Let's compare Jesus and Muhammed (and debate homosexuality) (and Tombstone).

He wrote a good portion of it. There is speculation either way though. To be honest though, as long as I believe it is God breathed, it doesn't necessarily matter who may have helped Moses finish them.

Many historians claim all of it was written during the Babylonian exile. There are five different writing styles and grammar structures presented throughout the first five books; ergo, literature analysis makes the claim that no single individual coul be responsible for most or even "a good portion" of these books.

Maybe Moses had sufficient time to sit down and write while he and his flock were wandering through the desert though. Maybe he was prescient enough to be able to write what happened after his death, as well. After all, he was Moses.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
The Catholic Church has a vested interest and incentive in claiming that your statements are correct; yet, the Catholic Church (the institution that fervently defends the Shroud) continues to distance itself from the claims that any of these books and/or letters were written by persons who personally knew Jesus when he was in the flesh. Ergo, I infer that the "science" and "history" behind such claims is even more dubious than that which is behind the claims of the Shroud.

Let me guess, though, you probably think Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, right?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I will put my trust in Holman, Easton, Nelson, Smith and Zondervan and many others verses what the Catholic Church says.
 
You know, there is this thing called "Oral History". Just because someone didnt Tweet Jesus, doesnt mean it never happened

Which would mean that none of these were written, as I have stated, by any individual who knew Jesus when he was in the flesh.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
You know, there is this thing called "Oral History". Just because someone didnt Tweet Jesus, doesnt mean it never happened

Have you ever played the game, Telephone? Where the teacher starts by telling a sentence to one person in line, then they have to pass it down the line. When the last person hears it, they have to repeat it to the teacher. At the end they compare the changes from start and finish.

You dismiss all churches because I dismiss one? Solid logic

Do you know what the original quote is?
 
I will put my trust in Holman, Easton, Nelson, Smith and Zondervan and many others verses what the Catholic Church says.

Feel free to put your trust in whatever it is you want to trust; after all, you worship the God of Darkness, as was established earlier.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
You know, there is this thing called "Oral History". Just because someone didnt Tweet Jesus, doesnt mean it never happened

Nonsense, it must have 3 sources and a signed notary for the "theorists". We came from two items clanging into each other. Never mind where they came from. Just happened, believe it.
 
Which would mean that none of these were written, as I have stated, by any individual who knew Jesus when he was in the flesh.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Why does that even matter? If my father told me a story about a great soldier, and I write a book on this soldier, is the story untrue because I was not present at the time of his deeds?
 
You dismiss all churches because I dismiss one? Solid logic

For the very same reasons that you dismiss any church, I dismiss all churches.

So, what causes you to dismiss, let's say, the Catholic church?

Selling of indulgences? Perceived corruption? Political influence? Luther's thesis?
 
Why does that even matter? If my father told me a story about a great soldier, and I write a book on this soldier, is the story untrue because I was not present at the time of his deeds?

Without any primary source documents, it would be filed under "speculation".
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
For the very same reasons that you dismiss any church, I dismiss all churches.

So, what causes you to dismiss, let's say, the Catholic church?

Selling of indulgences? Perceived corruption? Political influence? Luther's thesis?

The fondling of little children would be my answer, but that's just based on my lack of moral compass.
 
Which would mean that none of these were written, as I have stated, by any individual who knew Jesus when he was in the flesh.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I mean, I just don't get it.

1 Peter: 1,1-2
1*Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2*according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.

2 Peter 1, 1
1*Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ:
 
I mean, I just don't get it.

1 Peter: 1,1-2
1*Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2*according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.

2 Peter 1, 1
1*Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ:
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Nonsense, it must have 3 sources and a signed notary for the "theorists". We came from two items clanging into each other. Never mind where they came from. Just happened, believe it.

So because there is no proven origin of all things, we should just believe a myth? And not just any myth, YOUR myth?
 
Feel free to put your trust in whatever it is you want to trust; after all, you worship the God of Darkness, as was established earlier.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Never said there was a God of Darness, nor that I worship a God of darkness.That is ridiculous.
What I said was per science Darkness is nothing, it is no more than the absence of light.
 
No, I'm just failing to see what darkness being the absence of light has to do with the price of tea in China.

I am same way. It is a true statement.

I was trying to use darkness , only as an example to make a point that science does not have all the answers.

Per science darkness does not exist, because it is nothing but absence of light. I say darkness does exist, we have darkness every night. We see it every night.

That may be a bad example. It had and still has nothing to do with religion in any way. Just trying to make a point that science does not have all answers.

I used bad example.... made me look... well not good.
 
I mean, I just don't get it.

1 Peter: 1,1-2
1*Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2*according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.

2 Peter 1, 1
1*Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ:

From Irenaeus in the late second century until modern times, Christian tradition regarded Peter the apostle as author of this document. Since he was martyred at Rome during the persecution of Nero between A.D. 64 and 67, it was supposed that the letter was written from Rome shortly before his death. This is supported by its reference to "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13), a code name for Rome in the early church.

Some modern scholars, however, on the basis of a number of features that they consider incompatible with Petrine authenticity, regard the letter as the work of a later Christian writer. Such features include the cultivated Greek in which it is written, difficult to attribute to a Galilean fisherman, together with its use of the Greek Septuagint translation when citing the Old Testament; the similarity in both thought and expression to the Pauline literature; and the allusions to widespread persecution of Christians, which did not occur until at least the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96). In this view the letter would date from the end of the first century or even the beginning of the second, when there is evidence for persecution of Christians in Asia Minor (the letter of Pliny the Younger to Trajan, A.D. 111-12).

Other scholars believe, however, that these objections can be met by appeal to use of a secretary, Silvanus, mentioned in 1 Peter 5:12. Such secretaries often gave literary expression to the author's thoughts in their own style and language. The persecutions may refer to local harassment rather than to systematic repression by the state. Hence there is nothing in the document incompatible with Petrine authorship in the 60s.

Still other scholars take a middle position. The many literary contacts with the Pauline literature, James, and 1 John suggest a common fund traditional formulations rather than direct dependence upon Paul. Such liturgical and catechetical traditions must have been very ancient and in some cases of Palestinian origin.

Yet it is unlikely that Peter addressed a letter to the Gentile churches of Asia Minor while Paul was still alive. This suggests a period after the death of the two apostles, perhaps A.D. 70-90. The author would be a disciple of Peter in Rome, representing a Petrine group that served as a bridge between the Palestinian origins of Christianity and its flowering in the Gentile world. The problem addressed would not be official persecution but the difficulty of living the Christian life in a hostile, secular environment that espoused different values and subjected the Christian minority to ridicule and oppression.

Not sure why this did not post earlier; however, the above is from the Introduction to 1 Peter in the NAB Bible.

It is true, however, that the Greek of 1 Peter is good literary Greek, and even though Peter could no doubt speak Greek, as so many in the Mediterranean world could, it is unlikely that he would write such polished Greek. But it is at this point that Peter's remark in 5:12 (see note there) concerning Silas may be significant. Here the apostle claims that he wrote "with the help of" (more lit. "through" or "by means of") Silas. This phrase cannot refer merely to Silas as a letter carrier. Thus Silas was the intermediate agent in writing.

From the NIV Bible. The very best one can argue is that Peter dictated the letter to Silas.
 
Last edited:

VN Store



Back
Top