The Disciple and Politics

[Tri Unity]

(I believe) that Jesus has been installed as the "true King" over this present world.

This view of yours is the same as Augustine's theory of the world and governments, and the reason why the Catholics believe in post-millennialism. They believe the world needs to be converted politically before Christ returns. That is why the Catholics endorse the United Nations, and why the pope is trying to be the head of the UN. We are (mostly) the children of the Catholics, not of the Apostles. We follow the Catholics and ignore the Apostles. Luther was a Catholic after all. Political involvement originates with the Catholics, not the Apostles.

 

[Butch5]

You must be careful here as you are close to undermining the Bible. The texts of the Bible have been shown to be extremely accurate and well preserved.

What we have has been shown to be pretty accurate, however, our texts for the most part only date to around 400. As I pointing out the Ante-Nicene writers had much earlier texts, some from the apostles themselves. They also had the oral teachings of the apostles. My point was to show the value in reading these writings.

While I agree with your general point, we must be careful to not assume that theologians of today do not have a good understanding of early church writings, history of the culture and the early church, as well as a thorough understanding of koine Greek.

That isn't too say that there isn't error and certainly some are further from the truth than others, but we simply cannot dismiss what they have to say as they have a much more thorough knowledge than most of us can ever hope to have.

I don't doubt that some have a very good understanding of those times. However, I don't know that that can be compared with those who lived there.

 

[Free]

You must be careful here as you are close to undermining the Bible. The texts of the Bible have been shown to be extremely accurate and well preserved.

What we have has been shown to be pretty accurate, however, our texts for the most part only date to around 400. As I pointing out the Ante-Nicene writers had much earlier texts, some from the apostles themselves. They also had the oral teachings of the apostles. My point was to show the value in reading these writings.

I'm not disputing the value in reading such writings, just that there are much more than those writings that need to be considered. As for the accuracy of the texts we have, that accuracy refers to just how close they are to the autographs. In other words, when scholars say that our manuscripts are 99.X% (iirc) accurate, they mean 99.X% compared to the autographs, not withing the existing texts themselves.

I don't doubt that some have a very good understanding of those times. However, I don't know that that can be compared with those who lived there.

But that's not really the point, is it? The point is that you keep arguing that Christians would do well to read the early church writings for a better understanding of Christianity as opposed to modern theologians, yet, modern theologians do read those as well. So why do you seem to that think your understanding of what the early church writers wrote is better than a theologians understanding of what they wrote?

Besides, you're depending on theologians' interpretations of those writings, unless you are fluent in koine Greek. So you're already one step behind a theologian's understanding. Not to mention the disagreement amongst early church writers and some of their teachings which are now considered heretical. There time was little different from ours.

We simply have zero basis for dismissing modern theologians' and historians' understandings of Scripture and the culture surrounding it.

 

[Free]

This view of yours is the same as Augustine's theory of the world and governments, and the reason why the Catholics believe in post-millennialism. They believe the world needs to be converted politically before Christ returns. That is why the Catholics endorse the United Nations, and why the pope is trying to be the head of the UN. We are (mostly) the children of the Catholics, not of the Apostles. We follow the Catholics and ignore the Apostles. Luther was a Catholic after all. Political involvement originates with the Catholics, not the Apostles.

It should be noted that just because at least some early Christians may have believed it was wrong to enter into politics, doesn't mean that they are right. It is erroneous to conclude that the earlier we go to a source the more correct we will be. It may be the case but it may not.

 

[Butch5]

It should be noted that just because at least some early Christians may have believed it was wrong to enter into politics, doesn't mean that they are right. It is erroneous to conclude that the earlier we go to a source the more correct we will be. It may be the case but it may not.

It's not just going to the source. It is what was taught universally for the first 300 years, over whole region. It's not like this was just taught in one area or time frame. From the time of the apostles until the time of Constantine the teaching was the same. If this wasn't what the apostles taught one has to wonder how it is that the apostolic teaching could immediately be lost. There is nothing in the NT telling Christians to get involved in politics. What basis is there then to participate?

 

[Butch5]

I'm not disputing the value in reading such writings, just that there are much more than those writings that need to be considered. As for the accuracy of the texts we have, that accuracy refers to just how close they are to the autographs. In other words, when scholars say that our manuscripts are 99.X% (iirc) accurate, they mean 99.X% compared to the autographs, not withing the existing texts themselves.

