Optimist Prime

true. its always a good thing to ask questions. i think there is a lot that has been taken for granted in the study of ancient texts. the fact that we can hone in on a time span so small from 2000 years ago is actually pretty cool. but, with anything this old, and with the way things were documented at the time, it really is hard to absolutely know authors and dates of any text. anything from beyond the fourth century is going to be hard to certify authenticity. but if you compare the gospels to other ancient texts (number of copies, dates of earliest copies, etc), i think youll be surprised at the numbers.

in all honesty, i think usf has a better chance at the upset, only because im uncertain about the production of the uf offense. i think their defense should be able to shut down the bulls, but it could be a game of field goals if the o doesnt step up. i dont know much about osu except that they had a pretty weak schedule last year and still managed to rank as a top five team this time around (though they did beat oregon in the rose bowl). i think it can come down to the canes special teams and td/int ratio. either way, im really just hoping the noles can get their act together and break the sooners home winning streak.

most likely upset: usf beats uf or miami beats osu? im hoping miami beats osu and usf gets put in their place... my only real issue with this scenario is that it would move boise up in the rankings... -_-

you mean the letters of paul? or acts of the apostles? its pretty uncontested that the majority of pauls letters are his own words, and while others may be debated, no one would ever deny that he either wrote or dictated them. the synoptic gospels (matt mark luke) were determined to be written between ad 50 and 80. in the gospels, Jesus predicts the temples destruction, which doesnt occur until ad 70. this is why many have thought that the gospels must have been written after that, because the writers had to have known about the temples destruction to write about it. but, really many people were predicting the temples destruction, so even secular historians shouldnt have any big issues with this detail. because of the ending to acts (written by the same author as luke [which is what you may have cofused with the "gospel of paul" as acts was written by luke, a follower of paul]), it has been speculated that that gospel of luke and acts both must have been written by ad 62, when paul died, as that would be a big detail to leave out when accounting his life. if this is the case, mark had to have been completed before this, as it was the first of the three gospels to be written, with the least eloquent greek (which means it was written by someone who was not a natural greek speaker nor very well learned). i think there are good reasons to believe the gospels were written by those they are claimed to be. the writing style of each definitely fits well, that luke and matthew are both much more eloquent greek writers than mark and that john writes from a much more spiritual and personal perspective. also, these gospels were identified very early on to have been written by these authors. if this were not the case, it would be easy for, say, ignatius, a disciple of john to refute the claim that the gospel was written by his teacher. the studies on the life of these supposed gospel writers (including my previous point that luke traveled with paul, and shows this in the book of acts by speaking in the second person) seem to also point to the claims being true.

just thought id throw my hat in... my dad is a daoist. my stepmom, who married my dad when i was 12, is a more spiritual form of buddhist and i became a christian at the age of 19, my sophomore year in college. a little about the bible... the bible was written by men for sure. the old testament was written by many different authors about the people israel over many centuries. they are both commentaries on the history of israel and accounts of the disposition they stood in before their lord God. i dont know nearly as much about the old testament as i do about the new. all the books currently in the new testament were written within the first century, and the ones they decided to leave out were written much later, after the first generation of christians had already died, by people with no direct connection to the first apostles. the gospels tell the stories of Jesus and his ministry, and the epistles were letters written to the first churches, written by leaders. revelation is a vision of the end of days. the new testament books were all written by eyewitnesses of Jesus or people who knew these eyewitnesses. the secondhand accounts (luke, mark) were written by people who knew the apostles and other eyewitnesses of Jesus at the time, as they were all still alive when these were written. in fact, luke was a companion of paul during much of his travels accounted in the book of acts. the books chosen to be in the christian bible were decided at the council of nicea based on the apostolic message (the teachings were known to be the same as what was taught in the first church) and apostolic succession (they had at least a direct, first person connection to the apostles), not which ones people liked the best or agreed the most with each other. just a little background info for those interested.

since when was rashard "great"?