- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who wrote the Bible?
Posted on 4/5/26 at 8:54 pm to Obi Wan Ryobi
Posted on 4/5/26 at 8:54 pm to Obi Wan Ryobi
quote:we do know he was from milwaukeequote:I find it crazy that Tommy Hebrews will never get the credit he deserves
Hebrews - unknown
(he brews, get it???)
0
Posted on 4/5/26 at 8:54 pm to Mo Jeaux
It was finally put to paper 50 years after things actually happened and it was after a game of telephone hearing it from different people
Yeah, people cling on every word and only pick out the good parts.
They don’t talk about the books that were omitted and all the dark shite in that
Yeah, people cling on every word and only pick out the good parts.
They don’t talk about the books that were omitted and all the dark shite in that
Posted on 4/5/26 at 8:54 pm to LSU Neil
quote:
John wrote Revelations
*Revelation. It’s not plural.
Posted on 4/5/26 at 8:57 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
Catholics finna come in hot.
And they'd be wrong. Hot, but still wrong.
Posted on 4/5/26 at 8:58 pm to dallastiger55
quote:
It was finally put to paper 50 years after things actually happened and it was after a game of telephone hearing it from different people
Some of Paul’s letter I believe date to the 50s. The gospels are only dated after 70 AD because of the Temple’s destruction being so accurate. However, if you believe that Jesus’ prophecies were real, it’s quite possible the gospels were pinned much earlier.
Posted on 4/5/26 at 8:58 pm to Mo Jeaux
Auto Correct but true
Posted on 4/5/26 at 9:06 pm to Ramblin Wreck
James was a close relative of Jesus. Not his literal brother. Other than that, good data.
Posted on 4/5/26 at 9:09 pm to VooDude
It took some time for the "Fathers of the Church" to assemble the books of the bible. In fact it may have been more than two centuries. The early church passed doctrine around word of mouth. The early fathers had ties back to the apostles. But the answer is inspired men with ties to the apostles and their successors to these early fathers put together the books of there new Testament.
Many of the early church fathers are the Saints of the Catholic Church. There were heretical offshoots of early Christians they had to "fight back" against. Protestants were no where near this as they came fifteen hundred years later.
Many of the early church fathers are the Saints of the Catholic Church. There were heretical offshoots of early Christians they had to "fight back" against. Protestants were no where near this as they came fifteen hundred years later.
Posted on 4/5/26 at 9:10 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
Catholics finna come in hot
Posted on 4/5/26 at 9:10 pm to MemphisGuy
Catholics don’t deny that James is called Jesus’ “brother.” The question is what “brother” means in the biblical context. Pretty easy to prove actually…
In Scripture, “brother” doesn’t always mean a biological sibling. It’s often used for cousins or close relatives. For example, Lot is called Abraham’s “brother” even though he’s actually his nephew (Genesis 13:8). So the word itself doesn’t prove a literal sibling.
In Greek (adelphos) and Hebrew/Aramaic usage, “brother” is used broadly for:
-Cousins
-Close relatives
-Kinsmen
Also, James is identified elsewhere as the son of another Mary, not the Virgin Mary (Matthew 27:56, John 19:25). That points to him being a relative, not Mary’s son.
Then there’s John 19:26–27. Jesus entrusts His mother to the Apostle John. If He had biological brothers, that wouldn’t make sense culturally. They would have been responsible for her.
On top of that, the earliest Christians consistently held that Mary remained a virgin. This wasn’t a late invention. Even early Reformers like Luther and Calvin accepted it.
So the issue isn’t ignoring Scripture. It’s recognizing that “brother” in the Bible doesn’t automatically mean what we mean by it today.
In Scripture, “brother” doesn’t always mean a biological sibling. It’s often used for cousins or close relatives. For example, Lot is called Abraham’s “brother” even though he’s actually his nephew (Genesis 13:8). So the word itself doesn’t prove a literal sibling.