How can anyone say that our manuscripts are 99.X% accurate compared to the autographs when we don't have the autographs?


But that's not really the point, is it? The point is that you keep arguing that Christians would do well to read the early church writings for a better understanding of Christianity as opposed to modern theologians, yet, modern theologians do read those as well. So why do you seem to that think your understanding of what the early church writers wrote is better than a theologians understanding of what they wrote? [/quote]

I didn't say my understanding of the early church was better than the theologian, that's why I said Christians should read the early church themselves. If I thought my understanding was better then I would have said Christians should listen to me, however, I didin't say that.

Besides, you're depending on theologians' interpretations of those writings, unless you are fluent in koine Greek. So you're already one step behind a theologian's understanding. Not to mention the disagreement amongst early church writers and some of their teachings which are now considered heretical. There time was little different from ours.

I doubt most theologains are fluent in Koine Greek so that wouldn't put me behind.

What exactly is heretical from the Ante-Nicene writers?

We simply have zero basis for dismissing modern theologians' and historians' understandings of Scripture and the culture surrounding it.

I don't reject them across the board, however, there is reason to reject many of them.

 

[Asyncritus]

Drew:

Admittedly, I have only presented assertions, and very sweeping ones at that. However I am quite confident that one can indeed make the case that humans "in Christ" are called, like Adam, to govern this world and direct it to ultimate restoration.

I think you've just shot yourself in the foot very powerfully Drew.

I have been trying to show you that the kingdom of God WILL BE on the earth, hasn't come yet, and will only do so when the Lord returns.

You have disagreed with me, talking about some imaginary present kingdom of God.

Now here are you, agreeing with me for once - I think-! And with innumerable passages of scripture at the same time.

Here are a couple of such passages:

Rev. 5.9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

This is the work of the saints in the kingdom of God.

As Jesus says:

Mt 25.21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Luke 19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

Of course, you can symbolise, spiritualise these passages with all or any of the whole raft of theological subterfuges which seek to avoid their very plain meanings, but that wouldn't cut it because the prophets also chime in with the very same message:

Jer 23.3 And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase.
4 And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the LORD.

Ps 72.8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.
9 They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust.
10 The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.
11 Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him.

Isa 2.2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

They will be taught to obey the word of God - by the saints whose function will be to teach them.

 

[Asyncritus]

While it wasn't directed at you so you should have left it alone, especially since you are new, I will requote the pertinent part:

"and not open to much doubt apart from the dust raised by the theologians who have nothing better to do than sit on their behinds writing claptrap"

That is derogatory and my calling it out has nothing to do with it disagreeing with my view. If I have ever insulted anyone in this thread on the basis of disagreement, then please, point it out, as I do not believe I have done so at all. There are good and proper ways of discussion and debate and insulting others is not a way to go about things.

I honestly didn't take offence at your remarks, Free.

You know my view of theologians, and I can't change that.

 

[Asyncritus]

Being that we're 2000 years out, the water is muddied no matter which way you look at it. Even the verses you posted and your statement that theologians should be "getting out there and preaching the gospel Christ taught," presume many things, including knowing just what the gospel is as given in the Bible, what it means to baptize, what is meant by "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" and just who they are, what are all the things that are commanded to be observed and what is meant by the "end of the world".

These are the most basic things about the gospel, and the veriest child with a bit of application will easily understand these things. And be able to tell others about them. My children have done just that on many occasions.

The theologians invent unnecessary complexities.

It is so remarkable that the believers in the NT were for the most part uneducated and illiterate - and yet, they could believe the gospel and be baptised.

It was only when the Jewish theologians came along with their evil obfuscations that things started to go sour - and that was very early on. That torch was well carried on by the following theologians, and not much has changed to this day.

So, despite your derogatory comments about theologians, they are most necessary in helping us to understand what Scripture means when it says such things, and many more things. Not to mention that without them we wouldn't have an English translation by which to "support" such derogatory comments.

A translator, as you ought to know by now, is not necessarily a theologian - and in fact it is dangerous to have a translator who is - because he will inevitably colour passages according to his preconceptions.

And just as you would not expect to hire a translator to translate the business of the Greek parliament to be a politician, just so I would not expect a translator who translates scripture to expound scripture for me. That is not his function.

