iv eread the bible before, in fact i currently do but i feel it confuses me a little. what is the difference between the old and new testament? what are all of the sections (the names i think) ....can someone just briefly explain this all to me? thanks!
The Old Testament is the Holy Book(s) of the Jews, the New Testament is the Holy Book(s) that were added for Christians. The New Testament is made up of a few sections: Gospels (which deal with the life of Jesus), Acts of the Apostles (which is just that), 21 Letters (or Epistles to various peoples and churches), and Relevations (dealing with the Second Coming)... don't know much about the OT
the sections in the bible are book wrote by different disciples, I think the old testament was wrote 200 years after jesus died and the new one was created in the midle ages. I have no Idea if this is true, if its not then I'm sorry.
no problem, i only just checked it recently (well i think i checked it a while ago, but forgot what was inside) I don't know if anyone checks those anymore
No - it wasn't 'wrote' after Jesus died, it was written after Jesus died. I'd like to see a single scrap of evidence that it was created in the middle ages.
Because he said something untrue again (which I caught and called him out on), so instead of saying "oh, my mistake" he askes something so he can evaluate my answer
I'll acept a debate on whether or not the Catholic Church regognizes more books than other churches, because that is acctually relevant. This is like that time I posted about how the Catholic Church has official doctrine that says that people who aren't Christian can acheive heaven, then you started ranting about Hell. (Just for the record: http://www.ishwar.com/christianity/ Read the blurb about Deuterocanonical Apocrypha)
What i eman by "call you out on" was that I caught a mistake you seeminly made the way I read you post, and instead of either saying that that isnt what you meant and clarifying, you asked why I believed in God which I took as a dodge. You said that the Catholic Church left out books (albeit a larger number than the oher sects I referenced in my comment), I said that they included more books than most other sects. Ok, some of those texts were written long after (and I mean LONG after tie time of Christ [I speak mainly some of the Infancy Gospels, and Acts of Pilate]which were written in the middle ages]). Because of The time when the included books were written, and the similarity within the synoptic gospels, I agre with the "Gospel of Q" theory that points to an even earlier gospel. If I am not mistaken, the gnostic gospels were written when gnosticism was very popular around the 3rd and 4th centuries, which then adds to their time after the time of Christ which IMO leads to their diminishing value in Christianity. Many of the other texts which were rejected shared many similarities with the connoical texts too. I didn't respond because my personal views about God doesn't affect anything I tried to pass off as fact (all I said was what the NT contains and suggested the FAQ section because it expounds on what I said). My recent report wasn't about anything insulting or something I found hateful, I reported that because you had 3 threads about very very similar topics. side note: are thread/post reports public? Your question was about why I believed in God (twice), that is why I refused to answer. Ok, why do I acept the NT as is because that is the way the church fathers made it? I don't, I acept it for (among others) the reasons I posted above...it is logical TO ME.
hmm.. just to add some facts.. i go to a catholic school.. where we take old and new testament classes.. the first five books of the bible are called the torah or the pentatuch ..those are the books the jews go by.. there are a total of 46 books in the old testamenti n the new american bible.. and 27 books in the new testament the new testment was written from about 60 to 100 AD .. it was written by the disciples of christ and many books were written by more than one author... there are other books that were written about christ.. such as the proto gospel of james which is not excepted in the catholic bible because it has been deemed unacceptblae and "uninspired" ...its believed the other authors were inspired by the holy spirit and are therefore true and also due to something called apostolic succession and tradition.. anyway. the point is there are more books out there but they arent accepted.. also it is true that the catholic bible accepts more books then other christian donominations.. i think esther is one of those books.. most of the difference is in the old testament the old testament accounts creation and there are prophets who forsee the coming of christ.. i think the old testament is pointless actually.. the new testament ... well the gospels tell the story of the life of christ.. and the letters tell the story of the interaction between the people of the time and the disciples of christ who continue on living and start the church. through the bible there are things like the beatitudes and the ten commandments which tell you how you should live your life etc. ps. jesus was a hippy.
haha sorry when i was typing i didnt see it went to two pages.. and welllllllll.. youve already said everythingi just said.. sooo
I am not going to discuss this here. All I said was that the Caholic church accepts more than the other sects. That is true. I never mentioed anything about the other texts originally. Sorry if the Mr. Smarty-pants comment offended you, because that is what seems to have mainly riled you up. Again, by "calling you out" I said that the Catholic Church accepts more books than the other sects. Ina later post, you said that is not what you had meant by your post an that you were aware of that fact, I can understand that now, and had ackknowledged that I misunderstood your initial post. I never said the Coucil of nicea didn't reject books. In fact I said: "Many of the other texts which were rejected shared many similarities with the connoical texts too." I do also know that there wre many MANY other rejected texts not including the gnostics, infancy gospels, and acts of pilate (because those are the only ones I metioned earlier...i wasn't going to write out a list of them all). No, I don't think it is being manipulative. I had made this remark before you came to the fora, it was somethign along the lines of that the people at the council of nicea were moved by the Holy Sprit to select those books. HOWEVER I also pointed out the flaw in that argument that it tends to lend itself to being able to use that excuse for anything (like that woman you pointed out who said God told her to kill her kids), so it is a flawed argument. I don't know why they chose those SPECIFIC texts. I had read that the cononical gospels were already widly accepted, I make no claim to the validity of that statrement though.
I appreciate your responses Burbot & FedUpAmerican, but please despute your beliefs somewhere else, egos out. Thanks a lot olibia, it was helpful . Anyone else? I'm still not convinced i've completely grasped everything.... as if christians follow the old or new testament, what the significance of the different books are....peter, john, etc.?
SORRY! But Burbot laid his terms, stop trying to PUSH YOUR terms on him...After all this is what you hate about the religon of xainty correct?
what the...? I completly forgot about this. Ophelia FullOf Grace, I would like to help, but I don't know what you mean by "what the significance of the different books are?"
