I was reading some interesting answers and arguments in regards to why there is an Old Testament and New Testament Bible. Most were not in agreement with each other.
What's your take on this?
The New testament was put together by the Church that the Roman Empire built..... Need I say more?????
Why? Who did you think constructed the NT? It wasn't the atheists of the time, nor the pagans, either. It wasn't the jews or the muslims and it certainly wasn't some Australian aborigine.
If I were to look through ALL of the written text that were avaliable to choose from when the canon was established (326AD)
It would be necessary and natural for me to say that my choice of writtings that I included in the canon WAS INSPIRED of God.
This is my deligma !!
You might say that I have blind faith in the existance of God.
I do not have blind faith in the MEN that established the Church in Rome.
When the disciples said that all scripture was inspired of God, they were talking about the scriptures that were avaliable at that time..
They were not giving credability to a collection of writting that did not exist as yet!
These; we must use discernment.
Who wrote the books of the New Testament? Not the Romans.
To be honest I am not 100% sure of who wrote the books in the New Testament.
I do believe that they were written by those that is it said to have been.
I have read that there was MUCH heated debate as to which books would be included and which would not. And that those that were not included was to be destroyed. Not only those books but also those people that kept faith in them. Cencership to the extreem.
I believe that the books that were included into the canon are more than likely, at least 98% accurate as origionally written by the authors.
I may be mistaken ... But it is my belief that Matthew, Mark, Luke etc did not write a book. They wrote letters of corrispondence to each other and others. These were later gathered and assembled into book form.
The manner in which these letters were assembled allows a bit of leeway as to the direction in which the theology would proceed.
Just my thoughts.
Luke, of course, was not one of the disciples and we don't know who wrote the book of Hebrews. I am frustrated that some books were removed from the canon, and also frustrated that the Aprocrypha were added to the canon. As I've said before, if people only read John 3:16 and Eph 2:8-9 they would know what it means to be saved. On the other hand, I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater either. What we do have does not contradict itself, which I think was the intent of the Councils? Just my thoughts.
I wouldn't throw the baby out with the water either.
I also agree that there are just a few basic beliefs that are required. John 3:16 is a great place to start.
And love your neighbor AS thy self. Cause if we Honestly do this we have truly kept them all.
No one knows for sure who wrote the New testament, nor the old. Much, if not all is hearsay. This is why the gospels are listed as "The Gospels "according to..." So just pick the parts you like out of these books as none are any more certifiable than the others. Sad, but true!
Some Romans may have. Can't really exclude them. I think scribes were gen slaves, but some may have been citizens. Paul was a Roman. A minister told me that if something is mentioned three times, it's good. BS some things are only mentioned once. Good enough for me.
Paul was a Roman citizen, but was from the Jewish tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1 - any coincidence this letter was written to the Roman Jews?). Just as 'Roman Catholics' are not Jews by root, Paul was not a 'Roman' by root. Rome was infiltrated with all kinds of pagan gods, so it must not be assumed that the New Testament, the majority written by the Apostle Paul, was of pagan origin. In Jewish 'law', there must be two to testify to something to make it truth, when it comes to witnessing. This is also the way it is in American courts ~ whether it be marriage or a criminal case, etc.
That is the reason for the construct of Spiritual man: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, This is not trad. Christian dogma, this is my beleif, take it or leave it. The image in which we were created is our witness within. "We three in one agree"
I don't believe God is three, but is One; so, I tend to have more of a 'Jewish' understanding of God (that Jesus is God and the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ), rather than what is traditionally taught by Gentile-based doctrine. I do believe we are made in God's image and that we are still a singular individual when it's all said and done.
One was before Christ (Old Covenant) and one was during and after Christ (New Covenant).
The basic source of the OT and NT is the Creator-God Allah YHWH; it is supposed to be Word of Revelation from Him; in this sense there should not be any difference in the teachings of them both. The difference is due to misunderstanding them or due to human manipulation of them.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
In her book, The Josephus Solution, Research author Amy Smith discusses the idea's that led Josephus to believe Moses wrote most of the Torah, Egyptian educated and what his name was in Egyptian.
The new Testament was originally written in Koine Greek, the books and letters, inspired by God. The opinions and hypotheses of scholars vary widely on the point.
Josephus is an accredited historian.
Life around Jerusalem as he described would be considered by anyones standards to have been very troubleous times said by some to be a great tribulation upon all Hebrews.
Some believe Josephus to have been an opportunistic liar. Specifically about Masada, or a similar experience that Josephus himself was centrally involved in. Myself? Can't really say, having not been there at the time, my bus was late, but if Masada didn't go down the way he said, then why did the Roman's build that massive, time consuming ramp. There are also the Gnostic texts, the Nag-Hamadi library, and other obscure texts which were removed by the Papacy. The original Greek texts disagree on key points with the King James Standard, not knowing Greek I would like to pursue that ave.
That is the problem with history as written.
There is always someone that believes this and don't believe that?
When it gets down to it, everybodys goina believe what they want to.
When the textual critic looks more closely at his oldest manuscript material, the intense variations in resources is more fully realised.
One of the major text used in the KJV was theTextus Receptus. It must be noted that along the way in the transmission there have been several changes. Some were unintentional and some were intentional.
Although many scholars agree that the Testament consists of many scraps of papyrus or parchment, many considered in such great shape for there age, because they were unused or disregarded.
The Greek text edited by Robert Stephanus
The Greek text edited by Theodore Beza
by Nicole Canfield 18 months ago
Why does everyone think that the Bible was written and put together by God? Don't people realize that there are many holy books and manuscripts that have been excluded from the Bible? St. Thomas Aquinas wrote one and it was omitted from the Bible by a group of people a few hundred years after Jesus...
by Chaplain Bernell Wesley 5 years ago
If Jesus never wrote anything why is the New Testament the basis of Christianity?If Paul wrote 2/3 of the New Testament is Christianity not a Pauline invention since Jesus wrote none of it?
by Judah's Daughter 6 years ago
"In the 1611 KJ New Testament the name Yahshua (Yehoshua) appeared originally wherever the Messiah was spoken of. Yehoshua means Yehovah is Salvation. Later the Messiah's name was replaced with Iesus (Greek) which later in the 1600's itbecame Jesus starting with the new English...
by Cecilia 4 years ago
So any of you watched the new episode of Cosmos. ...It is encouraging doubt as a contrast to faith. It's not overly atheist sounding but it took a little knife, jabbed it into the three great religions foundational doctrine which is "faith" and twisted it ever so gently.
by Eric Dierker 4 years ago
In the story of the upper room Thomas even doubts his eyes. And he asks the master to let him touch the wounds to be sure that it is real. He did not operate on blind faith. He did not let his sense of awe cloud his quest for truth. He was an empiricist skeptic. Hoorah for Thomas. And the master...
by Castlepaloma 7 years ago
Early Americans did not share the blind faith of today's fundamentalists. Faith" is a fine invention, with some skepticism. But can science and scripture live happily together without fighting. What story do you prefer no.1 or no. 21. There is all kinds of evidence for dinosaurs. We also have...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|