I am grateful for their Greek, but not for their theology.

 

[Asyncritus]

First of all, you don't have the fountain head, you have some "Theologian's" interpretation of copies of the fountain head. The earliest text we have are copies from about 400 AD. "ALL" of the Ante-Nicene writers had copies much closer to he source. Some had the very writings of the apostles’ themselves.

You might like to look at this site, and here's an extract:

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html
Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars

Are you fluent in koine Greek? They were.

No, but I have a huge number of translators who are.

Are you well versed in 1st century middle eastern culture? They were, they lived in it.

What has that got to do with anything? Answer with example(s) please, showing why I would not be able to understand whatever example you choose.

Are you able to ask questions of the apostles themselves? Some of them were?

And their answers were doubtless corrupted by faulty transmission.

There are many reasons to read their writings and get a better understanding of what was taught in the first century.

With worked example(s), prove this statement, and show that I could not possibly understand what was being said in the NT without such information.

Secondly, suggest why God did not have this information bound into the Bible.

The idea that one can reject all of this background information is seen in the plethora of denominations in the church today. Christians think they can read the Scriptures with a western mindset and walk away with a complete understanding of a 1 st century middle eastern culture.

It is because of the 'background information' generated by 'scholars' that the denominations are so far astray from scriptural basics.

We have dozens of examples on this very board of such doctrinal and practical errors, and this very thread is dealing with one of the big ones.

 

[Drew]

I think you've just shot yourself in the foot very powerfully Drew.

I have been trying to show you that the kingdom of God WILL BE on the earth, hasn't come yet, and will only do so when the Lord returns.

You have disagreed with me, talking about some imaginary present kingdom of God.

I believe the Biblical evidence is powerfully that the kingdom of God is present and is certainly not imaginary:

But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

No doubt, you will try to argue that by "kingdom of God", Jesus is referring to something entirely other than a conventional "political" kingdom, but rather to some "smaller" kingdom that is limited to the realm of interior spirituality. Well, I see no Biblical evidence whatsoever for such an argument.

One sees this a lot - people take a plain Biblical assertion like "the kingdom of God is upon you", and then, in this case anyway, re-define the term kingdom to mean something other than what the world would clearly mean its setting.

Same thing with "Lord". Paul repeatedly writes that Jesus is Lord. In that cultural context, the term "lord" would denote a political leader. So what do many modern Christians do to preserve this idea that Jesus is not a political king? They re-define "lord" to mean "the leader of my personal, interior, spiritual life".

And, I suggest, in such cases, there is no Biblical justification for such a re-definition.

I am more than happy to get into this in more detail - I believe there is a wealth of Biblical evidence that the "kingdom of God" is a real kingdom in every sense of the word, and that it is here right now. And has been for 2000 years.

 

[Drew]

From Acts 4:

On their release, Peter and John wentback to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders hadsaid to them. 24When they heard this, they raised their voices together inprayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made theheaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25You spoke by theHoly Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
"'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One

Peter and John pray in response to the actions of the religious leaders. The prayer quotes directly from Psalm 2,verses 1 and 2 - not a co-incidence:

Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth take theirstand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORDand against his Anointed One.

And what does Psalm 2 go on to saya few breaths later in respect to this "annointed one"?:

I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill

Assuming that Peter and John know their scriptures, they know that Psalm 2describes rebellion against a sitting King. And more to the point, the Acts text showsthat He is a king over nations – sothis is not the “heavenly†kingdom so many imagine, it is a kingdom of this present world.

Do you really believe that the HolySpirit would inspire the writer of Acts to record this prayer, which exactly echoes the Psalm 2 account ofrebellion against a sitting politicalKing, and not expect us to draw theobvious conclusion – Jesus is indeed that very King, already installed, just as Psalm 2 declares?

Even though (obviously) we do not haveJesus with us in person, his Kingship has been established.

 

[Drew]

Here are a couple of such passages:

Rev. 5.9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

This is the work of the saints in the kingdom of God.

This text does not deny the otherwise clearly established Biblical principle that the kingdom of God is already here. For the sake of the argument, let's say I agree that the fulfillment of this prophecy lies in the future. And I think that is at least debatable. Some reputable theologians believe that much of Revelation actually refers to 1st century events. And some manuscripts have "they reign" instead of "they shall reign".

