Started By
Message

re: For first time, “no religion” is more common than catholic or evangelical.

Posted on 4/14/19 at 7:33 am to
Posted by Rouge
Floston Paradise
Member since Oct 2004
136898 posts
Posted on 4/14/19 at 7:33 am to
quote:


The Bible is pretty clear narrow is the way to heaven. Biblical Christianity isn’t based on appealing to the masses. Maybe this is separating the wheat from the chaf.

the Council of Nicea.....lulz

Your guidance was based upon a room of voters that had their own human priorities.

Also, the stories about Jesus...they are specific stories that would be the equivalent of someone writing about a person today when they lived in the late 1700s (like George Washington)
Posted by GaDawg9977
Member since Aug 2016
2399 posts
Posted on 4/14/19 at 8:08 am to
quote:

Your guidance was based upon a room of voters that had their own human priorities.


So I’m assuming you were at the counsel or is your guidance based on reading something someone else wrote?
Posted by Mizz-SEC
Inbred Huntin' In The SEC
Member since Jun 2013
19267 posts
Posted on 4/14/19 at 8:38 am to
quote:

Your guidance was based upon a room of voters that had their own human priorities.


I figure if God was able to create the universe, all the things of this planet (including ourselves), etc. - it's no big whup to make sure the Council of Nicea vote went his way (if he's God and it's his Word of guidance to us).
Posted by Mr. Misanthrope
Cloud 8
Member since Nov 2012
5547 posts
Posted on 4/15/19 at 2:39 pm to
quote:

the Council of Nicea.....lulz Your guidance was based upon a room of voters that had their own human priorities.

There's a little more to it than what you seem to be implying. Maybe rely less on Dan Brown and more on scholarly church history.
quote:

Also, the stories about Jesus...they are specific stories that would be the equivalent of someone writing about a person today when they lived in the late 1700s (like George Washington)

So contemporary biographies/histories of Washington written now, three centuries later, are inaccurate?

So what do we say about the gospels?

Mark, Peter's disciple, translator, and scribe, writing what's essentially Peter's gospel. AD 55-70

Matthew, though subject to ongoing debate whether it's earlier than Mark. AD 50-70. I'm putting it second but that's my biased opinion.

Luke, the gentile physician and convert whose gospel is based on what are evidently his interviews with disciples, other eyewitnesses, and perhaps also Jesus's mother, Mary, making his account of Jesus's birth unique. A companion of St. Paul and entrusted to write accounts of Jesus in Luke's gospel and an account of the Church's birth and early history in Acts of the Apostles for instruction of new converts.
AD 62 for Luke's gospel and as early as AD 63 for Acts.

John's gospel has been moved from extremely late dates to a now reasonable and well accepted date of between AD 80 and 90. Though some serious scholars argue for an even earlier date. Because John's gospel concerns itself with the divinity of Jesus, not mentioning Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD has less weight than in the more strictly historical/biographical gospels.
Gospel dates

So the synoptic gospels were written between 20 and 30 years after the Person and events they cover and 60 or so years in the case of John's gospel.


This post was edited on 4/15/19 at 11:13 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram