Range of Questions

[Darkie]

Hi, This is my first time posting on this forum and Im just postin some questions that I have after many classes or Religion at my school. I have asked my Teacher some of these questions, but it just feels weird asking a Teacher. Same way with a Priest.

Anyways, if this is the wrong forum, Im sorry, but some of the descriptions were confusings.

Ill list the questions so they are easy to read that way.

These questions relate to the Bible and the Christian Religion in general.
I am a Roman Catholic, yet not a Strict Die-Hard one.

1. Why were the Synoptic Gospels choosen as they were? Many Gospels were written in the same period, yet only ones who did not contradict with the belief at the time were chosen. Yet, it is then expected that these Gospels are Inspired, even though the process to choose them was so general.

2. Mark, being the first Gospel written, is one of 3 in the Synoptic Gospels (duh lol). Yet, Matthew and Luke take heavily from Mark and 1 other source each, and these Gospels are listened to as well. Why isn't Mk just considered the sole gospel out of Mk, Mt, and Lk then?

3. Judas betrayed Jesus. It was brought up in my class that Judas did it to force Jesus into takin his role of Messiah and make it public. Yet Judas took money for what he did and that should disprove that reason. Yet Judas' meaning and purpose in life was basically to betray Jesus. The guilt from that caused him to kill himself. Now, why would God control his life (Judas') like that. Judas betrayed Jesus (that was his life's purpose basically) and it lead to his death. Wouldn't God have caused his death then? Also, since Jesus is God, and knows all, he knew Judas would kill himself. Why did he try and not ease his guilt?

4. Mark tells of all ridiculing Jesus on the Cross, includin those on his sides. Yet Lk (i believe, maybe Mt) tells of a robber crucified next to Jesus to forgive his sins and set a place for him heaven. From what i have heard, Lk's part of it seems more believed. Yet Mk's gospel was written first, so wouldn't Mk's story be more accepted?

That's all I can type for now as I need to go sleep now. Took me around 2-hours to write this hole thing. Sorry if it isnt worded that well, but it is late and hard for me to think of all this when it is all jumbled in my mind.
Eventually, I guess I will post any more questions Ive had just lookin for answers.
Thanks to anyone who takes the time to respond or even just reads it.

 

[rogsr]

I. As far as I know(I do have some education in early Christianity, but I'm not an expert) the gospels were chosen because they were the most trusted out of the texts that were available when the first "bibles" were put together. There was a movement in the first and second centuries call gnosticism and it was kind of like a cult that took mainstream early christian beliefs and married them together with their own personnal beliefs. There were alot of gospels that had been influenced by the gnostics and those gospels were not included for that reason. That doesn't make the gnostic gospels completely unreliable but still not reliable to include in the "official" text on christianity.

II. First I want to point out that all history on the writers and history of the gospels is speculative. No one really knows for sure if matt. and luke were really copies of mark with thier own twists. I know this probably isn't the answer you want but it is good to know that this information is theoretical.

III. I don't know what class you are taking but it sounds very dogmatic. God can not "control" any of us because that is not consistent with free will. Historically Judas Iscariot was known to be a Zealot(Jewish freedom fighter like barabas) and he probably betrayed Jesus because He was not the warrior Messiah he wanted (this to is speculation but it fits better and is somewhat historical. Sometimes the Church will hide behind "blind faith" when their information is inaccurate, sorry to say.)

IV. Who wrote the synoptic gospels? Luke was a student and companion of Paul's; Matthew was probably written by the apostle Matthew; Mark is attributed to Mark who was a student of Peter's. Where any of these people actually there during the crucifixion. No. So their information is most definately second hand and that's why it differs slightly. The apostle John was the only apostle that was actually there during the crucifixion. His gospel was his words penned by one of his beloved students John "the elder" who was also important in the early church. Personally I chose to take the synoptic gospels as a whole and If you do that then you have a pretty good Idea of what was going on in the 3 1/2 years that Jesus walked the earth. Another point to remember is that the gospels are like a highlight reel of the ministry of Jesus, and that is why some gospels include information that others do not and also why they share some information.

If you are really interested in this I advise you to read Paul Barnetts book "Jesus and the rise of early christianity" he uses some independent sources and paints a better picture of the reality of the gospels and the information contained within. He is also an anglican bishop so his account is historical and faithful..Which is very important in this delicate area of christianity.