But let's say this is about the future. The model we have in the scriptures about the kingdom of God is one where that kingdom advances over time. Thus, another argument of the "futurist" is undermined, the demonstrably unBiblical line that if the kingdom were here right now, there would be no evil or suffering.

In any event, there is nothing this text from Revelation asserts that undermines the notion that although the kingdom is indeed here right now, it has not yet reached a state where we saints actually "rule" over creation.

But that is hardly an argument against the present reality of a "political" kingdom, nor the imperative to mold the world and its institutions according to the kingdom model.

 

[Drew]

Mt 25.21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

This text does not support your argument. I suggest that this parable is not about the future. Jesus is here talking about Israel's failure to live up to here covenant obligations. Note this from the same exchange:

His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

I do not have time to make the case now, but I suggest that Jesus is engaging in some carefully worded criticism of the nation of Israel. This entire parable is not about the future - it is about what is happening right at that time. Israel has failed in her covenant obligations and Jesus, setting Himself in the role of the returning master is calling her out on this.

The evidence for such a reading is powerful, but takes time. For the present, it should not stating that proper exegesis does not allow one to simply assume that this parable is about the future. And many evangelicals, probably most, indeed simply assume this.

 

[smaller]

THE DISCIPLE AND POLITICS​

About half of the debates on this forum which concern political issues of one sort or another are based on what is basically a terribly false premise.

That premise is that Christians have a right, duty, or obligation, to participate in the politics of the land: in most cases on this forum, that means America.

The most recent examples are about gay marriage, but there have been many other political subjects which have come up.

The Scriptural fact of the matter is that disciples of Christ have, or should have nothing whatsoever to do with the politics of the world: whichever country that happens to mean in any given instance.

I say that for several reasons, all scriptural.

1 John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

There is no avoiding the force of these words. Other versions say basically the same thing:

John 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” ESV

John 18:36 "My kingdom is not founded in this world — if it were, my servants would have fought to prevent my being handed over to the Jews. But in fact my kingdom is not founded on all this!" Phillips

John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world." RSV


John 18:36 Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my officers had struggled that I might not be delivered up to Jews; but now my kingdom is not from hence.’ Young’s Literal

There are probably many other such translations, but these will suffice.

Let us draw out the consequences of this bald statement:

1. Jesus’ Kingdom is not a worldly one: it is yet to be established:

Dan 2.44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

Both these passages (and numerous others in the OT especially) clearly speak of the end of human rule and dominion ON THIS PLANET, AND ITS REPLACEMENT BY THE DIVINE.

That has not happened YET, AND THE CITIZENS OF THAT KINGDOM TO COME, must behave as if that is really the case, and distance themselves from the politics of the present world.

The Lord’s Prayer makes this abundantly clear: ‘Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven’ is clearly an unfulfilled prayer AS YET.

It follows, therefore, that His disciples have an allegiance to THAT kingdom, not to ANY earthly one. As Paul says,

Col 1.13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Heb 11.9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

This is the true status of the disciple of Christ – like Abraham and the others mentioned in Hebrews 11, we are strangers and sojourners in the world, not citizens of it. He further says:

Eph 2.19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

If the saints are from all the countries of the world, then clearly, they are not of any single country, and must not act as if they are or were.


2 Jesus in Jn 18.36 quoted above, and in the Sermon on the Mount where He commands us to turn the other cheek, is clearly stating the His disciples have a non-participant role in the wars and political practices and issues of the day.

3 There is no instance of any of the disciples and apostles taking part in any kind of political endeavour whatsoever. Some, like the Ethiopian eunuch, held high office at the time of their conversion. Whether they continued in those positions is not known.

4 Soldiers are effectively told to get out of the army by John the Baptist when he said: ‘Do violence to no man’. And turning the other cheek during a battle is not recommended practice in many military training manuals, and will inevitably result in the individual being shot.

So a disciple is to be a non- participant in politics, and a non-combatant in wars.

The price for that may well be imprisonment or death, but that is a price the disciple is prepared to pay for the sake of Him who died for us.

As Daniel said: 4: 17 […] the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.

That being the case, we can easily understand the actions of those in positions of power. They can confidently be expected to act basely, and that should come as no surprise to the disciple.

