It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
There's no date on the writing and no evidence that it was actually written before the event happened.
Marcion's restricted canon: 125-144 AD Marcion's concern was to exclude books that he disapproved of from his "canon." He was not assembling a collection of Christian books, but making a (very restricted) selection from the corpus of texts which already existed and which must already have been recognized as sacred by many in the church-otherwise he would not have needed to insist on abolishing them. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p 342, 2002)
Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew, with dates ranging from the 40s to 80s. Of much debate is whether it was completed before or after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD. If one accepts that Jesus foretold of this event, then the book may have been written before the Temple's destruction. Further, many argue Mark was the first Gospel and that Matthew followed, indicating a date likely in the 60s or 70s. Beyond this, much debate remains, though conservative scholars suggest the evidence may favor a date in the mid to late 60s. Mark, as mentioned, was likely the first written Gospel. Church history teaches it was produced by John Mark, cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:3), with inconsistent testimony from church history that states it was completed before or after the death of Peter in Rome in the mid 60s. The traditional African chronology (Coptic Church) teaches Mark was written in approximately 62 AD and was brought to North Africa by Mark where he was the leader of the church. According to tradition Mark died in or near Alexandria in 68 AD. Though uncertain, there is no strong reason why this could not have been the case. Luke is perhaps the Gospel with the strongest evidence regarding the date of its writing. Luke and Acts were written as two parts of a single work (Acts 1:1-3). Since Acts concludes with Paul under house arrest in Rome in approximately 62 AD, many believe Luke-Acts was written during this general time period. Many Lukan scholars suggest dates from 60-65 AD. John was likely written after the other four Gospels, something affirmed in early church history. Since church history also records him living until near the end of the first century, John could have been written any time between the 60s and approximately 100 AD. Some argue for an earlier date based on the mention of the Sheep Gate in John 5:2 in the present tense as still being in existence at the date of writing (meaning prior to its destruction in the late 60s AD). Most others suggest a post-70 AD date, usually 80s-90s, due to its advanced Christology and other internal factors. Any time between 65-95 AD is possible. Read more: www.compellingtruth.org...
The bible is a collection of letters, that are collected and rewritten by Rome or Constantinobel.
It is historically wrong ... and mainly a book written to justify victories, murder and genocide. Same as the Quoran.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: miniatus
The so called "lost" books of the Bible were never really lost. They were known about far before the council of Nicea and they weren't considered inspired by the Jews or Christians of that time either.
originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: miniatus
This seems to be another point of contention among both xtian and secular alike. Was the bible compiled by the council of Nicea? Some say yes. Some say no. I say...do we really know for sure, either way?
Also if you'll look into it a bit more you'll see plenty of evidence showing that the majority of the new testament books were in circulation before 70 AD
"The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." - John 19:7
"The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." - John 18:31
(31) Take ye him, and judge him according to your law.—Pilate takes them at their word. They claim the judicial right; let them exercise it. Their law gave them power to punish, but not the right of capital punishment. If they claim that the matter is wholly within their own power of judgment, then the sentence must also be limited to their own power. He can only execute a sentence which is pronounced by himself after formal trial.
It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.—Their words admit that they did not possess the power of life and death, while they imply that they had sentenced Jesus to death. They verbally give up the power, but in reality claim it, and regard the procurator as their executioner. The Jews had lost this power since the time that Archelaus was deposed, and Judæa became a Roman province (A.D. 6 or 7). The Talmud speaks of the loss of this power forty years or more before the destruction of Jerusalem. (Comp. Lightfoot’s Note here, and in Matthew 26:3.)
(7) We have a law, and by our law he ought to die.—The better reading is,. . . . and by the law He ought to die. (Comp. Leviticus 24:16.) They feel the bitter sarcasm of Pilate’s taunt, and appeal to their own law, which, in accordance with the general Roman policy, was in force in all questions which did not directly affect the Government. They change the accusation then from one of treason against Cæsar (John 19:12), of which Pilate claimed to be judge, to one of blasphemy against God, of which they only could be judges; and assert that Jesus is by that law guilty of a capital offence, for which He ought to die.
So, the old testament supports killing (Leviticus 24:16) even though another verse doesn't (Exodus 20:13). That's a contradiction. Or maybe it is only ok to kill in some situations, that would be relative morality - not absolute.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: arpgme
Leviticus is a consequence of a sin were as exodus forbids murder. Death according to the law and murder are two totally different things.
Killing in war is also handled differently under the law.
Killing is not objectively wrong, Murder is objectively wrong. Nothing about those verses imply relative morality.
4 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.