 

[Rafael]

God surely has the power to preserve His Word of truth to man if He is the one that has inspired its writing. If not, then He would be weak...which we know He is not by the poweful and awesome creation and life we experience. By inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the scriptures were written, and I believe they are also kept by God for us. The would be nothing other than parer and ink if not for the life that they impart, being living and not dead letter.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


With further study, you will find each of the gospels confirm each other as witnesses to the truth, but put forth different aspects of who Jesus was.

Matthew presents Jesus as Messiah with the geneology of Jesus through Joseph with fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.
Mark presents Jesus as a servant with one third of it dealing with the last week of His life.
Luke has the Lord as Son of man coming to seek and save the lost with the geneology of Jesus through Mary. It is the largest of the gospels.
John presents Jesus as God in the flesh.

It was brought up in my class that Judas did it to force Jesus into takin his role of Messiah and make it public.

Jesus could not be forced into being crucified by Judas because He said that He gave up His life for us willingly.

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Now, why would God control his life (Judas') like that. Judas betrayed Jesus (that was his life's purpose basically) and it lead to his death. Wouldn't God have caused his death then? Also, since Jesus is God, and knows all, he knew Judas would kill himself. Why did he try and not ease his guilt?

I'm not God and can only speculate from what scripture reveals to us. Because God sees time from beginning to end, from eternity, and knows us and what we will do, does not make Him responsible for the choices and sins of Judas or us. Why you would think that God would comfort Judas for betraying Jesus? Maybe if we think of it as if someone had just sold our own son into torture and murder, it would help us understand why there was no comfort for Judas. Judas could have lived and repented of his crime, but chose not to when Jesus had told Him before hand that any man should forgive seventy times seven? Judas had somehow forgotten the words of His own master, but we know that Jesus wasn't truly the master of Judas, but satan was.
A commentary I have says: "Of the motives that have been assigned we need not care to fix on any one as that which simply led him on. Crime is, for the most part, the result of a hundred motives rushing with bewildering fury through the mind of the criminal."

John 13:27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

 

[alwayselearning]

I chose the twelve of you, but one of you is a devil.

Hi, This is my first time posting on this forum and Im just postin some questions that I have after many classes or Religion at my school. I have asked my Teacher some of these questions, but it just feels weird asking a Teacher. Same way with a Priest.

Anyways, if this is the wrong forum, Im sorry, but some of the descriptions were confusings.

Ill list the questions so they are easy to read that way.

These questions relate to the Bible and the Christian Religion in general.
I am a Roman Catholic, yet not a Strict Die-Hard one.

1. Why were the Synoptic Gospels choosen as they were? Many Gospels were written in the same period, yet only ones who did not contradict with the belief at the time were chosen. Yet, it is then expected that these Gospels are Inspired, even though the process to choose them was so general.

2. Mark, being the first Gospel written, is one of 3 in the Synoptic Gospels (duh lol). Yet, Matthew and Luke take heavily from Mark and 1 other source each, and these Gospels are listened to as well. Why isn't Mk just considered the sole gospel out of Mk, Mt, and Lk then?

3. Judas betrayed Jesus. It was brought up in my class that Judas did it to force Jesus into takin his role of Messiah and make it public. Yet Judas took money for what he did and that should disprove that reason. Yet Judas' meaning and purpose in life was basically to betray Jesus. The guilt from that caused him to kill himself. Now, why would God control his life (Judas') like that. Judas betrayed Jesus (that was his life's purpose basically) and it lead to his death. Wouldn't God have caused his death then? Also, since Jesus is God, and knows all, he knew Judas would kill himself. Why did he try and not ease his guilt?

4. Mark tells of all ridiculing Jesus on the Cross, includin those on his sides. Yet Lk (i believe, maybe Mt) tells of a robber crucified next to Jesus to forgive his sins and set a place for him heaven. From what i have heard, Lk's part of it seems more believed. Yet Mk's gospel was written first, so wouldn't Mk's story be more accepted?

That's all I can type for now as I need to go sleep now. Took me around 2-hours to write this hole thing. Sorry if it isnt worded that well, but it is late and hard for me to think of all this when it is all jumbled in my mind.
Eventually, I guess I will post any more questions Ive had just lookin for answers.
Thanks to anyone who takes the time to respond or even just reads it.

You won't get the best "Scholorary" response from me, but here's my 2 cents.

The process of choosing which Gospels were or were not the inspired word of God May have been general,But the people who were in charge were Men of God and they were directed by the Holy spirit, when it came to Choosing the Gospels. Maybe that's not really the best answer to give you but, you must remember the soverenty of the Holy spirit. God Is omnimpotent.. ( forgive the bad spelling ), and is control of everything.

second. I would like to add that Mark being written first,is not conclusive this view although educated is just an opinion this is not, ( at least in my view) have been proven. Mathew and luke relying heavely on Mark is also an opinion.

