How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[shrewsbury]

When were the books of the Bible written?
Because the date of writing of many books of the Bible is either unknown or difficult to state with certainty, it's difficult to compile a list of the books of the Bible in chronological order. Below we have compiled a list of the books of the Bible in the order that they appear in standard translations and noted next to their names commonly accepted dates for when they were written.

well here is a perfect example of what i am saying. you, yourself are referring to a source to show you are right, when even the source states:

Because the date of writing of many books of the Bible is either unknown or difficult to state with certainty

you have wrote nothing or shown anything that proves what i said is not correct.

simply put, there is no evidence, only opinions.

the funny thing is i am not disagreeing with you, you are just trying to prove me wrong, and there is no way to do so.

but atleast bring a better source and an educated response

[Paddington]

well here is a perfect example of what i am saying. you, yourself are referring to a source to show you are right, when even the source states:



you have wrote nothing or shown anything that proves what i said is not correct.

simply put, there is no evidence, only opinions.

the funny thing is i am not disagreeing with you, you are just trying to prove me wrong, and there is no way to do so.

but atleast bring a better source and an educated response

Anywhere that you go you will find the dates on that site, not the ones that you are espousing. The majority of scholars agree with the dates that are listed on that site. That statement is merely the opinion of the person who made that site. The important thing isn't the exact date of the writing of the books, but rather, the fact that the actual eyewitnesses wrote them. No matter if the exact date is known or not, the fact is that the writers were the actual eyewitnesses.


Was The New Testament Written By The eyewitnesses or After All Eyewitnesses Were Dead?



Critics claim that the New Testament was written so long after the events of Jesus� life that all the eyewitnesses had died and thus the accounts are not accurate. Can we answer this claim? Do we have any reason to believe that the New Testament was written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses? Yes we do. Let�s start with a timeline of the events we�ll be talking about.

4 to 1 BC � Jesus is born
30 to 35 AD � Jesus is crucified and resurrected
50 to 95 AD � The New Testament is written


Here are some reasons for dating the New Testament books early:

� Jesus had predicted that the Jewish temple would be destroyed. This happened in 70AD yet none of the gospels - even John which was written last - mentions it. The idea that, not one, but four different gospel writers would not mention this fulfilled prophecy is simply hard to believe. Some critics argue that the destruction of the temple is mentioned in chapters like Matthew 24 but those verses are clearly talking about the Great Tribulation because they mentioned Jesus returning and reigning forever. It�s foolish to suggest that four different writers were smart enough to fool everyone into thinking Christianity was true yet all were stupid enough to say that Jesus had returned and was reigning

� Around 95AD the early church father Clement quotes either directly or indirectly nearly every book of the Bible

� Throughout church history the authors of the gospels have never been disputed. They have always been Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is very important because had these books been written by anonymous authors many years later we would find two things:

1) There would be several different traditional authors to each book
2) They would be named after more important people

For point #1 we point out that there is not one different author suggested anywhere in church history for any of the gospels. Not one. It�s only recent modern �scholars� that claim the authorship of the gospels is in dispute. The early church always knew who wrote them. We can prove this out. Compare the gospels to the book of Hebrews which is anonymous. While the gospels have only one author per book, Hebrews has no less then half a dozen different traditional authors!

As far as point #2 goes, note that three of the four gospel writers aren�t important people in the New Testament (John is the exception). Compare this to books that are known frauds� The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Thomas, all well-known figures. People who forge books would put famous people�s names on them to give them credibility. The gospels don�t follow this pattern.

The gospels claimed to be written either eyewitnesses (Matthew, John) or people who had access to eyewitnesses (Mark, who served as Peter�s secretary and Luke who had access to Paul and the other apostles). And it was nearly two thousand years before anyone disputed this


Now let�s see if we can find reasons to date some books earlier then 70AD:

� Paul, who wrote two-thirds of the New Testament, wrote his works between 50-55AD. These dates are not seriously disputed. So, if nothing else, we can say most of the Bible can be traced back as early as 15 to 20 years of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus

