From my memory that I learned from a Christian Theology class. For a Christian, the OT and NT revolve around Christ. The OT the events leading up to him and prophecies fulfilled by Jesus and NT where the gospel of Jesus is at. The OT had for a time could only be spoken because they were unable to print in the conditions they were in. The NT was comprised I believe by 70 people. Each person had to translate and weed out the books on their own in separate dormitories. When they got together they looked at the relevancy of their translations and decided which books should be included in the NT and which books shouldn't be included. For some reason though I'm thinking 300 that is relevant with this history, but could be false memory for something else.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- how long has the bible been "a message" and not literal truth
^ they got together and edited away the bits and pieces they didn't like and re-wrote large sections. But even still, all the of writings came after the death of Jesus. There was no contemporary writing that directly referenced him during his lifetime.
^Some of the writings were written by people that followed Jesus it is just as good account as someone writing as he goes. They got what they needed locked in memory. I am sure back then they had rock hard memories for the events they witnessed. And whatever happened during his early years didn't matter to what the NT intended, which was to preach the gospel.
There are plenty of people who believe its literal truth right now.
Fuck Israel
Some info on date of composition:TheAussieReaper wrote:
^ they got together and edited away the bits and pieces they didn't like and re-wrote large sections. But even still, all the of writings came after the death of Jesus. There was no contemporary writing that directly referenced him during his lifetime.
Canonization.Wiki wrote:
Most secular scholars agree on the dating of the majority of the New Testament, except for the epistles and books that they consider to be pseudepigraphical (i.e., those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). For the Gospels they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65 and no later than 75. Matthew is dated between 70 and 85. Luke is usually placed within 80 to 95. However a select few scholars disagree with this as Luke indicates in the book of Acts that he has already written the Gospel of Luke prior to writing the introduction to Acts. Acts is written in a journal form indicating that it may have been written during Paul's journeys which it documents. That would put Acts as early as the 60's and the Gospel of Luke earlier than that. This then could push back Mark into the late 50's if one believes that Mark is the source of some of Luke's material. Early church fathers rarely seem to support parts of that. For instance Irenaeus claims "Luke recorded the teachings of Paul, after the deaths of Peter and Paul. He wrote after the Hebrew Matthew, at around the same time as Mark, and before John." Clement though claims: "Luke was written before Mark and John and at the same time as Matthew. " When taken with Clement's writing on Mark, this means that Peter and Paul were alive at the time that Luke was written. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably in 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, Christian scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with Second Peter usually being the latest.
Some key reasons why there was no contemporary writing during his lifetime: 1) His followers initially viewed his teachings as simply an extension/interpretation of existing scripture; 2) Once he was deemed "wrong" by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, it was detrimental to one's health to be a known associate...writing down his teachings placing one in said category. In the end, it simply wasn't safe until several decades after Jesus' death.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
This is what we learned in my Theology class at Orange Lutheran High School:Warhammer wrote:
From my memory that I learned from a Christian Theology class. For a Christian, the OT and NT revolve around Christ. The OT the events leading up to him and prophecies fulfilled by Jesus and NT where the gospel of Jesus is at. The OT had for a time could only be spoken because they were unable to print in the conditions they were in. The NT was comprised I believe by 70 people. Each person had to translate and weed out the books on their own in separate dormitories. When they got together they looked at the relevancy of their translations and decided which books should be included in the NT and which books shouldn't be included. For some reason though I'm thinking 300 that is relevant with this history, but could be false memory for something else.
The OT is a collection of the Jewish Scripture that contains the prophecies about Jesus, and the NT shows how he fulfilled them in the Gospels, everything after Acts is an account of the work of the early believers and the growth of the Church. The Bible has the most copies of any work of ancient literature, as well as being the most frequently copied down with the least changes. The Bible is, according to what most historians would look at for authentication of other ancient texts, the most authenticated text ever. Many of the comparable secular texts have few existing ancient copies, and those are at the earliest from hundreds or thousands of years after the original would have been written.
Since chinese whispers oral history was written down on papyrus.
The Bible was written in a time where there were very few who could read it - so I guess intellectuals would have gotten the message, and assumed the truth about it (that it's figurative, and not actually 100% real). However, as more people can access it, more people misinterpret it. That's probably how the creationist misconception came into play. Maybe the bible should come with a sticker, saying "not necessarily 100% true - just take the meaning from it - and ignore the old testament)
The bible as we know it today was probably written by only one person, by the way - rewritten in the way he/she deemed it appropriate. You can see this because the writing style of the entire thing is very similar.
-kon
The bible as we know it today was probably written by only one person, by the way - rewritten in the way he/she deemed it appropriate. You can see this because the writing style of the entire thing is very similar.
-kon
They managed to make that kind of stickers for evolution and saying we have no proof. so why can't we do the same? =/konfusion wrote:
The Bible was written in a time where there were very few who could read it - so I guess intellectuals would have gotten the message, and assumed the truth about it (that it's figurative, and not actually 100% real). However, as more people can access it, more people misinterpret it. That's probably how the creationist misconception came into play. Maybe the bible should come with a sticker, saying "not necessarily 100% true - just take the meaning from it - and ignore the old testament)
The bible as we know it today was probably written by only one person, by the way - rewritten in the way he/she deemed it appropriate. You can see this because the writing style of the entire thing is very similar.
-kon
Did you just say there is no proof of evolution?Zukabazuka wrote:
They managed to make that kind of stickers for evolution and saying we have no proof. so why can't we do the same? =/
No no, Creatism managed somehow to put a sticker in the books where it saidTheAussieReaper wrote:
Did you just say there is no proof of evolution?Zukabazuka wrote:
They managed to make that kind of stickers for evolution and saying we have no proof. so why can't we do the same? =/
"Evolution is a theory and should be treathed as one"
Kinda telling we have no proof of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k3g1mRx3LE
This is just a part of the full one, you can find the full one that's about 1h and 50min in the list.
But "Evolution is a theory and should be treated as one" was Darwin's message.Zukabazuka wrote:
No no, Creatism managed somehow to put a sticker in the books where it said
"Evolution is a theory and should be treathed as one"
Kinda telling we have no proof of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k3g1mRx3LE
This is just a part of the full one, you can find the full one that's about 1h and 50min in the list.
He didn't ever say here it is, evolution, it is complete fact. It was a theory, which has been supported by evidence. But that theory changes as our understanding of evolutionary science improves. He did label it as a theory for a number of reasons, one of course was not to directly oppose the strong Church beliefs at the time, but all of science is based on theories.
The Church will tell you the opposite. This is the answer and don't question it. Darwin presents, here is my theory, question it and test it to the best of your ability.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- how long has the bible been "a message" and not literal truth