The Psalmist said the same thing, in so many words:

Ps 146.3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

Don't vote for them - after all you'll be voting for the 'basest of men'.

Lay aside your claims to 'rights', and take the position that you have none.

But pay your taxes (Jesus did), and obey the laws of the country as far as is consistent with the laws of God. 'Be subject to the higher powers' Paul says.

Those are our instructions.

I generally agree with your observations above. Not that agreement means much in any case in our present world.

The difficulty in text will remain understanding kingdoms/Kingdom and rule.

Few of us discern that we carry our own enemies, internally, in our own hearts.

There is the establishment of The Kingdom begun. It's a difficult matter to come to grips with, since exactly none of us really perceive this matter as to 'who' we really are and more importantly the fact that the enemies we 'personally' carry currently hold sway over everyone and everything.

The Lord comes and reckons with any who are interested in having an honest discussion with Him about these matters, and does so from His Word.

The essence of these matters is found in the parables He Spoke.

The 'reality' of His coming is not readily or openly apparent and will not be right up to thee end of the enemies reign.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

This was the personal exercise of Paul on this same matter. For those who are led to see the personal 'reasons' that this transpires, you are blessed.

1 Corinthians 15:31
I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

Paul showed us 'our' current mutual positions very frankly and openly. One would have to be nearly blinded to not see the facts:

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Now, in any Divine Equation, politically speaking, would a believer expect those bolded matters to change?

Uh, no.

Better to take an honest personal view of our own conditions.

There is only ONE EARTH to be in charge of for each believer and that is the earth of our own BODY.

Romans 6:12
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

In order to RULE one should be able to come to grips with the reality of sin being present to reign. And on that journey of understanding, the Word will open to any honest viewer. They will see the utter futility of trying to make weakness, corruption and dishonor any better than what they presently are.

These matters do not change, but are scheduled for eventual...

-DISSOLUTION.

On that ground HE DIVIDES, right here, right now in 'real' time.

For those who do not see what they are presently, they will see nothing of any of these kingdom/Kingdom matters. They will only see and perceive and heap up all the good things of the Words to themselves.

They will never see themselves in simple honesty.

All liars will find their place in the Lake of Fire.

s

 

[Adullam]

The Disciple and Politics....don't mix.

 

[Drew]

The Disciple and Politics....don't mix.

Do you have a specifically Biblical argument to support this?

 

[Adullam]

Do you have a specifically Biblical argument to support this?

Yes I do!

2Ti_2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

We know what nature a man lives by by the type of warfare he wages.

 

[farouk]

I don't see too many politicians around, either, in Philippians 2, where the Lord Jesus is described as 'high exalted' and 'given a name which is above every name'.

 

[Butch5]

You might like to look at this site, and here's an extract:

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html
Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars

You're speaking of fragments, I'm speaking of nearly complete texts.

No, but I have a huge number of translators who are.

You don't know how well and you don't know their theological bias.

What has that got to do with anything? Answer with example(s) please, showing why I would not be able to understand whatever example you choose.

I didn't say you couldn't understand. I asked if you had an understanding. An understanding of the 1st century middle eastern mindset goes a long way to understanding what was being said. For instance, Today we has sayings that we use, slang, such as, you're cool, roll with the punches, hang in there. Do you know what slang usages they had? Imagine two hundred years from now someone reading a letter that said, wow John, you're cool, and concluding that John had a low body temperature. If they didn't know that you're cool was a common saying of the time they would come to a wrong conclusion thinking John had a low body temperature.

And their answers were doubtless corrupted by faulty transmission.

The apostles answers were corrupt?

With worked example(s), prove this statement, and show that I could not possibly understand what was being said in the NT without such information.

I didn't say you couldn't understand. I said it is easier to understand. I don't know what you believe or could show where your belief is different.

Secondly, suggest why God did not have this information bound into the Bible.

You'll have to ask Him that. Maybe He wanted to see who wolud do the necessary work to frind out.

It is because of the 'background information' generated by 'scholars' that the denominations are so far astray from scriptural basics.

Which I suspect is most likely the case with you too, however, as I said I don't know what you believe.

We have dozens of examples on this very board of such doctrinal and practical errors, and this very thread is dealing with one of the big ones.

More reason to seek the source.