� Peter and Paul were both martyred around 66AD yet the New Testament does not mention their deaths. After Jesus they are the two most important people in Church history and yet not so much as one verse is devoted to their deaths? Even stranger is that Acts, which is the �sequel� to the gospel of Luke, ends with Paul in jail. So from this we can conclude that Paul was still alive by the end of Acts. Now if Paul died in 66AD then Acts must have been written before that. If Acts was written before 66AD then Luke must have been written even earlier then that. And since critics say that Luke was written after Mark and Matthew then they both must have been written very early. That means at least three of the four gospels were written before 66 AD and most likely all were written before 70AD

� James, who authored the book of the Bible after the same name was martyred in 62AD


So before 70AD have at least Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians , 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Philemon, James, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter all written.


Now let�s take a different approach to prove our point. The fatal mistake the critics make is they assume that there was 30 or more years of silence between the death of Jesus and the birth of Christianity. Jesus, they reason, died and long after all the eyewitnesses were gone the New Testament was written. I think we can show this wasn�t the case and that the apostles were preaching about Jesus from the beginning.

As we said before, the earliest New Testament writings come from Paul in the early 50�s. So right here we have the two-thirds of the New Testament written within 15 to 20 years of the crucifixion. What�s important is what Paul wrote. He doesn�t talk much about Jesus life the way the gospels do. His writings build on the foundation of the gospels. He assumes you�ve already heard the gospel account.

Also notice to whom he�s writing to. He writes to churches and elders and instructs them on theology, church conduct, the importance of the resurrection (even challenging people to verify the resurrection by talking to the eyewitnesses!), and corrects false teaching. So from Paul�s writings we learn:

� He writes to people who knew the gospel story and he is teaching them how to apply the gospels to their lives

� Christianity is so far advance that it�s organized to the point where there are churches in many areas far away and they have elders

� The churches were having to deal with false teachers who were coming to their churches

So within 15-20 years of the crucifixion Christianity has gained a following, spread throughout different regions, organized meeting places for believers, established a hierarchy within the church, and has been around long enough to develop problems with false teachers. You can�t do all this overnight. And you can�t do it at all if people hadn�t heard, and checked out for themselves, the claims of the gospel.
Later on, with the rise of the false teachers the need arose for the gospels to be written so future generations would know the truth about the good news of the salvation that is found in Jesus Christ.

[shrewsbury]

The important thing isn't the exact date of the writing of the books, but rather, the fact that the actual eyewitnesses wrote them. No matter if the exact date is known or not, the fact is that the writers were the actual eyewitnesses.

I agree, but no matter how many scholars agree there are more that disagree, and there is no emperical evidence to prove when the books were written or who wrote them, or if most of them even existed.

the same can be said about the so called gnostic books, so how can you say one is wrong and one is right? well, because it is your opinion, and though i respect it, it is still just an opinion and not fact.

just because someone gives a so called new idea, does not mean it is wrong, nor even new. when it was established that these "new" ideas were wrong it was over 100+ years after jesus' death and the death of the writers.

just because the church says so, does not make it fact.

one simple idea is december 25th as jesus' birthday. there is no evidence of this date anywhere, nor even His birth. if we look at the few facts one could come up with,it would be more like 6/17/2BCE.

why then 12/25? because it fit right in to an existing pagan holiday, and the person who demanded the bible be put togetehr was a pagan.

[Paddington]

I agree, but no matter how many scholars agree there are more that disagree, and there is no emperical evidence to prove when the books were written or who wrote them, or if most of them even existed.

There is plenty. All of the books of the bible support each other. They were written by those who were actually there. That's imperical evidence. Scientific evidence is considered empirical when it can be observed by many people and all will agree as to what they observed. That's the biblical books. And then there is Secular history which supports the biblical stories. Those were people who were around at the time. Church History does as well. How do you think that the churches got the writings? Many of the books were letters from Paul, sent to the church. He went there and preached about the letters to them. Those were people who were around at the time.

the same can be said about the so called gnostic books, so how can you say one is wrong and one is right? well, because it is your opinion, and though i respect it, it is still just an opinion and not fact.

No, the gnostics are proven not to be written by the people that they claim to be written by and not even in their lifetimes. That's why the early church rejected them.

just because someone gives a so called new idea, does not mean it is wrong, nor even new. when it was established that these "new" ideas were wrong it was over 100+ years after jesus' death and the death of the writers.