Here's the deal with Judas.

Judas was warned about his betrayel, at least twice. First time, he was told that Someone wasgoing to betray him.
Jn 6:70 NLT

Then Jesus said,"I chose th twelve of you,but one is a devil"

The second time was more direct.
Jn 13:21 NLT

"one of you will betray me"

John asked Jesus who it was in verse 25 and in verse 26,Jesus basicly says who it is.

and in verse 27 He tells Judas to do what he was going to do.

To me this is plenty of time for Judas to feel, guilty of his upcoming betrayel. Jesus gave him plenty of times to change his mind.
And where does it say that Jesus eases his guilt?
**

Now I don't think Mark and luke, contradict themselves. Mark Abbreviates to get the action across. the the otheres explain in more detail.

who's to say that they aren't both right? that they both hurled insults at him, as Mark suggested only to have one of them later change his heart and stick up for jesus as Luke suggests?

 

[desi]

Hi, This is my first time posting on this forum and Im just postin some questions that I have after many classes or Religion at my school. I have asked my Teacher some of these questions, but it just feels weird asking a Teacher. Same way with a Priest.

Anyways, if this is the wrong forum, Im sorry, but some of the descriptions were confusings.

Ill list the questions so they are easy to read that way.

These questions relate to the Bible and the Christian Religion in general.
I am a Roman Catholic, yet not a Strict Die-Hard one.

1. Why were the Synoptic Gospels choosen as they were? Many Gospels were written in the same period, yet only ones who did not contradict with the belief at the time were chosen. Yet, it is then expected that these Gospels are Inspired, even though the process to choose them was so general..

They were chosen because God pulled the strings to create the Bible as it is.

2. Mark, being the first Gospel written, is one of 3 in the Synoptic Gospels (duh lol). Yet, Matthew and Luke take heavily from Mark and 1 other source each, and these Gospels are listened to as well. Why isn't Mk just considered the sole gospel out of Mk, Mt, and Lk then?

See previous answer.

3. Judas betrayed Jesus. It was brought up in my class that Judas did it to force Jesus into takin his role of Messiah and make it public. Yet Judas took money for what he did and that should disprove that reason. Yet Judas' meaning and purpose in life was basically to betray Jesus. The guilt from that caused him to kill himself. Now, why would God control his life (Judas') like that. Judas betrayed Jesus (that was his life's purpose basically) and it lead to his death. Wouldn't God have caused his death then? Also, since Jesus is God, and knows all, he knew Judas would kill himself. Why did he try and not ease his guilt?

God did not have to cause Judas's death then so he didn't; and if he did, Judas's suicide would not be there for us to ponder. Judas crucified himself for our benefit.

Jesus told Judas to kiss him; thus, easing his guilt. Judas knew he was God's patsy when he killed himself.

4. Mark tells of all ridiculing Jesus on the Cross, includin those on his sides. Yet Lk (i believe, maybe Mt) tells of a robber crucified next to Jesus to forgive his sins and set a place for him heaven. From what i have heard, Lk's part of it seems more believed. Yet Mk's gospel was written first, so wouldn't Mk's story be more accepted?

They are both mostly true. The other crucified guy had nothing to lose by going along with Jesus. The others were under duress from the blatant power against Jesus.

That's all I can type for now as I need to go sleep now. Took me around 2-hours to write this hole thing. Sorry if it isnt worded that well, but it is late and hard for me to think of all this when it is all jumbled in my mind.
Eventually, I guess I will post any more questions Ive had just lookin for answers.
Thanks to anyone who takes the time to respond or even just reads it.

Any more questions?

 

[Darkie]

Got some questions still from the four responses Ill pull up before I go into any new questions:

God Is omnimpotent.. ( forgive the bad spelling ), and is control of everything.

Isn't that contradicting our free will then?

Jesus could not be forced into being crucified by Judas because He said that He gave up His life for us willingly.

I didn't mean Jesus being forced into crucifixion, but into taking up the role of the political, warrior messiah to free the Jews from the Romans everyone expected.

Here's the deal with Judas.

Judas was warned about his betrayel, at least twice. First time, he was told that Someone wasgoing to betray him.
Jn 6:70 NLT

Then Jesus said,"I chose th twelve of you,but one is a devil"

The second time was more direct.
Jn 13:21 NLT

"one of you will betray me"

John asked Jesus who it was in verse 25 and in verse 26,Jesus basicly says who it is.

and in verse 27 He tells Judas to do what he was going to do.

