Religion

[Optimist Prime 197]

Many modern scholars debate the actual authors. For example, The Gospel of Paul may or may not have been actually written by Paul. Instead they were written by the followers of Paul.

 

This would help account for the slight differences in narrative between Matt, Mark, and Luke for instance.

 

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.

[BMP 424]

Depends on what you believe in. My belief is man didn't invent it. Man invented the corruption, greed, and all that in it. God didn't need to throw a bible down. He had helped from special disciples and prophets. That is my belief. Maybe not yours.

 

And those disciples and prophets were... men

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

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.

 

yeah, i understand that. I was just pointing out that due to gaps in historical evidence that produce ranges of dates, rather than specific dates, some modern scholars have debated the actual authors. The examples I gave were off the top of my head so i really have no confidence in the relevance of them.

[Optimist Prime 197]

yeah, i understand that. I was just pointing out that due to gaps in historical evidence that produce ranges of dates, rather than specific dates, some modern scholars have debated the actual authors. The examples I gave were off the top of my head so i really have no confidence in the relevance of them.

 

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.

[Optimist Prime 197]

btw, the most reliable popular skeptical new testament scholar is probably bart ehrman. he makes a lot of reaches in my view, and obviously i disagree with some of his conclusions (since he is an atheist). i wouldnt recommend you read any of his pop books, but his more scholarly work would probably give you more arguments that support your claims.

 

in terms of christian scholars, william lane craig is a good historical new testament scholar. mike licona is also very good. both of these guys have debated ehrman on seperate occasions about the historical jesus. you can youtube these debates if youre interested.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

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.

 

the sad thing is we really wouldn't have these problems if the invading armies of antiquity decided not to burn down everything when they conquered a place.

[Optimist Prime 197]

the sad thing is we really wouldn't have these problems if the invading armies of antiquity decided not to burn down everything when they conquered a place.

 

indeed. we are lucky to have what we do.

[Emory889 353]

I won't speak on all religions. I'm not educated enough on ALL to do so. The Bible is the only religious book I've read. I think most can be useful if the person who represents it uses it right. Again, its just a tool. I do believe that theres more extremists in the Muslim religion then any right now. A lot of that IMO, is because of the leaders who abuse the tool and the way the extremists are oppressed.

 

So, as long as the religion isn't abused, it's good? In other words, there is no "wrong" religion?

[Osprey 199]

And those disciples and prophets were... men

 

Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God handed down to his chosen. Whether or not men wrote them down is insignificant. It is still the word of God which is not created by man. Maybe the actual letters and individual words, but not THE WORD.

 

Get what I am saying? It is confusing.

[BMP 424]

Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God handed down to his chosen. Whether or not men wrote them down is insignificant. It is still the word of God which is not created by man. Maybe the actual letters and individual words, but not THE WORD.

 

Get what I am saying? It is confusing.

 

 

I understand, but there are plenty of things written in there that weren't from god himself, whether they were passages about something they saw or thought happened, a lot of it was written by what men saw and heard.

 

Unless you're talking strictly Old Testament.

[My 6th Rebuild 6]

Instead of asking other people questions about God, I recommend you all ask God your questions. God will answer you. It has happened to me many times.

 

Seriously, if you ask God and you accept God as not only your God but as your father, just like a good father would do anything for their child so will god for you as we are all Gods children. God will answer your prayers.As his child if you are disobedient, god will punish you. Always remember, God loves you know matter what and he will always forgive you for any wrong you do (except for sins against the holy spirit) as long as you pray for forgiveness from your heart. If you do not accept God into your heart then he will not pay as much attention to you as he would with someone that has a father/son relationship with him. Who is Dwight going to go out of his way to give tickets to, a stranger or a friend? Same for God. Your not going to have a relationship with God overnight. As you put in effort, you will see that he will start to see you, speak to you, comfort you, love you, and guide you though real tough times.

 

2010 has been a real tough year for me personally and if it wasn't for the comforting feeling of my relationship with God, I'm not sure how I would have gotten through this so far. 2010 is not over.