So, if someone came along 200 years after George Washington was President and claimed that he was never President, that he was a black man and that he lived in Italy, would you believe that person or the ones who were actually there, actually eyewitnesses, ect.?

just because the church says so, does not make it fact.

True, but it is a piece of evidence that fits with lots of other pieces of evidence that make up the whole. It's consistant.

one simple idea is december 25th as jesus' birthday. there is no evidence of this date anywhere, nor even His birth. if we look at the few facts one could come up with,it would be more like 6/17/2BCE.

And I don't believe that Dec. 25 is Jesus's birthday. No one knows when it is. The reason that they chose that day to celebrate His birth, is because they actually replaced a pagan holiday with it and wanted to give the new converts a replacement holiday. With that said, it's ok to celebrate it whenever we want to. No matter when He was born. Just because the pagans used that day, doesn't mean that they own it.

why then 12/25? because it fit right in to an existing pagan holiday, and the person who demanded the bible be put togetehr was a pagan.

No, it's because they knew that if they didn't give the new converts the holiday that many of them would continue to celebrate the pagan holiday.

My responses are in bold above.

[shrewsbury]

i don't want you to think i am disagreeing with the books in the bible, but here we go

There is plenty. All of the books of the bible support each other. They were written by those who were actually there. That's imperical evidence. Scientific evidence is considered empirical when it can be observed by many people and all will agree as to what they observed. That's the biblical books. And then there is Secular history which supports the biblical stories. Those were people who were around at the time. Church History does as well. How do you think that the churches got the writings? Many of the books were letters from Paul, sent to the church. He went there and preached about the letters to them. Those were people who were around at the time.

and we also see them contradict eachother, and again there are no copies dating back to jesus, nor any archeological evidence.

the oldest fragment of the new testament came from the gospel of john and dates to 130ad

and the gnostic works are historicaly mentioned as early as 130ad

No, the gnostics are proven not to be written by the people that they claim to be written by and not even in their lifetimes. That's why the early church rejected them.

actually they have not and they were rejected because they were different than what the church deemed as the correct way to practice christianity. no need for church means no power and no money.

So, if someone came along 200 years after George Washington was President and claimed that he was never President, that he was a black man and that he lived in Italy, would you believe that person or the ones who were actually there, actually eyewitnesses, ect.?

i would say think about newton and einstien

[QUOTE]No, it's because they knew that if they didn't give the new converts the holiday that many of them would continue to celebrate the pagan holiday[QUOTE]

look at the decision of the council of nicea, and you will see constantine did not desire to convert the pagans, but make them and the christians happy

[Paddington]

[quote=shrewsbury;11312654]i don't want you to think i am disagreeing with the books in the bible, but here we go



and we also see them contradict eachother, and again there are no copies dating back to jesus, nor any archeological evidence.

They absolutely do not contradict each other.

the oldest fragment of the new testament came from the gospel of john and dates to 130ad

Absolutely false. It's from 90 A.D.

and the gnostic works are historicaly mentioned as early as 130ad

Those are all frauds. I don't care about them. They are works of fiction. They weren't even written by the eyewitesses. I could make up a story too.

actually they have not and they were rejected because they were different than what the church deemed as the correct way to practice christianity. no need for church means no power and no money.

No, they were rejected because they are frauds. They weren't even in existence when the early church began. They didn't rear their ugly head until around 200 A.D. or so. Yet you seem to be intreged by them. Could I write you a story about George Washington from 200 years ago and if I claim that he wasn't really President, was actually from India and was a famous violinist would you believe me or the people who were alive at the time and the people who were actually THERE?


i would say think about newton and einstien



[quote]No, it's because they knew that if they didn't give the new converts the holiday that many of them would continue to celebrate the pagan holiday

look at the decision of the council of nicea, and you will see constantine did not desire to convert the pagans, but make them and the christians happy

I am missing the point.