To me this is plenty of time for Judas to feel, guilty of his upcoming betrayel. Jesus gave him plenty of times to change his mind.
And where does it say that Jesus eases his guilt?

That is what I mean. Jesus knew Judas was to betray him. It was basically Judas' destiny in life, his whole purpose was that one action. To betray his master. Such as being set by God. And Jesus, knowing Judas would betray him, knew Judas would kill himself. He would know why, how, when, ect... of it.

Judas knew he was God's patsy when he killed himself.

And the reason was the Guilt, that it seemed like he had no to little choice in the matter. So was there not two sacrafices. Our savior gave his life for our sins, and Judas gave his life also, so Jesus could die for us?

Judas had somehow forgotten the words of His own master, but we know that Jesus wasn't truly the master of Judas, but satan was.

Stuff like this is the main reason why I am asking this. Why is it considered Judas should be evil? His motives aren't known. (Could be he had no choice to the Panda told him to do it )

I. As far as I know(I do have some education in early Christianity, but I'm not an expert) the gospels were chosen because they were the most trusted out of the texts that were available when the first "bibles" were put together. There was a movement in the first and second centuries call gnosticism and it was kind of like a cult that took mainstream early christian beliefs and married them together with their own personnal beliefs. There were alot of gospels that had been influenced by the gnostics and those gospels were not included for that reason. That doesn't make the gnostic gospels completely unreliable but still not reliable to include in the "official" text on christianity.

There were also gospels written near the time period the four Gospels were written. But like I said, the Church chose the Gospels most convient to them at the time. They were widely known so would attract popularity. They had similar text and themes.

The process of choosing which Gospels were or were not the inspired word of God May have been general,But the people who were in charge were Men of God and they were directed by the Holy spirit, when it came to Choosing the Gospels.

Who were in charge of choosin the Gospels? I do believe that they were inspired, the authors that is. Yet, This would be the first time Ive heard that the ones to choose the Gospels were inspired...

Mathew and luke relying heavely on Mark is also an opinion.

It is more than an opinion. I don't have the numbers on me, but there is a certain percent of the bibles that are almost verbatum.

With further study, you will find each of the gospels confirm each other as witnesses to the truth, but put forth different aspects of who Jesus was.

Aspects which were put to fit their audience.
Such as Marks gentile audience or Matthews Jewish-Christian audience.
I don't exactly see how they confirm each other. Similarities are seen would only support they are copies from one with twists added.

II. First I want to point out that all history on the writers and history of the gospels is speculative. No one really knows for sure if matt. and luke were really copies of mark with thier own twists. I know this probably isn't the answer you want but it is good to know that this information is theoretical.

Isn't that the theory athiests use to try disprove our religion?

III. I don't know what class you are taking but it sounds very dogmatic. God can not "control" any of us because that is not consistent with free will.

God should not control us. But he is all powerful and there is no reason as to why he couldnt rid a person of free will


K, thats all i got for now
ty to all for replin

 

[alwayselearning]

Got some questions still from the four responses Ill pull up before I go into any new questions:

Isn't that contradicting our free will then?

I didn't mean Jesus being forced into crucifixion, but into taking up the role of the political, warrior messiah to free the Jews from the Romans everyone expected.

That is what I mean. Jesus knew Judas was to betray him. It was basically Judas' destiny in life, his whole purpose was that one action. To betray his master. Such as being set by God. And Jesus, knowing Judas would betray him, knew Judas would kill himself. He would know why, how, when, ect... of it.
And the reason was the Guilt, that it seemed like he had no to little choice in the matter. So was there not two sacrafices. Our savior gave his life for our sins, and Judas gave his life also, so Jesus could die for us?
Stuff like this is the main reason why I am asking this. Why is it considered Judas should be evil? His motives aren't known. (Could be he had no choice to the Panda told him to do it )

There were also gospels written near the time period the four Gospels were written. But like I said, the Church chose the Gospels most convient to them at the time. They were widely known so would attract popularity. They had similar text and themes.

Who were in charge of choosin the Gospels? I do believe that they were inspired, the authors that is. Yet, This would be the first time Ive heard that the ones to choose the Gospels were inspired...


It is more than an opinion. I don't have the numbers on me, but there is a certain percent of the bibles that are almost verbatum.