 

For those of you that are "not religious", give God a shot and I GUARANTEE YOU your lives will change.

[Emory889 353]

Please point out the contradictions?

 

 

 

I think most people are making this too difficult. We learn morals through our parents. Thats the whole foundation right there. Unfortunately, theres a lot of parents in this world who don't have the maturity or the sense to bring there kids up right. My parents were great so that really helped me but having God in my life as well just made me even stronger. Jesus, he always reached out to the lost and theres a lot of people that are lost at this very present.

 

Thats great if you aren't and you live a respectable life and treat people with respect as well as yourself but thats just you. Theres millions and millions who don't. Its sad but true. God, Jesus, faith of any kind, has turned people without the parental guidence around for the good. Its turn the weak into the strong.

 

The people that take religion and abuse it or people who want votes, money, power, etc and will do anything to get it. Thats in the Bible as well.

 

How about the biggest contradiction of all? God, as portrayed in the bible, is clearly bipolar.

 

And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth” Exodus 34:6

 

And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten [many] of the people with a great slaughter. 1 Samuel 6:19

 

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made. Psalms 148:8-9

 

This story is a personal favorite of mine. For those that are familiar with the story, I'll give you the cliff notes. King David sees Bathsheba, the wife of one of his officers, and lusts after her. In order to get rid of Uriah (her husband) David orders his general to place Uriah in a place in the battle where he wouldn't survive. It worked, David then married Bathsheba and got her pregnant. God, go figure, does not approve.

 

'Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan replied, "The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the Lord show utter contempt, the son born to you will die." 2 Samuel 12:13-14

 

:"And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick...And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died." 2 Samuel 12: 15, 18

 

It gets better. The next son that Bathsheba gives David is Soloman, the next king of Israel. That seems fair. Murder, lust, adultery and the only one that really pays the price is the infant. Of course, this isn't the first time that God killed kids to prove a point. Ask the whole country of Egypt about that.

 

God is all knowing?

 

in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things. 1 John 3:20

 

I never understood why Christians don't see the obvious evil in the Abraham and Issac story. I can't even imagine the amount of devotion it took for Abraham to agree to murder his own son. I really can't understand why he would be devoted to a God that had the jealousy issues of a 5 year old. Here is the interesting part though. This is the words that the angel used to tell Abraham he didn't have to kill his own son:

 

"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." Genesis 22:12

 

So the question has to be asked: Did God know what Abraham was going to choose? If he didn't know, then God doesn't know everything and the scripture in John is wrong. If God did know, and he still made Abraham go through that horrific ordeal, then he is a ***** of epic proportions. Along those same lines, the story of Job is also applicable. You know, the story where God allowed Satan to destroy the life of Job the man who "there is no one on earth like him; blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." basically because Satan dared him to. Job 1:6-12 Satan proceeds to destroy all of Job's possessions, kills his wives and all of his children. If that wasn't enough, Satan also proceeds to convince God to allow him to afflict with painful boils head to toe. Job 2:3-7 The rest of the book consists of Job defending God to his 3 friends. Finally God answered Job and gave him an explanation that was the equivelant of "I'm God, I will do what I want." Then Job REPENTED TO GOD.

 

I find this story incredibly hard to stomach. God already knows how Job would react to Satan's trials, right? So what is the point of the whole charade? The end of Job is also surreal. It talks about how God then blessed Job with double his possessions and gave him more kids, because that makes up for the ones that God killed.

 

Truthfully, I don't believe there is a God. However, if there is one, and the bible is a accurate representation of his character, then I don't want anything to do with him. He is a tyrant that has no equal. A entity that is responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent lives. Why would an all knowing all powerful God never intervene to prevent atrocities? If I knew that planes would crash in the World Trade center and I had the power to prevent it, what would it say about me if I decided to do nothing? Wouldn't that make me twice as evil as the people that actually hijacked the planes? If God expects me to worship him, then I don't think I'm asking to much to expect God to be BETTER than me. I'm not worshipping a entity that is prone to the same petty jealousies and anger that the human race is guilty of.