[shrewsbury]

[QUOTE]No, they were rejected because they are frauds. They weren't even in existence when the early church began. They didn't rear their ugly head until around 200 A.D. or so.[QUOTE]

actually gnostics existed before the orthodox church, and this is evident through no biblical historical writings. many gnostics did write their own works, trying to combine all the teachings into their own version, these are not related directly through jesus, but years of passed on interpretations. but the older works have been found in more complete form than the new testament, which both date between 300-400 ad.

all the research i have done, from various sources date the oldest piece of the new testament as a piece from john and dates to 130ad.

Yet you seem to be intreged by them.

i am intreged with a few of the books, but not totally sold on any of them. but to dismiss them based on what the church said, the same church who burnt books, killed people, burnt people, exiled people, and grew to great political and financial power, well i will make that decision on my own.

Could I write you a story about George Washington from 200 years ago and if I claim that he wasn't really President, was actually from India and was a famous violinist would you believe me or the people who were alive at the time and the people who were actually THERE?

rewriting history and writing fiction are to different things, again i would have to mention newton and einstein, they rewrote history in many ways.

i will not argue the books of the bible, i find it an important piece of christianity. but if push comes to shove, there is no way to prove who and when certain books were written.

[habsheaven]

And besides, it is CLEAR that MOSTof it is fiction.

[Paddington]

[quote=shrewsbury;11314971][quote]No, they were rejected because they are frauds. They weren't even in existence when the early church began. They didn't rear their ugly head until around 200 A.D. or so.

actually gnostics existed before the orthodox church, and this is evident through no biblical historical writings. many gnostics did write their own works, trying to combine all the teachings into their own version, these are not related directly through jesus, but years of passed on interpretations. but the older works have been found in more complete form than the new testament, which both date between 300-400 ad.

They gnostics didn't exist before the Church. None of the eyewitnesses wrote them. They weren't written until 150 years or more after the events. Think about it. You can't trust a work that contradicts all of the eyewitness accounts and wasn't written until hundreds of years later. Unless you think that I know more about the events surrounding the Founders of the U.S. than the people who were actually there. Why wouldn't you just trust the eyewitnesses? They were the ones who were there.

all the research i have done, from various sources date the oldest piece of the new testament as a piece from john and dates to 130ad.

Nope. Do more research. It's 90 A.D.

i am intreged with a few of the books, but not totally sold on any of them. but to dismiss them based on what the church said, the same church who burnt books, killed people, burnt people, exiled people, and grew to great political and financial power, well i will make that decision on my own.

You are going into another discussion. Those works were done by the Catholic church, not the church. I am very much against the Catholic church and it's history. What you don't read about is the underground church that was persecuted by the Catholics. They were many of the ones who were burnt, killed, ect. Read Fox's Book of Martyres and The Trail of Blood. They chronicle those events. There is a big difference between a church and the bible. Not all churches follow the bible. We all know what the bible says about murder, yet this church were disobeying the bible in these acts.

rewriting history and writing fiction are to different things, again i would have to mention newton and einstein, they rewrote history in many ways

Newton was a great Christian man.

i will not argue the books of the bible, i find it an important piece of christianity. but if push comes to shove, there is no way to prove who and when certain books were written.

I have a video that I would like for you to watch about how the biblical canon was compiled. Please watch it. It's like 20 minutes.

Where did the New Testiment Come From? Please Watch:

http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NX

[shrewsbury]

i watched, well listened to the video.

and if you look outside the religious sect for answers you will see a non faith based approach. the gnostics (not the books but the people)did exist before the church, this is historically proven.

and many debate whether thomas predates luke, mark, mathew and john. if you base your decision on writing analasys then it would seem thomas was the first and the others elaborated on it to write luke, mark, mathew and john.

here is the issue we are having, i do believe the gospels to be written by who they say they are, but there is no way to prove this with archeology or other historical writers, but i still believe.

but the gospels of thomas, mary, peter and judas, also have just as a strong history and archeological evidence to say they maybe did come from their said sources.

i cannot tell you they did, but i will not base my decision of the bias of the church, or the blind eyes and deaf ears of christians who refuse to study and research on their own.

i am certain in time, jesus will let me know where to look and what to look for, not the church. i think he wants me to have an open heart and mind and find my own way to Him.