Aspects which were put to fit their audience.
Such as Marks gentile audience or Matthews Jewish-Christian audience.
I don't exactly see how they confirm each other. Similarities are seen would only support they are copies from one with twists added.

Isn't that the theory athiests use to try disprove our religion?

God should not control us. But he is all powerful and there is no reason as to why he couldnt rid a person of free will


K, thats all i got for now
ty to all for replin

First of all, I would not hesitate to say that I am very impressed with your responses.

I especially liked the way you ended the post. "K, that's it for now."


We can actually be friends.



Second, I didn't mean the people who chose the gospels were inspired, but the books themselves.
**

The free will issue, I have to admit is difficult to get into.

Its like this...

Your father is in control over your life, how you live, the rules to follow, curfew ect...

This control is to a certain extent, the more you love your parent the more control he has over because you love him, and you want to be obedient to him. You want to serve your parents ( example ) doing chores, going to bed when your suppose to.

YET
at the same time you do have free will. You can chose to ignore him, there is consequences to pay of course but you do have free will.

I'm going to be very honest with you. This isn't the best example, I can give you.

And lastly......Yes... you are right it is more than opinion that Mark is the first gospel written, but my view is that Mathew was before Mark, Sorry I don't have the proof for that. Its a view that I am choosing to hold on to.

P.s

removing from free will, means you are not really loving that person.

Don't have time to get into that but that's how I feel about the issue.

 

[rogsr]

Skepticism is not atheistic, but rather protection against being duped into fundamentalist fanaticism.

Atheists use the logical absurdity of religion, the endless paradoxical ideas, and the falsehoods of the vast majority of religious people to disprove religion, especially Christianity.

Before we start regurgetating all the bible verses and everything else our priests tell us of the gospels I would like any one of you to prove to me who wrote the gospels. I want an independant source or any real and legitament source that tells you the name of the person and date in which it was written, because for all we know the catholic church wrote them or rewrote them somewhere along the line. I find it hard to believe that the "holy" roman catholic church never changed one red letter of the bible, especially when it was in latin and the knowledge inside kept secret. You can say "No No No", then prove it. Sorry I didn't give you the "inspired word of God" line.

The word omnipotent means one who is all-powerful. Have you ever heard the line from the song, " It's for by the grace of God go I". You should contemplate that and you might begin to understand the freedom God allows us to have. And one final note, If God didn't allow someone their freedom then he would no longer be Just and fair. If God stopped the evil man he would also have to stop the good man. So we are completely free and God doesn't make you do anything, we are all fully responsible for our own actions. Anyone who tells you different is a fool or a liar. People hide behind this "someone else made me do it" stuff so that they never have to take responsibility for their actions. Show me a person that was made to do something by God or Satan and I'll show you someone who is delusional. I feel that good can inspire you to do good and evil can inspire you to do evil, but it's ultimately your finger on the trigger.

I think it's funny how we all think we know something, we're all so sure there is God. How can be so sure? Don't say faith, because faith exists only in the realm of uncertainty. There is no reason to have faith in something that you are sure of. You could say hope, but that's not a really substantial arguement for anything, I hope there is God too. So how can you be so sure there is God? I'll save you months of study and tell you there is nothing to make us sure of God. That is what faith really is, it is being unsure and yet having the moral fortitude to pile all your chips on the table, holding not one single chip back for security, and stand behind your beliefs. That's way too much for most people who like their religion like they like their coffee..light with plenty of sugar.

 

[Darkie]

Before we start regurgetating all the bible verses and everything else our priests tell us of the gospels I would like any one of you to prove to me who wrote the gospels. I want an independant source or any real and legitament source that tells you the name of the person and date in which it was written, because for all we know the catholic church wrote them or rewrote them somewhere along the line. I find it hard to believe that the "holy" roman catholic church never changed one red letter of the bible, especially when it was in latin and the knowledge inside kept secret. You can say "No No No", then prove it. Sorry I didn't give you the "inspired word of God" line.

There is no independant source saying who wrote them. And some information in the Bible was changed. Mark had an additional ending added by some much later after it was written. The scientific content of the Bible is majoritaly wrong. The date the Messiah was to return was edited and re-written many times as those dates passed.

I think it's funny how we all think we know something, we're all so sure there is God. How can be so sure? Don't say faith, because faith exists only in the realm of uncertainty. There is no reason to have faith in something that you are sure of. You could say hope, but that's not a really substantial arguement for anything, I hope there is God too. So how can you be so sure there is God? I'll save you months of study and tell you there is nothing to make us sure of God. That is what faith really is, it is being unsure and yet having the moral fortitude to pile all your chips on the table, holding not one single chip back for security, and stand behind your beliefs. That's way too much for most people who like their religion like they like their coffee..light with plenty of sugar.

