- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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
1
Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:44 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
doesn't mean he's not a world leader in all practical.
To Catholics.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:45 am to Lg
quote:Well then there is no such thing as a world leader.
To Catholics.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:47 am to therick711
Sure, but science doesn't explain those things away as "we just aren't meant to know" or "science works in mysterious ways."
Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:48 am to Lg
quote:
The Pope is a religious leader.
That's completely irrelevant to my point.
quote:
So what makes him any different than say Jim Jones or David Koresh?
Numbers.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:50 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Considering he's the head of a faction of the church that has essentially thrown away the Bible in favor of councils and papal decrees
Councils and papal decrees are a no-go, but lets throw all of our faith into a book as if it wasn't written by man. Some of you people think the Bible was written by God himself. Do you not realize that people agree that the books of the New Testament were written up to 150 years after Jesus died? And that's not to mention all of the "translations" that have happened over the centuries. If you think that there isn't going to be some personal spin on the stories, then you are naïve.
I'm not religious, because of those things. But it really irks me to see Protestants attack the Catholic church, because they have a more pure understanding of God somehow. It's like they have no idea that everyone is worshiping the way that a man before them wanted it to be worshipped (Yes I'm saying the Bible isn't infallible). It has nothing to do with the way God wants anyone to worship. That's not to say anything about whether God does, or does not exist, just that you are an idiot of the highest level if you think you are absolutely right one way or the other.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 8:56 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Numbers.
So, like I said earlier in this thread, if the Pope came out tomorrow and said God revealed to him that evolution is a lie from the devil, would he be telling those billions of people a lie?
Posted on 12/20/16 at 9:02 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Sure, but science doesn't explain those things away as "we just aren't meant to know" or "science works in mysterious ways."
That might be true, but it is completely irrelevant to the point being made which was the observable evidence supports the original statement.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 9:05 am to Lg
You're confused. Numbers don't make him right, they just give his words weight. That also doesn't mean he's wrong, it's just not the reason he's right here.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 9:05 am to KG6
quote:
Do you not realize that people agree that the books of the New Testament were written up to 150 years after Jesus died?
Since this isn't a religious claim but is a historical claim, I think I can weigh in safely. That's simply false. Most all of the NT was written within a generation of Jesus and nothing was written any further out than about 60 years (Revelation was written in the 90s AD and was the last one written).
Posted on 12/20/16 at 9:07 am to therick711
quote:
irrelevant
I agree, on both accounts. That's the point...
Posted on 12/20/16 at 9:12 am to AUveritas
quote:
Since this isn't a religious claim but is a historical claim, I think I can weigh in safely. That's simply false. Most all of the NT was written within a generation of Jesus and nothing was written any further out than about 60 years (Revelation was written in the 90s AD and was the last one written).
You realize that 60 years is 2-3 generations right?
Posted on 12/20/16 at 9:15 am to bmy
quote:
You realize that 60 years is 2-3 generations right?
It's well within 2. And I said most of the NT was written within 1 generation, not all. Which is much different than the original claim that it was all written over a hundred years later.
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 9:19 am
Posted on 12/20/16 at 9:19 am to AUveritas
quote:
That's simply false. Most all of the NT was written within a generation of Jesus and nothing was written any further out than about 60 years (Revelation was written in the 90s AD and was the last one written).
You just can't accurately make that claim. I've not seen anywhere that says with certainty exact dates. Many say within 60-70 years (that would be like me writing about WWII without any other text to go off of). But most agree (admittedly on random websites I looked up really quickly before I made the original claim) the books used in the Bible are within 150 years, that's why I used that number.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 9:21 am to bmy
quote:
You realize that 60 years is 2-3 generations right?
60 years isn't 2-3 generations in Ancient Rome of around this time. In fact, the threshold for old age in Ancient Rome was 60-65.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 9:23 am to germandawg
quote:
they were devout believers in a type of religion that a true Atheist could never be
What an interesting and pathetic twist on the no true scotsman fallacy.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 9:25 am to KG6
Find me one reputable source that states that all the NT books were written 180 AD or later. Find me one that says any were. It's accepted historical fact that Revelation was the last book written and though some of it was likely written just before the fall of the Jewish temple in AD 70, most of it was probably written about in the early 90s. This is accepted historical fact, even by atheist scholars.
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 9:26 am
Posted on 12/20/16 at 9:32 am to AUveritas
quote:
Find me one reputable source that states that all the NT books were written 180 AD or later. Find me one that says any were. It's accepted historical fact that Revelation was the last book written and though some of it was likely written just before the fall of the Jewish temple in AD 70, most of it was probably written about in the early 90s. This is accepted historical fact, even by atheist scholars.
IIRC, there is some thought that Acts and some of the epistles (maybe Timothy?) were written in the 95 - 110 AD timeframe, but nothing later than that. There has been some speculation that Acts used Josephus as an influence which would have meant that it could not have been written any earlier than mid-90's AD.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 9:39 am to AbuTheMonkey
Acts was written by Luke and is a continuation of His gospel. It's widely accepted to have been written shortly prior to Revelation. Probably about 85-90.
Obviously all of Paul's epistles were written before his death. We know Paul was martyred before 68 AD because he died under Nero.
Obviously all of Paul's epistles were written before his death. We know Paul was martyred before 68 AD because he died under Nero.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 9:42 am to AUveritas
quote:
Acts was written by Luke and is a continuation of His gospel. It's widely accepted to have been written shortly prior to Revelation. Probably about 85-90.
Obviously all of Paul's epistles were written before his death. We know Paul was martyred before 68 AD because he died under Nero.
There is significant historical disagreement about both those contentions due to the style of writing and some of the historical references. Not a few biblical historians believe, for instance, that one of Paul's followers wrote in his name almost a generation later.
Still, none later than about 110 AD.
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 9:43 am
Page 9 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News