Originally posted by twhitehead And you, apparently, don't even know who wrote it, let alone when.
None of the New Testament was written by anyone who actually met Jesus during his lifetime.
You are another totally dishonest person, who knows practically nothing about
the Holy Bible. You certainly don't understand it. And no one on this planet
can say, with any accuracy, when the New Testament was written. It is only
educated guesswork. There is also no proof that the Books were not written
by the supposed authors.
Originally posted by RJHinds You are another totally dishonest person, who knows practically nothing about
the Holy Bible. You certainly don't understand it. And no one on this planet
can say, with any accuracy, when the New Testament was written. It is only
educated guesswork. There is also no proof that the Books were not written
by the supposed authors.
The earliest works which came to be part of the New Testament are the letters of the Apostle Paul. The Gospel of Mark is dated from as early as the 50s, although most scholars date between the range of 65 and 72.[60] Most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were written after the composition of Mark as they make use of Mark's content. Therefore they are generally dated later than Mark although the extent is debated. 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. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably in AD 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with Second Peter usually being the latest.[citation needed]
In the 1830s German scholars of the Tübingen school dated the books as late as the 3rd century, but the discovery of some New Testament manuscripts and fragments from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, one of which dates as early as AD 125 (Papyrus 52), disproves a 3rd century date of composition for any book now in the New Testament. Additionally, a letter to the church at Corinth in the name of Clement of Rome in 95 quotes from 10 of the 27 books of the New Testament, and a letter to the church at Philippi in the name of Polycarp in 120 quotes from 16 books. Therefore, some of the books of the New Testament were at least in a first-draft stage, though there is negligible evidence in these quotes or among biblical manuscripts for the existence of different early drafts. Other books were probably not completed until later, assuming they must have been quoted by Clement or Polycarp. There are, however, many discrepancies between manuscripts, though the majority of the errors are clearly errors of transcription or minor in scope.
On the other extreme is the dating proposed by John A. T. Robinson. He claimed that, since he believed none of the writings in the New Testament showed clear evidence of a knowledge of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (in AD 70), which Robinson thought should certainly have appeared considering the importance of that event for Jews and Christians of that time, that every book which would come to form the New Testament was therefore written before AD 70.[61] "
Originally posted by googlefudge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Authorship
[i][b]"Dates of composition
The earliest works which came to be part of the New Testament are the letters of the Apostle Paul. The Gospel of Mark is dated from as early as the 50s, although most scholars date between the range of 65 and 72.[60] Most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were wr ...[text shortened]... .org/DatingNT-ChronologicalOrder.htm
Originally posted by Suzianne The concept of a virgin Mary is central to the faith.
Only in the manner described in the bible could Jesus have been born without sin.
I wish you atheists would leave the believers alone with your half-baked ideas.
We don't want to be bothered by you just as you might not wish to be bothered by the JWs on Saturday morning.
I hear atheists const ...[text shortened]... ing to sell them on Jesus. Well, similarly, we don't need you trying to sell us on the abyss.
It's the political Protestants that are the ones we really dislike here in the US. You can't just live and let live with those - they want to use the government to manipulate peoples' lives in order to promote their religion.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung It's the political Protestants that are the ones we really dislike here in the US. You can't just live and let live with those - they want to use the government to manipulate peoples' lives in order to promote their religion.
Vis a Vis the school board decisions where they are trying to force ID or creationism to be taught along side evolution as if it were an actual science, which of course it is anything but, and should never be taught or force fed (my term) to easily manipulated kids.
These people would love to turn the US into a Christianized version of Iran.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung It's the political Protestants that are the ones we really dislike here in the US. You can't just live and let live with those - they want to use the government to manipulate peoples' lives in order to promote their religion.
They want true freedom of religion, which includes the freedom to teach
everyone about Christ and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit. The USA is promoting "freedom from religion", especially
from the Christian religion.
Originally posted by sonhouse Vis a Vis the school board decisions where they are trying to force ID or creationism to be taught along side evolution as if it were an actual science, which of course it is anything but, and should never be taught or force fed (my term) to easily manipulated kids.
These people would love to turn the US into a Christianized version of Iran.
Evolution should not be taught either then, for it is not true science.
Originally posted by RJHinds They want true freedom of religion, which includes the freedom to teach
everyone about Christ and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit. The USA is promoting "freedom from religion", especially
from the Christian religion.
No, because freedom of religion means all religions, and no religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Freedom of religion included freedom from religion, because it means that no religion can impose its views on anyone else.
This applies equally if you're southern baptist, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist.
The constitution makes no reference of special treatment for Christianity.
Originally posted by googlefudge No, because freedom of religion means all religions, and no religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
...[text shortened]... slim, or atheist.
The constitution makes no reference of special treatment for Christianity.
The part they are violating is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Virgin ( I say this with sarcasm) Mary
30 Sep '11 19:38
Back to Top