposed Mhmd (praised one) (Mohammad) met some preacher, Saint Gabriel (the angel Gabriel), who told this so called 12 year old Mohammad that he would become a prophet. The monastery also came up with a letter from this historically mythical Mhmd (Mohammad)(praised one) of Mecca, that the Arabs were supposed to leave the monastery alone. If you are depending on Codex Sinaiticus for your foundation, remember that the long ending of Mark is missing. You therefore probably should not be preaching to the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5), and you should start stoning adulteresses, because the adulteress story is missing.