i dont understand how a book written 400 years after the events took place can be taken seriously

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Akragon

 

Cool story bra.

Those who teach do not know, and those who know do not teach.

Just read it again, still love it - So wise beyond your years, Akragon

Again, your Jesus - he knows nothing.

Laters

edit on 8/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Heh, you don't have to tell me...i don't need my ego stroked trust me

My Jesus? I don't have a Jesus... As i've told you before, i have no idea if he existed or not.

But saying the words that are supposedly from him are false, or even "he knows nothing" Well again, if you believe those words you spoke... you fail at life. Or of course you haven't actually read about him

You love to throw this at me so its your turn now....

Which is it.....lol

reply to post by Akragon

you fail at life

Haha, very telling. Your character is very revealing. I'm yet to insult you on such a profound level.

Don't worry though, i know what people who preach Christ are like - Not very Christ like



I'll leave this thread in your very capable, God-knowing hands. The thread title speaks volumes anyway.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

I'm yet to insult you on such a profound level.

I wouldn't think what i say to you has any "profound" effect... Good to know though...

I won't rehatch your insults towards me, its unnecessary.

ttyl

Originally posted by bknapple32
it just baffles me.. I mean, play the game telephone with more than 6 people. You'll hardly ever get what the original message was. Now multiply this by a million. How can people take this seriously?!?! I understand faith, but cmon! It just makes no logical sense how people will take the new testament as fact, or even guidelines when the really facts are so far from contrived its not even funny.

when will people put out the same vetting in their belief system, as they do in believing news stories?

can my religious friends explain this to me?

thanks

edit on 14-10-2010 by bknapple32 because: type-o

edit on 14-10-2010 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)

Could it be that the New Testament was not written 400 years after the events?
Cause it wasn't, seriously. You ought to have investigated before starting this thread based on a false premise.

reply to post by Vicky32


The new testament isn't even one book. He's got a poin though. Paul wrote a lot of it and Paul was walking the scene way after actual events. isn't he ?

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Vicky32

 

The new testament isn't even one book. He's got a poin though. Paul wrote a lot of it and Paul was walking the scene way after actual events. isn't he ?

After, yes, but by no means 'way after'! Just a matter of 10 years max, afaik... In fact the letters of Paul are the earliest parts of the New Testament.
Vicky

reply to post by Vicky32


Didn't the originaal apostles wrote down their stories at the end of their lives ?

Which is already several dacades after Jesus took took the skies. Paul walked aroud after this period right ?
So 100 years instead of ten comes closer does it not ?

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

Didn't the originaal apostles wrote down their stories at the end of their lives ?

Which is already several dacades after Jesus took took the skies. Paul walked aroud after this period right ?
So 100 years instead of ten comes closer does it not ?

No, Paul wrote before the original apostles, not after them! When he refers to the 'scriptures', he means the Old Testament, not the new, which didn't exist then.
As you can see from the link, the first New Testament book was First Thessalonians from circa A.D 51.

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 ...

Wikipedia on New Testament dates of composition

reply to post by Vicky32


It bugs me you get a star for your explanation and I get nothing for asking a good question. I didn't know...
I've learned somerthing new today...

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Vicky32

 

It bugs me you get a star for your explanation and I get nothing for asking a good question. I didn't know...
I've learned somerthing new today...

I did? That's cool!
It was a good question, I am giving you a star...
Vicky