*head blows up again*

So does that mean your basically taking a chance and hope their is God?

I'm not tryin to doubt my faith here, but expand my views in it. I believe questioning one thing will only increase your knowledge in the subject. Sorry if I don't have such stout views as you do, but my mind works in a Scientifical way, always questioning and wondering. So, of course, Religion is a weird subject for me to discuss.

Second, I didn't mean the people who chose the gospels were inspired, but the books themselves.

I agree with you there. While falsehoods show up in areas of Science and Mathematics, Spiritually, I believe the author(s) were inspired in their writings. John I have no doubt, the Synoptic Problem is the weird one for me.

The free will issue, I have to admit is difficult to get into.

Its like this...

Your father is in control over your life, how you live, the rules to follow, curfew ect...

This control is to a certain extent, the more you love your parent the more control he has over because you love him, and you want to be obedient to him. You want to serve your parents ( example ) doing chores, going to bed when your suppose to.

YET

at the same time you do have free will. You can chose to ignore him, there is consequences to pay of course but you do have free will.

I'm going to be very honest with you. This isn't the best example, I can give you.

Well, I find that as a pretty good example. God influences our life, yet we have final say. Just seems God may influence some more than others. But your right, free will really is to controversial a topic.

Once again, thats all i got for now

 

[rogsr]

Hello agian,
We are all taking a chance and have hope that there is God and His promises will be actualized in our lives. No one can prove the existense of God, if you could then you would not have to take the leap of faith because you would know for sure. No one can disprove the existense of God, so this to is a choice. Both believing and not believing are risks of faith. We put our chips on the belief that there is God because every fiber of our being tells us so. Another man puts his chips on the belief that their is no God because every fiber of his being tells him so. The proof is always in the pudding..the secret ways that God touches our lives individually..God has touched my life in ways that you might not understand and visa versa..and so we believe steadfastly that their is God even though it is a risk. As we walk with Christ through our lives the risks begin to turn to dust and the rewards that He promised are actualized. Thus is the relationship we share with our God.

 

[alwayselearning]

[size=2The date the Messiah was to return was edited and re-written many times as those dates passed.



Can you tell me where there are dates, in the first place ?

whether written, edited or other wise. especially since,

"No one is suppose to know the day or the hour not even the son of man only the father?'

Thank you GOD BLESS


Jason

 

[Darkie]

if they were wriiten out, that would be hard to get the places of the dates...


And I was saying the dates were wrong anyway so technically no one knew the time
Anywho, I meant date in a more general sense, such as a time period for a people... Such as "he will return in our lifetime" or a belief like that...

 

[alwayselearning]

if they were wriiten out, that would be hard to get the places of the dates...


And I was saying the dates were wrong anyway so technically no one knew the time
Anywho, I meant date in a more general sense, such as a time period for a people... Such as "he will return in our lifetime" or a belief like that...

You're a funny man, Darkie. The only people that I know that make such dates, then change them later are cults like the Mormons or The Jehova witnesses. I believe theat the Apostles originally thought that Christ were to return in thier life time, and that's what prompted them to write stuff down so that they can pass it down to generations to come.

People have been speculating dates and times but, I don't believe they were actualy in the Bible and edited out later.

 

[Darkie]

You're a funny man, Darkie. The only people that I know that make such dates, then change them later are cults like the Mormons or The Jehova witnesses. I believe theat the Apostles originally thought that Christ were to return in thier life time, and that's what prompted them to write stuff down so that they can pass it down to generations to come.

People have been speculating dates and times but, I don't believe they were actualy in the Bible and edited out later.

Man, i should visit here more often...

Anywho, the (takes knowledge from religion class ) reason the gospels were written by what I learned was that since they finally realized that Christ was not returnin in their generation and they better write it down for the generations...

Jehova witnesses are a cult?

The writers were subjected to human error... It is know that things in the Bible were changed/added like a continuation of Mark's Gospel after the news of the resurrection to satisfy more people with ending... that alone i believe could mean dates were given and wrong... and removed

"No one is suppose to know the day or the hour not even the son of man only the father?'

What book is that in... it's been buggin me... like somethin on the tip of my tongue and I cant get it out...

The Bible is spiritually correct, but the science, math, ect... of it were errored... that be another point