In Greek (adelphos) and Hebrew/Aramaic usage, “brother” is used broadly for:
-Cousins
-Close relatives
-Kinsmen
Also, James is identified elsewhere as the son of another Mary, not the Virgin Mary (Matthew 27:56, John 19:25). That points to him being a relative, not Mary’s son.
Then there’s John 19:26–27. Jesus entrusts His mother to the Apostle John. If He had biological brothers, that wouldn’t make sense culturally. They would have been responsible for her.
On top of that, the earliest Christians consistently held that Mary remained a virgin. This wasn’t a late invention. Even early Reformers like Luther and Calvin accepted it.
So the issue isn’t ignoring Scripture. It’s recognizing that “brother” in the Bible doesn’t automatically mean what we mean by it today.
Posted on 4/5/26 at 9:11 pm to Ramblin Wreck
quote:
The New Testament book authors are known with the exception of Hebrews.
Somebody had to choose these books. There were many books laying about.
Posted on 4/5/26 at 9:13 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
Correct… the Church recognized the books that God divinely inspired. Without the Church you have no index or Bible.
Posted on 4/5/26 at 10:04 pm to dallastiger55
quote:
They don’t talk about the books that were omitted and all the dark shite in that
Li... like what?
Posted on 4/5/26 at 10:25 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
A large number of divinely inspired authors
Maybe one of them met Jesus. The rest didn't.
Posted on 4/5/26 at 11:09 pm to METAL
quote:
On top of that, the earliest Christians consistently held that Mary remained a virgin. This wasn’t a late invention. Even early Reformers like Luther and Calvin accepted it.
It's funny that you said this after espousing on what was meant by "brother" in the Bible.
Mary did remain a "Virgin". She always was a "Virgin".
You just don't seem to understand why Mary was referred to as the "Virgin Mary". Had nothing to do with sex.
The designation of "Vifgin" when it comes to Mary refers to the fact that she was born without Original Sin. That's why she was the Carrier of the Savior.
Only 3 people in the Bible arrived on this world without Original Sin: Adam, Eve, and Mary. Even Jesus needed to be Baptised to wash away his Original Sin (He needed to be born with it so that He would be on equal terms with the rest of Humanity.)
"Virgin", when it comes to Mary, doesn't mean the same thing as it means when it comes to the rest of humanity.
Posted on 4/6/26 at 4:57 am to VooDude
Dude. There’s thousands of books that answer this silly question.
Posted on 4/6/26 at 7:16 am to magildachunks
That’s not what Christianity teaches. “Virgin” in reference to Mary means exactly what it normally means, she did not have sexual relations. That’s clear in Luke 1:34 when she says, “How can this be, since I do not know man?”
The idea that “virgin” means “born without original sin” isn’t biblical and isn’t taught by Catholics, Orthodox, or most Protestants. Those are two completely different things. Also, Jesus did not have original sin and didn’t need baptism to remove it. His baptism was to fulfill righteousness, not to cleanse sin.
To be clear:
Virgin = no sexual relations
Immaculate Conception = preserved from original sin
Jesus = sinless
What you’re describing just isn’t historically or biblically accurate. If fact… it’s straight up heretical.
The idea that “virgin” means “born without original sin” isn’t biblical and isn’t taught by Catholics, Orthodox, or most Protestants. Those are two completely different things. Also, Jesus did not have original sin and didn’t need baptism to remove it. His baptism was to fulfill righteousness, not to cleanse sin.
To be clear:
Virgin = no sexual relations
Immaculate Conception = preserved from original sin
Jesus = sinless
What you’re describing just isn’t historically or biblically accurate. If fact… it’s straight up heretical.
Posted on 4/6/26 at 10:03 pm to VooDude
I had a few such questions and found books and videos by Wes Huff to be helpful:
Wes Huff - textual critic of the Bible
He has a channel called Apologetics Canada which has a lot of resources.
Dead Sea Scrolls discussion
Wes Huff - textual critic of the Bible
He has a channel called Apologetics Canada which has a lot of resources.
Dead Sea Scrolls discussion
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News